Biting the hand that feeds

Posted by :David Manly On : August 6, 2013
1

Category: Discovery channel, Megalodon, Shark Week

I have always loved sharks – there is something about the majesty and mystery that surrounds them in the ocean depths that has always fascinated me. No other fish or aquatic animal has managed to capture my attention more than the shark.

Maybe it has to do that they are relics from the age of the dinosaurs, or perhaps that they come in such a variety of shapes and sizes that there is always one more to learn about. No matter the reason, when I first heard of Discovery Channel’s “Shark Week,” I was immediately drawn in. I have written about my love of Shark Week before (see here), and for the longest time, I was an avid watcher.

I admit, I wouldn’t watch everything, but I would tune in for most of it.

Over the years, however, Shark Week began to slowly drift away from the science aspect like flotsam and jetsam, idly meandering towards a more cavalier reality show-esque presentation. But I would still tune in for shows that focused on the science of these amazing creatures.

Then, like the telltale dorsal fin, I began to hear rumblings of what was coming for Shark Week 2013. Not only would there be a live show, but also a documentary about C. Megalodon – an extinct shark that could have measured up to 60 feet long and possessed a bite strength that could rip a car in half. C. Megalodon was, in every sense of the word, a giant of the deep.

Just look at those Megalodon jaws! Source

 But the special, entitled “Megalodon: The Monster Shark That Lives” is the worst kind of travesty against science, education and general good taste.

Christie Wilcox and many others (including Wil Wheaton!) have written about this today, but I thought I would add my voice to the growing uproar.

The “documentary” (or mockumentary, as I will be calling it from now on), focuses on the hunt for an animal that has been extinct for millions of years. The show states that ships have gone missing, unfossilized teeth have been found and that a whale carcass (with a giant bite in its flesh) was found. But there is not a single shred of evidence to substantiate the claims made on the show.

Now, C. Megalodon did exist and it was an awe-inspiring animal, and shows on the network have tackled it before. In fact, the Mythbusters built a fake C. Megalodon to determine just how strong it could be. And that was a great show, as it was rooted in science fact, not fiction.

The fact is that everything in the mockumentary about C. Megalodon was 100 per cent false – the stories, the accounts, the footage – everything. Even the scientists were paid actors.

The entire show was a gigantic lie, put on a network that prides itself on being, according to their corporate website, “the world’s #1 nonfiction media company.

The only thing Discovery did do during the C. Megalodon show was flash a brief disclaimer at the end of the show that lasted for approximately four seconds. You can see it in all its concise glory on Gawker.

Due to the uproar, a Discovery Channel executive producer has said a statement about how viewers feel betrayed by the network.

“With a whole week of Shark Week programming ahead of us, we wanted to explore the possibilities of Megalodon,” Michael Sorensen, executive producer of Shark Week, told FOX411 in a statement. “It’s one of the most debated shark discussions of all time, can Megalodon exist today? It’s Ultimate Shark Week fantasy. The stories have been out there for years and with 95% of the ocean unexplored, who really knows?”

Sorry Michael, but that doesn’t fly. No one says Megalodon is still alive, go ask a scientist.

This is dis-heartening, and deeply offensive to me, not only as a fan of sharks, but also as a biologist and a fan of the Discovery Channel.

I have lots of memories of watching high-quality Discovery Channel programming with my parents, sister and brother. I used to sit in front of it for hours and just sit transfixed, absorbing the knowledge, all while being entertained. Isn’t that the goal?

It got to a point that friends and family kept joking that I should get my own show about animals, like Steve Irwin (a hero of mine). And I wanted one, more than anything.

Sorry Discovery, but C. Megalodon has long since gone the way of the dodo, the dinosaurs and your scientific integrity.

You have lost a supporter of your network, as you have tarnished your own reputation with myth disguised as fact during a time where you can spread the word about sharks and educate people about these wondrous animals. You ripped the heart out of Shark Week – now it is just chum for the bottom feeders.

Man of Steel – Redux

Posted by :David Manly On : July 16, 2013
1

Category: How it should have ended, Man of Steel, Superman

Last month, I wrote a review for Man of Steel entitled “Man of Steel shows its rust,” which pointed out the errors that the movie made with continuity, tone, and most importantly, science. Specifically, I questioned the logic that was put into the film, how some important facts were never explained and that the rules that were explained to the audience were routinely bent, broken and otherwise disregarded.

