Science Channel: World Science Festival

WSF Street Fair

Heather Quinlan — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:16:50 -0400

The World Science Festival took it to the streets on Saturday, with demonstrations from Scholastic, The Franklin Institue and even ConEd.

Though the weather threatened -- and apparently there was a downpour while I was inside watching "Your Biological Biography", the throngs were out nonetheless. The target audience seemed to be mostly kids, which you could tell by long lines at the face painting booths, but they were particularly hooked on the Mad Scientist and the Magic School Bus.

Human, All Too Human

Nicholas Scalera — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:51:52 -0400

My final session at the wonderfully inspiring and informative World Science Festival was, appropriately enough, further evidence that scientists are an incredibly diverse and contentious lot, and that science itself is a fluid and constantly evolving endeavor.

The assembled brain power of the 11 panelists could have lit Grand Central Station (how’s that for a renewable energy source?). Yet the topic itself was deceptively simple “what it means to be human.” Ranging from philosopher Daniel Dennett, anthropologist Ian Tattersall and sociologist Nikolas Rose to neuroethicist Patricia Churchland and Nobel Laureates Harold Varmus and Paul Nurse, the intellectual fireworks began soon after the introductions by moderator Charlie Rose.

In the initial go around, Rose asked each panelist for their own first-take on the question at hand. Unsurprisingly there were 11 unique opinions, springing from numerous theoretical backgrounds, and shall we say human, biases.

The first rumble from the crowd occurred when embryologist Renee Reijo Pera, insisted that we are “uniquely human from day one” (meaning conception). The socio political implications of that statement did not seem very popular on stage or in the seats, but Renee stuck doggedly to this conclusion throughout the evening.

Theoretical physicist Jim Gates sounded a decidedly “New Age” note in defining humanity in terms of the ability to love, to get outside one’s own ego, and develop a sense of wonderment in the beauty of the universe. While computer expert Marvin Minsky opined that advances in computational technology have gotten us “50%” there in terms of modeling the human intellect in 1s and 0s.

Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio threw the evening into further confusion when he strayed from his usual field of neurons, neurotransmitters and the like, and defined humanity in terms of “critical features” like language, creativity, spirituality and social organization.

The more free-ranging discussion after the initial statements was generally collegial, and spent much time and energy on questions raised by the burgeoning field of genomics — most importantly: will we still be human when we can begin freely manipulating human genes, hoping to create people with superior cognitive or athletic abilities and perhaps insulating ourselves from many forms of disease and disability?

In the final ten minutes of the program, the first real bomb was thrown by controversial geneticist Francis Collins, who has raised eyebrows in the scientific community with his religious beliefs. He questioned why the topic of morality, which he defined as an “inner sense” of right and wrong, had not been broached by the panel, and implied that it was somehow outside the evolutionary physical development of humanity. Renowned philosopher and atheist Daniel Dennett quickly took the bait, and wondered why there is any less reason to be “in awe” of our moral sense if it had been implanted by evolution rather than some mysterious external force. A somewhat cranky and self-described “annoying” Minksy also tried to jump into the debate, but unfortunately Rose called time out at the behest of festival organizers (the program had already run 20 minutes later than scheduled).

To sum up, the session was another example of the fascinating and engaging conversation that has become a cornerstone of World Science Festival events. The only slight disappointment was the lack of time for audience questions, especially from a crowd that was keyed-in intensely to the discussion from the very beginning. Perhaps the topic can be considered again at next year’s festival (please let there be one!).

Science of Sports

Nicholas Scalera — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 01:15:59 -0400

Billed as one of the "Youth and Family" events by the World Science Festival, this program packed what seemed like 500 spectators into the sweltering Coles Sports Center (NYU's basketball court).

Sports scientist Tom Crawford got the ball rolling with an introduction of three pro basketball players who would participate in the session: Brevin Knight of the L.A. Clippers, and Lisa Willis and Leilani Mitchell of the N.Y. Liberty. He then handed off to the first speaker, sports nutritionist Dr. Christine Green.

Green started off with an old chestnut: "breakfast is the most important meal of the day," and then invited some kids to pick out healthy breakfast choices from two large tables full of various foods and drinks. The kids' decisions were a bit off the mark — tending towards sugary treats and junk food. But at least it offered the mom behind me several teaching opportunities with her two restless boys — "See ... I told you so." In the end, Dr. Green steered the audience toward a balanced diet of proteins, fats and carbs, and emphasized the increased need for certain nutrients before and after vigorous exercise.

The next part of the program focused on the study of motion by sports scientists. There was a demonstration of some impressive new interactive video technologies designed to help athletes improve their form, reduce injury and maximize performance.

