The Y Files

In the fall of 2001, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) convened two blue-ribbon panels to determine how to best investigate a series of anthrax attacks. Letters containing bacillus anthracis, the spores that cause the disease anthrax, had been mailed to several news-media outlets and two U.S. senators. Five people died and 17 others were infected with a disease which, in its inhalational form, begins with cold or flu-like symptoms and eventually causes severe breathing problems.

A Matter of National Security

Still reeling from the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the FBI needed answers. Did the anthrax letters contain a weaponized form of bacillus anthracis, a naturally-occurring bacterium whose spores live in the soil and remain viable for decades? If so, did the anthrax letters provide proof of state-sponsored terrorism, or indicate that Al-Qaeda was capable of producing biological weapons? For answers to these questions, the FBI turned to Sandia National Laboratories of Albuquerque, New Mexico. A multi-program program facility, Sandia is renowned for its expertise in electron microscopy.

Silicon and Oxygen Signals

In February 2002, the first spore materials arrived at Sandia Labs. During the next six and a half years, a team of researchers examined over 200 samples. Material characterization analysts Joseph Michael, Paul Kotula, and Ray Goehner played especially important roles. After signing non-disclosure agreements (NDA) and receiving briefings from the FBI, the trio reviewed scanning electron microscopy (SEM) studies about the spores from another laboratory. These initial tests had revealed high silicon and oxygen signals – signs that the bacillus anthracis spores had been intentionally weaponized.

SEM and TEM

Seven years later and now released from their NDAs, the Sandia scientists described why they reversed these first findings. "The possible misinterpretation of the SEM results," Paul Kotula explained, "arose because SEM microanalysis is not a surface-sensitive tool". When anthrax is weaponized, B. anthracis is coated with lint-like silica nanoparticles that make the spores more respirable. Although "SEM cannot localize the elemental signal from whole spore bodies" with dimensions as small as 1 micron, Kotula explained, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) could.

Follow the Nanoparticles

With TEM, a beam of electrons is passed through a specimen that has been stained with phosphotungstic acid in order to block some electrons and form a "negative" image. The electrons then strike a platform that is covered with a substance that fluoresces, producing a glowing image which is then magnified by a light microscope. Using TEM, materials analysts from Sandia Labs determined that the silica in the anthrax spore samples had been incorporated as a natural-part of the spore formation process. "The spores we examined," Kotula noted, "lacked that fuzzy outer coating that would indicate that they'd been weaponized.

Later, DNA studies of the spores from the anthrax letters corroborated the Sandia studies.

Resources:

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2008/anthrax.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_anthracis

http://www.drjreid.com/phage_vocab.htm

Would you take 30 seconds to help bring science to the forefront of media coverage of the U.S. presidential election? That's the latest call-to-action from Shawn Otto, a member of the steering committee for ScienceDebate 2008, a self-described "concerned citizens' initiative" that is co-sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Council on Competitiveness (Compete.org), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Supporters of Science Debate 2008 include Nobel and Crafoord laureates, college and university presidents; government officials; engineers and scientists; and editors, writers and bloggers (including me).

What is Science Debate 2008?

As reported in The Y Files last February, ScienceDebate 2008 is calling for a public, presidential debate "on the issues of the environment, health and medicine, and science and technology policy" between the standard bearers of the major U.S. political parties. Recently, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama agreed to respond to 14 questions about innovation, climate change, energy, education, national security, pandemics and biosecurity, genetics research, stem cells, ocean health, water, space, scientific integrity, research, and health. ScienceDebate 2008 is encouraged by this development from the Obama and McCain campaigns, but writes that "we still feel strongly that a candidate for president should discuss these critical substantive policy questions in a televised forum before the American public.

Katie Couric: The Face of Science?

Do you agree with Shawn Otto and the supporters of ScienceDebate 2008? If so, you may want to connect with Katie Couric, anchor and managing editor for the CBS Evening News. Although the leg-baring, ex-host of the NBC Today Show has been criticized for blurring the lines between entertainment and journalism, Couric may be able to shine a spotlight on science (if ever so briefly) at the upcoming political conventions in Denver and St. Paul. In her latest YouTube video, Couric invites viewers to submit questions for the candidates at Digg.com, a popular book-marking site that describes itself as "a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web". The more "diggs" that a story (in this case, a question) receives, the more popular it can become.

There's no guarantee that Katie Couric will ask the question that a supporter of ScienceDebate 2008 recently submitted to Digg.com, but Shawn Otto remains optimistic. After all, a poll from May 2008 revealed that a whopping 85% of Americans want a presidential debate about science. For my part, I plan to digg this science question just as soon as I post my own blog entry. After all, I'm much more interested in what the candidates have to say about biosecurity than whether Paris Hilton belongs in a campaign commercial.

