Science is the best way to dig out the truth of the natural world, but that doesn’t prevent many people from denying truths that are inconvenient or contrary to their preconceptions or faith.

ENLARGE

U.S. 30, east of Blair, Neb. June, 2011, Iowa DOT

The stunning floods, tornadoes, droughts and heat waves in 2011 caused more Americans to accept global warming — even if climate whizzes are chary of attributing individual weather events to the warming trend.

In the last month, denial of global warming has subsided in the wake of a string of floods, droughts and heat waves, culminating in the “summer in March,” 2012. Although Americans’ attitudes toward warming ebb and flow, on April 17, a Yale University poll reported that 69 percent think global warming is affecting the weather in the United States.

In the same month, however, a Discovery Channel series called “Frozen Planet” attracted ire when scientists noted that it documented massive melting at the poles, but ignored the “why?” question. Scientists have said for decades that polar warming would be an early sign of global warming.

In the recent past, this phenomenon of “denialism” has also appeared in doubts about issues that have long been settled in the scientific community, such as whether:

An April conference at the University of Wisconsin-Madison delved into the origin and development of denialism. Is a refusal to face facts growing more common? Are there better ways to explain how the world works?

Denial in the brain

Scientists, by training, are professional skeptics, but if after decades of debate 97 percent of them accept the link between greenhouse gases and global warming, why are so many unconvinced? “The theory is that if we tell people what we know, they will change,” says Arthur Lupia, a professor of political science at the University of Michigan, but that ignores how people really listen and make decisions.

Speaking to a high-level gathering of science journalists in Madison, Lupia said the problem does not reside with the audience. “The problem is us. Our expectations aren’t consistent with how humans react to information, what they will listen to, or what they will remember. People don’t pay attention, or they don’t remember what we said or what we intend them to remember.”

To change an opinion, you must first attract and then hold the audience’s attention, but attention wanders all the time. No matter how important you think your message is, Lupia says, “Biology does not change its rules … about when people will think about things that challenge them. … If I am saying something abstract, that does not connect to your core aspirations,” you may be more interested in counting tiles on the ceiling.

Can you hear me now?

To communicate with a general audience, Lupia says, “You have to make it close, concrete, immediate. I understand the joy of telling the whole story about climate, but there are some audiences that can’t handle it; in their reality, it’s not the most immediate thing. They might be more receptive if you make the conversation about pollution, energy security or energy costs.”

Information is filtered by attention and ideology, Lupia concludes. “Learning is always an away game. All the real action occurs in the audience’s heads,” he says.

Reasoning: Logical or “motivated”?

Ideally, science adheres to logical reasoning: the conclusion must be true if the premises are true.

But psychologists say it’s common to see “motivated reasoning,” the tendency to fit new information into existing attitudes.

Making a judgment or decision can often involve a “fundamental tension between believing what you want and believing what you have to believe based on the information in front of you,” says Peter Ditto, professor of psychology and social behavior at the University of California-Irvine.

“There is overwhelming evidence” that hopes, fears and social connections affect our judgments, Ditto adds, “but it’s not just that we believe whatever we want. I want to be taller, but I don’t believe that because the data won’t let me.”

Since processing information and making judgments have major emotional components, the standards for evidence are skewed in favor of reinforcing our preconceptions. We are more skeptical about ideas that are new, or that conflict with our thoughts and opinions, Ditto contends.

Over the course of evolution, bad events — but not beneficial ones — forced our ancestors to focus on whether to fight or flee. “People are the same way about information,” says Ditto.

The social element in motivated reasoning surfaced in a 1950s experiment, when six people convinced a seventh, the only real subject, that two lines were equally long. One line was clearly shorter than the other, Ditto says, “But six of them are confederates, and a substantial number of [subjects] go with the obviously wrong answer. That’s the power of having other people who believe as you do. It’s much easier to believe something that does not comport with reality if a whole bunch of others” hold the same erroneous belief.

History of denialism

Although denial of global warming and the erroneous link between vaccines and autism both originated in the 1990s, the organized rejection of evolution dates to the 1920s, when some American Christian fundamentalists promoted creationism — a Biblical explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

In a 2009 survey, 87 percent of scientists, but only 32 percent of all Americans, agreed that organisms have evolved over time through natural processes. Thirty-one percent of Americans thought humans and other living things “have existed in the present form since the beginning of time.”

Scientists and other Americans certainly have a different understanding of how organisms change through time!

Scientist data and general public data from Pew Research Center for the People & the Press surveys, May-June 2009. For question wording, see survey toplines. Numbers may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Reprinted from Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Much of the attention to the issue comes from battles over teaching of evolution or creationism in public schools, but there is “a lot of misunderstanding,” about the anti-evolution movement in the United States, says Ronald Numbers, a professor of the history of science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and longtime student of the movement.

Although creationism is commonly considered a backlash against science, “Virtually nobody in the movement [in the 1920s] thought of themselves as anti-scientific,” Numbers says. “They were denying the scientific status of evolution.”

The dictionary defines science as “organized, certain knowledge about nature, and they said, ‘Nothing is certain about evolution, nobody has seen it.’”

During the 1970s, primarily in response to court decisions, creationism morphed into “creation science” or “scientific creationism,” Numbers says. “The anti-evolutionists realized that evolution had a great deal of scientific support … so their approach was that they, too, were scientific.”

Unlike most anti-evolutionists in the 1920s, the new creationists used a literal interpretation of the Bible to date creation to less than 10,000 years ago. But this created a problem, Numbers says, since according to the Bible, on the sixth day, “God created the animals and Adam named them all.”

No way Adam could rattle off the more than 1 million names of the modern species so quickly, but Numbers notes that the Bible refers to “kinds,” not “species.” If those “kinds” — created in Eden and saved on Noah’s ark — were equivalent to taxonomic families, they could have evolved into the profusion modern species.

“So creationists can accept evolution within the family, and all the evidence for speciation is welcome, because in only about 4,300 years since the flood, they have to have evolution of all the species,” says Numbers. “It’s evolution in fast-forward,” but only among closely related species.”

Even if “kind” equals family, anti-evolutionists exempt humans from this reasoning, allowing them to reject human descent from apes — our fellow hominids.

“It’s strange, I know,” says Numbers. “They are anti-evolution, but most of the evidence evolutionists use against them, they are happy to embrace! One thing that has not been true for 50 years, but lingers in the popular mind, is that creationists deny all forms of evolution.”

The manual of denialism?

Evolutionary biologists regard evolution through natural selection as the organizing principle of biology. Yet for 30 or 40 years, surveys have shown a substantial fraction of Americans, even a majority, who do not “believe in” evolution, Sean Carroll, vice-president for science education at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, told the denial conference.

Carroll, who like many biologists is aghast at the effort to squeeze evolution into a biblical straitjacket, says, “The denial of evolution was my introduction to denialism.”

ENLARGE

American Museum of National History

In 1954, children got a “Polio Pioneer” card, and a piece of candy after getting a jab of polio vaccine.

Typically, biologists have approached the evolution debate by amassing evidence, but “it’s never been about the data,” maintains Carroll, who is also a professor of genetics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “And if it’s not about the data, what are we talking about?”

An earlier example of denialism occurred in the 1950s, after Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, a breakthrough that halted a dreaded, paralyzing disease.

Many chiropractors, Carroll found, opposed vaccines since they negated the central premise of chiropractic — that all disease results from misalignment of the vertebrae. “It shocked me. They actively opposed, disputed the efficacy of the polio vaccine. The opposed the March of Dimes, and federal and state efforts to get everybody vaccinated.”

Five hallmarks of denialism

The opposition continued — even after the polio epidemic tapered off as a result of the mass vaccination that started in 1955, says Carroll. And he identifies the tactics used then as a “playbook” of science denial that is echoed in more recent struggles over evolution, vaccines and global warming:

We just don’t agree!

Add it up, and the theme is this: The science must not be allowed to endanger a key philosophy, Carroll says.

But the cost of denialism is high, Carroll maintains. “It’s difficult, as an evolutionary biologist, to realize that half the county is deaf to anything you have to say, especially if the story you have to tell is about a magnificent achievement, understanding the complex relationship of living things on the planet, the deep history of our species.”

To reach young people, Howard Hughes has begun producing and giving away a series of videos on evolution called The making of the fittest.

Go to links for videos

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

To bring science to the masses, Hughes has produced videos on evolution; this one describes how cold-water fish evolved “anti-freeze” genes.

