Astrobiologists have been worried for quite some time now that the Martian surface has been contaminated with microbes originating from Earth — what got there by clinging to all the various probes and artifacts we've sent there. But given how severe the conditions are on Mars, it has been generally assumed that this is likely an impossibility.

A recent study now threatens to overturn this sentiment. Researchers from Russia and the U.S. have demonstrated that a hardy bacterium found in Siberia is in fact capable of surviving Mars-like conditions — a revelation that will have profound implications on how we prepare our Mars-bound artifacts for future missions.

Extracting Samples

To conduct the study, researchers from the University of Florida and the Russian Academy of sciences extracted various strains of bacteria found in the Siberian permafrost off the banks of the Kolyma River — extremophiles that can survive some of the harshest conditions that Earth has to offer. The samples were taken from a depth of 12 to 20 meters (40 to 65 feet) where the soil has an average temperature of -7 °C (19 °F).

The samples were drilled out directly from the depth of the permafrost, and without fluid (which normally serves as lubrication) to avoid any contamination. The microbes that were taken had endured their conditions deep underground for the past 6,000 to 8,000 years.

The team, which consisted of Wayne Nicholson, Kirill Krivushin, David Gilichinsky and Andrew Schuerger, then grew larger cultures of these microbes back at the lab at normal temperatures in preparation for the next phase.

Hardy Survivors

The researchers took these cultures and exposed them to similar conditions found on Mars, including a severe lack of oxygen, extreme cold temperatures, and very low pressure (about 150 times lower than the Earth's, about 7 millibars). The experiment was run over the period of 30 days. Over 10,000 isolates were exposed to these conditions — and they all died.

Except six.

And in fact, these six surviving microbes actually did better under these conditions. Surprised by the result, the researchers took a closer look at the survivors, and following a genetic analysis concluded that they all came from the same genus: an extremely hardy extremophile called Carnobacterium.

Carnobacterium can be found in cold climates around the world, including Alaska and the oxygen-poor waters of Ace Lake in Antarctica.

Mars Contaminated?

Indeed, it's a startlingly common anaerobic organism that doesn't require oxygen for growth. And in fact, a species of Carnobacterium (CB1) is used as a food additive for vacuum or modified atmosphere-packaged ready-to-eat and processed meats. In other words, it's the kind of bacterium that could easily make its way onto a probe bound for the Martian surface.

As the researchers note in their study, "the ability of terrestrial microorganisms to grow in the near-surface environment of Mars is of importance to the search for life and protection of that planet from forward contamination by human and robotic exploration." Moving forward, and despite the fact that Mars has a highly irradiated surface, scientists will now have to ensure complete sterilization of all artifacts bound for the Martian surface.

The study was recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Top image Randolph College. Other images: ID1974/shutterstock, NASA X 2.

For the first time ever, researchers will conduct a detailed study of the DNA of a mass killer. By taking a closer look at Adam Lanza's genomic data, scientists are hoping to discover the potential biological underpinnings for extreme violence. But given the diverse nature of mental illness and the complex interplay between genes and the environment, what do the scientists really hope to discover that we don't know already? And is this really a sensible approach to preventing similar attacks?

As Gina Kolata reports in the New York Times, researchers from the University of Connecticut have very quietly announced their plans to conduct the analysis. Speaking through a spokeswoman, the university provided very few details. But it's assumed that the research team will be looking for genetic configurations that might be associated with mental illness — especially the ones that could increase the risk for extreme violence.

The announcement has already been met with controversy. The primary concern is that the work could stigmatize people who have never committed a crime — but who have the same genetic profile as a mass killer.

Kolata writes:

Everything known about mental illness, these skeptics say, argues that there are likely to be hundreds of genes involved in extreme violent behavior, not to mention a variety of environmental influences, and that all of these factors can interact in complex and unpredictable ways.

"It is almost inconceivable that there is a common genetic factor" to be found in mass murders, said Dr. Robert C. Green, a geneticist and neurologist at Harvard Medical School. "I think it says more about us that we wish there was something like this. We wish there was an explanation."

Also writing in the New York Times, geneticist Paul Steinberg agrees — but his concern is that too much attention is being paid to the wrong factors, and it's undercutting our appreciation of the mental health issues involved. It's blazingly clear, Steinberg argues, that Lanza and other mass killers have deep psychological problems — problems that are misunderstood, under-diagnosed, and completely ignored. He writes:

Too many pendulums have swung in the wrong directions in the United States. I am not referring only to the bizarre all-or-nothing rhetoric around gun control, but to the swing in mental health care over the past 50 years: too little institutionalizing of teenagers and young adults (particularly men, generally more prone to violence) who have had a recent onset of schizophrenia; too little education about the public health impact of untreated mental illness; too few psychiatrists to talk about and treat severe mental disorders — even though the medications available in the past 15 to 20 years can be remarkably effective.

