In one of the more astonishing demonstrations heard at Saturday’s music and language session, Northwestern University neuroscientist Nina Kraus started by playing the sound of someone saying the syllable ‘da’. Then she showed an electronic analysis of the sound as recorded by a sensitive microphone. It was a short burst of oscillating waves that sudden rose in amplitude, then quickly faded to nothing. Next, she show the electrical signals her lab had recorded in a subjects’ brain stem as he listened to the sound. It looked almost identical. Finally, she played the brain stem recording through the speakers: it clearly said ‘da’, only slightly distorted.

Kraus repeated the demo with ‘da’ at a higher pitch. Same story—the brain signals reproduced a slightly distorted ‘da’ at the same higher pitch.

Finally, Kraus played a few bars of rock music—and the brain signals parroted it right back. A bit crude, but recognizable.

This wasn’t just for fun, Kraus emphasized; by using the same types of recordings on subjects with and without musical training, she and her colleagues have been able to show that the training enhances subjects’ ability to recognize patterns in a noisy acoustic environment, and to attend to things that are especially important—for example, the emotional content of a baby’s cry.

Still, the demo was very, very cool to hear.

In one of the more astonishing demonstrations heard at Saturday’s music and language session, Northwestern University neuroscientist Nina Kraus started by playing the sound of someone saying the syllable ‘da’. Then she showed an electronic analysis of the sound as recorded by a sensitive microphone. It was a short burst of oscillating waves that sudden rose in amplitude, then quickly faded to nothing. Next, she show the electrical signals her lab had recorded in a subjects’ brain stem as he listened to the sound. It looked almost identical. Finally, she played the brain stem recording through the speakers: it clearly said ‘da’, only slightly distorted.

Kraus repeated the demo with ‘da’ at a higher pitch. Same story—the brain signals reproduced a slightly distorted ‘da’ at the same higher pitch.

Finally, Kraus played a few bars of rock music—and the brain signals parroted it right back. A bit crude, but recognizable.

This wasn’t just for fun, Kraus emphasized; by using the same types of recordings on subjects with and without musical training, she and her colleagues have been able to show that the training enhances subjects’ ability to recognize patterns in a noisy acoustic environment, and to attend to things that are especially important—for example, the emotional content of a baby’s cry.

Still, the demo was very, very cool to hear.

Before too much longer, according to the participants in one of the AAAS press conferences this morning, we could be topping off our fuel tanks with processed pond scum, also known as algae. An algae-based biofuels industry would make the trade-off with food go away: algae will happily grow in ponds built out in the desert, or in other sites not useful for farming. It will thrive in waste water from sewage treatment plants and the like. It will eat up carbon dioxide from power plants, assuming that you bubble the exhaust through the algae pond on the way out. And every one of the intensely green algae cells is bulging with rich, oily lipids that are virtually gas-tank ready. Oh, and the residual solids are useful as fertilizer, or even as food additives.

But as usual with fossil-fuel alternatives, said the panelists, the trick is to get the price down into the competitive range. Until recently, the cost of algal fuel was estimated at $10 to $40 per US gallon, which was too high by a factor of 10. But Bob Hebner, director of the Center for Electromechanics at the University of Texas in Austin, said that by paying careful attention to the full algal fuel life cycle — selecting the right algae strain, growing it, harvesting it and then breaking up the cells to extract the lipids — his lab has recently been able to come in below $3 per gallon. They aren’t yet sure they can do it consistently, he warns. “We did it in the fall, can we do it in the spring? There are lots of variables,” he says. But he’s very optimistic.

Now all that’s needed is a few tens of millions of dollars in investment, and the construction of a national algal fuel infrastructure capable of industrial-scale production measured in the billions of barrels

Before too much longer, according to the participants in one of the AAAS press conferences this morning, we could be topping off our fuel tanks with processed pond scum, also known as algae. An algae-based biofuels industry would make the trade-off with food go away: algae will happily grow in ponds built out in the desert, or in other sites not useful for farming. It will thrive in waste water from sewage treatment plants and the like. It will eat up carbon dioxide from power plants, assuming that you bubble the exhaust through the algae pond on the way out. And every one of the intensely green algae cells is bulging with rich, oily lipids that are virtually gas-tank ready. Oh, and the residual solids are useful as fertilizer, or even as food additives.

