Science Simplified!

Comment

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on September 25, 2012 at 6:54am

Parasite Linked to Personality Changes :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=common-parasite-li...

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on September 22, 2012 at 7:10am

How to Increase Intelligence

Scientists have long held that fluid intelligence—reflected not by what you know but rather how well you solve novel problems—is largely inherited and relatively impervious to improvement.
A raft of recent investigations, though, shows that some types of brain training—specifically those that exercise working memory and other so-called executive functions—can raise an individual's fluid intelligence.
Working memory training appears to boost fluid intelligence in children and adults alike. As training progresses, the brain regions taxed by working memory become less active when called on and more active at rest. This pattern suggests that certain training programs leave the brain better primed to perform a wide array of tasks.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-design-...

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on September 21, 2012 at 12:30pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2012/sep/1...
Science more beautiful than art?

And here is a reply most probably from an artist who says scinece can't replace art:

http://www.elezea.com/2012/09/science-cant-replace-art/

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on September 19, 2012 at 6:13am

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on September 17, 2012 at 6:51am

http://www.oxbowherald.sk.ca/Opinion/2012-09-15/article-3075929/Top...

Some science facts:

1. Blood sucking hookworms inhabit 700 million people worldwide.

2. There are 62,000 miles of blood vessels in the human body – laid end to end they would circle the earth 2.5 times.

3. The oceans contain enough salt to cover all the continents to a depth of nearly 500 feet.

4. At over 2000 kilometers long, The Great Barrier Reef is the largest living structure on Earth. (And, it’s dying.)

5. The highest speed ever achieved on a bicycle is 166.94 mph, by Fred Rompelberg.

6. The interstellar gas cloud Sagittarius B contains a billion, billion, billion liters of alcohol (I might have to move there in the near future!)

7. 60-65 million years ago dolphins and humans shared a common ancestor.

8. Polar Bears can run at 25 miles an hour and jump over 6 feet in the air. (Remind me never to confront a polar bear).

9. The temperature on the surface of Mercury exceeds 430 degrees C during the day, and, at night, plummets to minus 180 degrees centigrade

10. The average person accidentally eats 430 bugs each year of their life.

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on September 11, 2012 at 7:09am

http://www.scidev.net/en/science-communication/promoting-science/ed...

A culture of science needs scientists to be proactive

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on September 11, 2012 at 6:19am

India lags behind in science literacy and communication- Experts:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/india-lags-behind-in-science-lite...

Development of science communication and science literacy in India has taken a backseat in the last two decades with gradual withdrawal of state support and increasing dependence on private sector, said experts representing the country at the International Conference on Science Communication at Nancy in France.

Outlining the history of science literacy — from the early days of independent India to 1976 when the 42nd amendment to Constitution introduced scientific temperament as part of Fundamental Duties to 1981 when the first statement on scientific temperament was released — scientists said that India today faces a crisis of sorts.

Dr Gauhar Raza, head of Science Communication through Multimedia (SCM) division at the National Institute of Science Communication And Information Resources, said, “In the global movement to promote science literacy in citizens we were once ahead of most of the developed world, and in our own neighbourhood much ahead of China, which has now soared ahead. We have fallen woefully behind. Today, we have more religious channels than most countries, when we have resources to set up at far lower costs many infotainment channels like Discovery and National Geographic.”

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on September 11, 2012 at 6:13am

Indian PM justifies space-science programme:

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/277573/pm-justifies-investments...

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Sunday justified the huge investments made into the country’s space exploration, research and development programmes, citing ‘technology prowess’ as a sine qua non for economic growth and inclusive development.

Referring to questions being raised about whether “a poor country like India can afford a space programme and whether funds spent on space exploration, albeit modest could better be utilised elsewhere,’’ Singh, addressing the nation after the successful 100th Space Mission of Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro), from the New Mission Control Centre at the Satish Dhawan Space Centre here, asserted such queries “misses the point.”

Defending the financial outlays for Isro, which comes under the Department of Space, and the new vistas in space it sought to explore, the prime minister stressed that people should not forget that a “nation’s state of development is finally a product of its technological prowess.’’ “The founding fathers of our space programme—Dr Vikram Sarabhai and Prof Satish Dhawan—faced a similar dilemma, but they persevered in pursuing their vision. When we look at the enormous societal and national benefits that have been generated in diverse fields, there can be no doubt we are right,’’ asserted Singh.

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on September 11, 2012 at 6:01am

Have we lost our way with science?!

Here is one professor who says we did( by giving more importance to art and culture!)! (Although I don't agree with her, I am adding this link for the readers to ponder on this assumption of hers )

http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/7645972/Don-t-study-arts-...

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on September 10, 2012 at 5:49am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2012/sep/09/carl-djerassi-insuffici...

Science and theater: Chemistry and play

Carl Djerassi:
1998's An Immaculate Misconception, Djerassi came up with the concept of "science-in-theatre". In his precise, faintly accented English, he neatly explains the term now. "What I'm trying to do is not talk directly about science," he says. "That's too difficult to do, especially with chemistry. Rather than words, we chemists use the cryptography of structural formulas, which people [outside that world] don't understand. What I want to do with the theatre is to talk about the culture and behaviour of science – to show that scientists are not just Frankensteins or Strangeloves or idiot savants or nerds."

Above all, he's interested in describing what he calls the "tribal behaviour" of scientists – and he's critical of the scientific community for being reluctant to explain that behaviour to the outside world. "I'm a member of that tribe," he says, "and it's a tribe that does not advertise its behaviour – not because they want to keep it secret, but because they're not interested in discussing it. We're not, as a whole, introspective, because we're so focused on what we're doing. But it means that people outside science have a very limited idea about who we really are, and how we think."

He's reluctant to draw many parallels between the disciplines of science and theatre. "I think you would like me to say that I see many similarities between them," he says, "but in truth, I do not. They are totally different. With science – or, I must say, with chemistry, because that is the science I know – you must show your research to be absolutely accurate and correct. That is not the case with literature. But, when it comes to intellectual rigour, they need not be so far apart. I approach every play with the same emphasis on meticulous research that I have always used in my work as a chemist."

One of the reasons Djerassi was drawn to the theatre, he says, was to escape the punishing process of peer review that is part of any academic scientist's working life. "We scientists don't spend enough time thinking about an audience other than our peers," he says. "They can make or break our reputation, and often anonymously."

Can theatre critics not be just as savage? Djerassi smiles. "They can be. But at least they are in a separate profession: most of them are not also playwrights themselves." And perhaps, if a critic does turn an acid tongue on Insufficiency, we will soon see this chemist, writer and polymath take up theatre criticism – purely, of course, as an act of revenge.

By

Laura Barnett
The Observer

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 841
• 842
• 843
• 844
• 845
• …
• 855
• Next ›
• Page