Promoting science

by Martín Bonfil Olivera
Published on Milenio Diario, October 29, 2008

For more than 10 years, all around Mexico-and other nations- the National Week of Science and Technology has been celebrated. It is endorsed by Conacyt -the State Council for Science and Technology-, several Universities and educational institutions, private companies and all kinds of groups and people interested in promoting the scientific culture in our Country.

As a matter of fact, the "week" has passed its official limits and has turned, in many places, into a full month dedicated to science and technology, with all kinds of activities: conferences, science fairs with experiments, exhibitions, courses, workshops, contests and even concerts, rallies and scientific marathons.

This year, I had the privilege of being invited to Pachuca, Colima, Xalapa and Oaxaca, to offer courses and conferences. This way, I could witness the enthusiasm in which people in all places offer the best of their talents to allow the common citizen, and specially children, to discover how fascinating, pleasant and important science can be, as well as to develop more and better science communicators.

Why this urge to popularize science? What justifies this scientific evangelization by science comunicators? Is it justifiable to spend public money in this task?

The answer deals with, not only the intrinsic value of science and technology, as manifestations of human culture -culture that deserves being spread. It is also related with its tremendous practical importance. The products of technology derived from scientific knowledge (communications, computers, vaccines, transportation, energy…) change, more profoundly every time, our lifestyle and our life level.

Besides, scientific knowledge gives us a very reliable and realistic vision of the world that surrounds us, and of our place in it. Finally, a basic scientific culture is required so that a citizen can assume its responsibility in decisions related with scientific and technical subjects (cloning, mother cells, euthanasia, abortion, transgenic cultures, nuclear energy…).

Investing and spreading scientific knowledge is worth the effort: it may fructify, in the long term, in a more prosperous and democratic society. For all of the above, long live Science and Technology week!

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!

Posthumous experiment

by Martín Bonfil Olivera
Published on Milenio Diario, October 22, 2008

Rarely does a scientific discovery drastically change the contents of school books. Normally, the advances of science, with their slow but constant refining and their very rare revolutions, take years to be reflected in books.

But the discovery that the team leaded by Jeffrey Bada, from Scripps Institution, which involves the participation of Mexican biologist Antonio Lazcano, from UNAM (Science, October 17), will surely change Biology books.

It deals with, as reported by MILENIO Diario, the re-analysis of the results from the classical experiment about the origins of life performed by Stanley Miller in 1953. It consisted of the introduction, into a very simple apparatus, of water and several of the gases that, back then, were supposed to have formed the atmosphere of the primitive earth (methane, hydrogen and ammonia), around four billion years ago. This mixture was boiled and re-circulated for several days and also exposed to electric discharges . After that, the mixture was analyzed with the methods current in those days; in it, five amino acids (units that form the proteins, essential molecules for living beings) were found.

What Bada's team found when checking the samples stored by Miller together with his laboratory log was that, apart from the classic experiment, there were two variants that were not reported. In one of them, the gases, instead of simply circulating, were injected in a jet to the chamber where the electric discharge was occurring.

It is today's belief that the primitive atmosphere did not have the composition that Miller thought. But the jet apparatus simulates the conditions of a volcano, where these gases are indeed found. And a lot of times, the eruptions are accompanied by lightning. In the "volcanic" experiment, with today's modern methods, twenty two amino acids were found. With this, we now have a new option to explain the appearance of molecules that formed the living beings.

But, why study the origins of life? Not only to know our history; also because if simple chemical process like these occurred on Earth, they could also be present in other worlds. The booming science of Astrobiology is a granddaughter of Miller's experiment, today again, surprisingly current. Good science is always full of surprises.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!

Jellyfish and scientific bets

by Martín Bonfil Olivera
Published on Milenio Diario, October 15, 2008

In the beginning it was curiosity, useless curiosity. In 1955, the Japanese scientist Osamu Shimomura was commissioned by his boss in Nagoya University to study why the mollusk Cypridina glowed in the dark.

Shimomura managed to isolate the bioluminescent protein that, through a chemical reaction, produced the glow. He was hired by Princeton University, where he started studying why the jellyfish Aequorea victoria glowed with green light. What he discovered in 1962 was another bioluminescent protein that he called aequorin. But aequorin glows in a blue color; the living jellyfish glowed in green. Why?

Answer: there was a second protein, but this one was fluorescent (meaning that it glowed when it received blue or ultraviolet light, without chemical reactions) and showed green light. The green protein absorbed the blue light from the aequorin to give the jellyfish their ghostly green glow. For lack of imagination, this second protein was named "green fluorescent protein" (GPF).

In 1998, Martin Chalfie, at Columbia University, heard about GPF and realized its enormous potential as a molecular marker. He came out with the idea of splicing it, through genetic engineering, to other proteins. This way, the glow of GPF would reveal where these proteins are inside and outside of the cell.

Finally, Roger Tsien, from California University, managed to modify GPF with protein engineering. He produced variants that glowed in cyan, blue and yellow. He also identified similar proteins in other organisms, including one from a coral that glowed red . This way, a full color palette was completed that today helps to study the location and movements of proteins in living cells with a level of detail that was unimaginable until now.

You know the rest: this story end up with a Chemistry Nobel price. But what is the moral ? That science is not a directed system that can be forced to yield predetermined results. Its more like a bet system, where only buying a lot of tickets ­giving support to a big amount of "basic" science ­ can, from time to time, win a mayor prize. Like the one earned from the "useless" curiosity of Shimomura, that wanted to know why the jellyfish glow.

(translated by Adrían Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
by email, subscribe here!

Nobel of the virus

by Martín Bonfil Olivera
Published on Milenio Diario, October 8, 2008

There are people who live to finger-point the mistakes and failures of science. A recurrent example is AIDS: it is said that the efforts of the thousands of scientists during more than two decades have not been enough to fight it.

The announcement of the Nobel prize of physiology and medicine last Monday, given jointly to the discoverers of the HIV and the varieties of human papillomavirus (HPV) that cause cervical cancer debunks such ideas. Bio-medical science has demonstrated its power by detecting the causal agents of two of the gravest evils of our time.

AIDS emerged in public sight in 1981. By 1984, French researchers Luc Montagnier and Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, had already identified the cause agent. They supposed it could be a retrovirus -a virus with an RNA (ribonucleic acid) genome, instead of the most common molecule of DNA- and searched evidence of its presence; they detected it in the cells of AIDS patients. As mentioned by the Nobel committee, "never before have science and medicine been so quick to discover, identify the origin and provide a treatment for a new disease."

This made it possible to study the virus in more detail. Its genome was cloned and sequenced, every molecule that forms the virus was analyzed, and today the processes that lead the infection and death are much better understand. As a consequence, preventive methods and treatments to combat the pandemic have been developed. And if Montagnier is right, perhaps in less than five years we may have an efficient therapeutic vaccine that can help infected people.

On the other hand, German researcher Harald zur Hausen needed 10 years of detailed work to prove that another virus, the papillomavirus or HPV, is the cause of cervical cancer, the second most common in women. Finally, he identified, among the more than 100 known species, two guilty viruses (VP 16 and 18), and today we have detection tests and vaccines that offer an efficient protection against them.

Without any scientific knowledge, today we would be vulnerable to these and other diseases. Nobel awards reward, although a little bit late, discoveries that without a doubt have contributed to a greater welfare to humanity.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!

¡China again!

by Martín Bonfil Olivera
Published on Milenio Diario, October 1, 2008

The Chinese do it again! They managed to place a man into orbit in 2003 and then two in 2005 onboard spaceships Shenzhou ("divine vessel" ) 5 and 6. And last Saturday, they achieved their first space walk.

Actually, more than walking, taikonaut - from Chinese taikong, space - Zhai Zhigang stepped out of Shenzhou 7 and floated around it, fastened by cables, for 13 minutes. He waved the Chinese flag, sent a patriotic message on TV and recovered an experiment on solid lubricants that was outside the capsule.

The mission, lasting 68 hours - on Sunday, the ship with its crew of 3 people, landed on a parachute in Mongolia - was followed on TV by millions of Chinese. When they returned on Monday to Pekin, the taikonauts were received with a parade, garlands, ovations, interviews and honors. The official media declared that it was a "great advance" - half a century ago, Mao Zedong complained that his country could not launch even a potato into space - and showed the undoubtedly Chinese scientific and technical power.

Sensationalism, exaggeration? Information about the flight was not free of manipulation: state news agency Xinhua sent a bulletin reporting the successful launch on Thursday 25 in the morning, even giving details -hours before the launch!

But the truth of the matter is that China defined a clear course and has successfully achieved it. Its space program places China near to Russia's and United States program, the only countries that have achieved space walks, and ahead of their competitors, Japan and India.

The Chinese space program was started more than 30 years ago. Zhigang used a space suit made in China (4 million dollars) and most of the technology on Shenzhou 7 - that included a toilet - is national. No doubt about it: constant support of technology and science has financial, as well as othter types of returns that have contributed to turn China into a world power.

Could something like this happen in México? I doubt it: although, between 1995 and 96, UNAM (National University) launched two satellites (with poor results), and on April 2006 congress approved the creation of a Mexican Space Agency, there has not been any political will to develop a true space program.

HMexicans have a saying about a china man that "just stands looking"... maybe it would have to change: the one who stays just looking is mexican, not chinese.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!

The end of the world, postponed

by Martín Bonfil Olivera
Published on Milenio Diario, September 24, 2008

It's tempting to say it like this:

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), maybe the most complex machine ever built (no doubt, the most expensive one, almost 6 billion dollars), product of the collaboration of more than 20 Countries, which took almost 20 years to build and was feared, when it is started operations, to cause a planetary catastrophe… is out of order.

An electrical failure caused that nine of its one thousand conducting magnets to overheat and melt, causing a helium leak. This gas, in a liquid state, maintains the magnet's temperature at two degrees above absolute zero. These magnets accelerate protons to make them spin at 99.9 of light speed around the underground ring of 27 kilometers (11 thousand rounds per second).

All that scandal for nothing?

But this version of the story, though tasty, is uninformed and simplistic. And misinformation can be a big problem: a young Indian woman, terrorized by the scandalous media reports about the possibility that the LHC would create a mini black hole that would swallow the earth, committed suicide by ingesting pesticide. It wasn't necessary.

The truth is that the start of operations of the Hadron (particles, like protons and neutrons, formed by the union of several quarks) Collider on September 10 did not represent any risk: it was only a test. Streams of protons were injected to start spinning, but were not made to collide.

When the real experiment is carried out - it's been postponed until spring, 2009 - there will be no risk, either. The probability of creating mini black holes is insignificant, and even if these were produced, they would disappear instantaneously, as they are very unstable.

The LHC will be useful to try to discover why matter has mass (and if the theoretical particle called Higgs boson, which would explain this property, really exists). It will also help to obtain a better understanding of the origin of the universe and the nature of “dark matter” and antimatter.

Has the LCH failed? Not so. Failures like these are a "psychological punch" for its creators, but were foreseen.

All technology requires an adjustment period. When the LHC functions properly, it will give answers to some of the most fundamental questions about the universe. But, as always in science, it is a long term investment.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!

Science and society

by Martín Bonfil Olivera
Published on Milenio Diario, September 3, 2008

Common sense prevailed. After considering many arguments, eight ministers from the Mexican Supreme Court voted to declare that the reforms to the Criminal Code and the Health Law of Mexico City that legalize abortion up to 12 weeks of pregnancy are constitutional.

The reforms are thus safe from attacks, and the way is open for other states to modify their laws to extend women's liberties throughout the Country.

Opponents to the legalization insisted in reducing the debate to a conflict between women's and embryo's rights. The ministers recognized that this was a fallacy: life in development is worthy of protection, but its not yet a human life. Women's rights are the only ones at risk here.

In the debate, scientific knowledge about the process of gestation and the necessary conditions for considering that there is human life –particularly, the existence of a central nervous system, together with considerations about the difficult situation of women that opt for abortion, properly developed and functional– was central for reaching the decision that we now celebrate.

The important of science in controversies that affect our society will keep growing. We already have discussions related with health and sexuality –transsexuals, stem cell research, euthanasia, cloning… and more to come: alternative energy (solar, geothermal, nuclear), contamination garbage handling and toxic waste, transgenic crops…

In all of these cases, some decisions have to be taken. Only people who understand, at least in principle, the relation between science and technology with each of these issues can have a responsible opinion. If the average citizen does not have a minimum of scientific culture, the discussion will be left in the hands of experts and politicians.

It is urgent to democratize scientific and technical knowledge: to put it in the hands of the public. The legalization of abortion was achieved in great part thanks to the information and education campaigns launched by its defenders. In debates to come, the job of scientific journalists, science writers and educators will be crucial to allow our citizens to participate in the decision making that will affect society.

Let's not forget: science is also part of democracy.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!