Batting cleanup was sports psychologist Dr. David Eagleman, who fired up the crowd with an animated delivery that helped counteract the gymnasium heat and growing audience fatigue. Eagleman revealed new research that confirms high performance in sports is 90% mental and 10% physical. And, he proved his point by having the pro basketball players swish free throw after free throw while he encouraged the throng to clap, scream and stamp in a vain effort to distract the highly-focused players.

Though the conditions were challenging, the large kid-filled crowd generally kept its collective "head in the game" and hopefully left the building with a new appreciation for the science behind the slam dunk.

About Your Genes

Heather Quinlan — Sat, 31 May 2008 23:02:13 -0400

About halfway through "Your Biological Biography," Human Genome leader Francis Collins said, "Your genome is the hand you're dealt. It's up to you to figure out how to play the game." That about sums up the debate -- would knowing that you're prone to, say, heart disease change the way you live your life? Collins believes so. I am dubious, as I think people have the unique ability to justify almost anything. But perhaps Collins is more of an optimist.

Writer Misha Angrist was genotyped: "I'm a big Ashkenazi mess," he confessed. Thanks to the recently-passed Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, insurance companies cannot use that information to their benefit. But how does one deal with the psychological complications? In an informal audience poll, Collins asked how many would want to know their likelihood of developing Alzheimer's Disease. Slightly more than half raised their hands. I was shocked -- having a grandmother with Alzheimer's puts me in the "ignorance is bliss" category.

Paul Nurse moderated the panel that included sociologist Nikolas Rose and geneticist Jim Evans. Rose asserted that your genome says no more about you than where you work, or who you came from. And Evans sided with me (or so I like to think), in that "we think of prevention as a drug. The [genome project] will not propel people to be better."

The audience had nothing but questions for the group. The most contentious being one man who spoke in defense of intelligent design, to the hisses of the crowd. Collins summed it up beautifully: "The debate on intelligent design vs evolution, especially in this country, means we must choose between God and Darwin, when most people would be happy to live somewhere in the middle. I myself believe in both."

Invisible Reality

Heather Quinlan — Sat, 31 May 2008 09:46:51 -0400

Some of the greatest minds in quantum physics tried to shed some light on their world in "Invisible Reality." Brian Greene's introductory film explored how particles move in the land of the very small -- in waves. "Waves!" he had us all shout. Because of this, there's no way to predict where they will end up -- everything's a bit of a gamble, as illustrated next by a dance that definitely no one in the audience predicted. Women in leotards threw a makeshift die up in the air and hopped about as it landed. The quantum world is a trippy one.

Next, Greene and host Alan Alda were joined by Max Tegmark, Bill Phillips and David Albert. They defended their own ideas on probability: what is real, what isn't, and dare we ask that question anyway? Tegmark cheerfully took the renegade point of view: particles do not travel in waves, and what we think of as probability is actually cloning. Phillips follows the Niels Bohr school of science which is "shut up and calculate"; Albert said, "'shut up and calculate' takes all the fun out of life"; and Greene was the middle man.

The clash of ideas did not escalate beyond "my esteemed colleague is completely unorthodox" -- the scientific equivalent of locker-room towel snapping. But it's clear these men have a history together, as there are only a small group of people who can (kinda?) understand the quantum world.

Not the Usual Doom and Gloom

Nicholas Scalera — Sat, 31 May 2008 08:36:13 -0400

In Future Cities: Sustainable Solutions, Radical Designs, the speakers presented innovative solutions to some of the most vexing problems facing humanity today: climate change, income inequality, dwindling resources and growing urban populations. Though Al Gore's face did appear on one of the power point slides, this session spent most of its airspace delving into the realm of the downright hopeful.

Structural engineer Peter Head kicked off the session with perhaps the most ambitious project — the building of an "eco-city" from the ground up in Dongtang, China. Unlike some of the other ideas discussed by the panelists this one apparently is going to happen soon, mainly because the Chinese government wants it to.

Dickson Despommier, professor of public health and microbiology in environmental health sciences at Columbia University, showed some cool 3-D graphics of massive urban indoor food-growing structures. These multi-story farming facilities could allow for year-round supplies of fresh, organic, and locally grown food. Such an endeavor could benefit the environment by returning existing farmland to nature and restoring the natural functions and services of the ecosystem. I couldn't help but wonder if his inspiration came from those biosphere things you could build in SimCity.

Majora Carter was the most dynamic and passionate speaker of the group, presenting her innovative ideas for "greening the ghetto" and promoting environmental justice in inner-city neighborhoods. For more on Carter's efforts, check out greenforall.org.

