Editor-in-Chief Ken Fisher is attending the TED Conference, a place for exchanging big ideas, and he was struck by a really big one: humanity is on the verge of being in an unrivaled position to overcome our evolutionary legacy. Now, to some extent, this has been true since our first ancestors learned that picking up a rock was better than hammering something with their fists, or paws, or whatever—in any case, tool use is hardly limited to humans. But, lately, through things like tissue replacements and direct interfaces between computers and nerves, we appear to be on the verge of taking that intervention in ways that internalize the tools and make them part of us, or use them to intervene during our youth in ways that influence our further development. Have we reached the era of Homo evolutis
At the same time, science keeps reminding us that we really don't understand ourselves all that well or our relationship to the new machinery that surrounds us. It's safe to say that, until computers start passing the Turing Test with regularity, our interactions with them will always differ from those with our fellow humans. But a new functional MRI study suggests that the actual interaction experience doesn't matter. Scans of test subjects' brains showed different patterns of activity when they were told they were playing a simplified game against a human than when told their opponent was a computer—even though, in all cases, they were playing against a computer programmed to make random decisions.
Meanwhile, another report describes how performing a computerized task can be influenced by the dominant color of the display. Those who worked in a red-hued environment typically displayed cognitive approaches that suggested caution and care, why blue seemed to promote creative thinking. It seems to be one of those quirks that helps make us human.
Our humanity is also front and center in one of the policy changes expected from the Obama administration: a lifting of some restrictions on stem cell research. Although biologists and a majority of the public are excited about the change, there remains a substantial minority that opposes manipulating human cells and embryos to create stem cells. Limits on stem cell research and rough financial times for federally-funded research may have been two of the factors contributing to a general decline in US scientific output. But other factors are undoubtedly at play, including the general globalization of the scientific endeavor.
Other reports highlighted changes, real or potential, in US science policy. The new administration plans on fostering the growth of renewable energy, and there's already some good news on that front: the US now has the largest installed capacity for wind power. We're not alone in seeing explosive growth; China has doubled its capacity for each of the past four years, a trajectory that, if it can be maintained, will see it pass the US within the next few years.
The US National Academies of Science identified a policy area that could use a dose of more rigorous science: the legal system. In the same week the NAS described its efforts to help get the judiciary up to speed when it comes to exercising its role as a scientific gatekeeper, a draft of a report about the nation's erratic implementation of forensic analysis suggests it's leading to junk science making its way into the courtrooms, with the potential for serious miscarriages of justice.
Some other news from this week:
- The world's smallest hologram has resulted in nanoscale letters written in the energy levels of a metal's electrons.
- A mathematical analysis of security screening demonstrates that an excessive reliance on risk profiles could be less effective than random screens.
- Researchers are modeling the thermal decay of nanoparticles, which may help us to make some that survive at higher temperatures; current materials have an unfortunate habit of melting due to their high surface:volume ratios.