You can read my full review here.

Recently, the website How It Should Have Ended (which is a brilliant website and I highly recommend you visit it) did their take on Man of Steel. Their response is so perfect that I must share it here, since it would solve practically all the problems I brought up.

Enjoy!

The true myth

Posted by :David Manly On : July 3, 2013
0

Category: books, Dracula, Hero's Journey, monomyth, Movies, Reading

Books are extremely important to me, and they have been ever since I learned to read.

When my parents taught me (and my twin brother, Daniel), we took to it slowly, like a nervous cat testing the water. It took a while to get my brother and me interested in reading – for a long time, we were content being read to before bed.

But as my Dad has said numerous times since: “Once you started reading, you didn’t stop.”

As I started to read, I began to devour books so fast that my parents could not stock my bookshelf fast enough. So, I would re-read books over and over again, until the new shipment came in.

At school, I would plead with my parents to purchase a bunch of books from the book order forms for me, take books out of the library by the cartload and purchase books at the bookstore every time I was within running distance of one (which was often).

The more I read, the more I wanted to continue reading. I loved the escapism inherent to being transported to another world or life, the “a ha!” moment of a mystery novel, the well-crafted pun, etc. I became a reading machine.

In fact, I started reading adult books long before anyone in my class moved beyond The Babysitter’s Club and Goosebumps. My very first adult book was, naturally, Jurassic Park. And the books only got bigger and more complicated – such as Clan of the Cave Bear, Stephen King’s It and more. I started to experiment with different genres, narrative styles and themes, but always returned to two types: horror and science.

I relished the challenge of trying to understand what was going on in the universe that was created within my mind, and I honed my reading skills to the point where I became an extremely fast reader.

My passion for the written word could explain why I decided to go into journalism and why I am currently working on two very different novels and a short story in my spare time.

But it was not until university, where I took an English class on a whim, that I really learned what it was to investigate literature.

In that class, all about Gothic literature (naturally), we explored three types of horror stories – vampires, werewolves and witches. We carefully dissected one of my favourite books, Dracula by Bram Stoker, and the hidden literary agenda slowly began to unfurl. Suddenly, a red flower was not simply an ornamental thing, but it served a purpose. The random encounter with a character was part of a greater plan. The path of the hero was written out long beforehand. And while the characters, events and situations differ, a large majority of stories shared a similar structure – known as “The Hero’s Journey” (or the “monomyth”).

I’ve been wanting to write something about “The Hero’s Journey” for a while, but could not think of a “novel” way to do it (if you’ll pardon the pun). Then, I found a video on YouTube, and I realized that I could not do it any better, or in a more original way, than this video did with puppets.

It’s more common than you think – from Star Wars to the French Connection, from Harry Potter to Happy Gilmore. Watch and see!

"Man of Steel" shows its rust

Posted by :David Manly On : June 19, 2013
1

Category: destruction, gravity, Man of Steel, Movie review, Science, Superman

This weekend, I saw what is expected to be one of the big “blockbuster” hits of the summer, Man of Steel.

Keep in mind that I will be discussing key plot points and specific moments from the film, so there will be spoilers ahead.

The story of Superman is very well known, and the movie doesn’t break any huge new ground in originality – Superman is an exile on Earth and must (literally and figuratively) rise to the occasion when his adopted home is in trouble. But his origin story does get a bit of a buff, as is the director’s (Zack Snyder) and producer’s (Christopher Nolan) right.

What is new to the franchise is in the first 30-ish minutes of the film when you really get a sense of the Kryptonian civilization. And boy is there a lot of talking – and a giant dragonfly/lizard hybrid.

Jor-El, played by Russel Crowe, grabs the MacGuffin (the Kryptonian Codex) and sends young Kal-El to Earth with it imbued within his cells. We are later told that the codex contains the information for the entire Kryptonian civilization within it.

Here is my first gripe – and this is taking for granted that everything you see in the movie is possible, such as interstellar travel, flight, etc.

But if Clark has every Kryptonian within his cells, he’d have their DNA. And how can billions of people’s DNA exist within every single cell of an individual? Wouldn’t the cells simply die from too much “stuff” in their cells, even if the DNA were inactive? Or wouldn’t the cellular machinery just destroy the foreign matter?

