Wednesday, April 20, 2011

What's in your gut? Microbiota categories might help simplify personalized medicine

bacteria in your gutThe diverse wilderness of life inside of our bodies is just starting to gain the attention of scientists. The human gut alone typically holds some 100,000 billion bitty bacteria, and with no two people's microbiomes being the same, classifying these crucial organisms has been challenging.

A new study, published online April 20 in Nature, proposes a simple schematic for profiling people's gut microbiota, breaking down these helpful hangers-on into three overarching categories (Scientific Americanis part of Nature Publishing Group).

"The three gut types can explain why the uptake of medicines and nutrients varies from person to person," Jeroen Raes, a bioinformatician at Vrije University in Brussels and coauthor of the new study, said in a prepared statement. "This knowledge could form the basis of personalized therapies," by basing treatments on the known metabolic tendencies of a person's microbiota category.

The study profiled the gut flora of 39 people from Europe, the U.S. and Japan and found that categories were not dependent on location—or on age, gender or body mass index.

"We may have uncovered a new 'biological fingerprint' on the same level as blood types and tissue types," Oluf Borbye Pedersen, a professor at the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Copenhagen and a research on the study, said in a prepared statement. Having one of the three types, which are characterized by a dominate genus of bacterium—Bacteroides, Prevotella or Ruminococcus—might play a large role in determining how you metabolize food to what vitamins your stomach is good at formulating (those in the Bacteroides group, for example, had a gut environment that was better at making vitamins B2, B5, C and H; those in thePrevotella group had more B1 and folic acid-making bacteria).

The researchers point out that this profiling is still in an early stage, but, Pedersen noted, down the line the new discoveries "may be translated into individual diet advice or design of drugs that are adapted to the individual."

Image courtesy of iStockphoto/kaarsten

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Can nuclear power plants float?

By Alissa de Carbonnel

MOSCOW (Reuters) - A tsunami-cripplednuclear power plant might give some countries pause over the risks of exposing reactors to the power of the oceans. Not Russia.

Moscow is pushing ahead with the world's first offshore atomic plant, despite increased safety fears and costs amid the fallout over Japan's nuclear emergency.

"We are not worried. Even Japan has noalternative to atomic energy. The safety on Russian reactors is many times higher," said Andrey Fomichev, head of St. Petersburg's Baltiysky shipyard, which is building the 144 meter-long (472 ft) barge that will be towed into place in an as yet undisclosed location next year.

The seaborne plant is at the heart of Russia's strategy to exploit the Arctic's vast energy resources in the coming decades -- an expansion into one of the world's last true wildernesses. Consisting of two small reactors that will generate 70-megawatts of electricity, enough to light up more than 35,000 homes, the plant will sit at dock or anchor close to shore so that it can hook up to cables to transmit electricity.

The floating reactor, named the Akademik Lomonosov after the renowned 18th-century Russian scientist and poet Mikhail Lomonosov, is based on "tried-and-true" Cold War submarine and atomic icebreaker technology, Fomichev told Reuters by telephone. "All possible emergency situations have been tested. Safety testing began under the Soviet Union."

But nuclear-energy skeptics warn that Russia's plans, which call for construction of at least seven more such reactors, could be the most dangerous in the atomic energy sector in years -- not only because of the risk of an accident but because they could fuel proliferation and terrorism.

"You can't promise an inherently safe nuclear reactor... and by floating these things and towing them off to remote locations you multiply the risks," said Paris-based independent nuclear-energy consultant Mycle Schneider. "It's entirely ridiculous."

SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL - OR MAYBE NOT

Russia is not the only country to move toward shrinking its reactors, but it is pushing the idea more vocally than others, touting projects from nuclear-powered spacecraftto reactors small enough to fit in a backyard.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) predicts that at least 40 and as many as 90 such mini reactors will be in operation worldwide by 2030.

Fomichev said small plants can be built to power remote areas in the developing world, power-hungry industrial projects, or military bases, without the need for expensive energy grids. "Such facilities can be built for the far north, the desert," he said. "It's a quick fix for hard-to-reach regions. Deploy it and you can build factories, army bases, oil rigs. You have electricity, water and heat."