Blaine Brownell showcased building materials that could actually re-mediate pollution, and Mitchell Joachim discussed ways to save the doomed automobile as a future form of urban transportation.

Perhaps like most of the audience I walked out of Future Cities with two main takeaways: (1) there will be cities in the future and (2) there will be a future. Perhaps it was not within the scope of the discussion, but the event generally avoided consideration of the more difficult societal and financial barriers to these amazing new technologies. But it can't hurt to dream once in a while ...

To See or Not to See

Heather Quinlan — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:46:21 -0400

It was an event so hot that not even V.S. Ramachandran could score an extra ticket. NPR's Robert Krulwich interviewed Oliver Sacks about the relationship between sight and the brain -- or, more specifically, between Oliver Sacks' brain and sight that's been scarred by ocular melanoma. Though Sacks did not lose his eye to cancer (his opthamologist assured him, "We've taken out a thousand eyes, but we can save yours.") his vision now veers into bizarre and somewhat horrifying territory. Sacks draws his new world in notebooks, scans of which flashed on the screen behind him -- a grotesquely swollen Empire State Building, flattened depth perception and headless bodies (like Magritte's "Pleasure Principle") were part funhouse, part haunted house.

It all seems to have shaken Sacks a bit. Particularly his lack of depth perception. Krulwich covered his own eye and had no problem seeing "in stereo," as they described it. But Sacks said, "it's a much different way of 'seeing' now. The world looks like an odd 13th century painting. Everything flat." I wondered what the sea of our heads in the audience looked like.

Krulwich brought up a woman named Sue who had lacked depth perception her whole life until recently, when exercises and a prism in her eyeglasses brought everything into stereo. Sacks' eye is too damaged to rehabilitate, so he sat and listened while she described the awe of finally seeing in 3D. It made me think of "To See Or Not To See," a chapter in Sacks' An Anthropologist on Mars, where a man named Virgil, who had been blind nearly his entire life, had surgery to restore his sight. But he was not psychologically prepared to deal with his new world. He had not "learned" to see, Sacks reasoned. And now, for a neurologist who's spend much of his life trying to understand the brain's twisted paths, his own has left him utterly bewildered.

Help Wanted!

Nicholas Scalera — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:43:43 -0400

The Cool Jobs session offered inspirational voices to the many school-aged children in the audience who may someday be interested in pursuing a career in science. Moderated by Good Morning America's Weekend Edition co-anchor Bill Weir, this lively multimedia presentation featured several engaging scientists showcasing their amazing and challenging work.

First up was cognitive psychologist Dr. Laurie Santos, a self-described "monkey magician" who conducts human brain research by studying our cousins on the evolutionary tree. She and her diverse group of graduate students recently discovered that monkeys react with surprise to common magic tricks — thus displaying their ability to understand the world around them in a manner similar to humans. For more on this innovative research, check out yale.edu/monkeylab.

Following Dr. Santos was a real-live "CSI." Peter Diaczuk is a leading authority in forensics and an expert witness on firearms, trace evidence, and crime scene reconstruction. Diaczuk combined his childhood interest in firearms with a propensity for chemistry to forge his unique career path. Though Diaczuk debunked some of the glamor of the typical TV CSI (he arrived via subway, not some custom, souped-up SUV); he impressed the audience with the multi-disciplinary focus of his work. In any given day he might be involved in chemistry, ballistics, geometry or mechanics, to name a few.

Chris McKay, NASA astrobiologist and lead scientist on the recently landed Mars Phoenix spacecraft, took the stage next and expounded on the challenges of searching for evidence of life on the Red Planet. In order to prepare for Mars missions, McKay has spent loads of time in some of the most extreme (and thus Mars-like) places on Earth: Antarctica, Siberia and the Atacama desert.

Marine biologist Ellen Prager was the next speaker, and like McKay she also had a unique office location — an undersea laboratory. She and her colleagues in the lab refer to themselves as "aquanauts" and share the astronauts' ability to tolerate tight spaces and "interesting" bathroom conditions. For more on Prager's work check out the Aquarius project web site.

Winding up the session was Disney Imagineer Ben Schwegler, who described what for may would be a dream job — designing, testing and building major theme park attractions such as roller coasters and wave pools.

At the end of the discussion there were several intelligent questions from kids in the audience, most of whom sat relatively squirm-free through a nearly two-hour presentation. The speakers continued long after to interact with the curious students and answer more questions.