This is, of course, taking for granted that Kryptonian cells and their DNA behave similarly to that of humans.

And this leads to my biggest issue with the movie – the Kryptonian powers on Earth.

In the movie, we are told that Kryptonian powers on Earth are caused by our sun being younger than the one on Krypton, and that their Kryptonian cells will absorb the radiation from our yellow sun, granting them “Godlike” powers. We are also told that the gravity is weaker on Earth than it is on Krypton, which implies that flight (or super-bounding, as the case may be) and super-strength will be possible.

Now in the comics, Clark is super-strong pretty much from the outset, even as a baby.

But in the movie, Clark grows up on Earth, and we see his powers (X-ray vision, super-hearing and heat vision) develop when he is in elementary school, I guess around grade 5 or so. We *are* told that the other students think he is weird because “his mom won’t let him play with anyone.” But it is never made clear because he is super-strong, or because he is an alien, and the Kent’s don’t want anyone to get to close – lest they discover his secret.

He learns, from his parents, how to control them and focus only on one thing at a time. Therefore, based on that information, the solar radiation seems to take around 10 years or so to affect Kryptonian biology and grant super-powers.

Remember that, it becomes important later.

When Zod and his cronies arrive on Earth, they are equipped with airtight battle suits. We know this because they explicitly say that Earth’s atmosphere is dangerous to them. And due to the change in gravity from their home planet of Krypton, each soldier is super-strong. We see them flip trucks into houses and throw Ma Kent like a rag doll.

Zod, in all his glory. Source

So, this would seem to hint that their prison ship had Krypton-like gravity. Ok, fine. Moving on.

But why didn’t the increased gravity affect Clark and Lois when they were brought upon the ship? We do know that Lois needed a breathing apparatus to survive the Kryptonian “atmosphere” and that Clark became weak because of that – so if the ship did have stronger gravity, wouldn’t Clark and Lois have to struggle to adapt to it?

And, if this is how they are so strong, how is Clark super-strong?

He wasn’t on Krypton long enough to get used to the gravity. He was there for what appears less than a day. And even if the ship that carried him did have artificial gravity, you would think that after 33 years on Earth, his body would have acclimated to the decreased gravity of Earth (like he did with the atmosphere).

So, if the lesser gravity isn’t the cause of the super-strength and flight of Superman, it must be the solar radiation from our yellow sun.

During a battle with Zod, Clark damages Zod’s helmet, causing the Earth air to ‘infect’ Zod, granting him super hearing and x-ray vision.

But how did the solar radiation affect Zod so quickly? It happened practically instantaneously – his helmet was damaged, he tore it off and voila, sensory overload caused by the sudden onset of super-powers.

His laser vision, however, only appeared at the final battle after much longer exposure to Earth’s yellow sun. But only his head was exposed to the sun, except for the last few minutes of the battle, when he tore his battle suit off. How much solar radiation could he possibly absorb through his head in one day?

And how did the sun affect Zod so quickly, but it took Clark about 10 years or so to gain X-ray vision, super-hearing and heat vision? The same thing happened with Faora (the female henchman), so it obviously was not strictly a Zod thing.

And if Zod was super-strong, super-fast, able to withstand super-punches that would make a normal person’s head explode like a watermelon being hit with a hammer, how was Superman able to snap Zod’s solar radiation enhanced bones in his neck?

Wouldn’t the enhancements bestowed upon the Earth’s yellow sun create super-bones? You can’t have Zod have all the super-powers that Superman does, except for that without a reason.

Granted, in the comics, Clark does get bones broken by other super-powered beings, such as Doomsday. But that only happens when he is dramatically out-powered and out-classed, not when someone has the exact same power set.

I am not saying that I disliked the movie in any sense of the word, but when you establish a certain mythology (the same or different than in the comics), there is only a certain amount that can fall under “suspension of disbelief.” Things still need to be explained, and the rules of the universe spelled out.

Source

There are other science-light areas of the movie that bothered me – like Clark defeating the gravity beam by sheer force of will, the gravity weapon itself, the gateway to the phantom zone being conveniently close enough to the planet to be damaged by the explosion, etc.

