HTML5 is a markup language for structuring and presenting content for the World Wide Web and a core technology of the Internet. It is the fifth revision of the HTML standard (created in 1990 and standardized as HTML4 as of 1997)[2] and, as of October 2012,
is still under development. Its core aims have been to improve the
language with support for the latest multimedia while keeping it easily
readable by humans and consistently understood by computers and devices (web browsers, parsers, etc.). HTML5 is intended to subsume not only HTML 4, but XHTML 1 and DOM Level 2 HTML as well.[2]
HTML5 is not software that has to be installed
but rather a new version of the language HTML. Web browsers must
support this new version of HTML in order to correctly display web pages
using HTML5 functions. It is upon the developers of browsers to update
their software to use HTML5; users simply must allow these updates to be
done on their computers, but do not have to install additional
software.
Following its immediate predecessors HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.1, HTML5
is a response to the observation that the HTML and XHTML in common use
on the World Wide Web are a mixture of features introduced by various
specifications, along with those introduced by software products such as
web browsers, those established by common practice, and the many syntax errors in existing web documents.[3] It is also an attempt to define a single markup language
that can be written in either HTML or XHTML syntax. It includes
detailed processing models to encourage more interoperable
implementations; it extends, improves and rationalises the markup
available for documents, and introduces markup and application programming interfaces (APIs) for complex web applications.[4] For the same reasons, HTML5 is also a potential candidate for cross-platform mobile applications.
Many features of HTML5 have been built with the consideration of being
able to run on low-powered devices such as smartphones and tablets. In
December 2011 research firm Strategy Analytics forecast sales of HTML5
compatible phones will top 1 billion in 2013.[5]
In particular, HTML5 adds many new syntactic features. These include the new <video>, <audio> and <canvas>elements, as well as the integration of scalable vector graphics (SVG) content (that replaces the uses of generic <object> tags) and MathML for mathematical formulas. These features are designed to make it easy to include and handle multimedia and graphical content on the web without having to resort to proprietary plugins and APIs. Other new elements, such as <section>, <article>, <header> and <nav>, are designed to enrich the semantic content of documents. New attributes have been introduced for the same purpose, while some elements and attributes have been removed. Some elements, such as <a>, <cite> and <menu> have been changed, redefined or standardized. The APIs and document object model (DOM) are no longer afterthoughts, but are fundamental parts of the HTML5 specification.[4]
HTML5 also defines in some detail the required processing for invalid
documents so that syntax errors will be treated uniformly by all
conforming browsers and other user agents.[6] From--Wikipedia
The
unusual PSR J1311-3430 pulsar system with the first millisecond pulsar
discovered solely by its lighthouse-like gamma-ray emissions (magenta).
The record-breaking pulsar system is so compact that it would fit
completely inside our Sun. This schematic representation shows the Sun,
the companion’s orbit, and the companion at its maximum possible size
true to scale; the pulsar has been greatly enlarged in contrast. SDO/AIA
(sun), AEI Using a new a new data analysis method, a team of scientists
discovered a millisecond pulsar solely via its pulsed gamma radiation.
Pulsars are the compact remnants from explosions of massive stars.
Some of them spin around their own axis hundreds of times per second,
emitting beams of radiation into space. Until now, they could only be
found through their pulsed radio emissions. Now, scientists at the Max
Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein
Institute/AEI) in Hanover assisted by the Max Planck Institute for Radio
Astronomy have discovered a millisecond pulsar solely via its pulsed
gamma radiation. A new data analysis method developed by the AEI was
crucial for the success. The pulsar is accompanied by an unusual
sub-stellar partner, which it is vaporizing, hence the name “black
widow”.
Back in 1994, astronomers discovered a source of strong gamma-rays in
the constellation of Centaurus. They suspected that a pulsar was the
origin of the energetic radiation. Now, a team of scientists led by
Holger Pletsch from the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics
(Albert Einstein Institute, AEI) has solved the mystery and identified
the culprit: the millisecond gamma-ray pulsar PSR J1311-3430. The
development of a new data analysis method by the AEI scientists enabled
the discovery, since rapidly spinning pulsars are extremely difficult to
find.
