Why can’t I just come out and say what the real reason for my hiatus has been? The fact is that the reason is just too painful for me to say out loud. So forgive me as I gird what passes for my loins to say: “It is Obama’s fault.”

I thought I would feel better having gotten that off my chest, but I am still in agony. As has been clear from almost my first blog entry, there aren’t many people who are bigger fanboys of the current president. While I wasn’t the first person on his bandwagon, I was earlier than many of my friends and colleagues. He ran a damn near flawless campaign, and, for the most part, I have been pleased with his presidency. But I wouldn’t be honest with myself, and more importantly, my readers, if I didn’t come clean when he messes up my life.

I have written before Obama’s clear affection for science. He admires reason and thoughtfulness, and is clearly someone who using the scientific method in his decision processes. More to the point, he has immediately started supporting science in a big way. How big? How about 10 Billion (with a B) dollars for NIH to spend over the next 2 years as part of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

And there lies the rub. Because of this stimulus to the NIH, pre-existing grant programs have been bolstered significantly, and new programs are springing up all over the place. What this means for someone who, like your faithful correspondent, is dependent on NIH grants to fund his research is that, to quote our ancestors, “there’s gold in them thar hills.” In practice, that means that I would be completely remiss in my fiduciary responsibilities to the lab if I didn’t apply to every possible grant mechanism that I can.

And I have. I have submitted a grant for a shared instrument (fancy microscope), where I had to coordinate information from 10 of my colleagues, and then write a reasonable rationale as to how it will benefit all our research. When that was done, I was alerted to the ARRA Administrative Supplements, where individuals who have been awarded grants (like myself) can write a small proposal for up to $100K/year for 2 years in order speed along the ongoing research. The idea is to use this money to hire more people and/or buy new equipment that will help the investigator better fulfill the aims of his/her current grant, and stimulate the economy as well. These supplements are not reviewed as a normal grant would be—by a panel of peers—but are being handled at the administrative level at NIH.

The bottom line is that a grant awardee would be foolish not to apply for one of these supplements. It is a relatively small amount of work for a potentially nice reward. The bad news is that basically means that everyone who has a grant is going to apply for one of these, and as a result the chances of getting one are about as poor as getting a normal competitive grant. But the odds have never stopped me before, and I forged ahead and submitted my supplement on Friday.

Does the grant writing end there? Not bloody likely. I’ve already identified another new program that is right up our alley, and so that will be on the agenda for the July deadline. This is on top of a competitive renewal of another grant that I’ll be targeting for the October submission date.

And that’s not all. While all the grant writing was going on, one of our bigger proposals was being reviewed for the last time (up until recently, you got three chances at getting a grant). The good news is that it was reviewed quite favorably, and we are reasonably sure that it will get funded. What this meant was that I had to immediately begin the hiring process. You might imagine that in this economy that there might be more than few soon-to-be-college graduates that would be interested in the 4 positions we are advertising. You’d be right.

So in sum, because of Obama, I have had to write 2 grants and hire 4 people in the past 3 weeks. That guy is killing by blog cred. I am sure that I can learn to forgive him at some point. But as I sit here composing this somewhere over the Atlantic, I am reminded that one should be careful what you wish for.

In any event, a number of my colleagues and I have been talking about acquiring an advanced microscope system for doing cell counts, brain mapping, and high-resolution imaging. So we figured it might be a good idea to use this opportunity to apply for these funds. That was on March 6, with the grant due on March 23. Not too onerous a deadline, unless one figures in that the proposal needed to be submitted to Research Administration in my institution one week before the NIH deadline.

Suffice it to say, I was able to put together a proposal in the time allotted, just in time for me to hop on the Limoliner to New York. As I sit here in my comfy leather chair taking advantage of the free Wi-Fi, I am enjoying the downtime to think about things other than proposals and driving my chairman crazy.

Tops on my list are the positive changes in the atmosphere for science that has occurred in the past couple of weeks, First, the dramatic short term change in funding for NIH. Obviously, I wouldn’t have written this proposal without the extra funding, and successful applicants will certainly help to keep equipment vendors afloat. Interestingly, this program has, if anything, somewhat of a negative impact on the finances of the scientists themselves because this type of grant (unlike most) doesn’t pay any overhead costs to the institution. Moreover, this institution is expected to kick in some money to help manage the machine. So even though we’d be really happy to be fortunate enough to acquire this piece of equipment, the institution’s attitude can best be summed up as “meh.”

To be sure, there is a good deal of stimulus money going toward investigator-initiated research, and many are working toward tailoring their proposals to fit the needs of the different institutes at NIH. Those of us with grants currently under review are hopeful that extra money in the coffers of NIH will increase the number of proposals that are funded.

Another good thing, of course, is the administration removing the restrictions on stem cell research. There are enormous potential benefits of this type of research, and I know that scientists are ecstatic that they will no longer have to set up walls between their NIH-funded and private foundation stem cell work.