But, during the visually stunning final battle, one thing struck me more than anything else – isn’t Superman supposed to PROTECT people?

Think about the countless battles that occurred in Metropolis. Did Superman save more than a handful of people? Did he seem to care at all about the safety and security of the citizens in the office buildings, the crowds in the street … anything?

The amount of wanton destruction during the final battle was insane. Countless buildings were torn apart by nigh-invincible beings with super powers battling it out with blatant disregard for human life.

How many buildings fell during the battle? How many office floors and infrastructure was damaged?

Superman is supposed to be one of the bravest and selfless superheroes in the galaxy – willing to sacrifice himself for anyone else, to lay down his life if necessary. Sure people die all the time, and he cannot possibly protect everyone.

Wouldn’t Superman try to save at least some people? We do see him save some people on the oil rig, the school bus as a child, and a few others – but after that, Superman does not appear to care about anyone else.

He does care about those four people in the final scene with Zod and Lois Lane, but do those few lives counter-balance the hundreds of thousands that died and the millions that were most likely injured in the battles of Smallville and Metropolis?

And couldn’t Superman have moved the battles to a less densely populated area, like the middle of the ocean or the Arctic? Or destroyed the gravity machine in Metropolis, thereby preventing the damage is causes, instead of the one in the middle of Indian Ocean (which is totally isolated), since they are linked?

No, because it wouldn’t have been as pleasing to the moviegoer.

And that is the whole argument in a nutshell: It is a movie, and is strictly popcorn entertainment. But just because it is, doesn’t mean it cannot make sense and abide by the rules of the universe that has been created – or is that asking too much?

In defense of others

Posted by :David Manly On : May 14, 2013
6

Category: emails, friend, Science, women

Earlier this week, a friend sent me a short email with a newspaper article attached describing a new branch of scientific research that was quite interesting. The article was well written, easily accessible and extremely interesting – a true joy to read. However, there was one large issue – not with the content or photos within the article, but with what my friend wrote in the email.

In the text of the email, which had the article attached, was one sentence: “I think this girl is too pretty to be a scientist.”

Go back and read that sentence again if you don’t mind and let it sink in.

My friend said that the researcher in the photo was “too pretty” to be believed to be a real scientist. What does attractiveness have to do with being a good researcher?

I asked my friend what was meant, and I was told the reasons why. I had a slight hope that the comment was meant as a joke initially, but based on their explanation, it was clear that they genuinely meant it!

So, I wrote an email reply, which I have pasted here, in full.

NOTE: I have elected to keep out the name of my friend, as well as their gender 

______

Hi,

Honestly, I do not even know where to begin with that comment you sent me.

Firstly, I want to thank you for sending me that article, it was really interesting. But my issue is not with that, but the comment you sent along with the article, that the woman in the photo was “too pretty” to be a scientist.

This is a huge issue to me, and has really surprised me that you genuinely think that way. Why would a woman’s physical appearance have anything to do with her intelligence or ability to perform really cool and interesting research?

Are you implying that only “ugly” people can do science? Or that attractive people have better options in life than to explore the mysteries that surround us?

Why does someone’s appearance dictate his or her level of intelligence?

I ask these questions not to attack you, but to illuminate the problems associated with such a bizarre comment. You may have meant the comment innocuously, but even so, even saying such a thing concerns me.

See, this type of discussion is one that has been brought up numerous times, and has been a large talking point in the Science Online conferences that I have attended. Female researchers and scientists (both using their real names and pseudonyms) have shared their stories about comments on their blogs/articles discrediting them because of their gender, their perceived “attractiveness,” their relationship status and more  – all of which is total B.S.

I have had the distinct pleasure to know and befriend dozens upon dozens of female scientists and/or researchers of every background you can imagine from countless nationalities, demographic backgrounds and expertise. But one thing stays the same – they are all incredible. Every single one deserves countless praise and support for doing what they do and dealing with this type of bias.

I admit that this type of discussion has never cropped up in my comments in my blog or any of the other writings I have done, but I do have some idea how it feels. I think most people have been singled out at one point in their lives by something: a personality quirk, a passion, an outfit, a hairstyle, the people you choose to associate with, and countless others.