To unambiguously identify a gamma-ray pulsar, astronomers must know
its properties to very high precision. This includes its position, spin
frequency, and how the latter changes over time. If the pulsar is in a
binary system, the analysis problem is even more complicated: at least
three additional orbital parameters have to be determined as well.
In the case of PSR J1311-3430 astronomers had already observed the
companion, which is heated by the radiation from the pulsar, with
optical telescopes. They were thus able to partially constrain the
orbital parameters and confine the position of the pulsar.
A map of the gamma-ray sky as seen by the
Large Area Telescope on board NASA’s Fermi satellite over the course of
four years. The color coding from blue via red to yellow displays the
intensity of the detected gamma radiation from a sector of the sky
measuring 200 by 100 Moon diameters in galactic coordinates. The gamma
radiation from the plane of the Milky Way can be seen as a horizontal
band. The newly discovered radio pulsar J1311-3430 can be clearly seen
as a strong gamma-ray source. AEI
“We developed a particularly efficient method to search the data from
NASA’s Fermi satellite for gamma-ray millisecond pulsars, including
those in binary systems. Only this method enabled us to probe the wide
parameter ranges,” says Holger Pletsch, lead author of the article published in Science.
The new analysis method enables scientists to conduct a ‘blind search’
for gamma-ray millisecond pulsars for the first time – right up to very
high spinning frequencies.
The scientists analyzed the Fermi data on the Atlas computer cluster
at the AEI. “Our search used data collected by the gamma-ray satellite
over a total of four years. Very soon after we started running the
analysis, a clear signal showed up in the results. What we saw was very
exciting,” says Pletsch.
PSR J1311-3430 spins 390 times per second, emitting gamma-ray photons
into space in the form of a beam, similar to a lighthouse. In roughly
one in a million revolutions of the pulsar, a single photon reaches the
detector on board Fermi.
The gamma-ray signal also reveals much about the companion to the
astronomers: the orbital motion of the binary system modulates the
photon arrival times, yielding information about the partner star. “The
companion object is small and unusually dense,” says AEI Director Bruce
Allen. “It is at least eight times as massive as the planet Jupiter, but
has at most 60 percent the planet’s radius.”
From this information, the researchers calculated the density of the
companion, which turned out to be unusually high; it is around 30 times
as dense as the Sun. Presumably, the small companion is the compact
remnant of a star which has been orbiting the pulsar since earlier
times. Over time, the pulsar accreted matter from the star, thereby
accelerating its rotation. Pulsar and companion moved closer and closer
together.
“At present, the remaining stellar core, which presumably consists
mainly of helium, is heated by the radiation from the pulsar and
literally evaporated,” says Holger Pletsch. Astronomers call this type
of pulsar a ‘black widow’, in analogy with a species of spider which
kills the smaller male after mating. In the distant future, PSR
J1311-4330 might possibly completely vaporize its companion and from
then on travel through space alone.
And that’s not all: “Our discovery is not only a first, it also sets
several new records,” explains Bruce Allen. Currently, the odd couple is
orbiting its common center of mass on an almost perfect circular
trajectory in only 93 minutes. This is the shortest known orbital period
of all pulsars in binary systems.
This computer graphic shows the structure of
NASA’s Fermi satellite. The central, box-shaped instrumentation platform
lies between the solar panels. The Large Area Telescope, whose data the
astronomers evaluated, is hidden beneath the black cover visible on the
top. NASA
At a distance of only 1.4 Earth-Moon separations, the binary system
is the closest one known to date with a pulsar. The pulsar is speeding
along its circular orbit with at least 13,000 kilometers per hour. Its
light-weight companion is even faster, at up to 2.8 million kilometers
per hour.
Holger Pletsch and his colleagues also had a close look at older
observations with the Green Bank radio telescope in West Virginia, but
were unable to find the fast pulsar here. “Apparently, the cloud of
vaporized material from the companion absorbs most of the radio wave
emissions from the pulsar and possibly makes it invisible to radio
telescopes,” says Lucas Guillemot from the Max Planck Institute for
Radio Astronomy in Bonn, co-author of the publication. The scientists
are already planning further observations at higher radio frequencies.
They hope to use them to accurately determine the object’s distance from
Earth, for example.