But as usual with fossil-fuel alternatives, said the panelists, the trick is to get the price down into the competitive range. Until recently, the cost of algal fuel was estimated at $10 to $40 per US gallon, which was too high by a factor of 10. But Bob Hebner, director of the Center for Electromechanics at the University of Texas in Austin, said that by paying careful attention to the full algal fuel life cycle — selecting the right algae strain, growing it, harvesting it and then breaking up the cells to extract the lipids — his lab has recently been able to come in below $3 per gallon. They aren’t yet sure they can do it consistently, he warns. “We did it in the fall, can we do it in the spring? There are lots of variables,” he says. But he’s very optimistic.

Now all that’s needed is a few tens of millions of dollars in investment, and the construction of a national algal fuel infrastructure capable of industrial-scale production measured in the billions of barrels

Ordinarily, Paul Ekman is to be found doing rigorous, detailed studies of facial expression, body movement, emotion and deception. And his results are not just academic. These days he is an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of California, San Francisco, but he and his associates still give courses on how to recognize concealed emotions via subtle changes in facial expressions, body language and such—with a roster of students that include police and national security officials, corporate negotiators and health professionals. He’s also the scientific adviser to the FoxTV series Lie to Me.

Not surprisingly, given his interests, Ekman is very familiar with Charles Darwin’s 1872 book, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. And a few years ago, he found himself discussing Darwin’s views on one particular emotion, compassion, with the Dalai Lama.

“Darwin said that!?” Ekman remembers the Dalai Lama exclaiming at one point.

Further discussions—which eventually resulted in a book coauthored by the two men, Emotional Awareness (2008) – revealed that Darwin’s ideas were virtually identical to Buddhist teachings on the subject. For example, Darwin believed that the seeds for compassion lie in the mother-infant bond. (“Focus on the ‘other’ as ‘mother’,” says the Dalai Lama.) Darwn likewise believed that compassion is reinforced by the fact that when I see you suffer, it makes me suffer. (“In helping you, I help myself more,” says the Dalai Lama.) And Darwin wrote that the highest moral value is to be concerned for the welfare of all sentient beings-a phrasing that matches almost word for word the teachings in Buddhist texts, translations of which were available in England at the time.

Perhaps the convergence of ideas was a coincidence, says Ekman. But in his AAAS talk, he listed eight possible ways that Darwin might have known about Buddhist teachings, and been influenced by them. These include contacts via his wife, various friends, and the aforementioned texts. “It’s like a historical detective story,” says Ekman.

Ordinarily, Paul Ekman is to be found doing rigorous, detailed studies of facial expression, body movement, emotion and deception. And his results are not just academic. These days he is an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of California, San Francisco, but he and his associates still give courses on how to recognize concealed emotions via subtle changes in facial expressions, body language and such—with a roster of students that include police and national security officials, corporate negotiators and health professionals. He’s also the scientific adviser to the FoxTV series Lie to Me.

Not surprisingly, given his interests, Ekman is very familiar with Charles Darwin’s 1872 book, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. And a few years ago, he found himself discussing Darwin’s views on one particular emotion, compassion, with the Dalai Lama.

“Darwin said that!?” Ekman remembers the Dalai Lama exclaiming at one point.

Further discussions—which eventually resulted in a book coauthored by the two men, Emotional Awareness (2008) – revealed that Darwin’s ideas were virtually identical to Buddhist teachings on the subject. For example, Darwin believed that the seeds for compassion lie in the mother-infant bond. (“Focus on the ‘other’ as ‘mother’,” says the Dalai Lama.) Darwn likewise believed that compassion is reinforced by the fact that when I see you suffer, it makes me suffer. (“In helping you, I help myself more,” says the Dalai Lama.) And Darwin wrote that the highest moral value is to be concerned for the welfare of all sentient beings-a phrasing that matches almost word for word the teachings in Buddhist texts, translations of which were available in England at the time.

