Its the magical week of the year folks! Nobel Prize Week... :D
Today, Tuesday, and WEDNESDAY will be the prize announcements for natural sciences!
Can't wait for Wednesday's chemistry prize... ;) I'll be sure to blog about it either on the day itself or on Friday!
GO TEAM NMR!!! Hehe, for obvious reasons... ;) Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Super duper pleased with last year's Chem prizes going out to 3 pioneers in C-C bond formation. Palladium-catalyzed synthetic reactions ROCK! BIG TIME! I am fortunate enough to have succeeded in carrying out a Suzuki cross-coupling back in my NRP days.. Its been four years already! Aaaahh... ♥
Anyway, keep watching this space for announcements... This will be an exciting three days for scientists everywhere, but do note that other prizes are less equally important as we pay homage to those other giants who have contributed to this never-ending grand work we call ― Life.
Update: (17:47 03/10/11) The 2011 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine has been awarded to Bruce A. Beutler, Jules A. Hoffmann and Ralph M. Steinman. Beutler and Hoffmann were honoured for "their discoveries concerning the activation of innate immunity", while the other half of the prize was given to Steinman for "his discovery of the dendritic cell and its role in adaptive immunity". "This year's Nobel Laureates have revolutionized our understanding of the immune system by discovering key principles for its activation," says the Nobel summary.
Nicely done, Nobel Committee. Good job indeed. :) Worthy winners...
Update: (22:30 03/10/11) Shocked to receive news that Ralph Steinman passed away last Friday. There's this thing about no posthumous award of Nobel Prizes except if death occurred between announcement and presentation. I really felt Steinman deserved it and wished badly that his award will not be revoked. Again, nobelprize.org was crowded with traffic, I couldn't access to find out first hand.. It was through twitter that I learnt... And was heartened to find that the Nobel committee announced soon after, "What we can do is to regret that Steinman could not experience the joy. We don't name new winners"
## Neutrino arrives ##
Yes, I understand that today is Friday and I did promise to post on Mondays.. But for sake of my sanity and the laws of physics, I hope you can forgive the delay! :)
Ok, first of all, I assume that you are aware that... hold on a sec... ## Photon arrives ##
Sorry about that.. Apparently 2 particles just passed my way, originating and taking the same route from Geneva, Switzerland.. Weird..?
Anyway, late last week, the scientific community was rocked by an announcement from CERN claiming that the speed of light (Ultimate speed limit of the universe) was exceeded by a humble particle known as the neutrino. Why the big fuss you ask? Actually nothing much.. Just that a nearly century-old scientific theory is being put to the test. Just another day in the lab, I guess.
Except that the theory being challenged is Einstein's own Theory of Relativity. And honestly, I can't see it being overturned as yet. Not by one experiment, not without reproducible repeats, not without better data. After all, its not easy to just reject the infamous equation: E = mc2. Revision and improvements, yeah.. But I am sceptical and convinced that Relativity still holds true for most of the quantum universe.
Good thing that I'm a scientist who desires credibility and advocates good scientific practice. Or else, the following may happen...
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/neutrinos.png LOL!
I wouldn't want to bet against Einstein. Many have tried, all had failed. Prof Albert - Damn Epic & Legendary!
But in the case that this tsunami of a statement turns out to be true, what of it. For one thing, Nature will still continue to behave as she does. Our discovery changes nothing about the way things work, you see. Which is good for science, as finding out the truths and coming to a closer approximation for the nature of reality is always desirable.
When an old scientific belief gets thrown out due to new findings which fit better the way nature works, it is termed a paradigm shift. And while we do not expect that the recent findings to cause any major shift in our understanding of the physical world, there could always be a minor revision to the current ones. Keeping in mind, this is assuming that the current data is proven true and reproduced elsewhere with similar results.
An obvious example of a paradigm shift will be the Copernican Revolution with Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei being the driving force for developing the established and proven scientific fact of a heliocentric solar system instead of a geocentric one.
Hope you enjoy this short section regarding the Philosophy of Science. Let me know if you think this is too much or too little and I'll see what I can do about it.
====================================
Small shout-out: Thank you to Ms Jong Wan Wui for helping me get the Arsenic DNA paper!!! I'm gonna have a fun time this weekend!
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman, "What is and What Should be the Role of Scientific Culture in Modern Society" (1964)
I'm not sure about you my darlings, but I'm pretty sure Mr Feynman wasn't joking when he uttered these word. Some of you who have known me long would undoubtedly see my quoting of Feynman every now and then, as a matter of fact, I worship him. He is one heck of a physicist, but most importantly - a genius in educating the layman on the wonders of science, leaving behind a legacy whereby scientists and the average pedestrian (ok maybe not you, but at least those who knew him) alike read his many works in awe.
