Nature provides the blueprint for tiny robots capable of working inside the human body

A professor for theoretical physics at the Technical University of Berlin is engaged with one of nature's domains, which other people might dread: Gut bacteria and salmonella. He analyzes the movement of those microscopically small organisms in aqueous environments. Following their example, tiny machines with the aptitude to work inside the humanbody could be built.

The rise of graphene in ultra-fast photonics

A group of researchers from Singapore, led by Professor Dingyuan Tang from Nanyang Technological University and Professor Kian Ping Loh from National University of Singapore, have reported the first breakthrough in using few-layer graphene as a saturable absorber for the mode locking of lasers. Despite its prominent mechanical and electrical properties, graphene's optical response has previously been considered to be weak and featureless, so the main interests of the research community are centered on its electronics properties. But now, Tang and Loh demonstrate that graphene can be used for telecommunications applications and that its weak and universal optical response might be turned into advantages for ultrafast photonics applications.

More Texas Democrats switch to Republican, last minute before filing deadline

EXCLUSIVE!!

From Eric Dondero:

Filing has just closed for the 2010 primaries here in Texas. A trusted source at a very high level of the Texas GOP has informed Libertarian Republican that a number of Democrats switched to Republican at the last minute before filing. The news comes a bit unexpectedly.

What we know so far...

Every Democrat elected official in Runnels County who is up for a vote this year switched to Republican. The County, population 11,000, is immediately south of Abilene in central West Texas. The largest city is Ballinger.

Also, at least two judges around the State switched. One of them was in Liberty County, and has served as a Democrat judge for over 19 years.

DEVELOPING... Stay tuned for more Texas Party Switcher news in the coming hours and days...

UPDATE!!!

"Historic Number of Democrats switch to Republican - Cherokee County"

Details tomorrow here at LR...

Scientist Smackdown: Is a Virus Really the Cause of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome? | 80beats

chronic-fatigue-virusAn estimated three in 1,000 people suffers from the mysterious affliction chronic fatigue syndrome. Those people were probably enthusiastic in October when a team of U.S. medical researchers released a study arguing that not only is the syndrome real (some doctors dismissed it as purely psychological “yuppie flu”), but also that they’d connected it to a specific virus. DISCOVER covered the hubbub after the paper came out in the journal Science.

But now, in a study in PLoS One, a British research team has cast doubt on the American team’s findings, saying there’s no conclusive link between the virus and chronic fatigue syndrome, which is also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis.

The U.S. team’s findings sounded robust when they came out. They found the murine leukaemia virus-related virus (XMRV) in blood samples of 68 of 101 patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome. Just eight out of 101 healthy “controls” drawn at random from the same parts of the US also tested positive, suggesting that XMRV played a key role in triggering the condition [The Independent]. When the scientists from Imperial and Kings colleges in London attempted to replicate these findings, however, they found nothing of the sort. Of the 186 people with the syndrome that this team tested, not one showed signs of XMRV, or of any related virus.

Study coauthor Myra McClure of the Imperial College also criticized the U.S. team and the journal Science for rushing the findings into print in October. “When you’ve got such a stunning result you want to be absolutely clear that you are 1,000 per cent right and there are things in that [previous study] I would not have done. I would have waited. I would have stalled a little” [The Independent], she said.

As for the new study conducted in London, McClure declared: “We used very sensitive testing methods to look for the virus. If it had been there, we would have found it…. We are confident our results show there is no link between XMRV and CFS, at least in the UK” [The Guardian]. But the U.K. team says its contradictory findings could have resulted from differences in patients. According to the new study, the discrepancy “may be a result of population differences between North America and Europe regarding the general prevalence of XMRV infection, and might also explain the fact that two US groups found XMRV in prostate cancer tissue, while two European studies did not.”

Though McClure and her colleagues can’t say for sure how they and the Americans came to such different results, they wanted to put a stop to the rush of patients who started seeking antiretroviral treatments for chronic fatigue after the Science paper came out in October (XMRV is a retrovirus, like HIV). They say potent antiretroviral drugs should not be used to treat CFS because there is not enough evidence that this is necessary or helpful. The drugs may do more harm than good, they say [BBC News].

This might throw a wrench into the plans of Judy A. Mikovits, the lead author of the U.S. paper, to go ahead with antiretroviral testing. But the “avalanche of subsequent studies” that one medical researcher predicted to The New York Times after Mikovits’ paper is sure to continue.

Related Content:
80beats: Scientist Smackdowns
80beats: “Yuppie Flu” Isn’t Just in the Head: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Linked to a Virus
80beats: Could Prostate Cancer Be Caused by a Sexually Transmitted Virus?
Discoblog: What’s in a Name? Real Diseases Suffer from Silly Name Syndrome

Image: Whittemore Peterson Institute


Tucker car

Please can sombody supple photos and or line drawings of the HO6 Franklin engine used in the Tucker cars and is it correct that Tucker did use a Franklin flat six for his cars

Cheers for now

peugeot man

Culture of Yes

Washington, DC’s recently released open government directive has a lot of us in the open government community stoked about the mandate we are finally being given, collectively and formally, to make government more transparent and accessible.

The three tenets of participation, transparency, and collaboration are particularly relevant because, while they are couched in specific deliverables around the /open requirement for all agencies (that is, each agency must create /open); if you look closely, they are focused on process– as much as, if not more than, on outcome. This reflects the fact that open government is not somewhere we arrive or something we check off on a task list, but it’s about how we go about the business of governing ourselves.

When I saw we, I don’t mean “we” the people who work for government– I mean all of us. “We” as a residents of the United States, and citizens of the world. For me, open government encourages us to think of the government not an entity separate from the “us” or the “we.” If you work for the government, that doesn’t mean you are not also a recipient of its services, its policies, or its limitations.

That’s why the most exciting aspect of the the Directive was actually not the recognition and codification of those three tenets, since many of us were already operating with those in mind. It was the 4th and final step, to “Create an Enabling Policy Framework for Open Government.”

That section of the Directive recognizes that, “Emerging technologies open new forms of communication between a government and the people,” and that, “It is important that policies evolve to realize the potential of technology for open government.”

yes_we_canWhen I first started working at Ames, we had several meetings discussing how to create an environment where new ideas are valued and encouraged. We identified, with center leadership, that the current culture is often a “Culture of No”. The safe answer, the one least likely to get you in trouble, is to say “No”. Saying yes is associated with more work, and with risk. Since the Culture of No exists all the way up the management chain, that work burden and risk are personal ones, ones that involve putting yourself on the line. It’s clear why people are dis-inclined to do so.

When we first tried to create blogs on government websites, people said “No” because there was no clear policy about public comments. What if a derogatory public comment was interpreted as a statement of the US government? “No” to blogs.

When we tried to put open source code on public repositories, people said “No” because it opened up the government to liability if others misused that code. Instead, employees were going home and building collaborations, and even posting code, in their personal time, to avoid this bureaucracy. That’s another dis-incentive, because you have to be willing to take some of the policies into your own hands.

We decided to propagate at new saying: “Culture of Yes”. We wanted to cultivate an environment where people’s answer to new or crazy ideas was “Yes,” or maybe even “Yes, but…”. But not “No” or “No, and…”. One where you are actually rewarded for those ideas, and where it is, eventually, procedurally more expensive to say “No.”

The Open Government Directive explicitly outlines that within 120 days, existing policies will be reviewed with an eye to, “identify[ing] impediments to open government and to the use of new technologies.” As the people “on the ground,” how do you think openNASA members and our open center initiatives could support agency leadership in identifying these policy obstacles?