There are two good takes on this. The first is a piece by Frank Rich in the New York Times. The second can be seen below.

I originally said that “people claim,” because I really don’t know anyone who prefers the latter. Personally, I know that the quick rip is always better than the alternative, but I believe that this is probably related to excessive amounts of body hair, so much so (and I don’t mean to brag here) that I am considered to be the equivalent of Mel Gibson among certain species of apes.

But I digress.

I have been watching presidential addresses to joint sessions of Congress since the mid 60s, and the constant interruptions with standing ovations have always been annoying. They are most often done by rote—the president delivers a controversial line like “…and that’s why the United States is the best country in the world,” and the Speaker of the House and Vice President jump up out of their seats as if propelled by grenades. After a while, you get used to it and recognize that it is part of the kabuki dance that is American politics.

That said, I lost all patience for this show during the last administration. I suspect that some of it was that I rarely agreed with anything that guy said. But I came to realize that it was more than that. I wanted to end the ovationeering so that I wouldn’t have to listen to Bush mangle the language any more. Just like a bandage on a hirsute arm, I wanted him to rip off his 5,000-Word Jumble as quickly as possible. Each interruption simply postponed the time when my ears would stop bleeding.

Which brings us to Obama’s speech last night to a joint session of Congress. Obviously, there is no comparison between the styles of Bush and Obama. Leaving aside whether one agrees or disagrees with what’s being said, the quality of Obama’s speech writing and the ease of his delivery stands in stark contrast to what came before. The applausorupptions, however, were even more annoying. One might assume that if one wants to quickly dispose of pain, then the converse should be true, namely that one would want to draw out pleasurable stimuli. But clearly, this isn’t the case. I would actually like to hear what the man has to say in the natural flow of a speech, rather than the chopped up sound bites that get presented. Which is why reading the speech today was so much fun.

But now to the point of this post. I have written before about how it appeared that Obama “gets science” (see Barack on Track, Changeling). As many of you know, the stimulus package increases the budget for NIH by $10 billion and NSF by $3 billion (a 34% increase overall). That clearly shows his administration’s belief in science as one of the drivers of our economic future. As he said last night.

Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years. We’ve also made the largest investment in basic research funding in American history, an investment that will spur not only new discoveries in energy, but breakthroughs in medicine, in science and technology.

But is was these lines in last night’s speech that really sent me out of my chair in wild applause.

So tonight I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be a community college or a four-year school, vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It’s not just quitting on yourself; it’s quitting on your country. And this country needs and values the talents of every American.

It is clear that he is placing a lot of weight on the shoulders of our institutions of higher learning. Large portions of the NIH and NSF budgets will be going to fund research at these places (hopefully, a small amount to my lab). He is also making it clear that he understands how important science and education are to the future of this country. And by calling out parents, students, and educators as he did, he is setting a clear tone of responsibility that is more than a little welcome. It is difficult to overstate how important it is to have a president that values science, education, and responsibility.

For those of you who point out that last night’s speech lacked specifics and was overambitious, let me say this about that: Nerts! I’m sorry to use such language, but it has to be said. The venue last night wasn’t the place for specifics, so hold off until you see what the administration’s budget contains. And if there is one word I’ve learned to hate over the years, it is “overambitious.” This is often used pejoratively in critiques of grant proposals, as if it is a crime to aim high. I want my president to aim high. The worst that will happen is that he comes up a bit short, but will accomplish quite a bit on his way to these lofty goals. That, my friends, is called leadership.

So it is now obvious that I have a man crush on the president. I used to think that everyone felt the same way, but then I saw this:

But of course the most noteworthy event on this day was the first post of this blog. Those of you who have been following this compendium of wit and wisdom from the beginning will no doubt remember the fine post I wrote where I gave my coveted endorsement to an obscure senator from Illinois. How did that one work out? I’m not saying that I put that skinny fellow over the top, but I urge you to look at his poll numbers before and after that date.

As I alluded to on the occasion of this blog’s 100th post, I will confess to worrying a little bit about appearing to be self absorbed and self aggrandizing. Those who know me well are aware that it is far too late for those types of concerns.

So as I think back on years worth of on and off blogging, I have to say that it has been a lot more fun that I thought it would be. I started this thing mostly as a technical challenge—I just wanted to know how the whole blogging thing worked. I also thought it would be a nice place to put up the occasional interesting link to share with friends and family. What I hope for in the next year is that I can keep up the momentum and maybe even coax a few people to read this thing.

Well, whatever it was, it was pretty damn good. You simply have to love an inaugural (THAT’S the word!) address where he mentions “data” and “statistics” in the first 5 minutes.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable, but no less profound, is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.

Not only did he use the words, but he used them correctly. I’m simply not used to a President that does that. Of course, later in the speech, he made my heart soar with the following words:

We will restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its costs.