Systems like this provide astronomers with new insights into the
evolution of very close binary systems, which are as yet still
incompletely understood. PSR J1311-3430 could also shed new light on the
generation of the gamma-ray photons and radio emissions in the strong
magnetic field of pulsars. The pulsar may just be the tip of the
iceberg: many other unidentified gamma-ray sources may harbor similarly
unusual systems. Thirty years after the discovery of the first
millisecond pulsar in the radio range, the novel analysis method of the
Max Planck researchers at the AEI has opened a new door to the easier
identification of these elusive celestial objects.
A primary critique
of technoscience is that it targets a 'straw man' construction of
science. That is, contemporary philosophy of science typically takes a
pragmatic and instrumental view of objectivity. From this perspective,
what is objective is what can be measured, transfers to other contexts,
and can be used to make predictions. This is not different from the
performative view of objectivity preferred by technoscience, leaving
technoscience with a critique of a naive view of science that many, if
not most, contemporary scientists would not agree with.
The concept of material networks is also ontologically unclear and somewhat archaic, depending upon a material/ideal dichotomy that has largely been abandoned, by both scientists and philosophers, during the latter half of the twentieth century.
Finally, the boundaries separating traditional scientific areas have
also been increasingly blurred in scientific practice during the course
of the twentieth century, with many knowledge fields now being
fundamentally trans-disciplinary. Many traditional areas of science,
such as biology, zoology and botany, have been superseded by more
systemic conceptions, such as eco-sciences and approaches that integrate
older conceptions of nature with conceptions in which relationships
between human activity (production, economics, politics, etc.) and
non-human biology are in focus. Today, multi-disciplinary approaches are
often a condition for research funding.
These considerations question the current relevance of technoscience,
seeing its critique as belonging perhaps to a 1970s view of science,
its philosophical foundations having been superseded by post-structuralism, and its vision as merely descriptive of what most contemporary scientists and technologists take for granted.
We look at the
concept of technoscience by considering three levels: a
descriptive-analytic level, a deconstructivist level, and a visionary
level. On a descriptive-analytic level, technoscientific
studies examine the decisive role of science and technology in how
knowledge is being developed. What is the role played by large research
labs in which experiments on organisms are undertaken, when it comes to a
certain way of looking at the things surrounding us? To what extent do
such investigations, experiments and insights shape the view on
‘nature’, and on ‘our’ bodies? How do these insights link to the concept
of living organisms as biofacts? To what extent do such insights inform technological innovation? Can the laboratory be understood as a metaphor for social structures in their entirety? On a deconstructive level, theoretical work is being undertaken on technoscience to address scientific practices critically, e.g. by Bruno Latour (Sociology), by Donna Haraway (History of science), and by Karen Barad (Theoretical physics).
It is pointed out that scientific descriptions may be only allegedly
objective; that descriptions are of a performative character, and that
there are ways to de-mystify them. Likewise, new forms of representing those involved in research are being sought. On a visionary level, the concept of technoscience
comprises a number of social, literary, artistic and material
technologies from western cultures in the third millennium. This is
undertaken in order to focus on the interplay of hitherto separated
areas and to question traditional boundary-drawing: this concerns the
boundaries drawn between scientific disciplines as well as those
commonly upheld for instance between research, technology, the arts and
politics. One aim is to broaden the term ‘technology’ (which by the Greek etymology of ‘techné’
connotes all of the following: arts, handicraft, and skill) so as to
negotiate possibilities of participation in the production of knowledge
and to reflect on strategic alliances. Technoscience can be juxtaposed
with a number of other innovative interdisciplinary areas of scholarship
which have surfaced in these recent years such as technoetic, technoethics and technocriticism.
Cloning is the creation of an organism that is an exact genetic copy of another. This means
that every single bit of DNA is the same between the two!
You might not believe it, but
there are human clones among us right now. They weren't made in a lab,
though: they're identical twins, created naturally. Below, we'll see how
natural identical twins relate to modern cloning technologies.
How is cloning done?
You may have first heard of cloning when Dolly the Sheep showed up on
the scene in 1997. Cloning technologies have been around for much longer
than Dolly, though.
How does one go about making an exact genetic copy of an organism? There are a couple of ways to do this:
artificial embryo twinning and somatic cell nuclear transfer. How do these processes differ?
1. Artificial Embryo Twinning
Artificial embryo twinning is the relatively low-tech version of cloning. As the name suggests, this technology
mimics the natural process of creating identical twins.