Singling someone out for his or her gender, attractiveness, sexual orientation or the like is just silly. If you don’t like someone personally, that’s one thing. But, to spit venom at them simply because of who they are or whom they choose to be is cowardice in my book.

How would you feel if you had people commenting on your writing saying that you cannot be trusted because of your gender, sprouting insulting words at you, saying that you are crazy, incompetent or worse.

Would you be able to handle it?

Judging someone by his or her perceived attractiveness (which is subjective and varies from person to person anyway) is ridiculous. If you’re going to comment on a researcher, comment on their work, methodology and the like, not if you’d like to get them into bed or not.

That kind of attitude is disgusting, inappropriate, old fashioned and sexist. I thought you were better than to fall into such petty traps as those.

Cheers,

David

______
Originally, I held off on posting this, until I got a response from my friend that convinced me otherwise.
This is what my friend wrote:
David,
I am sorry – I did not mean anything by that comment. But I can see how it came off that way, and that was wrong of me.
Did I judge that girl by her appearance? Yes I did, as we all do when we see someone walking down the street. It is wrong, silly and juvenile, but I will not shy away from something we all do.
What I will try to do is think of what others would think of my comments made to myself before making them heard.
It is a small step in trying to change, but I hope that is enough.
______
I leave this question to you – Is pointing out the problem enough, or should I (and everyone) make people realize the problem and be the better for it?
If my friend does what he/she said, that’s one small step in the right direction.
But is it enough?

Just a little quiz

Posted by :David Manly On : April 28, 2013
2

Category: Biology, Pew Research Center, quiz, Science, Smithsonian Magazine

Source

 As regular readers of this blog are aware – I am a very big proponent of science education.

Not only because it is a subject I enjoy learning about, but also because it helps me understand the world around me and taught me how to think analytically. My education in science has dictated much of my career path, from me pursuing it in university with the idea to become a zoology professor to getting my Masters of Journalism degree so I could learn to share my enthusiasm for the subject with others.

Not that I know everything there is to know about science – that is one of the beauties of the subject. Every day more experiments are published, theories explored and ideas thought up. Every day more knowledge gets added to the fields of science, and it constantly changes – you could even say it evolves.

I try to keep on top of most of it, and I usually succeed in my major fields of interest: biology, zoology, ecology and the like.

Earlier this week, I stumbled upon an online quiz from the Pew Research Center, in co-operation with Smithsonian Magazine. The Pew center define themselves as “a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.”

Their online quiz was designed to test scientific knowledge for a random samples of Americans.  While the main study is completed, you can still take the test and see how well you did comparatively.

While the test was designed for the U.S., it is a good way to gauge your knowledge on various fields of science – from nanotechnology to climatology.

You can take the quiz here: http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/science-knowledge/

And once you do, please let me know how you did! Either in the comment section below, Facebook, Twitter, Google +, email, etc…

SPACE!

Posted by :David Manly On : April 18, 2013
0

Category: Canada, Commander Chris Hadfield, ISS, space

As many of you know, a Canadian is currently in space, in charge of the International Space Station. His name is Commander Chris Hadfield, and not only is he up there right now, but is letting us tiny Earthlings know about it!

Hadfield is also tweeting from space, sharing glorious photos from a viewpoint that many of us will never have the opportunity to see.

If you look here, you can see all the wondrous photos he has taken of every continent and make yourself feel simultaneously very small and yet so very large.

But that is not all Hadfield is doing up there. He is also doing science!

The Canadian Space Agency (CSA) has its very own channel on YouTube and is constantly putting videos up there for Hadfield explaining how the ISS works, experiments that are going on and simple activities that become a bit of a chose in space – such as eating, shaving, sleeping and even crying!

Here are just a few examples of the videos (click here to see them all).

Here be dragons!

Posted by :David Manly On : March 30, 2013
2

Category: Animals, biomechanicsm dragons, Game of Thrones, Science



Source

On Sunday March 31, 2013, the epic series Game of Thrones returns to HBO, with a rabid fan base already behind it. Full disclosure – I am a huge fan of the show and books in which they are based, and the show is probably one of the best on television, in my opinion.