Perhaps the convergence of ideas was a coincidence, says Ekman. But in his AAAS talk, he listed eight possible ways that Darwin might have known about Buddhist teachings, and been influenced by them. These include contacts via his wife, various friends, and the aforementioned texts. “It’s like a historical detective story,” says Ekman.

‘Science journalism in crisis’ was the title of a special press briefing this afternoon, jammed with worried-looking science reporters. And the news, as expected, was bleak—but not entirely so.

The organizer, University of Wisconsin journalism professor (and Pulitzer prize winner) Deborah Blum, explained that the session was precipitated by CNN’s decision last December to axe its entire space, science and environment unit—which was only the most dramatic of many other such decisions made by media organizations in recent years. In hard economic times, said Blum, science coverage is being perceived as a luxury, and thus expendable.

Some data to quantify that trend in the US was given by Cristine Russell, a former science reporter for the Washington Post, and now the president of the US Council for the Advancement of Science Writing. Membership in the largest professional organization, the National Association of Science Writers, currently stands at 2222. But of those only 79 are full-time staff reporters on newspapers, a significant drop over previous years, and only 15 work for science magazines. But some 860 are freelancers, a number that appears to be growing over time. The number working for Internet sites is growing, as well. A survey of the smaller Society of Environmental Journalists shows similar trends.

Meanwhile, says Russell, the number of dedicated science pages in US newspapers has fallen from a peak of 95 in 1989 to 34 in 2005, and is still dropping—with a big shift toward consumer and health reporting in those remaining.

Russell cited the example of the Boston Globe, which has had an outstanding science section with seven health and science reporters plus two editors. Last April, science coverage was moved to the inside of the newspaper’s front section. Then in January, it was cut from 3 pages to 2. And recently the Globe announced that it would be eliminated entirely as a separate entity, with science and technology going into the business section.

The good news, said Russell, is that science is central to many front-page issues that aren’t ‘science’ in the conventional sense—some obvious examples being climate change, energy, stem cells, reproductive technology, natural disasters, and nuclear proliferation. So there are things science reporters can do, assuming that the higher-ups will listen. Perhaps most important, they should not shy away from the policy aspects of their stories, but should work to keep a place at the top table, where the decisions are made about how news is covered. The New York Times is conducting an interesting experiment along those lines, in which it will coordinate and integrate all its environmental reporting, whether it comes from the science, business, national or international sections.

Finally, said Russell, it’s critical that professional societies work harder to document what is happening, and where people laid off from conventional media jobs are going.

‘Science journalism in crisis’ was the title of a special press briefing this afternoon, jammed with worried-looking science reporters. And the news, as expected, was bleak—but not entirely so.

The organizer, University of Wisconsin journalism professor (and Pulitzer prize winner) Deborah Blum, explained that the session was precipitated by CNN’s decision last December to axe its entire space, science and environment unit—which was only the most dramatic of many other such decisions made by media organizations in recent years. In hard economic times, said Blum, science coverage is being perceived as a luxury, and thus expendable.

Some data to quantify that trend in the US was given by Cristine Russell, a former science reporter for the Washington Post, and now the president of the US Council for the Advancement of Science Writing. Membership in the largest professional organization, the National Association of Science Writers, currently stands at 2222. But of those only 79 are full-time staff reporters on newspapers, a significant drop over previous years, and only 15 work for science magazines. But some 860 are freelancers, a number that appears to be growing over time. The number working for Internet sites is growing, as well. A survey of the smaller Society of Environmental Journalists shows similar trends.

Meanwhile, says Russell, the number of dedicated science pages in US newspapers has fallen from a peak of 95 in 1989 to 34 in 2005, and is still dropping—with a big shift toward consumer and health reporting in those remaining.

Russell cited the example of the Boston Globe, which has had an outstanding science section with seven health and science reporters plus two editors. Last April, science coverage was moved to the inside of the newspaper’s front section. Then in January, it was cut from 3 pages to 2. And recently the Globe announced that it would be eliminated entirely as a separate entity, with science and technology going into the business section.