The idea is to engage in storytelling — to help people understand and remember facts by putting them into a narrative framework, Carroll says. As a professor, he’s seen the power of a story. “When I got lost, off-topic, and students see me years later, they say they still remember some of those stories, and I know they don’t remember any of the genetics. Stories count.”

Time (dis)honored tactics

Naomi Oreskes, a professor of history and science studies at the University of California at San Diego, has written about the “merchants of doubt.”

The message, she says, is simple: The facts are not all in. We need to hold judgment until the scientists agree.

This kind of corrosive doubt — in the face of scientific certainty — is “very depressing” if you “believe that knowledge is power,” Oreskes says. “Knowledge is not powerful enough — an ideology is more powerful still. It’s about ideas, not facts.”

During the last half-century, she says, “Political powers are willing to attack rational truths, and those who deliver them.”

There is also money at stake in many of the issues, especially in the case of climate change, which threatens the fossil-fuel industry.

Car exhaust from eutrophication&hypoxia; smoky butt from Raul Lieberwirth

What do these have in common? Many companies in the oil and tobacco industries have sown seeds of doubt about the long-term effects of their products.

The model for such campaigns, Oreskes said, came from the tobacco industry in the 1960s. Facing growing evidence linking their profitable product to lung cancer, the industry settled on a strategy of promoting “Questions, manifested in a memorable maxim: “Doubt is our product.”

And for decades, doubt helped big tobacco deride and deny a tidal wave of evidence that cigarettes cause lung and heart disease.

December, 2011, Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

After the crazy weather of the past year, pollsters have seen a bump in the number of Americans seeing “solid evidence” for global warming.

The same strategy, Oreskes says, was adapted to undermine “nuclear winter” (the discovery that huge clouds of ash and dust released during nuclear war could freeze and starve the planet), the dangers of the insecticide DDT, acid rain caused by power-plant pollution, the ozone hole, and global warming.

The tactics were to “challenge the evidence, claim the science is not settled, cherry-pick the data, to demand balance from journalists and threaten to sue if they don’t,” says Oreskes.

Changing the climate change story

The basic physics of global warming have been known for 100 years, Oreskes said. Scientists started exploring the subject with early computerized climate models in the 1980s.

In 1992, Oreskes said, the first President George Bush, “Called for concrete action to protect the planet. We had political leadership that committed us to doing something, yet we never did take the concrete steps that Bush called for. It’s a story about political challenges, selling uncertainty, about science in the age of denial.”

The doubters, funded by the oil industry, included some prominent Cold-War physicists who had been advocates for Ronald Reagan’s anti-missile defense system. “They said the science was unsettled, that it would be premature to act,” says Oreskes, who was intrigued to find that one of those physicists, Frederick Seitz, had been a consultant to the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company.

In 1998, Seitz organized a petition against the Kyoto Protocol, the first international agreement to control greenhouse gases.

Seitz and his fellow doubters, Oreskes says, “Found a new enemy: environmental extremism. You see anxiety about environmentalists as socialists, using climate change as a lever to effect social or economic change.”

What began with a handful of people with roots in the Cold War has since spread to “a range of free-market think tanks, including the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute,” Oreskes says.

The arguments against the settled scientific debate over warming, she adds, “are not just different interpretation of the data; that’s a normal part of scientific life. This is not about normal scientific claims. These are the scientific equivalent of saying Belgium invaded Germany during World War I.”

Why deny? Because it works, Oreskes implies. Almost 25 years after the scorching summer of 1988 brought global warming into the public sphere, the United States has yet to get serious about controlling greenhouse gases.

“We ignore the facts of nature at our peril,” says Oreskes. “Ignoring them is not going to make them go away.”

Microsoft’s April 9 deal to spend $1.3 million apiece on 800 patents from AOL was another skirmish in the patent wars that have engaged the technosphere. Just last summer, we watched a blizzard of headlines, lawsuits, and billion-dollar bills:

We wonder: Is this a situation that only a patent lawyer could love, or are these purchases and lawsuits the inevitable price of progress in our high-tech world? Are they the inevitable outgrowth of a venerable system that, for all its flaws, is still better than nothing?

Patents are licenses to exclusively make and market an invention that are inscribed in the U.S. Constitution. The concept is simple — and ridden with inherent conflict. If you invent a small device (a “midget widget”) that is new, useful, and “not obvious” to people skilled in the art of widgetry — your widget can be protected by a U.S. patent.

If I make or sell a widget that uses your invention (that “infringes on your patent”), you can sue me for damages, and a court may order me to close my widget-works.

So far, my invention has benefited me, my employees and customers, but when the patent (which must explain the inner workings of my midget widget) expires after 20 years, it becomes available to anybody.
And so (in theory) patents stimulate innovation and progress by conferring a short-term monopoly in return for short- and long-term social and economic benefits.

But what sounds good on paper can hide complexities that only a patent lawyer could love:

“Greasing the wheels of innovation” or “throwing sand in the gearbox”?

It’s not hard to find claims that the patent system is “broken,” and nobody disputes that “bad patents” have been issued for innovations that are obvious, inane or unworkable.

Patent battles are nearly as old as the U.S. patent system: Eli Whitney spent years in court trying to enforce his patent against infringers who cobbled together homemade cotton gins. His “victory” came just one year before the patent expired.

Lawyer-letters about patent infringement are a dreaded fact of life in technology industries, but no matter who wins, patent battles transfer money from the buyers of phones and computers to patent lawyers.

The pace of U.S. patent awards has picked up to about 200,000 per year, and some with a dog in the fight say the system does protect the rights of inventors.

The sentiment is not universal.

Adam Jaffe, an economist at Brandeis University, co-wrote a book on the patent system² that refers to a “broken patent system” in the subtitle. Jaffe says patents cut both ways. “Patents are important in fostering innovation, because 99.9 percent of the time, inventing something is just the first step. You require a significant investment … to get something from the invention stage to actual production, and unless you are independently wealthy, you need someone who is hoping to make money to take you through the development stage.”

And that “someone” may view a strong patent as your most valuable asset.

Software and high-tech patents?

Innovation “is a very complicated process,” Jaffe adds. “In most cases multiple ideas are interacting. In the extreme case, in software and high technology, people say a product might invoke 100,000 patents. It can get very messy.”

When the United States started issuing large numbers of software patents in the 1990s, the inexperienced patent examiners issued many dubious patents. Although the examinations have gotten more stringent, some still think software should be exempt, or patented under different standards.

Searching for competing inventions in software, for example, is comparatively difficult, and the search is the basis of the patent examination.

In most cases, says Tim Berners-Lee, a commentator on tech issues, software developers don’t bother doing thorough patent searches, which, he maintains, could require more patent lawyers than exist on earth.

Trolling for profits?

Although patent disputes are nothing new, they have been systematized by “patent trolls” — companies that own, defend and license a library of patents. Depending on your point of view, trolls are:

NPR covered a prominent case of trolling, complete with shadowy, unoccupied offices.

But even if trolls can be a barricade to innovation, “in practice it will be very difficult to change the rules in such a way as to prevent that,” says Jaffe. Would you allow infringement suits only from those who are moving a patented idea toward the market? “Say I’ve got an invention and am looking for a company that has the resources to bring it to market… and someone else comes along and steals the idea. Are you saying I can’t sue because I am not on the market?”

As with many parts of the patent system, finding faults is easier than fixing flaws, he indicates. “I don’t disagree that in a sense people are abusing the system by amassing piles of patents, but it’s naïve to think you can tweak the system to shut that down.”

First-to-file, or first to invent?

The America Invents Act, signed into law September, 2011, made what former commissioner of the Patents and Trademark Office Robert Stoll calls “the most revolutionary change in patent law in 60 years.”
The changes start with the basis for obtaining a U.S. patent. Previously, you had to prove that you were the first to invent something; now you must be the first inventor to file.

“First-to-file” will make life simpler, Stoll told an audience at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in April, by deleting disputes about who made the invention first. “First-to-file provides more certainty to the system, and reduces the ugly interference cases that don’t provide much benefit to the United States.” (An interference proceeding now determines whether someone made the invention before the patent applicant.)

“First-to-file really favors large companies that have sufficient resources to get to the patent office first,” argues Carl Gulbrandsen, managing director of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), the private, not-for-profit technology transfer arm of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, “and it disadvantages independent inventors and universities. I expect filing costs will go up.”

Got an app for that patent?

Here’s the snag: When you invent a molecule that could make a tire last forever, you may not know right away if it’s worth filing a patent application. Under first-to-invent, you could wait as much as one year to file.

Filing a patent can cost tens of thousands of dollars, which is money you could better spend on research that might show that your invention is solid — or as evanescent as a rainbow.

But under first-to-file, you lose if an inventor in Berlin or Tokyo files an app before you have time to decide. “AIA has weakened the grace period and the ability of independent inventors to test out the invention, and appropriately get financing to help with filing,” says Gulbrandsen.

Gulbrandsen also charges that the new law contains, “So many undefined terms that they will be litigating it for 15 years. They have essentially thrown out 100 years of case law; it’s a full employment act for lawyers.”

Winnowing the chaff — or weakening the patent system?

Although interference proceedings are now history, Gulbrandsen says AIA contains too many new ways to challenge patents. “There used to be two principal ways to attack a U.S. patent, and that made them strong. Now there are literally nine ways, and that weakens them overall. For a university, this will mean increased expense [for defending existing patents], and many of them won’t be able to bear that.”

Since its founding in 1925, WARF has contributed $1.24 billion to UW-Madison as royalties from more than 2,300 patents for inventions by university researchers. It has become a significant source of income to the university’s researchers and a model for other university patent offices.

A strong patent system has benefited the United States, says Gulbrandsen. “It’s necessary for innovation, and the last thing you want to do, if you want to create jobs, is to weaken the patent system, and that is exactly what we have done” with AIA.

But Jaffe, although no fan of the patent system, sees a benefit in these after-the-fact challenges, since “the vast majority” of the 200,000 U.S. patents granted each year are trivial (like that baling-wire-and-chewing-gum flying machine). Because the patent office must judge a flood of applications with limited resources, “It cannot do an exhaustive analysis, and it would be crazy to invest the resources to get it right every time.”

Under the new system, after the initial patent examination culls the obvious chaff, Jaffe says, competing inventors could contest a wobbly patent. Now, he says, “You have the opportunity, at least in theory, to go to the patent office and say, ‘This wasn’t really novel.’”

Although it’s easy to criticize the patent office, Jaffe says it has more expertise than the federal courts, the final resting place for most patent disputes.

Who benefits, who gets hurt?

In the ideal world — where patents are perfectly drawn — innovation wins. “I equate patents and innovation,” says Gulbrandsen. But despite its promising moniker, the America Invents Act “makes it more difficult for the inventor to raise the funds necessary to bring the invention to market. One of the best tools an entrepreneur or a startup has to raise money is a patent. It gives some assurance to investors that if they provide the funding, they will be able to recover it and get a return. The patent gives you the right to exclude others. Weakening the patent system increases the risk for investors, and that’s bad for inventors.”

University technology-transfer offices are going to suffer, says Gulbrandsen, who directs one of the oldest and largest in the nation, since many of them must wait to file a patent until they have found a business that wants to pay for filing and license the patent. “Although WARF is an exception, under first-to-file, you don’t have time to find a licensee, and so most universities tech-transfer offices will drop out.”

Individual inventors, Gulbrandsen notes, seldom have a patent lawyer on retainer.

Still, too much protection stifles innovation, says Jaffe, who says the system requires balance. “I don’t think first-to-file changes a lot. The rest of the world has been on that for a long time. There are going to be impacts in both directions, but in most cases, first-to-invent is just a source of conflict, because it’s harder to establish. This just simplifies things and reduces controversy, which is a very good thing.”

On March 10, atmospheric chemist “Sherry” Rowland of the University of California-Irvine died in the company of his son and his wife of almost 60 years. Rowland became prominent in the 1970s after warning that common chemicals would destroy ozone 10 kilometers above Earth, exposing life to a shower of harmful radiation.

While exploring how chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) degrade after being released into the atmosphere, Rowland and graduate student Mario Molina realized the CFCs would float to the upper atmosphere, be cleaved by sunlight, and release chlorine that would destroy ozone through a chain reaction.

(Ozone contain three oxygen atoms; most oxygen molecules contain two oxygens.)

By intercepting cancer-causing UV radiation, ozone in the stratosphere allows life to exist on Earth. Significant damage to this ozone would cause an epidemic of human and animal cancer, and likely damage plants as well.

This alarming prospect was not popular in industries that relied on CFCs, but it sparked a long and largely successful effort to restrict and then ban production of the chemicals.

And although Rowland never retreated from his findings, his calm, charismatic personality helped his cause. Ralph Cicerone, now the president of the National Academy of Sciences, recalls collaborating with Rowland on CFCs. “We talked on the phone nearly every day. I considered Sherry to be my best friend, and over time I learned that many people considered him to be their best friend, too. In the midst of the debates over CFCs, he never exaggerated the dangers, always cited the science, and treated other people with dignity and respect.”

What must a scientist do?

According to the University of California-Irvine’s press service, Rowland knew his results mattered far beyond the lab: “Mario and I realized this was not just a scientific question, but a potentially grave environmental problem involving substantial depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. Entire biological systems, including humans, would be at danger from ultraviolet rays.”

At the time, scientists were studying the health implications of ozone-bearing smog in the lower atmosphere, but few people knew or cared about “good” ozone in the stratosphere.

The sudden notoriety of CFCs had a certain irony: The chemicals were invented in the 1920s at General Motors, maker of Frigidaire brand refrigerators, as a stable, non-toxic alternative to the ammonia and explosive propane used in air-conditioning and refrigeration.

CFCs later were used to expand plastic foam, clean electronic parts, and propel paint and deodorant in the mushrooming aerosol-spray business.

Antarctic ozone hole, 2011

   

Video: NASA

Chlorine and bromine in the upper atmosphere cause rapid ozone destruction in the super-chilled polar winter. Although the ozone “hole” (blue) is declining with the phase-out of CFCs, it still recurs.

They publish lest we perish!

Rowland’s 1974 study¹ ignited a long squabble over CFC production. Aerosol Age, the spray-can industry’s trade journal, implied that Rowland was a member of the Soviet KGB who wanted to destroy capitalism!

CFCs remained a back-burner issue, however, until the British Antarctic Survey discovered an alarming absence of ozone in 1985. The “Antarctic ozone hole” gave the theoretical worry sudden significance, and as the industry gradually found substitutes for CFCs, the ozone hole stopped expanding.

Today, as we watch the faltering response to global warming, it’s comforting to recall that the ozone threat prompted prompt collective action: The Montreal Protocol, a treaty to restrict CFC production, became effective in 1989 and has since been tightened after further alarm over ozone destruction, and 196 nations — essentially all of them — have signed the original Protocol. Production of ozone-depleting substances has fallen by more than 95 percent.

“CFCs were extremely useful compounds and their use was pervasive,” says Rudy Baum, editor in chief of C&EN (Chemical and Engineering News). “Although manufacturers maintained that there would be dire consequences if the use of CFCs were restricted or banned, it became clear pretty quickly that alternatives could be found in most cases.”

And yet ozone is still a problem, as shown by a 40 percent drop in Arctic ozone in the winter of 2010-2011. Continuing destruction is blamed on the stability of CFCs and the fact that the replacements, while less damaging, still destroy ozone. “Ozone can be thought of as a patient in remission, but it’s too early to declare recovery,” said Susan Solomon of the University of Colorado.

Not bounded by the lab walls

Nonetheless, the Montreal protocols are considered an epochal case of planetary preventive medicine, and Rowland, Molina and Paul Crutzen, who also worked on CFCs, were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

But for 10 or 15 years, Rowland had played the role of maverick — speaking outside the laboratory about the importance of what he had found inside it. It’s not a comfortable role for many scientists; many find it safer to stay in the lab and let others figure out what to do with their results.

Jonathan Fink, vice-president of research at Portland State University, says “The culture of science is pretty deep in terms of how we are trained. Most science grad students are taught to focus on being the best at something, rather than thinking about the application of what they do to society.”

All along, Rowland explained the science and gently reminded us of our stake in an intact ozone layer. He continued to study atmospheric chemistry, mentor younger scientists, and show by example how scientists could speak responsibly about what their results mean for the rest of us.

Somehow, Rowland managed to fight his battles without making enemies, at least outside the industries that had inadvertently begun calamitous destruction of ozone.

Why do scientists like Rowland speak out? “Because they’re scientists and scientists are addicted to facts and what facts tell them,” says Baum. “I knew Sherry Rowland pretty well — I was the West Coast correspondent for C&EN from 1991 to 2004 … he was a gracious, dignified, reserved individual, certainly not a rabble-rouser. But he knew that his science was solid and that it told him that humans were doing something that would have catastrophic consequences if they didn’t stop. So he spoke out. Simple as that.”

A new disaster unfolds

Even before the Montreal Protocol was signed, climate scientists were starting to warn that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would enhance the greenhouse effect and trigger global warming. In testimony to the U.S. Senate in the torrid summer of 1988, NASA climatologist James Hansen linked rising temperatures to rising levels of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels.

The debate over global warming and climate change had begun, and going public put Hansen in much the same position as Rowland had occupied 15 years before. Via email, Hansen credited Rowland and atmospheric scientist Don Hunten as “role models… . They showed that it was possible to do first-rate science and also uphold our responsibility to make clear the implications of our research for society.”

Rowland redux?

Until then, Hansen had been a well-regarded but faintly visible NASA expert in planetary atmospheres. He had studied Venus, where an atmosphere choked with carbon dioxide produces a “runaway greenhouse effect” that raises the surface temperature to 460° C.

After making news in 1988, Hansen retreated from the public discussion of warming, but in the early 2000s, as temperatures continued to rise, he began to speak up again. In 2005, after the Bush White House tried to muzzle him, he went public with a vengeance.

Why? Journalist Mark Hertsgaard, who has written extensively about global warming and repeatedly interviewed Hansen, says he “thinks like a scientist, believes if you find the information, and present it properly, the truth should carry the day. I think he came out of hibernation in 2005 only because he felt he had to. He looked around and saw that the information alone was not carrying the day.”

Hansen’s regular emails combine climate facts with political opinions for a broad audience. For example, a recent commentary argued that “Scientists attempt to communicate, but are flummoxed by the ability of the profiteers to manipulate democracies. The scientific method (objective analysis of all facts) is pitted against the talk-show method (selective citation of anecdotal bits supporting a predetermined position).”

On Aug. 29, 2011, Hansen was arrested at the White House with hundreds of others protesting the Keystone XL tar-sand oil pipeline. Tapping such a vast reservoir of carbon, Hansen believes, will bring us that much closer to a “tipping point” on greenhouse warming. “Now we’ve got the spectacle of one of the world’s foremost climate scientists getting arrested and urging others to get arrested,” says Hertsgaard. “This is way beyond speaking out.”

Hertsgaard, a native of Minnesota, says it’s “very hard for [Iowa native] Jim Hansen the person to speak out.” In the Midwest, Hertsgaard says, “it is just not seemly to draw attention to yourself or bring up a topic that is likely to discomfort others. … but it’s not corny to talk without irony about the importance of doing the right thing.”

The scientific culture

A fully indoctrinated scientist is chary of talking much beyond the lab, Hertsgaard says. “Many scientists very much frown on taking the public agitator role, and that’s another tribute to Hansen’s courage. He was prepared not only to take brickbats from the Exxon-Mobil front groups, but to endure the judgment of his own peers, who said ‘That’s not what scientists do.’ He remembers that he’s not just a scientist, he’s a human being too.”

Despite the successful example of the Montreal Protocol, the global warming problem is vastly harder to solve, says Baum of C&E News. “The scale of fossil fuel use is several orders of magnitude larger …. Humans consume between 80 million and 90 million barrels of petroleum every day, and that represents only about a third of the fossil fuel that is consumed.”

Finally, while the specter of cancer caused by increased UV radiation is unsettling, “people actually like the warmer conditions, at least for now,” Baum wrote. “We didn’t have a winter in Washington, D.C., this year … and people loved it.”

So will the environmental victory over CFCs that started with Rowland and Molina be mirrored by serious action over global warming? Maybe not, says Spencer Weart, a long-time chronicler of warming. Comparing the ozone battle to the fight over global warming “is like comparing a single battle to a world war. Ozone depletion (once the ozone hole was detected) was clearly an urgent problem, with a straightforward solution. But with global warming, it’s hard for people to worry much about something that seems remote in space and time — isn’t it just a problem for polar bears and our grandchildren?”

Slowing warming “will require wholesale changes in our entire world economy,” Weart says. “And that must begin with government regulation of the fossil fuels industry, the largest concentration of economic power the world has ever seen. The pushback has been fierce, beginning with industries that suspected their profits would be restricted, and extending to people who fear governmental threats to their freedom.”

Rowland was once libeled as a Soviet spy, but “Scientists who have put themselves into politics like Jim Hansen … have been subject to ad hominem attacks: crude vilification and direct threats far beyond anything that Rowland experienced.”

Hansen and his colleagues, says Weart, “have persisted nevertheless. For the logic of their scientific understanding forbids them from keeping silent about the dangers they foresee.”

If you’ve hung around a big-city park, you may think that pigeons are countless — or uncountable. But according to scientists from New Zealand, pigeons now join the short list of animals that can count — or at least, can places images containing two countable items in numerical order.

It’s blue news for those who think only humans deserve human capacities. From empathy and altruism to murder and war, animals seem to have caught on to some of our best — and worst — tricks.

Now Damian Scarf, a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Otago, with his colleagues, has taught three pigeons to order pairs of numbers in the range from one through nine.

This is not exactly counting, but it certainly is a sign of numerical awareness in birds.

More important, the researchers have taught these retired racing pigeons the concept of smaller-to-larger, Scarf says. “Previously, this number abstraction was only known in primates, and now we have shown that it is not unique to primates.”

Serious screen-time serves science

The experiment began with a year-long training period, during which the birds were shown pairs of images, each containing one, two or three countable items. If the birds pecked at both images, smaller number first, they were rewarded with some wheat. (Although the images never contained a numeral, we refer to the “number” they contain for brevity.)

To prevent the birds from focusing on color, shape or other non-numerical details, the images showed a range of items, so that the only correct answer would reflect their number rather than other distinctions.

“The training time reflects how difficult it is for them to abstract,” Scarf says. “It’s such a foreign situation, number is not the first port of call when presented with a stimulus to discriminate. That’s why we had so many shapes, colors, surface areas.”

Even if the birds originally made their judgments based on color, “we pushed them to use a different strategy, to break away from that. Number is not the default discrimination mechanism” for pigeons, says Scarf, who worked under advisor Michael Colombo of Otago.

A genius for abstraction?

This does not mean that the birds are counting, says Scarf. “It’s more a fuzzy representation in the brain of what ‘three’ is. We can apply this verbal label to three, but they cannot. Pigeons, and animals in general, don’t have a definite idea of a number, that’s why they don’t perform perfectly, and why we see the distance effect.”

When the numbers on the test pair are further apart, Scarf found, “the fuzziness overlaps a little less.”

A greater distance between the numbers produced a quicker response and greater accuracy. For adjacent numbers, like four and five, the birds scored about 66 percent accuracy, compared to more than 95 percent for numbers separated by at least six. Once the difference rose to at least three, the pigeons did as well as monkeys in a path-breaking 1998 study that opened the field of numerical “thinking” in animals.

Scarf stresses that the birds were not just regurgitating what they had learned, but were learning numerical rules. “The goal was to find out whether they could acquire an abstract rule. We were just training for one through three, but they learned some flexibility, an abstract, ascending rule for ordering numbers” that would apply to other numbers on the screen.

Rooted in evolution, but where?

Being able to recognize that one thing is more numerous than another could help an animal survive, Scarf says. “When food is available in multiple places, an animal has to develop an optimal strategy for figuring out where the most food is, and I think we have subverted that capacity for this task.”

Where this capacity arose is anybody’s guess at this point. The evolutionary lineage of mammals and birds divided about 300 million year ago, Scarf says. “If this derived from a common ancestor, it’s very old. It’s also possible that primates and birds have evolved this independently.”

“I do think it’s important, just as our study of mirror self-recognition in monkeys, from the fundamental standpoint of how these abilities come about,” says Luis Populin, a professor of anatomy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who has found that, under certain conditions, monkeys can recognize themselves in a mirror. “It’s very nice and is yet another step toward understanding how our cognitive functions develop.”

You have to hand it to these birds, which have set a new standard for avian aptitude. “The new part is the idea that this abstraction of numbers is not tied to training,” says Scarf. “Most numerical tests with animals involve training and testing with the same numbers, but we were training with a limited set of numbers and testing them with numbers outside the range. They learned an abstract rule, and that’s what makes this study unique.”

If you drop a worker ant from an Amazonian treetop, what happens? In the species Cephalotes atratus, 87 percent of the time, that ant will wind up back where it started — a few meters lower down the same tree. Drop things that drift down at random, and only 5 percent of them will hit the tree.

In other words, these ants are controlling their flight — even though they don’t have wings.

That finding, which Stephen Yanoviak, Robert Dudley and Michael Kaspari¹ reported in 2005, provides a great starting point for untangling one of the mysteries of biology:

When and how did so animals take to the air?

Fly high

Flight is pretty common — among critters with wings, or something that resembles them, like a stretched membrane of skin. Birds, bats, moths and butterflies can fly. Even some lizards, snakes, fish and squirrels can glide under control toward the ground, which is not the same thing as falling.

Studies of ants in South America provide good data on “controlled aerial descent,” says Dudley, a professor of integrative biology at the University of California at Berkeley. In the course of some rather entertaining research, he and his colleagues have found that Cephalotes atratus ants:

During the controlled descent, at speeds above 4 meters per second, the ants perform “rapid postural adjustments,” Dudley says. “The limbs are moving, it’s not like a paper airplane.”

Dudley, an expert in the biomechanics of flight, says hundreds of species of tree-living ants in tropical Amazonian forests have evolved controlled gliding. Dropping to the forest floor can make them a meal for a mean and hungry ground-dwelling ant.

Looking at evolution

Perhaps the coolest part of the story is its evolutionary angle. Previously, scientists intrigued by the origin of flight have looked for evidence of wings and feathers, which appear more than 100 million years back in the fossil record.

But if flight really originated in arthropods that could not survive a fall from a tree or a cliff, that could wind the evolutionary clock back a good deal further. (Arthropods are animals with external skeletons and jointed legs, including spiders, insects and crustaceans like the horseshoe crab.)

Gliding under control is neither rare nor constrained to ants, Dudley says. “There are wingless aphids and flat spiders that live under the bark that can glide at a 45° angle. Controlled aerial descent has hundreds or thousands of independent origins in terrestrial arthropods.”

As old as the hills?

Over all, Dudley says, directed descent probably originated about 280 million years. If jumping like a flea or grasshopper is also deemed a form of flight, the origin could date back more than 400 million years.

The gliding hypothesis would not only help explain the origin of a common and cool behavior, but could take wind out of the sails for a favorite anti-evolutionary argument. Creationists, Dudley notes, have long demanded to know how wings evolved by asking, “What good is half a wing?” But according to the gliding hypothesis, wings unable to hold an animal airborne could still have evolved to help control a descending behavior that had long been in existence.

Flight of the control freaks?

Controlled gliding, Dudley says, “preceded the origin of wings, and so the evolution of flight is more about control than about the formation of wings.”

The new analysis “addresses qualms about the [supposed] lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record,” Dudley says. “Here is a viable intermediate form. There are lots of behavioral and ecological contexts where stubby, partial airfoils are useful.”

– David J. Tenenbaum

El Niños, the global cycles of weather that are driven by a hot spot in the tropical Pacific Ocean, have been linked to drought, storms and famine in many parts of the tropics.

Today, a study in Nature finds that deadly conflicts have started twice as often during the el Niño years – but only in the many countries affected by el Niño.

Scientific interest in el Niño mushroomed during the 1980s, when climate experts began to correlate historic cycles of anchovy harvests along the west coast of South America with changes in weather thousands of kilometers distant, and eventually unraveled a planetary cycle driven by the appearance of huge pools of warm water in the western Pacific.

Because the warming seemed to coincide with Christmas, it was called el Niño, for the Christ Child.

El Niño is now recognized as the warm-water segment of the el Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which also includes a cold-water counterpart called la Nina. Now acknowledged as an engine of global climate, el Niño is linked to prolonged droughts, heat waves and crop failures.

Previous efforts to study whether weather and global warming could affect war have related past environmental changes with conflict and the decline of civilizations, says Solomon Hsiang, who completed the new study as a graduate student at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University. But the studies tended to be case-by-case, he notes, and “even if every conflict or collapse happened at random, some would occur during a period of environmental change, so this isn’t compelling evidence.”

Looking carefully

To study the issue more systematically, Hsiang and collaborators Mark Cane and Kyle Meng:

The data showed that conflicts are twice as likely to start during an el Niño, says Hsiang, and that 21 percent of overall conflicts can be attributed to el Niño. The increase was only seen in countries strongly affected by el Niño.

Surprisingly, the average changes wrought by an el Niño are quite minor, Hsiang admits – about 0.05°C rise in temperature, and about 0.1 millimeter reduction in daily rainfall.

Small is … powerful?

How could such minor changes affect warfare?

A study that correlates data does not show why they are related, but there are many ways that seemingly small effects could change human behavior, says Hsiang, who is now at Princeton University, especially considering that averages can conceal major alterations in different locations:

However, Marshall Burke, who published an influential 2009 paper ¹ that found a significant increase in warfare during hot weather in sub-Saharan Africa, noted by email that the increase in conflict was seen only inside the el Niño region, and thus, “We might conclude that these global market mechanisms are not at work.”

Still, the new study adds something to the discussion, Burke says. “The [Hsiang] paper’s main innovation is in linking historical changes in the global climate to conflict risk, whereas past studies (including ours in PNAS) looked only at the effect of local weather variations on conflict.”

Burke, a Ph.D. candidate at UC Berkeley department of agricultural and resources economics, added, “They provide very convincing evidence that ENSO-related changes in the global climate are strong drivers of conflict risk in the regions whose weather is affected by ENSO.”

Looking at limits

Mark Cane, a climate scientist at Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and a co-author of the new study, said weather does not equal destiny. “No one should take this to say that climate is our fate. Rather, this is compelling evidence that it has a measurable influence on how much people fight overall.”

Ultimately, the motivation for the new study was to peer through the keyhole of time and anticipate a warmed world, Hsiang says, but he admits that the predictive power is limited. “In relationship to global warming, we want to be careful. El Niño is very different … in terms of its spatial pattern, the changes on the ground, and the rate of change. Until we have a much better grasp of these, it’s very hard to take these results and produce any kind of projection for future climate change.”

Still, he adds, “The debate until now has been whether there is any reason to believe that a shift in climate can produce conflict.” Now, “The question is not whether it’s possible, but how much global climate will influence conflict.”

– David J. Tenenbaum

We approach the Cave of the Mounds, a landmark (so to speak) in Southwest Wisconsin, along a walkway painted with fossils and markings that start at the Ordovician era (450 million years ago), when the limestone beneath our feet was deposited as a rain of sea shells on an ocean floor. Finally, at the cave’s entry, the asphalt calendar enters the last million years, when the cave started to be excavated by flows of acidic water.

The geological markings under our feet are one indication that the cave-men and -women who operate this site are intent on linking past and present, above- and below-ground.

Cave of the Mounds was discovered in 1939 by workers blasting in a limestone quarry on one of the highest spots in southern Wisconsin. Today, it is a tourist destination with a message — a cool, underground mecca, strategically illuminated, where tour guides leave the nettlesome lectures above ground, and offer easy-to-digest science along the cave’s alleyways.

The above ground section of the site features resurrected prairies and oak savannas, but the main attraction is the stalactites hanging over stalagmites, flowstone, the fossils embedded in ancient limestone, and the rare opportunity to see geology at work as you observe the earth from the inside out.

Aftermath of a flood unparalleled

What caused the huge erosion features, ancient shorelines, and scoured potholes in the “channeled scablands” in Eastern Washington state? In 1923, J. Harlen Bretz coined that ominous moniker and proposed that the features had been created by a gigantic flood.

During this time, geology was ruled by a “uniformitarianism” dogma, which highlighted gradual processes like deposition and erosion, and discounted the power of sudden events like floods (and perhaps even earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes).

Skeptics demanded to know the source of all that water in an arid region, and Bretz had a reputation as a kook. Then, geologists gradually realized that the ice-age flood had originated to the east, in glacial Lake Missoula, which had been plugged by the lobe of a glacier emanating from Canada.

In the 1950s, the idea that this huge lake had eaten through an ice dam and then coursed downstream with phenomenal power started gaining acceptance, and in 1979, Bretz, age 96, received the highest award from Geological Society of American for solving this great Earth riddle. Today, scientists believe the floods may have recurred every few years or decades as the ice age was waning, around 14,000 years ago.

The evidence for the floods comes in all sizes. Alternating stacks of coarse gravel and fine sand show gravel left by flood currents under sand left by slower water when the floods receded. A dry river bed called the Grand Coulee, in Eastern Washington, was gouged by the astonishing flow of uncorked glacial melt water. The periodic cascades that shaped Dry Falls, now in Sun Lakes State Park are considered the largest known waterfalls in Earth’s history.

The unbearable whiteness of being

The world’s largest field of gypsum dunes, at White Sands National Monument in south-central New Mexico, could arouse anybody’s inner drywaller, as gypsum is the mineral basis for both drywall and plaster. But here, where 275 square miles of gypsum dunes have built a hot, severe and scorchingly beautiful landscape, there’s not a sheet of drywall in sight.