In nature, twins occur just after fertilization of an egg cell by a sperm cell. In rare cases, when the
resulting fertilized egg, called a zygote, tries to divide into a two-celled embryo, the two cells separate.
Each cell continues dividing on its own, ultimately developing into a separate individual within the mother.
Since the two cells came from the same zygote, the resulting individuals are genetically identical.
Artificial embryo twinning uses the same approach, but it occurs in a Petri dish instead of in the
mother's body. This is accomplished by manually separating a very early embryo into individual cells, and then
allowing each cell to divide and develop on its own. The resulting embryos are placed into a surrogate mother,
where they are carried to term and delivered. Again, since all the embryos came from the same zygote, they are
genetically identical.
2. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer
Somatic cell nuclear transfer, (SCNT) uses a different approach than artificial embryo twinning, but it
produces the same result: an exact clone, or genetic copy, of an individual. This was the method used to
create Dolly the Sheep.
What does SCNT mean? Let's take it apart: Somatic cell: A somatic cell is any cell in the body other than the two types of reproductive cells,
sperm and egg. Sperm and egg are also called germ cells.
In mammals, every somatic cell has two complete sets of chromosomes, whereas the germ
cells only have one complete set. Nuclear: The nucleus is like the cell's
brain. It's an enclosed compartment that contains all the information
that cells need to form an organism. This information comes in the form of DNA. It's the differences in
our DNA that make each of us unique. Transfer: Moving an object from one place to another.
To make Dolly, researchers isolated a somatic cell from an adult female sheep. Next, they
transferred the nucleus from that cell to an egg cell from which
the nucleus had been removed. After a couple of chemical tweaks, the egg cell, with its new nucleus,
was behaving just like a freshly fertilized zygote. It developed into an embryo, which was implanted
into a surrogate mother and carried to term.
The lamb, Dolly, was an exact genetic replica of the adult female sheep that donated the somatic cell
nucleus to the egg. She was the first-ever mammal to be cloned from an adult somatic cell.
How does SCNT differ from the natural way of making an embryo?
The fertilization of an egg by a sperm and the SCNT cloning method both result in the same thing:
a dividing ball of cells, called an embryo. So what exactly is the difference between these methods?
An embryo is composed of cells that contain two complete sets of chromosomes. The difference
between fertilization and SCNT lies in where those two sets originated.
In fertilization, the sperm and egg both contain one set of chromosomes. When the sperm and egg
join, the resulting zygote ends up with two sets - one from the father (sperm) and one from the mother (egg).
In SCNT, the egg cell's single set of chromosomes is removed. It is replaced by the nucleus
from a somatic cell, which already contains two complete sets of chromosomes. Therefore, in the resulting
embryo, both sets of chromosomes come from the somatic cell.
Supported by a Science Education Partnership
Award (SEPA) [No. 1 R25 RR16291-01] from the National Center for Research Resources, a component of the
National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. The contents provided
here are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official
views of NCRR or NIH.
What exactly is cloning?
Cloning is the creation of an organism that is an exact genetic copy of another. This means
that every single bit of DNA is the same between the two!
You might not believe it, but
there are human clones among us right now. They weren't made in a lab,
though: they're identical twins, created naturally. Below, we'll see how
natural identical twins relate to modern cloning technologies.
How is cloning done?
You may have first heard of cloning when Dolly the Sheep showed up on
the scene in 1997. Cloning technologies have been around for much longer
than Dolly, though.
How does one go about making an exact genetic copy of an organism? There are a couple of ways to do this:
artificial embryo twinning and somatic cell nuclear transfer. How do these processes differ?
1. Artificial Embryo Twinning
Artificial embryo twinning is the relatively low-tech version of cloning. As the name suggests, this technology
mimics the natural process of creating identical twins.
In nature, twins occur just after fertilization of an egg cell by a sperm cell. In rare cases, when the
resulting fertilized egg, called a zygote, tries to divide into a two-celled embryo, the two cells separate.
Each cell continues dividing on its own, ultimately developing into a separate individual within the mother.
Since the two cells came from the same zygote, the resulting individuals are genetically identical.