The show takes place in Westeros, an Earth-like analogue with a wide array of people living, loving, fighting and killing to achieve what everyone wants – power. Some want it, while others are afraid to lose it and others are content just to stir the pot and see what happens. The show is equal parts political drama, medieval period piece and fantasy. In fact, the fantasy part is fairly muted at the beginning, but only increases in occurrence after one notable event at the end of the first season/book.

**Beware, very mild spoilers ahead for season and book one of Game of Thrones**

The event in question involves one of the most prevalent fantasy creatures – dragons.

In Westeros, dragons have been dead for hundreds of years, along with the magic that accompanied them. However, once the dragons come back, magic awakens as well.

But, that is in a fantasy world – what about on Earth (or an Earth-like planet)? Could dragons exist?

According to Professor John R. Hutchinson of The Royal Veterinary College in London, UK, the discussion all comes down to size and gravity. When a land animal increases in mass, gravity quickly dominates all its activities because of the various pressures it exerts on the animal’s body (but an animal in water is a very different story, just compare an elephant – the largest animal on land – with a blue whale, the largest animal in the ocean).

Now imagine an animal the size of a dragon – one long-dead in Game of Thrones was described as possessing jaws so big that it could swallow a mammoth whole and eclipse whole towns with its shadow. For much an animal to exist, it would need large bones to support its weight and muscles to move it, not to mention huge stores of energy to move and support such a large creature.

“Inevitably, the range of extreme activities that animals can do decreases as they get larger,” says Hutchinson. “So elephants don’t jump or gallop, whereas mice do; and large flying birds don’t whiz around like hummingbirds.”

One of the most identifying characteristics of a dragon is its ability to fly, but the problem of size rears its ugly head once again. As flying animals get bigger, their wing size needs to increase just as much, if not more.

“[A dragon] would need immense wings to support its weight,” said Hutchinson. “A lot of weight is wasted in that heavy tail and hind legs as well as the bulky head, too — those don’t help the dragon fly well at all. So at best such a smallish dragon would be a clumsy flier, and would have a hard time taking off.”

“If we move to a 500, let alone a 5,000 kilogram dragon, flight basically becomes out of the question in Earth’s gravity. So, one needs to invoke magic to explain a flying dragon.”

Therefore, in a world without magic, it looks like a dragon of any size would not be able to grow to such mythic proportions as described in various fantasy stories. But, what about if dragons were built like birds?

The largest bird found today is the California condor, with an average weight of 10 kilograms, a length of just over 4 feet and a wingspan of over 10 feet having been recorded (which is two and a half times its length!).

Conservatively, let us say that a dragon weighs 50 kg, and if it follows the same construction and weight distribution as a condor, than it would clock in at just over 20 feet in length and a wingspan over 50 feet.

Large? Sure. But theoretically possible.

But bigger dragons, like those described in Game of Thrones would be more like 500 kg, which would make their length 200 feet (or about two-thirds of a football field) with a wingspan of 500 feet (or the height of a 50-storey building!)

Suffice to say, even if it could exist, the physics alone would not allow such an animal to move, much less have enough energy to fly.

While dragons would not be able to fly or reach such massive size described across the globe, what about the other impressive characteristic of a dragon – its ability to spew fire?

According to Hutchinson, dragon fans will be disappointed once again.

While some animals, such as bombardier beetles, can excrete a hazardous and incendiary-type of fluid from their bodies on rare occasions for defense, fire-breathing it is not.

“Intensely hot flame takes massive amounts of energy to produce and to be hot enough to damage flesh, it would thus cook the dragon from the inside out anyway,” he adds. “I don’t see a realistic way that a very large animal could breathe some sort of fire-like substance. Tiny animals might get away with something like that on a small scale with chemical cocktails, but a huge animal would neither be able to fuel the energy needed to breathe fire nor avoid scorching itself. Again, magic (or a good imagination) is the only option to allow for such a creature.”

With fire-breathing going up in a puff of smoke along with monstrous size and ability to fly, what are we left with to satiate our need for dragons?

Komodo dragons and Pterosaurs.

Komodo dragons are the largest living reptile on the planet, growing up to 10 feet and 150 kilograms, able to run up to 20 kilometres per hour and dive up to 15 feet. While not able to breathe fire, Komodo dragons do have a bad bite, filled with dangerous bacteria and venom – which they use to incapacitate and even kill prey with a single bite.

