If you are looking for an exhaustive, comprehensive list of 2009’s best science stories–you have come to the wrong place. If that’s your cup of tea, I’ll direct you to Scientific American’s incredibly complete and insightful slide show of the year’s biggest stories.*
Instead, what follows is a compendium of the ten stories that I personally found interesting, culled from the mysterious depths of my Facebook and Twitter accounts. These are articles that, for one reason or another, I deemed compelling enough to share with my friends and colleagues–and now with you. And just like the seconds counting down to 2010, we’ll start with number ten and work our way down to number one.
10) The Fish with a Fishbowl Head
Some truly bizarre creatures make their home in the depths of our vast oceans. However, this bubble-headed fish, whose live photos and video were released for the first time in 2009, has to be one of the strangest discoveries of all time. Hey, wouldn’t it be cool if they discovered that a smaller fish swims laps inside that fishbowl-like head?
Carl Linnaeus, the father of binomial nomenclature, would probably turn over in his grave if he knew that the naming rights of new species were being auctioned-off for money. Granted, the naming of new species has gotten weird in the last 20 years–who can forget the Garylarsonus weevil or the Darthvaderum mite. However, this represents the first time a scientific name has landed on the digital auction block.
8) Paleontologists Visit The Creation Museum
What happens when real scientists visit a museum of pseudo-science? Hilarity, of course. If you aren’t familiar with the creation museum I’d recommend you save yourself the admission fee and take a video tour. However, be warned that watching it may lead you to conclude that the 1970s TV Show Land of the Lost was historically accurate. One of the paleontogists on the tour was heard to exclaim, “I think they should rename the museum — not the Creation Museum, but the Confusion Museum.”
7) National Science Foundation Blurs Line Between Journalism and PR
News video is expensive and time-consuming to produce, with a diminishing return on investment thanks to an internet-induced loss of advertising dollars. So why not leave it to the deep pockets of the U.S. government to pick up the slack? Apparently, some well-known news outlets, including LiveScience.com and U.S. News & World Report have taken to posting NSF-produced content on their websites. However, this introduces a troubling conflict of interest. It is the role of journalists to hold government agencies accountable, not act as vehicles for PR.
6) Was Lamarck Correct…At Least Sort Of?
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was an 18th-century naturalist whose major claim to fame is that he got the mechanism of evolution–entirely wrong. He theorized that an animal’s behavior dictated the traits that would be passed on to each successive generation. The classic example is a giraffe’s neck, which Lamarck believed grew longer as it strained to grasp the highest leaves in a tree. This lengthened neck would, in turn, get passed on to the giraffe’s offspring. But a relatively new field of study–epigenetics–is hinting that Lamarck’s ideas might have had some validity.
5) The Science News Cycle Revealed
Satirical cartoons are usually reserved for the political arena, but this flowchart-esque cartoon from Jorge Cham, skewers the mainstream media’s science coverage. Unfortunately, it’s funny because it’s true. While the scientists live in the world of caveats and qualifications, journalists live in the world of black and white, good and bad.
4) Why Oprah is Bad for Your Health
When you are as wealthy and influential as Oprah, you’re bound to draw some fire for just about anything that you do. However, in recent years Oprah has given air time to some pretty questionable guests, including Jenny McCarthy and Suzanne Somers. The author of this article did a great service by exposing the health claims of these quacks to the light of science.
It seems that every profession is under threat of automation these days, so why not scientists? In this piece, science blogger Ed Yong takes the time to explain how the robots conduct their robo-science. However, what I’d really like to know is whether these robot scientists will be eligible for University tenure?
2) A Real Road Map to Carbon-free Energy
This little gem (ok, not so little) appeared in last month’s issue of Scientific American. Environmental scientists Mark Jacobson and Mark Delucchi lay out a concrete, specific roadmap to get us off the fossil fuel gravy train. Reading the entire article requires a subscription but you can get the jist of it from the free multimedia extra.
In the 1990s Utah-based Myriad Genetics patented the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes. Certain mutations in these genes increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer over her lifetime by about five times. Unfortunately, Myriad has been stingy with its patents and charges around $3000 to test these genes. It also has prevented anyone from developing competitive and potentially less costly diagnostics.
But beyond these breast cancer genes, the BRCA patents represent a larger issue. It is estimated that 20 percent of human genes are patented. If the ACLU wins their case, it could undo every gene patent to-date. And on ethical grounds, it should.
To follow developments in the Myriad vs. ACLU case as they unfold in 2010, visit the Justia.com docket page.
–
*A bit of disclosure is in order. I am starting a new job in January as an Audio-Video Editor at Nature Publishing Group, the company that publishes Scientific American.