Artificial embryo twinning uses the same approach, but it occurs in a Petri dish instead of in the
mother's body. This is accomplished by manually separating a very early embryo into individual cells, and then
allowing each cell to divide and develop on its own. The resulting embryos are placed into a surrogate mother,
where they are carried to term and delivered. Again, since all the embryos came from the same zygote, they are
genetically identical.
2. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer
Somatic cell nuclear transfer, (SCNT) uses a different approach than artificial embryo twinning, but it
produces the same result: an exact clone, or genetic copy, of an individual. This was the method used to
create Dolly the Sheep.
What does SCNT mean? Let's take it apart: Somatic cell: A somatic cell is any cell in the body other than the two types of reproductive cells,
sperm and egg. Sperm and egg are also called germ cells.
In mammals, every somatic cell has two complete sets of chromosomes, whereas the germ
cells only have one complete set. Nuclear: The nucleus is like the cell's
brain. It's an enclosed compartment that contains all the information
that cells need to form an organism. This information comes in the form of DNA. It's the differences in
our DNA that make each of us unique. Transfer: Moving an object from one place to another.
To make Dolly, researchers isolated a somatic cell from an adult female sheep. Next, they
transferred the nucleus from that cell to an egg cell from which
the nucleus had been removed. After a couple of chemical tweaks, the egg cell, with its new nucleus,
was behaving just like a freshly fertilized zygote. It developed into an embryo, which was implanted
into a surrogate mother and carried to term.
The lamb, Dolly, was an exact genetic replica of the adult female sheep that donated the somatic cell
nucleus to the egg. She was the first-ever mammal to be cloned from an adult somatic cell.
How does SCNT differ from the natural way of making an embryo?
The fertilization of an egg by a sperm and the SCNT cloning method both result in the same thing:
a dividing ball of cells, called an embryo. So what exactly is the difference between these methods?
An embryo is composed of cells that contain two complete sets of chromosomes. The difference
between fertilization and SCNT lies in where those two sets originated.
In fertilization, the sperm and egg both contain one set of chromosomes. When the sperm and egg
join, the resulting zygote ends up with two sets - one from the father (sperm) and one from the mother (egg).
In SCNT, the egg cell's single set of chromosomes is removed. It is replaced by the nucleus
from a somatic cell, which already contains two complete sets of chromosomes. Therefore, in the resulting
embryo, both sets of chromosomes come from the somatic cell.
Supported by a Science Education Partnership
Award (SEPA) [No. 1 R25 RR16291-01] from the National Center for Research Resources, a component of the
National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. The contents provided
here are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official
views of NCRR or NIH.
Friday, 26 October 2012
FROM----Forbes
BM Now Has The World's Fastest Supercomputer
The IBM Sequoia system. (Credit: IBM)
Last year, Fujitsu’s K Computer took the crown as the world’s fastest
supercomputer by demonstrating it could perform at 8.162 petaflop/s –
which is 8.162 quadrillion floating-point operations per second. That was nearly four times faster
than the Chinese Tianhe-1A, which took the number two slot. In
November, Fujitsu reported that the K computer had become the first
supercomputer to break the 10 petaflop/s barrier.
But it’s already only second place.
Today, the International Supercomputing Conference will announce
that IBM’s Sequoia supercomputer is the fastest supercomputer in the
world. It’s LINPACK benchmark rating is 16.32 petaflop/s. That’s 55%
faster than the Fujitsu K computer, which benchmarked at 10.51
petaflop/s. Taking the number 3 spot is another IBM computer, the Mira
supercomputer, an IBM BlueGene/Q system at Argonne National Laboratory
in Illinois, which benchmarked at 8.15 petaflop/s.
In fact, IBM supercomputers comprise 4 out of the top 10 fastest
supercomputers on the current list, and 213 out of the top 500
supercomputers. You can read the whole list here.
In addition to being 55% faster than the K Computer, the IBM Sequoia
also has the distinction of being 150% more energy efficient. Which is
impressive when you consider that has 1,572,864 CPU cores. (By way of
comparison, I’m writing this article on a computer with 4 cores.) Last year,
I made the mistake of predicting that the K Computer would be on top
for a long while. This year, I shall make no such predictions. The
increase in computing speeds in supercomputers is incredible. Last
year’s second fastest supercomputer nearly doubled its performance and
still fell to the number five slot on the list.
Sunday, 21 October 2012
The reason why rocket thrusters work in space is because rocket thrusters don’t need the atmosphere.