The world is simply amazing, our very existence is nothing short of a miracle. Yet every condition necessary for life was fulfilled (well, possibly more than sufficient, but who can say for sure?) and we find ourselves alive. Hmmm, at least, we believe and we perceive ourselves to be so. How could you be sure that our "lives" aren't mere manifestations of consciousness controlled by some Descartian Devil? Or if we do not exist in the truest sense, but merely controlled like poppets by an invisible Scriptwriter?
I will say this with great certainty: Throughout my life, I might have not learnt/understood/memorized as many scientific facts as many others. But I have mastered the Scientific Method to near perfection, and also engaged my mind constantly in inquisitive thoughts from the universe at large to the smallest particles from which all stuff is made of.
In essence, not knowing something now fazes me not. I'm safe in the knowledge that if I ever do delve deep into the subject, the guiding light of great scientists like Einstein, Curie, Darwin, etc will ensure that my logic and reasoning is compatible with the endeavour of finding out objectively how Nature works.
To me, science is a great way of thinking. Unbounded from dogma, self-correcting wherever possible, most importantly allows us to understand everything tangible around us, perhaps one day, ourselves.
=================================================
After so much blogging on this knowledge of Science "lecture", I guess its only fair that I update here that I'm working on a set of powerpoint slides regarding a project I carried out earlier in the year on agriculturally significant Fusarium sp fungi. Also, anxious for my FYP on isolating Arsenic-tolerant bacteria (pic below) to start. And still keeping tabs on a couple of natural product extractions. I frequently imagine myself completing a total synthesis route for something useful, I'm hoping this dream does come true for me! :)
Urghhh.. its 10.27pm Friday already and I haven't pinned down a topic.. In fact, I nearly forgot that I have to blog and blog and blog.
Here goes nothing...
Now, I'm a scientist by training and will continue to be so long after graduation in another year's time. While I'm still within the confines of the ivory towers, I am attempting an active engagement with the outside world, in order to not be overwhelmed by things to come.
Probably the most difficult things most scientists face it the lack of funding. Usually through grants or research/journal access subsidies, the average scientist can expect limited funding for proper work to be done. And that's excluding the red tape which comes with many institutions and their political structure.
In recent times, there has been an increase in negative policies towards science. As if the public perception of science is not bad enough, governments worldwide have slashed science funding to accommodate economic losses. Most notably in the UK, where chemists took to the pen and sent a letter to PM David Cameron informing him of the repercussions of such a tactless move.
Granted, the area affected is synthetic organic chemistry, being my first love of science and the primary factor which drove me into research. Nevertheless, the potential backlash is huge not just economically but also of human capital. LCDs, pharmaceuticals, polymers are the tip of the iceberg which will melt away if the funding cuts were to be carried out.
Why is Science that much important? Here's the answer, in general terms.
Apart from that, I was extremely disgruntled when I heard that science education in Australia was to be affected by funding cuts as well. Its sad to see that students are gradually learning less of science. Choking off early curiosity and thus depriving future generations of the wonders of science at a young age can only mean bad things for civilisation.
Lucky for me, I was trained since young by parents who taught science in secondary school, and a father who guided my early scientific adventures through coherent explanation which has always left me wanting to know more and find out on my own. Many of my peers do not enjoy such a luxury and I have seen them doing a degree programme as a means to an end rather than being the end in itself. I can try to guide them to the light of reason which is science, but human nature is not something which can be altered at will. It has to start early. When a child is just starting to learn about his/her world, it is when scientific thinking should start to take hold.
Note that I am not saying that everyone should be scientists, but be equipped with scientific reasoning which (I believe) is crucial in navigating life itself. To sceptically acquire knowledge and keeping records of them are the few things which makes us humans unique.
That said, I'm very much hoping that my future MSc and PhD supervisors are nice people.. I very much look forward to working with them! Hopefully my grant, if any, won't run dry midway through it all.. LOL. ;)
Finished 23.38 pm Friday. May the Force be with you!
Hi, today, I'm feeling awfully lazy to say much. But since Mid-Autumn Festival just passed on Monday, I thought its only fair that I post something about the moon.
Yes, we know that the full moon is Remus Lupin's BIGGEST fear of all.
In case you didn't know, the ancient (as well as modern) Chinese believe that the full moon which falls on the 15th day of the Chinese lunar calendar (农历八月初十五) each year (this year's being 12/09/2011) is the brightest of the year.