Set aside as a national monument by President Herbert Hoover in 1933, the dunes trace their origin to vast deposits of hydrated calcium sulfate — gypsum — that were laid down on an ancient lake a quarter-billion years ago. After a geological uplift, they were exposed roughly 10 million years ago, and eventually moved to the present site in a geologic eye-blink — the last 7,000 years.

Mammoth tracks have been seen in the dunes, but they could get buried with time: Some dunes are moving 30 feet a year, as the wind piles them up on the windward side and gravity avalanches them down the lee.

The gypsum dunes are said to be the largest in the world, but what’s most amazing is not the geology, but the evolutionary adaptations life has used to survive these harsh conditions. At least seven species of animals, including three lizards, that are closely related to darker varieties living in the surrounding desert have turned white for camouflage in this bleached world. (The drywalling lizard or the plastering mouse must be here somewhere!)

Visiting the Sands? Ponder a trip to Trinity, the site of the first test of the atomic bomb.

Science museums: Try the trifecta!

The Windy City boasts not just one, but three cool science destinations, all next door to each other on the Museum Campus along the shore of Lake Michigan.

To explore some of the world’s biological and cultural wonders, spend the day at the Field Museum of Natural History, a collision of anthropology, botany, geology, paleontology and zoology. The permanent exhibits include the DNA Discovery Center, a journey through four billion years of earthly life, and Sue, the largest (and most expensive?) complete skeleton of the ferocious T. rex. Among the temporary exhibits was a recent one on the horse and its deep relationship with humans (an exhibit that particularly excited one horse-crazy Why Filer).

If your palate is whetted for a wetter world, walk to the Shedd Aquarium to explore underwater life from the Amazon, the Caribbean and both poles. Green sea turtles, beluga whales, moray eels, piranhas and penguins will be among your hosts.

If otherworldly science is more your thing, visit the Adler Planetarium. Chat about the stars with real space scientists at their Space Visualization Laboratory, or just sit back and watch the star show. Adler’s centerpiece is the Doane Observatory, the largest publicly accessible telescope in the Chicago vicinity. While you can only peer through the lens after dark, this could make for a great conclusion to your trip.

Discover a life aquatic

An Australian freshwater crocodile grows in Baltimore. Seriously. The National Aquarium Baltimore boasts more than 660 species of fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, totaling around 16,500 marine creatures.

In addition to its rich marine menagerie, the aquarium has a collection of special exhibits and interactive oceanic enjoyment. See the world through a dolphin’s eyes at Our Ocean Planet, a show that teaches visitors about dolphins and the connections between people and their seafaring friends. Or soak in ocean sensations with a movie at the 4-D Immersion Theater, where you can experience sea life in multiple dimensions, including the smell and feel of (simulated) mist and wind. Or take an expert-led tour, including behind-the-scenes peek of the sharks’ quarters.

The aquarium is also a center for conservation. For example, its Marine Animal Rescue Program tracks the progress of rescued animals after release. Other conservation projects include restoring wetlands and investigating the impacts of mercury on the marine food chain. After all, protecting the life that sustains the ocean ecosystem benefits everyone—not just aquarium visitors.

An excursion exotic to Melville

What’s more breathtaking than seeing the world’s largest animals in the wild? Whale watching puts you up close and personal with these magnificent marine mammals. Since the 1950s, in a 180° turnaround from Herman Melville’s day, people have been flocking by the boatloads to glimpse whales doing what they do rather than to kill them.

Both the U.S. east and west coasts have whales to watch, though you must catch them in the right season during their migration. There’s no guarantee, but on the western seaboard, you could spot orcas and gray whales. The east is home to the right, fin and sei whales. Humpbacks, minkes, and blue whales troll both coastlines.

Several cetaceans (a scientific category including whales, dolphins and porpoises) are endangered, including the North Atlantic right, blue, fin, sei and gray whales. In any case, marine mammals are heavily protected by law, so whale watching should be done with professionals who obey the rules.

Celebrating, protecting southern nature

With more than 500 full-time employees and an annual budget exceeding $30-million, Audubon Nature Institute sounds more like a business than a private, non-profit organization dedicated to explaining and preserving the wonders of nature with a Cajun flavor. The group operates a zoo, aquarium and assorted parks in and around New Orleans. The Aquarium of the Americas focuses on the Caribbean, Amazon, Gulf of Mexico (complete with oil-drilling replica) and Mississippi River.

A primate exhibit in the Audubon Zoo shows dozens of our opposable-thumbed relatives. Its 360 species of animals include a jaguar shown in a replica Amazon jungle. The “Embraceable Zoo” is devoted to full-contact animal admiration, and you can also eyeball, if not pet, a prickly Indian crested porcupine. Audubon maintains two locations that focus on captive breeding and survival of endangered species; these are closed to the public, but we expect to see you at the new insectarium, located in the old Federal customs house, for the beetle races on Sept. 3.

North Carolina: decapitation capitol

Every summer, vacationers flock to North Carolina’s coast for a beach getaway. But beach vacations would have been a hard sell early in the 18th century, as the coast was the stomping grounds of the South’s most feared pirate, Edward Teach, otherwise known as Blackbeard.

Nowadays, the area is proud of its sordid past, attracting pirate-curious tourists and archaeologists alike. In 1996, Blackbeard’s biggest and final ship, Queen Anne’s Revenge, was found off the coast of Beaufort, where it had been hiding for more than 270 years. While the dives did not uncover much treasure, archaeologists estimate the wreckage holds up to 750,000 artifacts, some of which are displayed at Beaufort’s North Carolina Maritime Museum.

Blackbeard is a primary local industry. Ocracoke Island, a favored Blackbeard anchorage, was where he met his fate at the hands of what he mocked as a rabble of “cowardly puppies.” Bath has the legendary ball of light, presumed to be Blackbeard’s ghostly severed head.

So why watch Johnny Depp impersonate a pirate at the multiplex when you can check out the history of this famous scoundrel? Like we said, this old, dead, head-free pirate is a godsend for small business…

Tar is my name. Fossils are my fame

If you’re stuck for a scientific sojourn in Southern California, head for the pits. Since long before there was a Los Angeles, the La Brea Tar Pits have been an oozing, 3-D flypaper for animals, now with that all-too-trendy urban accent. Asphalt, we learn, is not just good for roads, but also for trapping live animals and preserving their fossils. Since their first description in a scientific publication in 1875, the pits have produced prodigious prizes for paleontology. The onsite Page Museum houses more than 650 species of plants and animals, all removed from the black goo, and dating back 11,000 to 50,000 years.

The tar pits were a graveyard for thousands of carnivores, including the dire wolf, coyote and saber-toothed cat, and a smaller number of herbivores, including mammoth and bison. In an effort to transcend the “heroic” era of paleontology and flesh out (if we can put it that way) a comprehensive picture of life in the era of ice, researchers have recently shifted their focus to fossils of plants and smaller animals, including millipedes, 31 species of mollusks, and 25 species of beetles.

Listen hard: Hear the galaxies?

Love big? Dig distant, mysterious and unfathomably old? At the Very Large Array, in western New Mexico, you can gawk at 27 giant antennas used by astronomers to “listen” to radio signals from the universe. When you’re done rubber-necking the hardware, check out exhibits at the visitor center.

Then climb an observation tower to get another view of the world’s premier radio telescope zoo. Notice how every single antenna has silently and inexorably changed its orientation, and is now pointing to another invisible spot in the heavens? You are looking at visual proof of our planet’s normally insensible rotation.

It takes a lot of work, and some hefty equipment, to pry loose the secrets of the universe, and here, the scale of the operation is written across the desert. Since 1980, the VLA has, alone or in tandem with other telescopes, been collecting the astrophysical evidence for the formation and destruction of stars and galaxies. The new “enhanced VLA” can “hear” three times as many radio bandwidths as the VLA and is 10 times more sensitive. How sensitive is that? They say it could hear a cellphone calling from Jupiter…

Go under cover in the capital city

Explore life under cover (and the technology that allows a spy to hide in plain sight) at the International Spy Museum, the only public museum of its kind in the United States. With the largest public collection of international espionage artifacts, the museum provides a unique global perspective of this covert profession — said to be the second oldest — and how it has shaped the past and present.

Before you start your mission, you are challenged to adopt a secret identity. As you snoop about, you’ll discover the Secret History of History, which highlights the influence of spies through the ages; gadgets and stories of espionage during the American Civil War, World War II, and Cold War; and a gallery of spy technology. You can even see if you have what it takes to be an agent in the Operation Spy interactive experience, in which you must find a missing nuclear trigger before it ends up in the wrong hands. Just don’t blow your cover!