The good news, said Russell, is that science is central to many front-page issues that aren’t ‘science’ in the conventional sense—some obvious examples being climate change, energy, stem cells, reproductive technology, natural disasters, and nuclear proliferation. So there are things science reporters can do, assuming that the higher-ups will listen. Perhaps most important, they should not shy away from the policy aspects of their stories, but should work to keep a place at the top table, where the decisions are made about how news is covered. The New York Times is conducting an interesting experiment along those lines, in which it will coordinate and integrate all its environmental reporting, whether it comes from the science, business, national or international sections.

Finally, said Russell, it’s critical that professional societies work harder to document what is happening, and where people laid off from conventional media jobs are going.

Stanford University’s Drew Endy is still one of the great enthusiasts for synthetic biology: the visionary field that looks forward to the day in which bio-engineers will create new functions for cells by plugging together synthesized-from-scratch ‘devices’ such as DNA, control structures, and even whole reaction pathways. “Biology is the most impressive platform for manufacturing stuff we’ve ever encountered,” Endydeclared at press conference on Friday. And to fully harness that power, he added, we need to be able to design the inner workings of the cell with as much confidence as electrical engineers now bring to microchip design.

Central to his vision is BioBricks , a catalog of standard molecular parts with well-characterized behavors that designers can mix and match to achieve the cellular functions they want. Dozens of labs have contributed thousands of parts to the registry over the past few years, says Endy—1500 last year alone. And therein lies the problem: who owns all these parts? And what sort of intellectual property protection do you give them? People do need to get credit for their work, after all. But patenting is out of the question: winning a biological patent typically takes several years and costs roughly $25,000. “The legal framework just doesn’t scale,” he says.

What you want is something more in the spirit of open source software, in which mechanisms like the Creative Commons license allows people to reused the software freely in non-commercial applications, so long as they give credit to the creator. But the Creative Commons license is grounded in copyright law, which is very differnt from patent law, and which does not apply to genes or other biological systems in any case.

So Endy has been working with the Boston Law firm of Fish and Richardson to devise a public agreement for BioBricks that would have much the same effect as a Creative Commons license, but that would be grounded instead in patent law. He believes that the agreement is the first such mechanism of its kind, and is breaking new legal ground. But in any case, it is now being circulated for legal comment. He and his partners are hoping to go public withit in early March.

Stanford University’s Drew Endy is still one of the great enthusiasts for synthetic biology: the visionary field that looks forward to the day in which bio-engineers will create new functions for cells by plugging together synthesized-from-scratch ‘devices’ such as DNA, control structures, and even whole reaction pathways. “Biology is the most impressive platform for manufacturing stuff we’ve ever encountered,” Endydeclared at press conference on Friday. And to fully harness that power, he added, we need to be able to design the inner workings of the cell with as much confidence as electrical engineers now bring to microchip design.

Central to his vision is BioBricks , a catalog of standard molecular parts with well-characterized behavors that designers can mix and match to achieve the cellular functions they want. Dozens of labs have contributed thousands of parts to the registry over the past few years, says Endy—1500 last year alone. And therein lies the problem: who owns all these parts? And what sort of intellectual property protection do you give them? People do need to get credit for their work, after all. But patenting is out of the question: winning a biological patent typically takes several years and costs roughly $25,000. “The legal framework just doesn’t scale,” he says.

What you want is something more in the spirit of open source software, in which mechanisms like the Creative Commons license allows people to reused the software freely in non-commercial applications, so long as they give credit to the creator. But the Creative Commons license is grounded in copyright law, which is very differnt from patent law, and which does not apply to genes or other biological systems in any case.

So Endy has been working with the Boston Law firm of Fish and Richardson to devise a public agreement for BioBricks that would have much the same effect as a Creative Commons license, but that would be grounded instead in patent law. He believes that the agreement is the first such mechanism of its kind, and is breaking new legal ground. But in any case, it is now being circulated for legal comment. He and his partners are hoping to go public withit in early March.