Russia's state nuclear-energy giant Rosatom has plans to build 12 floating plants, which it hopes to sell for export. One of the pilot barge's most-touted selling points, energy-intensive seawater desalination, is clearly aimed to appeal to Middle Eastern and African nations. Rosatom said more than 20 countries have voiced interest in the project, including China, South Korea, Indonesia, The Philippines, Namibia, Chile and Brazil.

The first reactor will likely end up costing $550 million to build, more than four times the initial estimate but still a fraction of the price of a traditional, large-scale reactor.

Oleg Chernikov, the deputy director of the operating company, Rosenergoatom, argues that the floating plants will be earthquake-proof by the sheer fact it will be moored out at sea.

But antinuclear activists warn that if a floating plant is deployed in the tsunami-prone, volcanically active seas off Russia's far-eastern Kamchatka region -- as reports have suggested the first plant might be -- a nuclear accident would be "unavoidable."

"The danger is not an earthquake itself, but the tsunami it generates. If a working floating nuclear reactor were dashed against the shore in a tsunami, it would mean an unavoidable nuclear accident," said Alexander Nikitin, a former Soviet submarine naval captain and atomic safety inspector turned antinuclear campaigner.

One industry source familiar with the plans said the plant was not bound for a seismically active location. "There are rumors... but the contract names a different location," said the source, who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

TERRORISM, SPENT FUEL

But one of the men who first authorized the project now doubts the logic behind it. Bulat Nigmatulin, Russia's deputy minister for atomic energy between 1998 and 2002, said floating plants have no potential market and are a waste of state funds. "Nobody needs this. We're funding this useless thing ourselves, out of the state coffers," Nigmatulin told Reuters.

Setting reactors afloat anywhere in the Pacific, where they risk being capsized by tsunamis, is "simply crazy," he said, dismissing with a sweep of his hand a map of possible interested client nations around the globe. "Everywhere else is full of pirates and terrorists."

Nigmatulin believes the project highlights the worst of Russian industry: massive subsidies, unprofitable projects and a lack of transparency that leads to delays and corruption.

Moscow's ambitious plans have also fueled concerns over terrorism and what do to with highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel. Antinuclear activists say Rosatom's list of potential clients raises concerns over nuclear proliferation. "They are all countries who want to gain access to nuclear submarine technology," Greenpeace energy expert Vladimir Chuprov said.

"While Fukushima may not spell the funeral of atomic energy, it has shown up the industry's unsolved safety problems, including the threat of terrorism," adds Konstantin Simonov, director of the Moscow-based National Energy SecurityFoundation.

Far from being innovative, environmentalists said Russia is dusting off risky, outdated designs in its drive to capitalize on the recent boom in global demand for nuclear energy. The technology used in the floating plants caused at least 10 accidents aboard Soviet submarines between the 1970s until the early 1990s, according to the Oslo-based antinuclear group Bellona.

"Any history of nuclear submarines is a history of accidents," Bellona campaigner Nikitin said.

Russia says it will deal with the nuclear waste produced by any plant it sells. But Nikitin said no solution has yet been found to process the spent fuel, which is highly radioactive. In traditional reactors, the spent fuel is removed and stored in pools -- like those under threat at Japan's Fukushima plant. But in the marine reactor models Russia is promoting, the fuel is frozen and stored along with the reactor cores.

Hundreds of those spent fuel rods still litter the Russian Arctic today -- a dirty legacy of Soviet the submarine program.

"The phobia over atomic energy is not going to fade fast. Who will want these things now?" Simonov asked. (Writing by Alissa de Carbonnel; editing by Simon Robinson)

The Moore's Law of solar energy

The Moore's Law of solar energy: "

This article was originally posted at Scientific American. It's reprinted with permission.