All in all a forceful, appropriate, and, dare I say, hopeful, speech (That sentence, by the way, has set a new standard in the use of the comma). It takes some pretty large cojones to delineate the changes his administration will make while his predecessor is sitting right there. His moves in the first few days of office, although expected, were still pretty stunning in setting a new course for this country. And it seems like most people, save Fox News, are willing to give him a break for the first couple of weeks. See this clip from The Daily Show for the alternative view.

In the spirit of change, my relationship to social media is also undergoing a little spruce up. The first year anniversary of this blog is coming up shortly, and I’ve decided undergo a little facelift. Some of you may have noticed some changes in the sidebar, and I will be making some other changes that will improve the world’s access to all things Glenn.

Toward that end, I started twittering last week. For those who don’t know, Twitter is a social networking site that asks the question “What are you doing right now?” Users post 140 characters describing what they’re doing, and those that subscribe to their feed can read these “tweets.” I approached this with some skepticism, but I am finding it somewhat entertaining, and it has fun to follow the few people I know on the site and see what they’re up to. If you are on the Twitter, you can find me at “jbsaywhat.” I’ll follow you if you follow me.

As if that wasn’t enough, I am using FriendFeed, which is a sight that aggregates all of my social networking feeds (blogs, twitter, Flickr, etc.) in one place. It is a free site, and even though I’ve only been using it since the weekend, I can see where it would be very useful for families and friends to keep in touch. Here’s the link to my feed.

So that is all for now. Keep an eye out for what might be a major redesign of the blog. Or just minor tweaks. Either way, it will made with you, the loyal reader, in mind.

A recent article from the New York Times has given me pause, however, at a number of different levels. The article, written by Pam Belluck, and entitled “Test Subjects Who Call the Scientist Mom or Dad,” reviews how various scientists have used their own children as test subjects. There are a number of choice examples in the article, but here are just a couple:

“You need subjects, and they’re hard to get,” said Deborah Linebarger, a developmental psychologist who directs the Children’s Media Lab at the University of Pennsylvania, who has involved her four children in her studies of the effect of media on children.

“I don’t want them to feel uncomfortable, like I’m invading their privacy,” said Dr. Linebarger, who ultimately set some boundaries. “When you mix being a researcher with being a parent, it can put your kids in an unfair place.”

For the record, I am not picking on Dr. Linebarger here, but the two quotes do get at some of the underlying competing desires of researchers/parents. That said, I’m somewhat amused by the fact that she’s discussing her use of children in studying the effects of media on children in arguably the highest profile print newspaper in the US.

Put simply, I am torn. On the one hand, it is one thing to be a scientist all your life, but it quite another to be a research subject all your life. There are good reasons why getting children as subjects is difficult. It should be difficult. They are kids. That they had the luck/misfortune to be born to scientists who study children shouldn’t make them any more of less able to become subjects in their parent’s research.

On the other hand, I am kicking myself for not thinking about this clearly when my wife and I decided to breed. Imagine all the work I could have gotten done had I only decided to experiment on my children rather than driving them to soccer, baseball, and music lessons. To be fair, however, the wife and I did do a fair amount of experimentation on the kids when they were younger. I’ve mentioned before our liberal use of the Placebo® in the treatment of psychosomatic illness. But sadly, none of this research was of publishable quality and has only served to provide moderately amusing stories in our dotage.

But the truth of the matter is that I know of few parents who don’t experiment on their kids. After all, despite the best efforts of hopeful writers of child rearing books, no one is an expert on raising kids, and no one has the specific expertise necessary to raise a particular child. The best you can hope for is that you and your child will both learn, though mostly trial and error, the optimal ways to communicate your mutual desires. And what is experimentation if not trial and error. The main difference is that most of us don’t have to go through an IRB in order to bring a child home from the hospital.

Some people are all too willing to say good riddance to the old style of journalism. They point out that the internet allows for information to flow faster and with fewer barriers than with print technology. Often, the proliferation of the blogosphere has been cited as further spelling the doom of print. Bloggers are more nimble, and can quickly cover the news as it happens.

As a nascent blogger myself, I say this: Phooey! Before I first started blogging, I surfed around to see what blogs looked like. While many special interest blogs were fascinating, with people waxing rhapsodic over their peculiar obsessions, the “news” and “gadget” blogs were another story. These bloggers weren’t reporters who went out and gathered news. Rather, they were regurgitators who simply linked to other stories that hard working reporters had gathered and then added their own snarky comments to make it their own.

Don’t get me wrong, I like a snarky comment as much as the next person. And in the history of this blog, I have not been above this type of behavior. But it is clear that without the kind of in depth and thoughtful reporting that goes on out there, the “news” blogosphere would implode. Imagine a world with no New York Times, London Times, Washington Post, etc. If all of the news we received was from untrained monkeys with typing skills (much like myself) who aren’t actually reporting anything, where would we be? Without Woodward and Bernstein, would Nixon have served his full term? What about the Pentagon papers?