A jet engine needs the atmosphere to operate because the atmosphere provides the oxygen that the jet’s fuel needs to burn. See How Gas Turbine Engines Work for details.
On the other hand, a rocket carries both the fuel and the oxygen that
the fuel needs to burn. If it is a liquid fuel rocket, the oxygen is
stored in the liquid oxygen tank. If it is a solid fuel rocket, an
oxidizer chemical is mixed with the fuel chemical.
The rocket engine isn’t “pushing” against anything. A rocket is a
reaction engine. All the chemicals that burn in the engine have weight,
even after they turn into fiery exhaust. “Burning” fuel does not
eliminate its weight – it simply turns it from a solid or a liquid into a
hot gas. As the hot gas exits the engine, the engine responds in a “to
every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” way. So the hot,
fiery, high-speed, heavy exhaust shoots out of the engine in one
direction, and the “equal and opposite reaction” occurs in the rocket,
which goes in the other direction. See How Rocket Engines Work for details.
Saturday, 20 October 2012
The Miraculous NASA Breakthrough That Could Save Millions of Lives (UPDATED)
There are no hospitals in space. The closest E.R. is back on Earth, and
astronauts can't exactly jump in a cab to get there. So what happens if
the sun burps out a massive blast of radiation while an astronaut is
space-amblin' by?
The NASA Biocapsule—made of carbon
nanotubes—will be able to "diagnose" and instantly treat an astronaut
without him or her even knowing there's something amiss. It would be
like having your own personal Dr. McCoy—implanted under your skin. It
represents one of the most significant breakthroughs in the history of
medicine, and yes, it'll work on Earth, too.
Out of all the
amazing things we saw during our NASA visits, nothing blew our minds as
much as this tiny little bundle of carbon. The Space Biosciences
Division at NASA Ames creates medical technology for astronauts. They
essentially provide healthcare for outer space. Dr. David Loftus is the
man who invented the NASA Biocapsule and has been awarded a patent for
it.
Picture this: An astronaut is going to Mars. The round-trip
journey will take between two and three years. During that time, the
astronaut will not have access to a doctor, and there's a lot that can
go wrong with the human body in space. So, prior to launch, the
astronaut is implanted with a number of NASA Biocapsules. A very small
incision is made in the astronaut's skin for each Biocapsule (probably
in the thigh), which is implanted subcutaneously. It's outpatient
surgery that requires only local anesthetic and a stitch or two to close
the wound. But after it's complete, the astronaut's body is equipped to
deal with a whole host of problems on its own.
One of the
primary threats in space is exposure to high levels of radiation. When
astronauts travel beyond Low Earth Orbit (i.e., to the Moon or Mars),
they are at risk of acute radiation exposure from "solar particle
events," sudden releases of intense radiation from the sun, which can
damage bone marrow and wipe out someone's immune system. That's where
the NASA Biocapsule kicks in: It could be filled with cells that sense
the increased levels of radiation and automatically disperse medicine to
help the body compensate.
This isn't science fiction. We already
use a hormone called G-CSF (Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) to
treat cancer patients who are receiving radiation treatment. So it was a
very small jump to put these cells in a capsule. Without G-CSF, an
astronaut's immune system might not recover; he or she could die of a
massive infection.
The Biocapsules aren't one-shot deals. Each
capsule could be capable of delivering many metred doses over a period
of years. There is no "shelf-life" to the Biocapsules. They are
extremely resilient, and there is currently no known enzyme that can
break down their nanostructures. And because the nanostructures are
inert, they are extremely well-tolerated by the body. The capsules'
porous natures allow medication to pass through their walls, but the
nanostructures are strong enough to keep the cells in one place. Once
all of the cells are expended, the Biocapsule stays in the body, stable
and unnoticed, until it is eventually removed by a doctor back on Earth.
While
the treatment of radiation-effects in space is NASA's no. 1 application
for the Biocapsule, different capsules will be created to combat
different threats. Heat, exhaustion, and sleep-deprivation are serious
risks on an EVA (a "spacewalk"), and astronauts are usually on a very
tight schedule. Different capsules can be created that contain unique
triggers and treatments for different stress-factors. Naturally, DARPA
has expressed a huge interest in the Biocapsules for potential military
applications. But there are far loftier things planned for us
Earthlings.