Pterosaurs, on the other hand, were flying dinosaurs existing millions of years ago. Hutchinson says that they could weigh 50 to 250 kilograms, have wingspans up to 36 feet and when standing, could be up to 18 feet (thanks to Brian Switek, paleontological guru for help with those numbers). Sadly, as with all dinosaurs, they have long since gone from this world.

“We have had large sort-of-dragon-like animals in the past in the form of pterosaurs or even sort-of-giant eagles and vultures, but a real dragon in the sense of classic or modern fantasy just ain’t going to ever happen.”

Sadly, science tells us that dragons are merely a fantasy, but it doesn’t stop millions of people loving them. Just because dragons are an impossible flight of fancy on Earth, in the land of Westeros, anything is possible.

Short and sweet

Posted by :David Manly On : March 9, 2013
0

Category: black holes, communication, Dinosaurs, Einstein, gravity, paleontology, Physics, Science, Science Online 2013, sharks, T. rex

Every since Science Online 2013 ended, I have been very busy with a variety of things including work, developing some super-secret side-projects and more. But being busy is often a double-edged sword.

While these projects are developing and turning into some fantastic stuff that I am sure you all will enjoy – it has left me with little time to read the ever-increasing amount of books I endlessly accumulate and post on this blog.

But, take heed loyal reader, as I have not forsaken you.

Over the past week and a half, I’ve been communicating with experts in various fields, and asking them questions that can come up in normal conversation – for example: How can black holes exist if we cannot see them? Or, how hot is magma locked in the Earth’s core?

The process is simple – I ask an expert in a field four questions. They pick two and answer each in four sentences of less so that anyone can understand.

I hope to continue this series going, so if you have any ideas for experts or questions to ask, please do so in the comments!

Man, that’s heavy
 
The first expert is David Shiffman, a shark conservationist and ecologist graduate student in Florida. He blogs regularly at Southern Fried Science and tweets at @WhySharksMatter.

Question 1: Since it is right there in your Twitter handle, I must ask – Why do shark matter?

Answer: Many species of sharks are top predators in their food chains. Top predators can influence their ecosystem both by regulating populations of prey, and by influencing the behavior of prey. In short, they help keep ocean ecosystems healthy.

Question 2: How can whales grow so big in the water, but the biggest animal on land (the elephant) is only a fraction of that?

Answer: The answer to this is simple- gravity. There’s a limit to how big things can get on land because after a certain point they get too heavy. Water provides increased buoyancy. Blue whales are bigger than the biggest land dinosaurs ever were.

Short, stocky and strong

This leads perfectly into our next expert, Brian Switek, a freelance science writer who spends his life getting to know anything and everything he can about dinosaurs. He blogs at National Geographic and is on Twitter as @Laelaps.

Question 1: Who would win in an arm wrestle, an average man or a T. rex?

Answer: There would be no question. Tyrannosaurus rex would win. Estimates based on bio-mechanics indicate that the arm of T. rex was about three and a half times more powerful than that of the average person. The arms of T. rex were short and stocky, but very powerful.

Question 2: How did mammals survive the extinction event 65 million years ago and the dinosaurs didn’t?

Answer: Actually, dinosaurs did survive. Avian dinosaurs – birds – escaped extinction and carry on the dinosaur legacy today. And even though mammals also survived, many mammal lineages died out in the catastrophe. Exactly why birds, mammals, and other creatures persisted while the non-avian dinosaurs died out, however, is a mystery that hinges on how climate change, volcanic activity, and asteroid impact translated into pressures that changed the world.

Invisible doesn’t mean it’s not there

The final expert is Matthew R. Francis, a physicist and science writer who writes at Bowler Hat Science and tweets at @DrMRFrancis.

Question 1: How do we know black holes exist if we cannot see them?

Answer: We can’t see black holes directly, but many of them are surrounded by matter – mostly gas stripped off stars or from other sources. When that gas falls toward the black hole, it forms a fast-rotating disk, that heats up and emits a lot of light in the form of X-rays and radio waves. So, even though black holes don’t emit any light of their own, they can be some of the brightest objects in the Universe.

Question 2: What does E=mc^2 actually mean in terms of everyday life?