The sun strikes every square meter of our planet with more than 1,360 watts of power. Half of that energy is absorbed by the atmosphere or reflected back into space. Seven hundred watts of power, on average, reaches Earth's surface. Summed across the half of the Earth that the sun is shining on, that is 89 petawatts of power. By comparison, all of human civilization uses around 15 terrawatts of power, or one six-thousandth as much. In 14 and a half seconds, the sun provides as much energy to Earth as humanity uses in a day.





The numbers are staggering and surprising. In 88 minutes, the sun provides 470 exajoules of energy, as much energy as humanity consumes in a year. In 112 hours — less than five days — it provides 36 zettajoules of energy - as much energy as is contained in all proven reserves of oil, coal, and natural gas on this planet.




If humanity could capture one tenth of one percent of the solar energy striking the Earth — one part in one thousand — we would have access to six times as much energy as we consume in all forms today, with almost no greenhouse gas emissions. At the current rate of energy consumption increase — about 1 percent per year — we will not be using that much energy for another 180 years.




It's small wonder, then, that scientists and entrepreneurs alike are investing in solar energy technologies to capture some of the abundant power around us. Yet solar power is still a minuscule fraction of all power generation capacity on the planet. There is at most 30 gigawatts of solar generating capacity deployed today, or about 0.2 percent of all energy production. Up until now, while solar energy has been abundant, the systems to capture it have been expensive and inefficient.




That is changing. Over the last 30 years, researchers have watched as the price of capturing solar energy has dropped exponentially. There's now frequent talk of a 'Moore's law' in solar energy. In computing, Moore's law dictates that the number of components that can be placed on a chip doubles every 18 months. More practically speaking, the amount of computing power you can buy for a dollar has roughly doubled every 18 months, for decades. That's the reason that the phone in your pocket has thousands of times as much memory and ten times as much processing power as a famed Cray 1 supercomputer, while weighing ounces compared to the Cray's 10,000-pound bulk, fitting in your pocket rather than a large room, and costing tens or hundreds of dollars rather than tens of millions.



If similar dynamics worked in solar power technology, then we would eventually have the solar equivalent of an iPhone — incredibly cheap, mass distributed energy technology that was many times more effective than the giant and centralized technologies it was born from.



So is there such a phenomenon? The National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy has watched solar photovoltaic price trends since 1980. They've seen the price per Watt of solar modules (not counting installation) drop from $22 dollars in 1980 down to under $3 today.




naam-solar-moore's-law-1.jpg



Is this really an exponential curve? And is it continuing to drop at the same rate, or is it leveling off in recent years? To know if a process is exponential, we plot it on a log scale.




naam-solar-moore's-law-2.jpg




And indeed, it follows a nearly straight line on a log scale. Some years the price changes more than others. Averaged over 30 years, the trend is for an annual 7 percent reduction in the dollars per watt of solar photovoltaic cells. While in the earlier part of this decade prices flattened for a few years, the sharp decline in 2009 made up for that and put the price reduction back on track. Data from 2010 (not included above) shows at least a 30 percent further price reduction, putting solar prices ahead of this trend.




If we look at this another way, in terms of the amount of power we can get for $100, we see a continual rise on a log scale.




naam-solar-moore's-law-3.jpg




What's driving these changes? There are two factors. First, solar cell manufacturers are learning — much as computer chip manufacturers keep learning — how to reduce the cost to fabricate solar.



Second, the efficiency of solar cells — the fraction of the sun's energy that strikes them that they capture — is continually improving. In the lab, researchers have achieved solar efficiencies of as high as 41 percent, an unheard of efficiency 30 years ago. Inexpensive thin-film methods have achieved laboratory efficiencies as high as 20 percent, still twice as high as most of the solar systems in deployment today.




naam-solar-moore's-law-4.jpg


What do these trends mean for the future? If the 7 percent decline in costs continues (and 2010 and 2011 both look likely to beat that number), then in 20 years the cost per watt of PV cells will be just over $0.50.




naam-solar-moore's-law-5.jpg




Indications are that the projections above are actually too conservative. First Solar corporation has announced internal production costs (though not consumer prices) of $0.75 per watt, and expects to hit $0.50 per watt in production cost in 2016. If they hit their estimates, they'll be beating the trend above by a considerable margin.