I recognize that newspapers won’t die completely—the best of them have excellent web editions—but I mostly fear for the day when I won’t be able to hold some newsprint in my hand over my morning bagel. Not to put too fine a point on it, but there are certain places where I won’t take New York Times iPhone app, if you know what I mean.

All this by way of saying that while I am rarely someone who toots his own horn, preferring instead to let others who recognize my greatness speak for me, today I simply can’t resist. A few weeks ago I wrote a post called “Barack on Track,” in which I laid out 1) the Bush war on science, and 2) the hope that Obama will restore the scientific method to the decision in the White House. It was, as always, a well-reasoned and exceptionally erudite post (you’re welcome). Today, Olivia Judson in the New York Times wrote and excellent blog called “Back to Reality,” that makes many of the same points. I am honored and just a wee bit humbled to know that the Times and I agree on such an important point, especially since I thought of it first.

Incidentally, those of you that point out that her post is better written and has better citations are missing the point.

Washington, DC is also, I’ve been told, the seat of our government. As such, it is as good an opportunity as any to talk about the upcoming transition in the executive branch. I have been reading pretty intensely over the past couple of weeks about the Obama and McCain campaigns–what went right and what went wrong. For those of you who haven’t overdosed on this stuff, I would strongly recommend the special Newsweek issue entitled “44″ and a number of articles in last week’s New Yorker, including this, this, and this.

What is clear from these articles is how dramatically the candidates personalities influenced the campaign. The successful campaign of Obama (dubbed “No Drama Obama”) clearly reflected Obama’s even temperment—not allowing himself or the campaign to get too high or too low. In contrast, the McCain campaign was impulsive, and lacked a coherent message and strategy.

What was even more encouraging, however, were some descriptions of Obama’s management style. In meetings with his campaign staff, he would solicit the advice from everyone in the room–if a participant hadn’t talked much during the meeting, Obama would seek his/her opinion directly. What struck me as particularly encouraging was that, by all accounts, he would never tip his hat as to his own thoughts on the topics being discussed. The purpose of this was to make sure that the advice he was getting was not colored by his staffers natural inclination to try to make the boss happy by telling him what they thought he wanted to hear. When the meeting concludes, he weighs the unvarnished opinions that were offered, and then makes his decision.

This is a particularly refreshing departure from the leadership currently ensconced at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave (when not spending >800 days on vacation). What it also demonstrates is, dare I say it, an empirical approach—a relatively dispassionate assessment of the facts as best as can be determined, and the subsequent generation of a thesis based on these facts.

Along these lines, it was quite interesting to read this morning that Obama admires the approach of FDR during his first 100 days in office, whereby FDR would try a number of different programs to help ease the US out of the depression. Those that worked, he stuck with, those that didn’t were axed. This is, of course, exactly what a good scientist would do. You generate hypotheses, test the hypotheses, and then let the data tell you whether your hypothesis was correct or not.

The bottom line for me appears to be that Obama clearly respects the scientific method. My wife has always said that kids are born scientists—curious about the world and how it works—and only begin to lose interest, if they do, when they go to school and get their curiosity bored out of them. Clearly, our current president lost his interest in “fact based ideology” quite a while ago. As a working scientist, I am more than a little hopeful that Obama will be more sympathetic to the important role the scientific and technological research will play in the keeping the US competitive in the coming decades. A good first start would be to immediately rescind the ban on stem cell research in the US. A second move would be to devote a large amount of R&D dollars and tax incentives toward the development of green technologies. Finally, he should restore the cuts to the NIH budget and work toward bringing future budgets more in line to where they have been in past.

I surely recognize that science isn’t the be all and end all, and that not all problems are amenable to the scientific method. But it is nonetheless true that ignoring pesky facts, silencing voices that disagree with your own, and limiting exploration of new knowledge has clearly hurt our country. There is every reason to hope that this will change in mid-Janaury, and the sooner the better.

I have been out of the loop for the past couple of weeks due to a grant submission deadline. I am pleased to say that I was able to mail off the tome (six copies of all 211 pages) earlier this afternoon without sustaining any paper cuts or other visible injuries. This is our last attempt at securing funding for one of our projects—NIH allows you to submit a proposal once and then resubmit two additional times. While we are hopeful that we will successfully convince the review panel of the merit of the proposal, I am not above asking for good thoughts to be thrown our way by my faithful readers.

For those of you who have never had the pleasure of writing a proposal to NIH, the process basically involves convincing a group of your peers that 1) the experiments that you are proposing are cutting edge and have a high likelihood of success, and 2) you are the guy to do the work. With regard to the latter, you submit a truncated CV that lists your positions, awards, publications, and current funding that is meant to give the reader a sense of your productivity and reputation. I have worked hard over the nearly 3 decades I have been in the business to establish a reputation as a careful, and, dare I say, notable scientist. Coincidently, just this morning I received the following email, which clearly demonstrates the international level of esteem that I have earned.