Answer: “E= mc^2” literally tells us that mass is a form of energy, and anything with mass will have that energy even if it’s not moving. Most of the mass of your body is in the protons and neutrons in its atoms, but those are made up of the smaller particles known as quarks. The mass of a proton is a lot greater than the mass of the quarks that make it up; the rest of the mass comes from the energy that binds the quarks together. In other words, “E=mc^2” is responsible for most of the mass of your body!

Thank you very much to Brian, Matthew and David for all their help, time and effort – and remember, if you have any ideas for experts or questions to ask, please let me know in the comments.

Journalism’s RISK-y Future

Posted by :David Manly On : February 13, 2013
1

Category: Journalism, RISK, Science Journalism, Science Online 2013

In the weeks since Science Online 2013, a lot of discussion has been taking place over how exactly science is communicated to the public and how we (as scientists, journalists, reporters, etc…) can improve it.

Imagine the game of RISK, the game of world domination, where warring fractions of different colours try to conquer the world through brute force and military strategy. The same can be said to showcase how some people think of the future of journalism.

See, the people in Print Town believe that “print is king,” while the denizens of the Online Realm believe theirs is the fastest and therefore superior method of getting a message across. The citizens of Radio-ville think their way of communication sounds superior, while the folks in TV Land believe they look the best.

Everyone is fighting everyone else for which area is the best and which will be able to survive the longest.

But who is right? Who is wrong? And is there a middle ground?

The short answers are, at least from my perspective: Everyone. No one. And yes

I used to identify myself as a “text monkey,” just science writer extraordinaire Ed Yong stated proudly during the conference. And I still mostly do, as I work in print and have had some success in that realm. However, I took a course during my Masters program that introduced me to online journalism – a field where I blogged, Tweeted and Facebooked regularly, but didn’t give much journalistic credence to.

But I quickly fell in love with it.

A professor once described online journalism as the great mixing pot, taking the best (or sometimes worse) of each discipline and displaying it all for people to see. And I quickly became proficient in it, even doing my Masters thesis in multimedia. I was able to use print, but also radio and TV to supplement what was written, and the resulting product was quite impressive.

I was still ever the resident of Print Town, but my allegiance was quickly shifting.

Despite my reservations about which medium I wanted to use in my future career, I knew exactly what field I wanted to go into – science journalism.

Science journalism, however, is an all-together different beast than straight-up news. Every genre of writing has jargon, experts and a certain amount of background knowledge to understand – but science also has a distinct stigma as being extremely complicated, hard to digest and simply, I hate to say it, boring.

That’s not to say it cannot be done well!

There are plenty of examples of good science writers out there – just look at the work from the Scientific American Blog Network (especially Scicurious and Kate Clancy, who blow my mind on a near-constant basis), as well as Maryn McKenna, Deborah Blum, Maggie Koerth-Baker, DeLene Beeland, Cara Santa Maria, Brian Switek and the list goes on and on and on. Everyone listed here and the countless others I did not name are doing fantastic things in print, radio and multimedia. Every time I read something of theirs, it makes me realize how far I have come and strive to go even farther.

But with the good, there is also the bad.

I’ve given lectures in the past on how to communicate and write about science effectively for the general public. In so doing, I’ve read through countless good and bad articles with the goal of helping advise researchers, public relations people and more on how to avoid common problems associated with science writing. Recalling these lectures naturally lead me to my store of examples, one of which I will share.

This here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/24/1) is a piece from The Guardian, which magnificently lampoons traditional science journalism.

What Martin Robbins does so expertly is show how shoddy and Mad Libs-esque science journalism can be when it is done poorly. Take practically any science piece in your local newspaper and you will various methods Robbins described in full view for all to see.

There are a large number of people that struggle for a career in this industry (myself included), and every bad piece placed on the news, read in the paper or put online tarnishes what hard-working writers are trying to achieve.

How can this be solved?

I am no expert, but supporting good science writing and communication is a great way to start. The same can be said for pointing out when science (or really any discipline) is tortured on the rack of bad reporting or writing. Read and share good articles with others, be aware of what constitutes good writing and/or reporting and never stop discussing about the fantastic science that is constantly going on around you.

Take a breath, relax and think to yourself – is this worth the effort?

If so, don’t be afraid to roll the dice and take the risk.

Is the juice worth the squeeze? Source