What does the continual reduction in solar price per watt mean for electricity prices and carbon emissions? Historically, the cost of PV modules (what we've been using above) is about half the total installed cost of systems. The rest of the cost is installation. Fortunately, installation costs have also dropped at a similar pace to module costs. If we look at the price of electricity from solar systems in the U.S. and scale it for reductions in module cost, we get this:




naam-solar-moore's-law-6.jpg




The cost of solar, in the average location in the U.S., will cross the current average retail electricity price of $0.12 per kilowatt hour in around 2020, or 9 years from now. In fact, given that retail electricity prices are currently rising by a few percent per year, prices will probably cross earlier, around 2018 for the country as a whole, and as early as 2015 for the sunniest parts of America.




10 years later, in 2030, solar electricity is likely to cost half what coal electricity does today. Solar capacity is being built out at an exponential pace already. When the prices become so much more favorable than those of alternate energy sources, that pace will only accelerate.




We should always be careful of extrapolating trends out, of course. Natural processes have limits. Phenomena that look exponential eventually level off or become linear at a certain point. Yet physicists and engineers in the solar world are optimistic about their roadmaps for the coming decade. The cheapest solar modules, not yet on the market, have manufacturing costs under $1 per watt, making them contenders — when they reach the market — for breaking the $0.12 per Kwh mark.



The exponential trend in solar watts per dollar has been going on for at least 31 years now. If it continues for another 8-10, which looks extremely likely, we'll have a power source which is as cheap as coal for electricity, with virtually no carbon emissions. If it continues for 20 years, which is also well within the realm of scientific and technical possibility, then we'll have a green power source that is half the price of coal for electricity.



That's good news for the world.



Photo: Evening sun by dingbat2005, on Flickr






Sources and further reading:







"

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Underground Plume That Feeds Supervolcano Bigger Than Thought

Thanks to new measuring techniques, geophysicists have discovered that the underground plume that feeds Yellowstone’s Supervolcano is much, much larger than we thought. What was once assumed to be an already large 242km long is now a gigantic 644km pool of molten rocks and hot briny water for the Volcano to power up on. Gulp.

The discovery was made through a new measuring technique called magnetotelluric imaging, that sizes up the plume by taking a peak at its electrical conductivity. That differs from the previous measuring method called seismic tomography, which used earthquake waves to create an image. The University of Utah geophysicists who conducted the study says the two methods are both capable but “it’s like comparing ultrasound and MRI in the human body; they are different imaging technologies”.

And though the new discovery doesn’t mean the volcano is on the verge of erupting, it does reminds us how intimidatingly huge volcanos can be. Let’s not mess with it. [University of Utah - Thanks Christine!]