I hope this isn’t an omen.

But the really cool thing is that this blog entry was done entirely from my iPhone, including taking the pictures.

Now that I know I can do this, I may start microblogging to keep you all informed of my terribly exciting life on an hour-to-hour basis.

There were two odd events that occurred during the run up to the move that give, for better or worse, an insight as to how my mind works. Before dealing with the initial incident, let me digress. I attended a college that provided maid service once/week where they would straighten up, change our sheets, and make sure that we didn’t destroy the room. “Casa de Rosen” was, I’ve been told, such an ungodly mess that I had to bribe the maid to enter my room. It is safe to say that in general, I am/was considered to be somewhat of a slob.

But that is not an entirely true characterization. I will concede that I can be quite messy, but eventually even I can no longer stand it. I react by initiating what can only be called a “cleaning frenzy” that results in my places becoming habitable. Parenthetically, I will add that it is safe to say that my threshold for action is somewhat higher than that of my wife, but over the years I have begun to recognize the subtle signs she gives me and get myself in gear.

So back to the move. By Tuesday I had spent the the previous 4 days finishing all the packing and purging and cleaning that I could do in advance of the movers. At the end of the day, I decided that it would be a good idea to clean up my desktop. The desktop on my computer. I’ll repeat that: The desktop on my computer.

What on earth was I thinking? Was cleaning my desktop going to make my computer lighter? Was purging old files going to help consolidate things so there would be less to pack? Obviously, I had completely been consumed by the cleaning fever, and simply had to make my desktop spotless.

The other odd interaction happened at lunch on Wednesday. I met with my longtime colleague, Al. He was the foolish man who initially hired me as a post-doc for his lab, and we have been collaborating and sharing lab space since that time. He asked me whether I was a little sentimental about leaving the lab space that we had occupied since 1982. I remarked that I tended not to get too sentimental about buildings (I’ve blogged about this before). What he next said, drew me up short: “I was asking because you’ve spent half your life in that space.”

Yikes. I could quibble that 26 years in one space is only 49.056% of my life, but the point is taken.

For reference, I am putting in some pictures of our space taken before we moved in. Once we’re fully ensconsed this week, I will include some more.

Let’s back up for a moment. After 26 of occupying the same lab space, our lab is moving this week. There is much that is good about this relocation: We are moving to a brand new building and we are now housed on the same the floor with other neuroscientists from our department. Our square footage is less that what we have now, but not so much so that it rises beyond a slight inconvenience. But like anyone else who has maintained residence in one place for for such an extended period, there is a tendency to accumulate…how shall I put this…lots of crap once important scientific data that is no longer required for the continuation of our exceptional work. Because we’ve known about the move for nearly a year, we have gone about our preparation in a systematic, and if I do say so myself, pretty intelligent way.

From the beginning of the year, one day each month was identified as “Purge Day.” I recognize that this designation may be a bit florid, and may bring to mind some rather unpleasant associations, but it accurately describes our systematic search and destroy mission for material that we will no longer use. This is not quite as easy as it sounds. When paring down a cloths closet, for example, one can use the rule of thumb that if you haven’t worn the piece of apparel in question for X number of years (where X=3 for me and =10 for my wife), you are required to remove it. Much of what we scientists keep around in a lab can’t really ever be thrown away. Lab notebooks, as an example, are permanent records of our daily work and are absolutely essential documents. Slides that we haven’t look at for years may contain information that would be useful 10 years hence. That said, we were pretty ruthless in our mission and got rid of an extraordinarily large amount of stuff.

Which brings me back for my former colleague. When he departed the lab, he not only left a legacy of fine work behind him, he also left virtually all of his files, the largest portion of which was his reprint collection that numbered over 6000. Reprints are basically copies of scientific articles (either photocopies or reprints from the publisher). This represents the old way of scholarship, as we now gain access to electronic versions (either online or through downloaded PDFs) of all the articles we need to read.

Now remember that I said that he left the lab over ten years ago. That means that the most recent reprint in his file in from 1998, which is, like, so last century. At best, this collection is mostly historical. So what should I do with them? The wise person would have simply tossed them into the recycling bin. But it may surprise you to know that I am just neurotic enough to want to go through all of them to see if there were any gems that I would add to my own collection. I had tackled about half of these a few months ago when we needed to get rid of a filing cabinet. This week I needed to take on the rest.

As I went through each of the remaining 3000 reprints, I began to have very negative thoughts about my colleague. But as soon as they entered my mind, I would find a cool set of reprints that I didn’t have. Some of the best finds were papers from Vic Denenberg, my recently deceased graduate advisor. These will be incredibly useful for the issue of Developmental Psychobiology that two of his former students and I will be editing to honor him. There were a couple of other classic papers in our field that I was pleased to find.