On our home planet, the NASA Biocapsule's primary target is diabetes—specifically, patients who need insulin. Says Dr. Loftus:
The
capsule would contain pancreatic islet cells (from animals) or would
contain engineered cells designed to behave like pancreatic islet cells,
with both glucose-sensing and insulin secretion function. Patients with
low-insulin requirement might benefit from implantation of a single
capsule (containing perhaps a million to 10 million cells); patients
with higher insulin requirement might require implantation of more than
one capsule.
In other words, diabetes patients
might never need to give themselves another shot. They wouldn't have to
worry about remembering to bring medicine everywhere, and they might
even be free of having to constantly monitor their blood-sugar levels.
Plus, many diabetes patients lapse into comas or die during sleep
because that's eight hours every day when they can't monitor their
levels. The NASA Biocapsules would work automatically, regardless of
whether you're awake or not. As of 2010 there were an estimated 285
million people living with diabetes, so saying that this invention could
potentially save millions of lives is not an exaggeration.
Secondary
"terrestrial" applications include cancer treatment (especially brain
cancer). A Biocapsule implanted directly into a tumor bed could deliver
very high doses of chemotherapy right to the area where it is needed—and
it would greatly reduce side effects by minimizing the amount of
medication that gets to other sites in the body. There are also
important applications in gene therapy.
Some
children are born missing a gene, or are born with a defective gene. As a
result, they can't make a needed protein. Hemophilia is a classic
example. These patients are missing an important blood coagulation
protein. The biocapsule could be used to implant cells that are
engineered to release the missing protein. Successful therapy would mean
that the patients are spared the need to receive periodic injections.
Patients would be safely protected by the protein released from the
capsule, and they would be able to lead more normal lives.
During
our visit, we asked Dr. Loftus if there could be applications for
severe allergy sufferers. Many people have potentially deadly allergies
(to bees, to nuts, etc.) that could send them into anaphylactic shock,
and they have to carry a shot of epinephrine (an "EpiPen") in case of
exposure. He said that was very much a possibility, and implementing
that technology into the biocapsule would be relatively very simple. He
even credited us with coming up with the idea, so in the future when you
get stung by a bee and don't die, you're welcome, from Gizmodo.
Given
all of these applications (and there are many more), it's not a stretch
to say that the NASA Biocapsule could change the face of medicine
forever. They are inexpensive and (as you can see in the video)
extremely easy to create. The vacuum sucks carbon nanotubes into the
mold, you slide the capsule off the mold, you fill it with cells, and
then you cap it off either using more nanotubes or a protein glue. Easy
as pie. They are scheduled to begin animal trials this year and next,
and human trials would begin shortly after that. If all goes well we
would likely see these implanted in International Space Station
astronauts sometime this decade, and while it's always a wild guess, Dr.
Loftus thinks we could realistically see wildspread usage on Earth
within 10 to 15 years.
The NASA Biocapsule I made now sits
proudly on a shelf above my desk. It is almost certainly the coolest
physical thing I have ever made. An artifact from the future. Every time
I look at it I feel like I'm looking through a window into another
time. Twenty years from now these capsules may be commonplace. We may
all have them under our skin, keeping us safe on Earth—or maybe on Mars. UPDATE:
I reached out to Dr. Loftus with some of the questions I saw coming up
in the comments (yes, we do read them). Here are a couple extra details
from the man himself.
People asked how the cells get released from the capsule:
"The cells don't get released from the capsule. The cells inside the
capsule secrete therapeutic molecules (proteins, peptides), and these
agents exit the capsule by diffusion across the capsule wall."
People asked what fuels the cells, and how they survive within the capsule:
"The energy needed to produce the therapeutic molecules come from the
cells' own metabolism. The cells have access to nutrients that enter the
capsule by diffusion (across the pores of the capsule wall), and these
nutrients (including dissolved oxygen) support the metabolism of the
cells. The lifetime of the cells could be months to years."