Toil and Trouble

Heather Quinlan — Fri, 30 May 2008 08:56:06 -0400

"Toil and Trouble" was brought to you by The Moth, an organization that headlines storytellers -- professional and not -- performing without a net. Tonight's theme, in accordance with the WSF was "Experiments that Went Wrong." But although it featured Lucy Hawking -- Stephen's daughter -- cosmologist Michael Turner and physicist Jim Gates, there was more introspection than science. And there was also Sam Shepard.

Michael Turner began with, "It was 1981, and I had really long hair." The now-bald scientist went on to explain that he had been hand-picked by Stephen Hawking to join an elite group of physicists to spend the summer figuring out how the universe began. "It would be great it if [my theory] worked," he continued, "but for tenure, all it had to be was clever." He gave the crowd a bit too much credit when explaining how graininess of the quantum world lead to lumps in the universe, but he was such an engaging storyteller that we went along with it anyway. (P.S. His equations didn't work, but it was a summer of a lot of personal growth.)

Next up was writer Nathan Englander, who explained his reasons for leaving the confines of New York's Upper West Side for Israel: it seemed like a good idea at the time. "I was moving to Jerusalem to make peace," he explained. And though Englander was greeted at the airport by a local who declared, "It's not too late to go back to Manhattan," he quickly settled into his adopted homeland. But while he was growing comfortable, Israel was falling apart. A series of bombings lead Englander back to New York, where he signed a lease on his new apartment a week before 9/11.

Lucy Hawking reminisced about her earliest days in California, where the family lived while her father taught at Caltech: it was a time of sunshine, avocados, and a dad who, though in a wheelchair, was still mobile and able to talk. Years later she returned to California with him -- and an entourage of doctors and nurses -- hoping to reclaim "a simpler time without sickness, fame and the entourage." A great night of salsa dancing at JLo's restaurant was the closest they could come, which lead Hawking to conclude, "physics can't tell you what holds families together."

Jim Gates and Sam Shepard were the last two speakers. Gates explained the journey he went to figure out his identity as an African-American, something that was rudely brought to his attention as a child when his family moved to Florida and he had to attend a segregated school. And it followed him from the hallowed halls of MIT all the way to Iceland, where a group of backpackers jumped at the sight of a black man coming their way in the mountains.

Shepard told a painful story of how his stunt double on "The Right Stuff," Choo-Choo, was thrown into a cactus by the horse Shepard insisted he use. Guilt-ridden, Shepard visited him in the hospital, where Choo-Choo told him, "He might be a good ropin' horse, but he can't dodge a cactus for s**t."

Meet the Pioneers

Heather Quinlan — Fri, 30 May 2008 00:35:46 -0400

Walking into the session while hearing "Weird Science" playing meant WSF aimed to attract a younger crowd. Which was certainly the case with "Pioneers in Science" where a group of teens in the audience giggled while admitting they belonged to the Robotics Team, and high-schoolers got to ask the pros about neutrinos and artificial intelligence. It was all moderated by MTV's (and now Planet Green's) SuChin Pak, who yelled, "Hello, Rock Stars!" as the panel took the stage.

Up first was Leon Lederman -- not quite a rock star, though cell phone cameras lit up as he took his seat. Lederman won a Nobel Prize in 1988 for his work with neutrinos, which he defined in lay terms as "very, very small." He spoke passionately on his love of physics, which he believes should be taught as early as the 9th grade, as it forms the building blocks of other branches in science. "If you ask a question about chemistry, you have to turn to physics -- how atoms work -- it all goes back to physics."
I can see his point to a degree, though I must confess I am relieved Leon Lederman did not develop my high school curriculum. But he added, "It's not easy to teach science. It's not about relaying facts and dates, but it's the understanding of why things happen. It can be fascinating."

Lederman was undaunted while addressing the crowd of youngsters: "The rewards of science are so great. You have knowledge no one else does." But it was a question from a woman in the audience that left him briefly rattled. Regarding his book The God Particle, she asked, "What is your idea of God?" "I don't have an idea," he finally answered. "All I can say is science is based on proof, measurement and observation, and leave it at that."

Next was Cynthia Breazeal, a roboticist from MIT. "I was like a lot of girls in that I originally wanted to be a vet or a doctor," she began, which was a statement I liked to hear. Breazeal continued that she thought of being an astronaut, but it was robotics which captured her imagination.

A student asked, "What breakthroughs do we need to have a C... C-3 ..." Breazeal added the PO and affirmed, "We need a lot of breakthroughs. We need robots that have a social structure. How will they be able to react to entities that can change their minds? How do they make inferences? They need social common sense." She added, "It will require advancements on many fronts, but to be a scientist or an engineer is to be an optimist."

Check out more here: