Tardis001 at April 13, 2016 at 1:55 AM

Rumpole at April 13, 2016 at 1:08 AM

Photon at April 12, 2016 at 11:06 PM

Stephen Hawking, Mark Zuckerberg to launch Nano Spacecraft Breakthrough Starshot into deep space.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-13/breakthrough-starshot-aims-to-launch-tiny-spacecraft-deep-space/7321588

It's probably more efficient to build better telescopes than to send spacecraft beyond the solar system. The information that telescopes gather travel at light speed, unlike spacecraft that travel much slower.

But telescopes aren't really sexy are they ?

There also seems to be a difference in cost.  The Hubble Telescope cost US$2.5 billion, whereas SMH says the Nano Spacecraft would cost US$130 million.  Admittedly, there would be a greater risk of failure in sending a Nano Spacecraft to another galaxy (if one was launched), so is it really cost-effective?  I think the real value of a Nano Spacecraft, though, is that the new technology used would probably be valuable for other things in our lives, too.

Well, if you consider that a telescope can explore the whole of the Universe to the limits of our observation capabilities and a nano is directed to a single target, the telesope would seem to offer more bang for the buck.

Yes, nano technologies are becoming more important in areas such as medicine, but I don't see how sending one into space would improve them in other applications.

Yes, that's a good point you made about the telescope.

The point I was making about the technology is that new nano technology would have to be developed for the Nano Spacecraft.  It's very likely that this new rechnology would have other applications in our lives.  I realise that nano technology is currently a hot area of research in a lot of industries at the moment.  However, it is possible that the research required to build and operate the Nano Spacecraft would take nano research in a direction that would not have otherwise been pursued, leading to new innovations in other areas of science. 

One of my favourite analogies is the development of the laptop computer.  Prototypes were used in Apollo spacecraft because there was not enough space inside the capsule for normal-sized computers of the day.  Now laptops, tablets, iPads, etc. are part of everyday life.  I admit that this technology would have probably arrived without the Apollo missions, but I suspect Apollo pushed the date forward a lot.  I think that a Nano Spaceship program could do a similar thing.

$130 million is peanuts in the overall space budget, so sure, give it a go and see what happens.

Potentially good news for the dairy (butter) industry:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160412211335.htm

Tardis001 at April 13, 2016 at 7:40 PM

Potentially good news for the dairy (butter) industry:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160412211335.htm

I've had enough of all these studies, as far as diet is concerned anything goes in moderation. Maybe more heart attacks are caused by anxiety regarding whether what you are eating is causing you harm.

Just eat less of everything and get more exercise is a good idea imo.

Rumpole at April 13, 2016 at 8:00 PM

Tardis001 at April 13, 2016 at 7:40 PM

Potentially good news for the dairy (butter) industry:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160412211335.htm

I've had enough of all these studies, as far as diet is concerned anything goes in moderation. Maybe more heart attacks are caused by anxiety regarding whether what you are eating is causing you harm.

Just eat less of everything and get more exercise is a good idea imo.

A good philosophy, Rumpy. 

Another probable impact of increased carbon dioxide emissions:

Rising carbon dioxide levels reduce protein in crucial pollen source for bees

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160413113420.htm

Another science study corrupted by corporate funding ?

Australian Paradox under fire: Health experts hit out at Sydney Uni sugar

study

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-13/the-australian-paradox:-experts-hit-out-at-sydney-uni-study/7319518

Rumpole at April 14, 2016 at 2:14 PM

Another science study corrupted by corporate funding ?

Australian Paradox under fire: Health experts hit out at Sydney Uni sugar

study

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-13/the-australian-paradox:-experts-hit-out-at-sydney-uni-study/7319518

I saw this story on Lateline recently.

The two authors of the report are in denial despite heaps of evidence that they got it wrong.

Reminds me of Clive Palmer, deny everything. 

Photon at April 14, 2016 at 7:33 PM

Rumpole at April 14, 2016 at 2:14 PM

Another science study corrupted by corporate funding ?

Australian Paradox under fire: Health experts hit out at Sydney Uni sugar

study

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-13/the-australian-paradox:-experts-hit-out-at-sydney-uni-study/7319518

I saw this story on Lateline recently.

The two authors of the report are in denial despite heaps of evidence that they got it wrong.

Reminds me of Clive Palmer, deny everything. 

At this point in time, it does appear that the two scientists got it wrong.  However, good science relies on proper scientific debate and the opportunity of a right of reply.  The authors of the Australian Paradox paper have not yet formally replied to the criticisms, even though they have been given the opportunity to do so in the form of a written article of reply in the journal in which the original article was published.  One of the authors, Professor Jennie Brand-Miller has said publicly that she is waiting on additional data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics before formulating a formal reply. This, I believe, is far from the two authors being in denial (which is what the news media is trying to portray). I think most scientists would agree that a final opinion about the Australian Paradox paper can only be reached once that reply from the authors has been written. 

I might say that a significant amount of scientific conclusions, across all scientific disciplines, are/have been wrong.  Science is all about observing and explaining what happens in the universe, but also challenging those explanations.  It is impossible to prove with 100% certainty that something is right.  However, it is easy to prove that something is wrong.  Scientific research starts with an initial idea that needs to be tested (the hypothesis), the research is conducted and conclusions are reached.  The results and conclusions of the studies are published in scientific journals and are open to scrutiny and debate by fellow scientists.  This is what has happened in the Australian Paradox case.  The problem that has occurred, though, is that the results of the research entered the "public sector", including debates within the Australian Parliament, before a proper debate in the scientific literature has concluded.  I think this highlights one the risks that present-day social media can present to research - publicising the results of research before there was proper scientific scrutiny.

If the authors did get it wrong, then they will need to retract their initial conclusions, and will need to do so in writing within the scientific literature and (because their study attracted public interest) in the wider social media.  But if they have not got it wrong, it is important for their critics to make a public apology.  I suspect this will be difficult for whoever is in the wrong.

Thank you Tardis.  

I apologise for sounding like a cynical shock jock. 

There are still questions over corporate donations to research. If companies donate funds for research they should be "blind", ie neither the company knows where the funds are spent and the researchers don't know where the funds come from.

That way there is no corruption of the research.

Rumpole at April 14, 2016 at 9:40 PM

There are still questions over corporate donations to research. If companies donate funds for research they should be "blind", ie neither the company knows where the funds are spent and the researchers don't know where the funds come from.

That way there is no corruption of the research.

Sounds logical to me. 

Photon at April 14, 2016 at 9:27 PM

Thank you Tardis.  

I apologise for sounding like a cynical shock jock. 

No worries, Photon.  I wasn't aiming at you (or any other ABC Whovian), just pointing out the problems of the results of scientific research being publicised widely before the proper process of scientific scrutiny and debate has been completed.  

Rumpole at April 14, 2016 at 9:40 PM

There are still questions over corporate donations to research. If companies donate funds for research they should be "blind", ie neither the company knows where the funds are spent and the researchers don't know where the funds come from.

That way there is no corruption of the research.

Yes, I agree with you Rumpy.  There is always a potential conflict of interest when researchers accept grants from corporations whose marketing would benefit from a particular research outcome.

I suspect  that the Australian Paradox case will be a case-study discussed in future science ethics or science philosophy courses at some Australian universities.

Three new primate species discovered in Madagascar

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160415081840.htm

Although this appears to be good news, there is a down side to it.  These three species were previously known to science but were lumped taxonomically with other mouse lemurs into a single species.  But DNA analyses have split them up into separate species.  That means we have separate species with smaller geographical ranges, more specific habitat requirements and smaller population sizes, instead of fewer mouse lemur species with broader geographical ditributions and larger population sizes. 

DNA has revolutionised animal and plant taxonomy over the last 30 years.  It has enabled biologists to define with more accuracy the biodiversity of our planet.  The problem that arises is has identified many new species that have smaller known population sizes and geographical distributions, and are consequently threatened with extinction.

Speaking of extinction:

The southern subspecies of the black-throated finch is no longer taking flight in New South Wales, with scientific officials declaring it extinct
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-16/extinct-status-as-black-throated-finch-no-longer-takes-flight/7329422

Incidentally, the recently approved Carmichael Mine in northern Qld is within the habitat area of the northern subspecies of the Black-throated Finch.

Tardis001 at April 15, 2016 at 7:51 PM

Speaking of extinction:

The southern subspecies of the black-throated finch is no longer taking flight in New South Wales, with scientific officials declaring it extinct
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-16/extinct-status-as-black-throated-finch-no-longer-takes-flight/7329422

Incidentally, the recently approved Carmichael Mine in northern Qld is within the habitat area of the northern subspecies of the Black-throated Finch.

That is sad news, but surely species extinction is a fact of life that has been occuring long before mankind appeared on the earth ?

Isn't it just part of the evolutionary process ?

Rumpole at April 15, 2016 at 8:02 PM

Tardis001 at April 15, 2016 at 7:51 PM

Speaking of extinction:

The southern subspecies of the black-throated finch is no longer taking flight in New South Wales, with scientific officials declaring it extinct
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-16/extinct-status-as-black-throated-finch-no-longer-takes-flight/7329422

Incidentally, the recently approved Carmichael Mine in northern Qld is within the habitat area of the northern subspecies of the Black-throated Finch.

That is sad news, but surely species extinction is a fact of life that has been occuring long before mankind appeared on the earth ?

Isn't it just part of the evolutionary process ?

Extinction is part of the NATURAL evolutionary process.  Humans have increased the extinction rate significantly, so that it is no longer a natural process.  All governments, including the Australian Government, signed a UN treaty in 1978 to protect biodiversity within their own country.  Consequently, the Australian Government had to pass environmental legislation to adequately protect Australian biodiversity.  The extinction of a species from human causes is a violation of that treaty and Australian environmental legislation (in particular, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 at a Commonwealth level and the Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995 in NSW).

The other consideration is that everything in the environment is linked.  If one species becomes extinct, then other species that interacted with it are affected too.  For instance, the Black-throated Finch fed on the seeds of native grasses.  A lot of the seeds that they fed on would have passed stright through the digestive tract and excreted in the bird's droppings.  Therefore, the grass seeds are dispersed to new areas and germinate into new grass clumps.  Now that the Black-throated Finch is extinct in NSW, these grass seeds are not dispersed as widely and it is easier for introduced grasses and weeds to invade and grow in areas where the native grasses once dominated the landscape.