Hence, in areas with sizeable populations of ethnic Chinese, you would find many lanterns paraded out in the streets, mooncakes being sold and eaten (pricey nowadays), tea being brewed and drunk, and paper sky lanterns (孔明灯) crafted, wishes written upon them and released.
The distance between the Earth and its moon averages about 238,900 miles (384,000 kilometers). The diameter of the moon is 2,160 miles (3,476 kilometers). The moon's mass—the amount of material that makes up the moon—is about one-eightieth of the Earth's mass.
The moon orbits the Earth at an average speed of 2,300 miles an hour (3,700 kilometers an hour).
According to the "giant impact" theory, the young Earth had no moon. At some point in Earth's early history, a rogue planet, larger than Mars, struck the Earth in a great, glancing blow. Instantly, most of the rogue body and a sizable chunk of Earth were vaporized. The cloud rose to above 13,700 miles (22,000 kilometers) altitude, where it condensed into innumerable solid particles that orbited the Earth as they aggregated into ever larger moonlets, which eventually combined to form the moon.
Though I am aware that recent discoveries (How recent? About a-week-and-half old news) have suggested otherwise, early Earth had two moons which probably collided and merged over the course of several hours.
Seeing double? No problem!
The rocks and soil brought back by Apollo missions are extremely dry; the moon has no indigenous water. However, the moon is bombarded by water-laden comets and meteoroids. Most of this water is lost to space, but some is trapped in permanently shadowed areas near both poles of the moon.
The Moon has a long association with insanity and irrationality; the words lunacy and loony are derived from the Latin name for the Moon, Luna. Philosophers such as Aristotle and Pliny the Elder argued that the full Moon induced insanity in susceptible individuals, believing that the brain, which is mostly water, must be affected by the Moon and its power over the tides, but the Moon's gravity is too slight to affect any single person. Even today, people insist that admissions to psychiatric hospitals, traffic accidents, homicides or suicides increase during a full Moon, although there is no scientific evidence to support such claims.
I'm going to leave a link to a moon-related song. A nice one for lovers, jazzy and helps set the mood. ;) Popularized by Michael Buble in recent times.
And another one from the sexy Shakira.. Lycanthropy FTW! :P
Ok, focused post now. All, or at least mostly, on chocolate.
Basically, chocolate is the awesome stuff derived from the awesome plant called Theobroma cacao, also known as the cocoa tree. As seen on the left, pods are formed after the flowers of the cocoa trees get pollinated; and from the seeds within, chocolate is extracted.
"The scientific name Theobroma from Greek θεοβρῶμα means "food of the gods". The word cacao itself derives from the Nahuatl (Aztec language) word cacahuatl, learned at the time of the conquest when it was first encountered by the Spanish. Similar words for the plant and its by-products are attested in a number of other indigenous Mesoamerican languages." - Wikipedia
Let's start of with something half humorous. The video here is one which two guys (possibly gay, but very funny and amusing) who took upon them themselves to go on a one-day mono-diet of chocolate. I doubt anyone has tried this, let alone by 2 people in one go. Not something I'd recommend, though I'd like a chocolate liqueur drink. Any one up for a Mozart Black?
Enjoy!
Ok, did that put you off from the rest of this blog post?
No?
Good.
Now on to the good stuff.
As you all might have heard already, chocolate is a source of feel-good compounds called endorphins.
Yes and No. Chocolate is a source of Phenylethylamine (PEA) which induces endorphin release in our brains. So technically, you're eating the trigger of happiness rather than happiness itself.
Similarly, PEA is naturally produced by the brain when one is in love; thus it is more correct to say the perception of Love causes the feeling of Happiness instead of being in Love as equal to being Happy.
Lol. But seriously, the highlight of this dark drink, the main compound in chocolate is Theobromine. An alkaloid, it is a molecular cousin to the infamous caffeine. Differing by being one methyl short. Its milder than caffeine and has much less eye-opening effect, but nevertheless significant. Despite its name, it contains no bromine: from the scientific name of the plant (Theobroma) with the addition of the suffix -ine, to form the word theobromine. Fans of Group 17 be a little disappointed. There have been many instances of theobromine being used as treatment for certain ailments, acting as a vasodilator (blood vessel widener) and diuretic (urination aid)
Another important compound is of course, cousin caffeine. I'm assuming that most of you know enough about caffeine, I wouldn't be too surprised if a few of you readers are, like yours truly, caffeine addicts. Though I suppose I could write a post about caffeine, seeing that I did went through the withdrawal symptoms once. Suffice to say, I have to control my intake, lest I relapse and need coffee as a car needs petrol. Zombie days, you know..