When all was said and done, I found about 100 or so reprints that were worth keeping out of the whole lot. Not a great percentage (< 2%), but some real winners. So I guess I don’t really hate my colleague after all. And now I recognize that the best part for me is yet to come. When I eventually move on to bigger and better things, I can pass on my extensive collection of reprints to the next sucker generation of eager scientists.

This is the big one for me. For years, we’ve been ping-ponged back an forth with regard to what is healthy to eat. First we needed to eliminate fats, but then just saturated fats. Carbs were first a good substitute for too much meat, now carbs are, to put it simply, death. What do these strictures have in common? They were all based on meager (to be generous) data.

People who know me are sick of my harping on this, but ever 2000, when I read “The Soft Science of Dietary Fat,” I have approached much of these guidelines with a pillar of salt (I guess that is my Lot in life. Get it?). Anyhoo, follow the links in the Tierney’s article to see the latest research that once again fails to show any link between dietary fat and serum cholesterol.

2. Your car’s planet-destroying A/C

Once again, I am right. I have argued with my spouse for years about this issue. I have always contended that using air conditioning on the highway (with the windows closed) actually saves gas because it allows for a more aerodynamic trip. I was told that I was simply using this theory to justify my comfort. This may be true, but now there is at least data to support me.

3. Forbidden fruits from afar

Others have pointed out that shipping produce locally sometimes leaves a bigger carbon footprint than shipping from across the globe because longer distance shipping is mostly by boat, which is better than planes and trucks. Interesting, nonetheless.

4. Carcinogenic cellphones

Am I worried that some neurosurgeons are suggesting to the physicians in their department that they stop using cell phonees? I just got an iPhone. I’ll give you my iPhone when you pry it from my cold, dead ear.

5. Evil plastic bags

Apparently it takes more energy to produce paper, as opposed to plastic, bags. This is news to me. Although paper takes up more space in the landfill, I wonder if it still degrades faster than plastic. I seem to recall reading somewhere that most landfills are packed so tightly that nothing degrades.

6. Toxic plastic bottles

As they say down in Texas, I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I know people who do. I guess it is OK that manufacturers are taking BPA out of their products, but I suspect that Tierney is right, and that this is yet another big scare that is based on weak data.

7. Deadly sharks

One fatal shark attack in the world last year. Enough said.

8. The Arctic’s missing ice

This was another surprise to me. I guess it is good news that the melt this year was not as great as expected, but the worry about the long term health of the planet is still probably worth considering.

9. The universe’s missing mass

I don’t know nothing ’bout birthin’ no universe.

10. Unmarked wormholes

I got nothing.

I’ve been fortunate enough to have a number of excellent mentors in my life. Today I want to talk about one of them: my graduate school advisor, Victor H. Denenberg, who passed away this weekend at the age of 83.

I first met Vic when I was in the process of applying to graduate schools. I was given the advice to apply to your home state school, and so I got ahold of the UCONN graduate school catalogue and started looking at the research interests of the faculty. At the time, there really wasn’t a field called “Neuroscience,” but I knew that I wanted a program that would combine the study of behavior with biology. I was also convinced that I would continue doing research on circadian rhythms as I had during the previous couple of years. Either I was a lot dumber that I remember, or I simply misread something, but I got the impression that this Denenberg fellow might be worth talking to.

So I wrote him a letter and arranged to come and visit the lab for an afternoon. I explained my goals for my graduate career and he patiently listened. He never out and out and said that I couldn’t do circadian rhythm research, so I took that as a positive sign. I met with the graduate students—some of whom were civil to me—and came away with a generally positive impression. When the time came to consider where I would matriculate, Denenberg’s lab seemed to be the place to be.

It didn’t take long me for me to become immersed in the research of the lab. In fact, the very first week, Vic himself taught me how to “handle” rat pups—a procedure whereby you individually isolate newborn rat pups from their mothers for 3 minutes daily. I didn’t realize it then, but that may have been the last time he actually worked with the rats. Our laboratory was a rather large unit that required strong collaborations among the graduate students, and Vic did a masterful job of managing everyone’s contributions and expectations. He was sometimes difficult and could be quite stern, but he was always fair.

From Vic I learned how to properly design experiments, how to properly review a manuscript, how to write a grant proposal, and the proper use of statistics. To call him a statistical savant isn’t quite fair because it implies that he knew nothing else, which is far from the truth. That said, his statistical mind was the most exceptional I have ever run across. I would never hesitate to contact him with questions concerning my analyses. Just last year we shared a long email discussion about a particularly tricky by of data, the analysis of which required his insight.

I once asked him how he got interested in statistics. He said “World War II.” He was an 19-year-old infantryman in France when he was shot in the thigh while climbing over a fence. Had he started his climb just half-a-second earlier he would have been hit in the head. The randomness of that act touched a place deep within him, and he was determined to find out more about putting order in randomness, which is what statistical analysis does.