Steve Czaban, a nationally-syndicated sports radio personality, claims that it is impossible to classify Olympic swimming god Michael Phelps in the same category as Tiger Woods when it comes to the caliber of champion because the physics behind swimming is so "less sophisticated" than golf.

Someone should have told that to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) fluid mechanics professor Timothy Wei. Professor Wei has been working with USA Swimming for the last five years, analyzing water flow around swimmers. In short, Wei's work has been revolutionary. According to the Albany Times-Union, USA Swimming Coach Sean Hutchison said the project "gave me the foundation for which every technical stroke change in preparation for the Beijing Olympics was based."

Wei's work involved modifying and combining force measurement tools originally developed for aerospace with digital particle image velocimetry, a video-based flow measurement based technique. It gives US swimmers real-time feedback while they compete. Adjustments can be made between prelims, semis, and finals to maximize the energy that they exert, and by pinpointing the path of water around their bodies.

Digital particle image velocimetry allowed Hutchinson to analyze the techniques of his swimmers, determine which was the best, and then modify the rest of his stable to mimic the best technique - using hard data as a basis. Hard data is something that has been lacking in science of swimming. He credits Wei's work with Margaret Hoelzer's world record in the 200-m backstroke in July.

Up next for Wei: 2010 Vancouver Olympic Gold for the US Skeleton team.

Michael Phelps is already the most decorated Olympian in the history of the modern games. Is it fathomable, or even scary, to believe that he could get that much better though continual use and development of this technology? Or will the rest of the world, especially France (whose trash-talking relay team was humiliated into silence in the 4 x 100-m Relay) jump on board with Wei's work and again try to bridge the gap by 2012?

Resources:

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=711433&category=REGIONOTHER

It isn't a new discovery that men commit more crimes than women, and in nearly every crime category. So it wouldn't surprise most people to learn that men are more likely to be involved in a serious crime than women.

Generally, arrest rates tend to correlate between men and women. If there is a low arrest rate for a certain crime for a male, there tends to be a low arrest rate for females in the same crime category. This correlation between arrest rates for each gender remains consistent regardless of age. Trends show that most male and female offenders originate from backgrounds of poverty, poor schooling and discrimination.

Since 1975, there have been slight increases in the percentage of female crimes. Females tend to commit low-level crimes such as minor thefts and fraud, misdemeanor assaults (against their mates or children), and low-level drug dealing. Since women commit minor crimes, does it make it easier to escape from such crimes unnoticed? Surely, it would be harder for a storekeeper to notice someone sneak a candy bar in their pocket than to notice someone being murdered in their store.

So there is a question begging to be asked: are men really committing more crimes, or are women just getting away - unscathed by justice – more often? It is debatable that it is easier to get away with certain crimes than others. Maybe the ability to be discreet comes into play. Perhaps women are better at keeping a low profile than men.

Obviously, people get away with crime at times, but if a total could be compiled, would there be equality between males and females? Could it potentially show that women are committing the same number of crimes, but are getting away with more of them to create the aura of being less criminal?

Resources:

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1256/Gender-Crime.html

It is remarkable when three generations come together for a grueling cause. Even rarer is when they come together to plant trees. My grandfather, father and I planted 50 trees around our 4 acre lawn over ten years ago. Every day while the trees were young, they were watered and fertilized. Countless hours were spent spilling both water and sweat, so you can imagine the agony of a woodpecker introducing itself to the area.

On a return trip from a walk, my father and I cut across the lawn to find one of the trees covered with shallow holes. This tree was one of the only mountain ash trees we planted. They were starting to ooze, and multiple bugs had gathered to feast upon the sap. One way to kill a tree is to sever the bark all around it. This is known as girdling. In an attempt to save the tree, we duct taped the holes. But that wasn't enough to deter the pesky woodpecker from coming back later and pecking through the tape!

My father, understandably angry, took the roll of duct tape for a second spin. This time, it wasn't enough to just cover the newly-opened holes. He proceeded to attach strips of duct tape to branches like streamers. Now content that the tree was sufficiently covered, he backed down. Then he returned with rocks to hurl at a neighboring pine tree in which he believed the woodpecker lived. Once he was convinced that the woodpecker wasn't around anymore, he retreated to the front porch to sit and observe the tree. There is no doubt in my mind that if the woodpecker had gotten tangled in the duct tape, that would be the last thing it would ever do.

Although there were no woodpeckers entangled in the tape, the streamers seemed to have deterred the obnoxious bird from coming back. It has been at least two weeks since the tree was decorated with duct tape. Other than its shabby appearance, this mountain ash tree seems to have survived the war between my father and the woodpecker.