I've reached out to him with a few more questions, and will update if I get more information. Huge thanks to Dr. Loftus for being so generous with his time. On tomorrow's Space Camp, we'll take you inside "The Center of the Universe." Space Camp
is all about the under-explored side of NASA. From robotics to medicine
to deep-space telescopes to art. For these couple of weeks we'll be
coming at you direct from NASA JPL and NASA Ames, shedding a light on
this amazing world. You can follow the whole series here. Video shot by Bill Bowles, edited by Woody Jang. Special
thanks to Mark Rober, Jessica Culler, Dan Goods, Val Bunnell, and
everybody at NASA JPL and NASA Ames for making this happen. The list of
thank yous would take up pages, but for giving us access, and for being
so generous with their time, we are extremely grateful to everyone
there.
Space Camp® is a registered trademark/service of the
U.S. Space & Rocket Center. This article and subsequent postings
have not been written or endorsed by the U.S. Space & Rocket Center
or Space Camp®. To visit the official space camp website, click here.
FROM----GIZMODO.com
Wednesday, 17 October 2012
The ice goes on seemingly forever in a white pancake-flat landscape,
stretching farther than ever before. And yet in this confounding region
of the world, that spreading ice may be a cockeyed signal of man-made
climate change, scientists say.
This is Antarctica, the polar opposite of the Arctic.
While the North Pole has been losing sea ice over the years, the
water nearest the South Pole has been gaining it. Antarctic sea ice hit a
record 7.51 million square miles in September. That happened just days
after reports of the biggest loss of Arctic sea ice on record.
Climate change skeptics have seized on the Antarctic ice to argue
that the globe isn't warming and that scientists are ignoring the
southern continent because it's not convenient. But scientists say the
skeptics are misinterpreting what's happening and why.
Shifts in wind patterns and the giant ozone hole over the Antarctic
this time of year — both related to human activity — are probably behind
the increase in ice, experts say. This subtle growth in winter sea ice
since scientists began measuring it in 1979 was initially surprising,
they say, but makes sense the more it is studied.
"A warming world can have complex and sometimes surprising
consequences," researcher Ted Maksym said this week from an Australian
research vessel surrounded by Antarctic sea ice. He is with the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.
Many experts agree. Ted Scambos of the National Snow and Ice Data
Center in Colorado adds: "It sounds counterintuitive, but the Antarctic
is part of the warming as well."
And on a third continent, David Vaughan of the British Antarctic
Survey says that yes, what's happening in Antarctica bears the
fingerprints of man-made climate change.
"Scientifically the change is nowhere near as substantial as what we
see in the Arctic," says NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdalati, an ice
expert. "But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be paying attention to it
and shouldn't be talking about it."
Sea ice is always melting near one pole while growing around the
other. But the overall trend year to year is dramatically less ice in
the Arctic and slightly more in the Antarctic.
It's most noticeable in September, when northern ice is at its lowest
and southern ice at its highest. For over 30 years, the Arctic in
September has been losing an average of 5.7 square miles of sea ice for
every square mile gained in Antarctica.
Loss of sea ice in the Arctic can affect people in the Northern
Hemisphere, causing such things as a higher risk of extreme weather in
the U.S. through changes to the jet stream, scientists say. Antarctica's
weather peculiarities, on the other hand, don't have much effect on
civilization.
At well past midnight in Antarctica, where it's about 3 degrees,
Maksym describes in a rare ship-to-shore telephone call from the R.V.
Aurora Australis what this extra ice means in terms of climate change.
And what it's like to be out studying it for two months, with the
nearest city 1,500 miles away.
"It's only you and the penguins," he says. "It's really a strikingly
beautiful and stark landscape. Sometimes it's even an eerie kind of
landscape."
While the Arctic is open ocean encircled by land, the Antarctic —
about 1.5 times the size of the U.S. — is land circled by ocean, leaving
more room for sea ice to spread. That geography makes a dramatic
difference in the two polar climates.
The Arctic ice responds more directly to warmth. In the Antarctic,
the main driver is wind, Maksym and other scientists say. Changes in the
strength and motion of winds are now pushing the ice farther north,
extending its reach.
The
unusual PSR J1311-3430 pulsar system with the first millisecond pulsar
discovered solely by its lighthouse-like gamma-ray emissions (magenta).
The record-breaking pulsar system is so compact that it would fit
completely inside our Sun. This schematic representation shows the Sun,
the companion’s orbit, and the companion at its maximum possible size
true to scale; the pulsar has been greatly enlarged in contrast. SDO/AIA
(sun), AEI