As generous as Vic was with his time for his students, he could sometimes be less so when it came to money. He would often join us for drinks at the end of the week, and would never treat, and sometimes didn’t leave enough money to cover his own cocktail. About 10 years ago or so, a number of us were invited by Vic to go out for drinks at Trader Vic’s in DC. When the bill came, Vic made noises about how to split the bill. By prearrangment, none of us reached for our wallets. I said “Dig deep, Vic.” To his credit, he just smiled and whipped out his credit card.

I’ve gone on a little too long for a blog entry, and I didn’t even get to the famous Jello Party, so I’ll save that for another post sometime. For those of you that knew Vic, there are some nice remembrances being gathered by Holly Fitch at her lab site. For those of you who didn’t know Vic, just know that he was a brilliant scientist and exceptional teacher and mentor.

My fellow Americans: We are a country in debt and in decline — not terminal, not irreversible, but in decline. Our political system seems incapable of producing long-range answers to big problems or big opportunities. We are the ones who need a better-functioning democracy — more than the Iraqis and Afghans. We are the ones in need of nation-building. It is our political system that is not working.

And then:

That’s us. [The economy is] at a 34-year low. And digging out of this hole is what the next election has to be about and is going to be about — even if it is interrupted by a terrorist attack or an outbreak of war or peace in Iraq. We need nation-building at home, and we cannot wait another year to get started. Vote for the candidate who you think will do that best. Nothing else matters.

As is often the case, Friedman is right. What I am having difficult imagining, however, is a politician with the guts to say something along these lines:

“I know you are concerned about terrorism. Our government has made a promise that the events of September 11 will not happen again. I intend to keep that promise. As your president, I will work tirelessly to ensure the safety of all Americans.

“All countries of the world, however, are fighting an even larger foe—global warming. It is now time to take our heads out of the sand, and carefully evaluate what is now not debatable. The world is warming up, and it is due in large part because of what we are doing. We need renewable sources of energy. We need to cap CO2 emissions. We need to tackle this problem quickly and decisively.

“And we need to do more. We need to make certain that America remains a country worth protecting. Our economy is failing. We are no longer the world leader in manufacturing, and the main driving force of our economy is consumer spending. The recent economic events clearly show us that this is not sustainable in the long term. If we do not correct these problems, the negative effects on this country will far exceed any that would result from terrorists.

“The beauty is that we can attack both of these problems together. By making the US the world’s leader in alternative energy research and development, we can create billions of dollars of new investments, as well as reaching the long term goal of alleviating our dependence on natural resources from other countries, some of whom may not have the best interests of our country in mind. We can change our infrastructure to accommodate more public transportation.

“This won’t be easy. It will require a lot of tough choices. It will require strong investments in education at all levels. It will require a fundamental change in the way our government currently operates. It will require sacrifices by all of us, both in terms of our time and our pocketbooks.

“How will we accomplish these goals? I have a number of ideas in mind. But I am not arrogant enough to believe that mine are the only ones that work. We need to get the best minds on the planet together to think clearly and deeply about what needs to be done. As politicians, we need to sit down together and work with determination to achieve a workable plan that will allow us to the accomplish the goals that we have laid out.

“And all of us, my fellow Americans, need to stop listening to the chattering heads on cable TV. Let us no longer seek out only those voices that agree with our own. Let us challenge ourselves to critically evaluate all the information that is out there. Let us agree that there are common problems that need to be solved, and let us have wisdom to work together to find the best way to make America a vibrant, tolerant, and strong force well into the next century.”

It could happen, right?

Although I suspect that there have been some experimentation in Physics classrooms, the science behind this phenomenon has never been rigorously explored. It was thought that perhaps it was the interaction of the covering of the candy with the acidity of the liquid that produced the gushers. The notion of enucleation sites—basically the bumpy surface of the Mento—produced a large number of carbon dioxide bubbles that therefore led to the explosion of the Diet Coke.

A recent paper in the Journal of American Physics now explores this issue directly.

Here’s what they did:

We examined the reaction between Diet Coke and samples of Mint Mentos, Fruit Mentos, a mixture of Dawn Dishwashing detergent and water, playground sand, table salt, rock salt, Wint-o-Green Lifesavers, a mixture of baking soda and water, liquid gum arabic, and molecular sieve beads (typically found in sorption pumps). We also examined the reaction between Mint Mentos and Diet Coke, Caffeine Free Diet Coke, Coca-Cola Classic, Caffeine Free Coca-Cola Classic, seltzer water, seltzer water with potassium benzoate added, seltzer water with aspartame added, tonic water, and diet tonic water. All of the samples were at room temperature unless otherwise indicated.