Random fact, according to a chemistry blog,"to make a very good cocoa aroma, you need only 25 of the nearly 600 volatile compounds present in the beans"which baffles me as I think the other 575 or so compounds are equally important in fine-tuning the cocoa taste and gives it body. I haven't read the paper in question, but I would really love to. LOL. What do you remember about your chocolate experience?
The fun thing is that the flavours are released when that little piece of chocolate gets warmed (melted) in your mouth. Which is why M&Ms got it damn right when they advertised "melts in your mouth not in your hands".We need the warm and damp environment to produce that ever-unique chocolate experience. I liken this phenomena to the release of aroma during the brewing of coffee, and as those volatile compounds get boiled over (usually takes 5 minutes at 100 degrees Celsius) the coffee turns bland and sometimes rancid (but that's due to another chemical reaction altogether).
Personally, I'm a fan of unsweetened dark chocolate, the bitter-tasting block of gold is awsumz! (ooh, I sound like a junkie now, yes?) Though I wouldn't mind receiving a different sorta high with good old kinder bueno sweet hazelnut-ty creamy stuff. lol. Less frequently, of course.
The facts of science correspond to that to nature. Not to the whims of mere mortals. Which is why I trust it more than anything. Based almost exclusively on observable phenomena, structured in objective inquiry, yet not without a personal touch - science has been the one topic which drew me closer to my fellow man, and to some minute quantum-physical extent, the rest of the universe. ;)
Now when I say science. I mean the HUMAN enterprise. Obviously the workings of nature will continue to go on and the laws of physics (whether we understand them or not) will still apply. So why do we still want to do science? What stokes the burning passion of me and so many other great giants before me?
If you'd ask me that, I'm inclined to believe that it is down to pure curiosity. As Richard Feynman would say: "There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower."
We do science because deep down in our hearts, it interests us and for knowledge's sake we want to know more.
As for the human aspect, no doubt there will be mistakes, most easily caused by improper logic, misinterpretation of data, or something as innocent as improper training. After all, we are but humans and not perfect beings of infinite knowledge (again, this is exactly why we do science). But whatever errors which may have incurred, it will be sorted out and rectified thanks to a human system of self-correction called peer review. Note: I'm going to skip a long explanation on the issue for and against the current form of peer review for another post, I hope you readers will bear with me a bit. If I have the flow coming in by then, I'll be presenting the debate regarding the peer review process as well as impact journals. :]
While I accept that human errors and limitation puts a undefined rate determining step in scientific advancements, I abhor attitudes which does nothing to further the understanding of the world around us. Even the Old Masters know that nothing is for sure in our knowledge of science, what is for sure is the observable universe will continue to function as it always have been regardless of what we say or think about it.
So why do some "scientist" still want to diss a mere scientifically valid suggestion when you obviously do not know any better than the one who proposes? Fine, you are only human and prone to show off, but to be smug about it is not smart at all.
Now, on to a short rant about some undergrad "science" students: "To you, science is just a tree from which you make your wooden planks, not a seed from which a most beautiful flower will blossom. Needless to say, I am disappointed."
Alright folks, expect me to rant and express my views freely. Its frustrating to be me. Sometimes. >.< Hypothesis: My brain got re-wired quite differently from my peers. Somehow.
Anyway, two articles here regarding potentially pathogenic microbes.
1. An opportunistic pathogen which exhibits a certain Green Lantern-like reaction to BLUE light. Infinitely cool, with novel antibiotic resistant mechanism - a truly nasty bugger. (A 50% rise in ampicillin resistance over the course of 2003-2008) With quite a cute weakness though.. The article raises a very important point about hospital-acquired infections and the future of human disease control - inhibition simply by letting the light shine through! http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/disease-prone/2011/09/07/acinetobacter-baumannii/
2. Discussing the existence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria since the time of mammoths. At first glance, it looks like a normal news post with an important message that resistance ala MRSAs, VRSAs have evolved in the bacterial genome since the natural products themselves have been around. And that our stores of "back-up" antibiotics (if any still exist) will likely be ineffective once resistant strains emerge and kill us all one by one. [I was joking about them killing us, at least not intentionally. As a pathogen it wouldn't make sense to eliminate your vector. Unless you were engineered to do so, in which case, good job!] But the most interesting thing I found is the technique used in the research, I quote: "They even sprayed their drilling equipment, and the surface of their unearthed ice cores, with glow-in-the-dark bacteria. This way, they could immediately tell if anything from the outside world had leached into the interior parts of the cores – the parts where they drew their samples from. Nothing had."
This is the kind of science, the method of attaining certainty and reliability, which I look up to! http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/08/31/bacteria-resisting-antibiotics-for-at-least-30000-bc/?sf2131230=1
I hope you have a good Friday people! Enjoy the weekend!