Visit the “Boneyard”

Warplanes go to the desert to die, and there, for a fee, you can tour thousands of mothballed fighters, bombers and helicopters at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center. Bus tours run from the Pima Air and Space Museum, on the outskirts of Tucson, Ariz. With more than 4,200 planes, the “boneyard” is the ultimate in aerial combat nostalgia.

Some of these planes will be scrapped, others may be sold or salvaged for parts, or pressed back into service during future wars. Seldom celebrated, but perhaps more important from a technological point of view, the site also stores 350,000 tools used to make these machines, including, we presume, the one-of-a-kind tools and dies used to shape jet engines, wings and fuselages.

Ogling killing machines may seem macabre, but then, if you are a U.S. taxpayer, you’ve already paid for this stuff… might as well check it out, and witness how the technology of aerial warfare has changed over the decades!

Edison’s Garden of Invention

In 1887, after he had patented the first practical electric light bulb, mega-inventor Thomas Edison invented an inventor’s playground in West Orange, N.J., just outside Manhattan. Edison stocked the lab with every resource needed to crank out movie cameras and projectors, teletypes, recording and playback devices, batteries and countless other electric gadgets for the fast-modernizing nation.

With labs focusing on chemistry and physics, and with shops devoted to woodworking and metal-working, Edison could concentrate on his strong points: cranking out ideas and masterminding publicity stunts that helped ensure his commercial success. During World War I, 10,000 people cranked out electrical devices for the military at the factories clustered around the lab. Edison worked at the West Orange lab until his death in 1931.

Think of Edison as primarily an inventor? Then you have to wonder how his name wound up on the companies selling electricity to New York and Chicago. God may have made the Garden of Eden, but Thomas Edison made the garden of invention in north Jersey, and it awaits your visit.

– David J. Tenenbaum & Jenny Seifert

Fish in the Gulf of Mexico: How safe?

The fire and deadly explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig on April 20, 2010 spewed a gusher of crude oil — about 4.4 million barrels — into the Gulf of Mexico.

The blowout flooded all levels of the Gulf with oil. And that oil, combined with millions of gallons of an oil-degrading chemical, raised questions about the health of Gulf seafood, both shellfish and finfish.

Fishing is major in the Gulf of Mexico, which in 2008 produced 15 percent of total weight of U.S. commercial fishing, and which has more sport fishers than any other American region.

Within two weeks, as a precaution to prevent the sale of contaminated fish, the government began closing parts of the Gulf to commercial fishing.

A report published today in Environmental Health Perspectives reviews the aftermath: How big was the threat? Did the closures harm the fishing industry by giving, in effect, official endorsement to the idea that the fish were contaminated? Were there any gaps in protection?

Not very filthy

The report came to an optimistic conclusion: government-sponsored studies of Gulf fish since the blowout found no significant contamination with heavy, persistent compounds called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. “I don’t know that we have any evidence that the fish were contaminated, ever,” says study first author Julia Gohlke, an assistant professor of environmental health science at the University of Alabama-Birmingham.

PAHs can cause cancer and are often used as a measure of hydrocarbon contamination. According to the new study, “Federal seafood testing results released to date” show PAH levels at roughly 1 percent of the “level of concern” that the Food and Drug Administration established for assessing food safety after the Deepwater blowout.

Other results, she says, have focused on total hydrocarbons derived from oil, rather than PAHs. “My analysis looked at what the government has done,” she says. “There are independent reports of contamination that I tried to include, but they did not measure PAHs, only total petroleum hydrocarbons.”

Large oil spills are so ominous that people can overreact, says Gohlke. “People see an oil spill and fisheries closures and assume everything must be contaminated, and nobody wants to eat anything. There is a misunderstanding of what is considered contamination. There is now a large dataset, at this point, to show there hasn’t been significant hydrocarbon contamination to date.”

Gohlke and colleagues looked at data on the BP blowout, and previous oil spills from around the world, to compare toxicity levels and evaluate the procedures used to close and open fisheries. The project was funded by a grant from the Walton Family Foundation to the Environmental Defense Fund.

Looking at samples taken during and after the blowout, no results suggested that eating fish – whether with shells or fins – would contain elevated levels of PAHs, says Gohlke, who cautions that monitoring should continue for years because buried oil may re-enter the water and contaminate fish.

After the BP spill, fishing was banned in as much as 37 percent of the Exclusive Economic Zone in the Gulf of Mexico, which extends 200 nautical miles from the coast. These bans were precautionary, since they were made in advance of contamination tests, says Gohlke.

Although “safe, not sorry” can be justified, closures can also have unintended consequences, or even backfire, she says. “Part of me thinks the precautionary approach is appropriate, but I don’t know how it has contributed to consumer confidence. Without sufficient risk communication, precautionary closures may create an expectation that the fish is contaminated. The last survey I saw, from February, suggested people were still considering Gulf seafood to be contaminated.”

“I think they make some pretty good recommendations to continue monitoring for PAHs,” says Ron Kendall, director of the Institute of Environmental and Human Health at Texas Tech University. “There is a lot of debate about underwater oil mats that are still floating, and how much oil may still be on the seafloor or in coastal marshes. With hurricane season approaching, we don’t know what kind of remobilizing of suspended oil and the mats will take place.”

To date, Kendall says, the data show that seafood has safe levels of PAHs, but “You’ve got to understand that all this oil is not gone. This story is still unfolding.”

Trust Charles Darwin to be his own severest critic. Having expounded a revolutionary evolutionary theory of natural selection, he realized that the past gives birth to the present. Darwin knew about fossils, including the famous, three-section trilobites, that dated to the Cambrian period, now known to have begun about 540 million years ago.

Never one to duck logic, Darwin wrote:

Indeed, according to J. William Schopf, professor and director of the Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life at UCLA, what came before was totally mysterious when Darwin wrote “Origin of Species” in the 1850s. “Darwin knew about the Cambrian era, and the big extinctions after that were known, but he knew nothing about the earlier fossil record. This was the case for about 100 years.”

And then, starting in 1953, University of Wisconsin-Madison geologist Stanley Tyler noticed ring-like structures in rocks in Minnesota and Ontario’s Gunflint formation.

The rock — a fine-grained quartz relative called chert — was 1.9 billion years old – almost four times as old as the earliest Cambrian fossils.

Tyler, collaborating with Elso Barghorn at Harvard, recognized the circular structures as stromatolites, mushroom-shaped rocks formed by layers of microorganisms called cyanobacteria. In 1965, the two reported that stromatolites were the oldest fossils ever seen.¹

I can see you now!

Why did it take so long for Precambrian life to be recognized? “They had assumed that it would be like younger life, there would be coral, snails and trilobites,” said Schopf, an expert on the oldest life. “The basic problem was that a wrong assumption had been made. Life in the Precambrian turned out to be substantively different in organization and size.”

By exploring the interior of rocks using an increasing array of scientific techniques, Schopf and a growing group of colleagues have found life as early as 3.5 billion years ago.

Not bad for a planet with an estimated age of 4.7 billion years.

Double-not-bad, considering the exceeding scarcity of truly ancient rocks, hidden through the constant tectonic churning of the crust. The oldest rocks yet located are 3.8 billion years old, but any fossils they contain have been distorted by severe heat and pressure.

Still, Schopf said, four lines of evidence show the ancient roots of life on our planet: microfossils, molecular biomarkers, proportions of carbon isotopes and stromatolites. Stromatolites are layered rock formed by layers of microorganisms called cyanobacteria (formerly blue-green algae), which produce oxygen in sunlight.

While some of the fossilized microorganisms found in ancient rock apparently have gone extinct, the cyanobacteria closely resemble living organisms, Schopf told an audience at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on April 26. “Cyanobacteria do the same sort of photosynthesis as a blade of grass today. These are the guys that invented this process, probably 3-plus billion years ago.”

As testimony to nature’s predilection for retaining stuff that works, other fossil microorganisms resemble modern counterparts that require oxygen, cannot tolerate oxygen, or use it when convenient. “We’ve found 12 to 15 major families of cyanobacteria, the same ones that are important today, the same ones that are seen throughout the geological record,” Schopf says.

Tyler did not live to see the publication of his 1965 article, but it revolutionized paleontology, and has been cited by scientists at least six times since 2010.