We constructed a bottle stand (roughly 10° off vertical) to prevent the bottles from tipping over and the liquid from falling back into the bottle. To maintain consistency we also constructed a tube to fit over the mouth of the bottle and a delivery mechanism for the solid materials. The liquid samples, including the gum arabic, the baking soda–water mixture, and the Dawn–water mixture, were administered by injection using a 10 ml syringe with an 18-gauge needle. The seltzer water and tonic water trials were 1 l bottles with 16 g of Mint Mentos added; all other trials were 30 g of solid material added to a 2 l bottle of liquid. The intensity of the reaction was determined by measuring the mass of the bottle using a double pan balance before and after the reaction to determine the mass lost in the reaction and by measuring the horizontal distance traveled by the soda’s spray. To ensure accurate distance measurements and to extract other useful information, a video was made of the reactions, and marker flags were placed every half foot on the level ground, up to a distance of 25 ft away from the bottle stand. For the Mint Mentos and baking soda trials, the pH of the Diet Coke before and after the reaction was measured by a pH meter with a two point calibration.

Sample morphology was determined by imaging the samples in an environmental scanning electron microscope (SEM).4 The uncoated samples were imaged in low vacuum mode. Quantitative surface roughness measurements were made with a Digital Instruments contact mode atomic force microscope (AFM) with Nanoscope III control electronics and a J type scanner with a 24 µm z range. For each of the samples a (10 µm)2 image was acquired, and the root-mean-square (rms) roughness in the image was reported. This size image was chosen for comparison between samples because the samples imaged were quite rough and had significant curvature, and images larger than 100 square µm often resulted in a z range larger than 24 µm.

For the temperature dependent trials one of the Diet Coke 2 l bottles was refrigerated for several hours prior to the experiment. The other bottles were heated in a water bath on a hot plate for approximately 10–20 min. Prior to heating, the bottle was opened to release some of the internal pressure, and then closed again. This procedure prevented the explosion of the bottle during heating, but the early release of some of the carbon dioxide gas may have caused these reactions to be less explosive than the cold or room temperature trials.

They basically found that it is indeed the rough surface of the Mentos, combined with the speed with which it falls to the bottom of the bottle, that causes the eruption of brown yuckiness. What is not to love about this study? This is just a perfect example of why science matters.

Separately […], a research team led by Tomas A. Prolla and Richard Weindruch, of the University of Wisconsin, reports in the journal PLoS One on Wednesday that resveratrol may be effective in mice and people in much lower doses than previously thought necessary. In earlier studies, like Dr. Auwerx’s of mice on treadmills, the animals were fed such large amounts of resveratrol that to gain equivalent dosages people would have to drink more than 100 bottles of red wine a day.

The Wisconsin scientists used a dose on mice equivalent to just 35 bottles a day. But red wine contains many other resveratrol-like compounds that may also be beneficial. Taking these into account, as well as mice’s higher metabolic rate, a mere four, five-ounce glasses of wine “starts getting close” to the amount of resveratrol they found effective, Dr. Weindruch said.

The bottom line is that the amount of resveratrol in red wine is so tiny that even if this one ingredient is truly related to longevity, one couldn’t possible consume enough wine to gain any benefit along these lines.

The hoohah surrounding this report and others like it is that it can only mean bad things for all of us, but most importantly, me. Most people will not read the fine print and immediately run out and buy up red wine, which will of course result in price increases across the board. That is bad for me and for anyone who enjoys drinking wine because they enjoy drinking wine.

But what is even worse in my mind, is the underlying assumption that scientists are going to be able to isolate a single substance that, once ingested, will have the single desirable effect of lengthening one’s life. This represents but a small subset of the mindset that allows us to think that simple manipulations of our biology by exogenous compounds will cure what ails us. Anyone remember oat bran as a cure for cholesterol? Wilfred Brimley aside, there has never been a single study demonstrating that it has any effect. If you haven’t already, read anything by Michael Pollan to see what a really smart guy thinks about this. His advice “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants” is right on point.

People rightly worry about what they put in their bodies. If you’re diabetic, for example, it would be wise to limit the amount of simple carbohydrates and sugars you eat. That said, our bodies are incredibly complex and it is simply folly to think that varying one aspect of our biology will have only one desired outcome—hence the term side effects. As for me, I may indeed choose to suck down 4-5 glasses of wine a night, but if I do so, it won’t be because I need to get a dose of resveratrol. It will be because I’ve turned into a wino.

But here’s the thing. The reason science really matters runs deeper still. Science is a way of life. Science is a perspective. Science is the process that takes us from confusion to understanding in a manner that’s precise, predictive and reliable — a transformation, for those lucky enough to experience it, that is empowering and emotional. To be able to think through and grasp explanations — for everything from why the sky is blue to how life formed on earth — not because they are declared dogma but rather because they reveal patterns confirmed by experiment and observation, is one of the most precious of human experiences.

This article passes the ultimate litmus test for excellence: I wish I wrote it.