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

How Self-Control Works


The scientific community is increasingly coming to realize how central self-control is to many important life outcomes. We have always known about the impact of socioeconomic status and IQ, but these are factors that are highly resistant to interventions. In contrast, self-control may be something that we can tap into to make sweeping improvements life outcomes.
If you think about the environment we live in, you will notice how it is essentially designed to challenge every grain of our self-control. Businesses have the means and motivation to get us to do things NOW, not later. Krispy Kreme wants us to buy a dozen doughnuts while they are hot; Best Buy wants us to buy a television before we leave the store today; even our physicians want us to hurry up and schedule our annual checkup.
There is not much place for waiting in today’s marketplace. In fact you can think about the whole capitalist system as being designed to get us to take actions and spend money now – and those businesses that are more successful in that do better and prosper (at least in the short term). And this of course continuously tests our ability to resist temptation and exercise self-control.
It is in this very environment that it's particularly important to understand what's going on behind the mysterious force of self-control.
Several decades ago, Walter Mischel started investigating the determinants of delayed gratification in children. He found that the degree of self-control independently exerted by preschoolers who were tempted with small rewards (but told they could receive larger rewards if they resisted) is predictive of grades and social competence in adolescence.
A recent study by colleagues of mine at Duke demonstrates very convincingly the role that self control plays not only in better cognitive and social outcomes in adolescence, but also in many other factors and into adulthood. In this study, the researchers followed 1,000 children for 30 years, examining the effect of early self-control on health, wealth and public safety. Controlling for socioeconomic status and IQ, they show that individuals with lower self-control experienced negative outcomes in all three areas, with greater rates of health issues like sexually transmitted infections, substance dependence, financial problems including poor credit and lack of savings, single-parent child-rearing, and even crime. These results show that self-control can have a deep influence on a wide range of activities. And there is some good news: if we can find a way to improve self-control, maybe we could do better.
Where does the skill of self –control come from?
So when we consider these individual differences in the ability to exert self-control, the real question is where they originate – are they differences in pure, unadulterated ability (i.e., one is simply born with greater self-control) or are these differences a result of sophistication (a greater ability to learn and create strategies that help overcome temptation)?
In other words, are the kids who are better at self control able to control, and actively reduce, how tempted they are by the immediate rewards in their environment, or are they just better at coming up with ways to distract themselves and this way avoid acting on their temptation?
It may very well be the latter. A hint is found in the videos of the children who participated in Mischel’s experiments. It’s clear that all of the children had a difficult time resisting one immediate marshmallow to get more later. However, we also see that the children most successful at delaying rewards spontaneously created strategies to help them resist temptations. Some children sat on their hands, physically restraining themselves, while others tried to redirect their attention by singing, talking or looking away. Moreover, Mischel found that all children were better at delaying rewards when distracting thoughts were suggested to them. (You can see a modern recreation of the original Mischel experiment here.)



A helpful metaphor is the tale of Ulysses and the sirens. Ulysses knew that the sirens’ enchanting song could lead him to follow them, but he didn’t want to do that.  At the same time he also did not want to deprive himself from hearing their song – so he asked his sailors to tie him to the mast and fill their ears with wax to block out the sound – and so he could hear the song of the sirens but resist their lure. Was Ulysses able to resist temptation? No, but he was able to come up with a strategy that prevented him from acting on his impulses.
It seems that Ulysses and kids ability to exert self-control is less connected to a natural ability to be more zen-like in the face of temptations, and more linked to the ability to reconfigure our environment (tying ourselves to the mast) and modulate the intensity by which it tempts us (filling our ears with wax). 
If this is indeed the case, this is good news because it is probably much easier to teach people tricks to deal with self-control issues than to train them with a zen-like ability to avoid experiencing temptation when it is very close to our faces.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

Dan Ariely is the James B. Duke professor of Psychology and Behavioral Economics at Duke University and the author of two wonderful books (according to his mother): Predictably Irrational and The Upside of Irrationality.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

People Say They Won’t Shock Others for Cash, But Do



SAN FRANCISCO — When faced with a thorny moral dilemma, what people say they would do and what people actually do are two very different things, a new study finds. In a hypothetical scenario, most people said they would never subject another person to a painful electric shock, just to make a little bit of money. But for people given a real-world choice, the sparks flew.

The results, presented April 4 at the annual meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society, serve as a reminder that hypothetical scenarios don’t capture the complexities of real decisions.

Morality studies in the lab almost always rely on asking participants to imagine how they’d behave in a certain situation, study coauthor Oriel FeldmanHall of Cambridge University said in her presentation. But these imagined situations are missing teeth: “Whatever you choose, it’s not going to happen,” she said.



But in FeldmanHall’s study, things actually happened. “There are real shocks and real money on the table,” she said. Subjects lying in an MRI scanner were given a choice: Either administer a painful electric shock to a person in another room and make one British pound (a little over a dollar and a half), or spare the other person the shock and forgo the money. Shocks were priced in a graded manner, so that the subject would earn less money for a light shock, and earn the whole pound for a severe shock. This same choice was given 20 times, and the person in the brain scanner could see a video of either the shockee’s hand jerk or both the hand jerk and the face grimace. (Although these shocks were real, they were pre-recorded.)

When researchers gave a separate group of people a purely hypothetical choice, about 64 percent said they wouldn’t ever deliver a shock — even a mild one — for money. Overall, people hypothetically judging what their actions would be netted only about four pounds on average.