“Stanley Tyler was a hero for this world,” says Schopf. “As [microbiologist Louis] Pasteur said, chance favors a prepared mind. Here was an economic geologist [concerned with finding minerals and mines] … and yet he saw these scrubbly things, and thought, ‘I bet they are fossils,’ even though they were almost two billion years old. This is the guy who made the discovery.”

– David J. Tenenbaum

The prospect of peak coffee raises the menace of massive caffeine withdrawal, with hordes of headachy addicts rendered into grouchy slackers. Could a cut in coffee production also cost us the many health benefits that coffee seems to provide?

For ages, the bitter black brew has been scorned as jet fuel for jittery insomniacs, providing nothing more than a momentary surge of focus and energy.

But recently, some researchers are starting to see java as the juice of the gods: In some studies, coffee appears to be protective against dementia, type 2 diabetes and even several types of cancer.

Coffee, it turns out, is loaded with polyphenols, anti-oxidant chemicals that fight damaging free radicals, which are implicated in many of the diseases of aging.

Caveat quaffer

Before we fill our cup with a discussion of the health benefits of coffee, remember these cautions:

For all these reasons, we are not prescribing coffee as medicine. But then, do we drink coffee for medicine, or for the taste, the excuse to talk things over with a friend, the acceleration physical and mental energy?

So bottoms up, and let’s check some recent studies showing how coffee affects dementia, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer

Coffee: Good for your brain?

Many studies over the past decade have suggested that coffee can partly block Parkinson’s disease, a movement disorder that afflicts millions of elders. In 2006, ² researchers reported on a 22-year study of Finns – who boast Earth’s highest average coffee consumption – and found that people who drank more than 10 cups a day had about one-quarter the risk of Parkinson’s as non-drinkers. (Do Finns ever finish guzzling? While only 5 percent of the sample abstained, about 10 percent drank at least 10 cups a day!)

The researchers suggested that since Parkinson’s may be caused by oxidative attack on neurons, coffee’s protection may arise from its anti-oxidants.

Several studies – the results are inconsistent but suggestive – have linked caffeine and coffee with a reduction in Alzheimer’s disease. In 2010, after a 21-year study, researchers from Finland and Sweden³ reported that “coffee drinking of three to five cups per day at midlife was associated with a decreased risk of dementia/Alzheimer’s disease by about 65 percent at late-life.”

Research using mice with a genetic tendency to Alzheimer’s shows that coffee and caffeine improve learning and memory while reducing the beta amyloid plaques that mark Alzheimer’s. In 2011, when Gary Arendash and Chuanhai Cao of the University of South Florida compared coffee, caffeine and decaf,⁴ coffee was most effective at stimulating chemicals that apparently defend against Alzheimer’s. The researchers wrote that “coffee may be the best source of caffeine to protect against [Alzheimer's disease]” because another coffee chemical acts with caffeine to enhance protection.

Arendash did not respond to our email but said in 2009 that he’s seen “evidence that caffeine could be a viable ‘treatment’ for established Alzheimer’s disease, and not simply a protective strategy. That’s important because caffeine is a safe drug for most people, it easily enters the brain, and it appears to directly affect the disease process.”

Coffee ‘n cancer

Can coffee help protect against cancer? Sometimes.

Photo Florida Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center

Caffeine removed harmful beta amyloid plaques from the brains of mice that simulate Alzheimer’s disease.

A study of coffee and liver cancer followed 60,323 Finns for a median of 19.3 years. After adjusting for factors like age, alcohol and smoking, the hazard ratio of those who drank four to five cups was 0.44.

Hazard ratio means the probability of an outcome, compared to the reference group (non-drinkers, in this case). All other things being equal, abstainers were three times as likely to get liver cancer as those who swilled eight cups a day.⁵

To decipher conflicting or inconclusive studies, scientists can pool data using meta-analysis, a technique that sets standards for acceptable studies and then statistically groups the results.

In 2010, Mia Hashibe, in the department of family and preventive medicine at the University of Utah re-analyzed⁶ nine studies and found a 39 percent reduction in mouth and throat cancers among people who drank at least four cups. “Since coffee is so widely used and there is a relatively high incidence and low survival rate of these forms of cancers, our results have important public health implications that need to be further addressed,” said Hashibe. With such a large sample, “We had more statistical power to detect associations between cancer and coffee.”

If we shift the focus to all cancers, a new meta-analysis⁷ of 59 studies showed that each additional cup of coffee reduced the incidence of cancer by 3 percent.

The results concerning breast cancer are less encouraging. A 2008 report⁸, based on data from 85,987 women, found no significant link to coffee, decaf or tea, except for a slight reduction in breast cancer among post-menopausal women who ingested a significant amount of caffeine.

Similarly, a 2009 study in the Netherlands ⁹ found no association between coffee and breast cancer.

Ironically, coffee contains a chemical that could stimulate the many breast cancers that respond to estrogen by growing, according to Clinton Allred, an assistant professor of nutrition at Texas A&M University. Allred, who has found large amounts of a plant estrogen called trigonelline in coffee, says, “This is one of the least studied compounds I have ever been around.”

In the lab, Allred showed that trigonelline can affect cells even when it is thousands of times more dilute than the effective concentration of isoflavone, a common plant estrogen found in soy.

Allred is not worried about trigonelline, since people have been guzzling coffee for a long time, and plant chemicals consumed in a whole food or beverage act differently than they do in isolation in the lab. “People with a healthy diet that is high in plant products are exposed to these kinds of compounds all the time.”

A diabetes connection?

Could coffee slow the epidemic of type 2 diabetes, which disrupts sugar metabolism, which raises blood sugar that harms small blood vessels in the kidney, eye and heart? A 2006 study¹⁰ of 88,259 American women showed that drinking at least four cups of coffee reduced the diabetes rate to 53 percent of the rate among non-drinkers. Although both coffee and decaf (but not tea), were beneficial, diabetes prevention was most closely linked to coffee intake rather than caffeine intake.

According to a meta-analysis¹¹ based on more than 450,000 people from Asia, North American and Europe, “Every additional cup of coffee consumed in a day was associated with a 7 percent reduction in the excess risk of diabetes type 2. … Drinking three to four cups of coffee per day was associated with an approximate 25 percent lower risk of diabetes… .”

If coffee reduces diabetes, could it deter cancers associated with diabetes? A 2007 exploration¹² of the soaring rate of cancer after World War II in Japan linked coffee to reductions in liver and pancreatic cancer in men, and liver, colon and endometrial cancer in women. The authors speculated that coffee could reduce resistance to insulin, “and may thereby reduce the risk of diabetes-related cancers such as colon, liver, pancreas and endometrium.”

A matter of the heart

A 2010 study¹³ of 37,514 Dutch people found a slight benefit for coffee in heart disease: People who drank two to three cups a day had only 79 percent the rate of heart disease as abstainers, but the reduction was not statistically significant. Above 4 cups per day, the rate returned close to the no-coffee rate. Coffee did not affect the rate of strokes.

However, Swedish researchers studied¹⁴ people after a heart attack, and found that drinking one to three cups of coffee reduced the odds of dying to 68 percent of the risk for abstainers.

We put down our coffee mug with a jittery hand, wondered whether swilling coffee could harm the heart, and phoned Richard Page, a professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Page, an expert in arrhythmias – the irregular heart rhythms that can cause deadly heart attacks – said, “It’s hard to demonstrate a relationship between caffeine consumption and arrhythmias, but there are case reports. I see a number of patients with arrhythmias, particularly atrial fibrillation, and occasionally we see some relationship with excessive consumption of caffeine.”

Although Page was not alarmed by coffee, he was not so sure about the mega-doses that were linked to health benefits in some studies. “I would be cautious; I have heard of a couple of adolescents developing atrial fibrillation (a hard-to-treat arrhythmia) after taking monster energy drinks; I don’t think such high doses of caffeine are good for people.”

The bottom line

If Captain C seems helpful against some cancers, dementia and diabetes, is it guaranteed to extend your life? No. A European study¹⁵, for example, found that “Neither coffee nor tea consumption was associated with stroke or all-cause mortality.”

A long American study, using data from 41,736 men (followed for 18 years), and 86, 214 women (24 years), found a slight, significant trend toward fewer deaths from all causes; those who drank at least six cups a day had a death rate just 80 percent (men) to 83 percent (women) of the non-drinkers. The main benefit was a reduction in cardiovascular disease.

However, coffee consumption did not affect cancer deaths, after adjusting for factors like obesity and smoking, and the authors concluded, ¹⁶ “The possibility of a modest benefit of coffee consumption on all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality needs to be further investigated.”

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but then, did we promise a simple answer?

Would you like your triple-espresso with soy milk?