Julio: Can numbers describe our universe?

I have read this little note about strange numbers that can be used to describe the universe. And wonder what you think about it, the numbers may be fundamental to the universe or are just an abstract creation of the man? And after all can you tell me what is a number?

Coming live from the lab

It's been a while since I've done this, I've been remiss, I apologise. Blogging takes a certain level of commitment, and I've slipped! But soon I will be presenting an opportunity for new bloggers to join me, so stay tuned.

In the meantime, today's lab meeting was interesting both because of the chocolate cupcakes and because it was the first time I'd been to the lab's "Journal Club" where one of the lab members picks an interesting journal paper they've found and discusses it. This time it was not one but two papers, both published in the same journal within a few months of each other and both seeming to deal with exactly the same question: Does a wound cause hair follicle stem cells to contribute to tumour formation? What is fascinating is both why the journal chose to publish two seemingly quite similar papers so close together, and also the fact that one has a much "sexier" title than the other although both actually mean the same thing!

I'm learning a lot here about publishing in journals - but to be honest I couldn't really even understand the introductory paragraph of either paper. The interesting detail I gleaned was that the possible relationship between injury and cancer was first thrown up in 1863... which just gives an indication of the evolution of scientific ideas, that nothing happens in a week or even a decade, sometimes a question is put out there and over 150 years later it is still be investigated.

The discussion of these papers also touched on something that is particularly interesting to me: what aspect of this research reached the "public"? The researcher in the lab mentioned how he had told his girlfriend about the papers and she had immediately panicked and said "Does that mean when I get a cut I could get cancer?" This might sound like an overreaction, but then I googled to see what the press has made of these publication and I found headlines such as:

How a paper cut could trigger skin tumors

which is not in the least alarmist, eh?!

But, I have to say, it's not such a stretch from the titles of these papers to the headline of this article. However, I'm sure the scientists involved would never want a wave of public panic about paper cuts! So, an interesting point to ponder about science communication. Where's the disconnect? Whose responsibility is it? Any comments?

 

Guest Blog Post: Nick Riddle Makes Friends With Science

I'm delighted to welcome Nick Riddle to the blog! Nick is a writer and editor in the University's Public Relations Office. Take it away, Nick:

As a child I had a fear of dogs. There was no very good reason - they just seemed intimidating. When, as an adult, I overcame this phobia, I started taking an extravagant pleasure in making the acquaintance of certain dogs. I’d make a fuss of them and let them lick my face, which occasioned a few concerned remarks from friends: ‘You know, you really don’t have to let him do that...’

It’s been a bit like that with science. I was your classic science-averse kid who resisted the advances of biology and chemistry, neither of which gained a purchase on my imagination. At home I was captivated by TV science - James Burke’s Connections, Carl Sagan’s Cosmos - but by then I’d dropped the science subjects and was grinding my way miserably through O-level Maths.

But years (and two arts degrees) later, as a writer working at Indiana University, I started interviewing academics about their work. One such subject was a particle physicist who tested laptops and other electronic devices for their resistance to radiation. Even now, when I read the resulting article, I can sense the relish of the younger me trying out his facility for language on a new subject. It was partly the challenge of tackling something new, but there was also a thrill involved in feeling at ease (relatively speaking) with something I used to think of as intimidating.

A neuroscientist could probably tell me which chemicals are sloshing about when this happens (dopamine? You see, I get a little kick just out of throwing the word in there), but I’m willing to bet that they’re the same chemicals at work when I’m saying hello to my friend’s beagle.

These days, as co-editor of Bristol’s Subtext magazine, I get to meet and interview a goodly number of the University’s scientists: astrophysicists, chemists, neuroscientists, biologists, mathematicians - the full range of academic breeds. I don’t imagine for one moment that I’ve understood more than a fraction of their work, and I’d like to do an awful lot better, but just getting to grips with a topic and finding words to describe it can still hit the spot.

So when I knock on the office door of the next scientist - audio recorder in hand, web printout of their research summary in pocket - chances are that I’m silently repeating my mantra: Go ahead, science - lick my face.

Thanks so much, Nick, a lovely image to end on! If you'd like to contribute a guest blog post, please email me at tania.hershman@bris.ac.uk. All contributions welcome!

"Scientists screw up their courage and jump into the communication breach."

I've just read a  very interesting article by Andrew C Revkin, Senior Fellow for Environmental Understanding, Academy for Applied Environmental Studies, Pace University, New York, NY, who says:

Specialized journalists now occupy a shrinking wedge of a fast-growing pie of light-speed media. This reality threatens to erode the already limited public appreciation of science. But the situation also presents a great opportunity – and responsibility – for scientists, their institutions, and their funders. Institutions that thrive in this world of expanding, evolving communication paths are those willing to engage the public (including critics) and to experiment with different strategies. The alternative is to hunker down, wait for misinformation to spread, and then – after the fact – sift fact from hype.

He ends by saying that the status quo will persist unless "scientists screw up their courage and jump into the communication breach." How do you feel about this? Do you want to jump into the communication breach?? Read the full article or read the report on the article in the New York Times and the comments that ensued. One comment says that science bloggers are filling that gap. Are we/they?