But when there was cold, hard money involved, the data changed. A lot. A whopping 96 percent of people in the scanner chose to administer shocks for cash. “Three times as much money was kept in the real task,” FeldmanHall said. When participants saw only the hand of the person jerk as it got shocked, they chose to walk away with an “astonishing” 15.77 pounds on average out of a possible 20-pound windfall. The number dipped when participants saw both the hand and the face of the person receiving the shock: In these cases, people made off with an average of 11.55 pounds.

People grappling with the real moral dilemma — as opposed to people who had to choose in a hypothetical situation — had heightened activity in parts of the insula, a brain center thought to be involved in emotion, the study shows. FeldmanHall said that insula activity might represent a sort of visceral tension that’s going on in the body as a person pits the desire for money against the desire to not hurt someone. These visceral conflicts within a person seem to be missing in experiments with no real stakes, she said.

“My initial response is it’s a really Milgram-esque experiment, harkening back to where people are induced to do something bad to someone else,” said cognitive neuroscientist Tor Wager of the University of Colorado at Boulder. Stanley Milgram, a Stanford psychologist, famously compelled college students to administer painful electrical shocks to others.

Even though the findings are “a little bit chilling,” Wager says, “it’s important to know.” These kinds of studies can help scientists figure out how the brain dictates moral behavior. “There’s a real neuroscientific interest now in understanding the basis of compassion,” Wager says. “That’s something we are just starting to address scientifically, but it’s a critical frontier because it has such an impact on human life.”

Image: elycefeliz/Flickr

See Also:

"

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

What Happens When Solar Power Is as Cheap as Coal

Grid parity is the technical term for when an alternative energy's cost equals that of the traditional electricity supply--which, in the U.S., is mostly coal. It simply means that solar panels are becoming so cheap to produce and so efficient that they can now battle with the giant coal-fired power-generating structure we've developed. Currently, coal costs about 7 cents a watt, versus 22 cents for solar. But the solar industry is moving so fast that those costs will be equal--at least for utilities--by 2013. In sunny places like California, it's already much closer during peak hours, when the sun is shining and coal power becomes more expensive. Should you prefer your information more technical and in graphic form, see this explanatory chart by Stephen O’Rourke of Deutsche Bank:



It's a horrible paradox that bad things are generally cheaper: Like Big Macs. Or H&M. Top of this list, of course, is coal power, which is really quite horrible for the planet but is also deliciously cheap to produce. We are, if nothing else, a bottom-line driven society. Besides the rarefied few of us who are willing to drop more money on organic food and clean power just because it's the right thing to do, most people--out of necessity--are going to gravitate toward the cheapest and easiest option. Coal power is so cheap, it's what the power company supplies without you asking. Sign me up! But now, according to new predictions from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, solar power is going to be the wallet-friendly option as soon as 2013. This is faster than was originally thought. For instance, the Bush administration set a goal for this to occur by 2015, and others predicted that as well. Two years ahead of schedule on creating an entirely new cost-efficient and clean power source is really not too shabby.
In other words, once grid parity is reached, it becomes economically stupid for power companies to not be installing large fields of solar panels to generate the cheapest form of available energy. And while power companies are generally portrayed as evil conglomerates headed by Mr. Burns-esque figures (and for all we know, they probably are), evil conglomerates with shareholders can't really afford to make economically stupid decisions, as much as their leaders secretly want to destroy the environment. They've caught on to that, which is why solar panel installations are expected to double in the next two years. It's not people putting them on their houses driving most of that change, it's large scale installations. You're not going to notice the change, and that's good: No one will have to do anything to get clean solar power. It's just going to come from the same place as your old dirty power.
Bonus stock tip: if these predictions turn out to be right, and the moment of solar grid parity is upon us, it might be a good time to be in the solar panel business. The cheapest product available is usually in pretty high demand.
Follow Fast Company on Twitter. Morgan Clendaniel can be reached by email or on Twitter.
[Image via the Noun Project]

"