Steinberg points to the so-called Goldwater Rule, an ethical standard the American Psychiatric Association adopted in the 1970s that discourages psychiatrists from commenting on someone's mental state if they have not been examined.

"It has had a chilling effect," he says. "After mass murders, our airwaves are filled with unfounded speculations about video games, our culture of hedonism and our loss of religious faith, while psychiatrists, the ones who know the most about severe mental illness, are largely marginalized."

Moreover, Steinberg's argument points to the potential absurdity of sequencing Lanza's DNA. The risk factors for extreme violence are already well documented. The problem is that there is very little being done to prevent people from falling through the cracks.

The University of Connecticut's DNA study is a good idea, make no mistake. The results could be quite revealing, and may in fact demonstrate that mass killers do in fact have identifiable genetic profiles. But there are limits to how far scientists can take this information without regressing into all-out genetic determinism. Failure to recognize this could result in a Minority Report-like world in which people will be accused of crimes they've never committed.

And at the same time, it certainly won't resolve the problem of neglecting mental illnesses and those who require treatment. We already know how to diagnose and treat many of the psychoses surrounding acts of violence — psychologists don't need a genetic analysis to tell them that. The problem is that there's very little being done to identify and treat these potentially dangerous individuals.

Image: luchschen/shutterstock.

Wired's Kevin Kelly has penned an article in which he argues that we should let robots take our jobs — a welcome development that will help us to "dream up new work that matters." Moreover, it will be through this process that humanity can liberate itself from dangerous and demeaning work, and allow us to become "more human than we already are."

Top image of Jimmy Fallon by Peter Yang via Wired.

Kelly starts off his piece by asking the question, "Imagine that 7 out of 10 working Americans got fired tomorrow. What would they all do?" Indeed, as he correctly points out, the robotics and AI revolution is in full swing, and the writing is increasingly on the wall. At the same time, however, our innovations are creating an unpredictable technological landscape — one that's as counterintuitive as it is promising. He writes:

Before we invented automobiles, air-conditioning, flatscreen video displays, and animated cartoons, no one living in ancient Rome wished they could watch cartoons while riding to Athens in climate-controlled comfort. Two hundred years ago not a single citizen of Shanghai would have told you that they would buy a tiny slab that allowed them to talk to faraway friends before they would buy indoor plumbing. Crafty AIs embedded in first-person-shooter games have given millions of teenage boys the urge, the need, to become professional game designers-a dream that no boy in Victorian times ever had. In a very real way our inventions assign us our jobs. Each successful bit of automation generates new occupations-occupations we would not have fantasized about without the prompting of the automation...

...It is a safe bet that the highest-earning professions in the year 2050 will depend on automations and machines that have not been invented yet. That is, we can't see these jobs from here, because we can't yet see the machines and technologies that will make them possible. Robots create jobs that we did not even know we wanted done.

Robots and automation, he argues, will empower us to find new and exciting things to do. But in the meantime, we will continue to react in predictable ways. To that end, Kelly proposes his Seven Stages of Robot Replacement:

In the coming years our relationships with robots will become ever more complex. But already a recurring pattern is emerging. No matter what your current job or your salary, you will progress through these Seven Stages of Robot Replacement, again and again:

1. A robot/computer cannot possibly do the tasks I do.

[Later.]

2. OK, it can do a lot of them, but it can't do everything I do.

[Later.]

3. OK, it can do everything I do, except it needs me when it breaks down, which is often.

[Later.]

4. OK, it operates flawlessly on routine stuff, but I need to train it for new tasks.

[Later.]

5. OK, it can have my old boring job, because it's obvious that was not a job that humans were meant to do.

[Later.]

6. Wow, now that robots are doing my old job, my new job is much more fun and pays more!

[Later.]

7. I am so glad a robot/computer cannot possibly do what I do now.

This is not a race against the machines, he says, as that's not a race we could ever hope to win. Instead, we'll be paid in the future based on how well we work with robots.

Read the entire article at Wired.

All images via Wired.

The Thiel Foundation's Breakout Labs recently announced its plans to fund a radical new approach to producing cheap and clean energy. Called the Atmospheric Vortex Engine (AVE), the highly conceptual power plant would generate a controlled tornado that drives multiple turbines. With controlled being the key word, here.

The idea was devised by Canadian engineer Louis Michaud from Western University.

In his design, warm and humid air get pulled into a circular station, where it assumes the form of a rising and powerful vortex. The temperature difference between this heated air and the atmosphere above it supports and drives the turbines. It essentially works by "spinning" low-grade waste heat into a vortex which extends up into the atmosphere.

The controlled tornado can be shut down at any time by turning off the source of warm air.

Among its advantages, AVE power generation wouldn't produce carbon emissions, nor would it require energy storage. Michaud estimates that the cost of the energy produced by AVE could be as low as 3 cents per kilowatt hour, which would make it one of the least expensive forms of energy production.

As for the plant itself, it would have a diameter of 100 meters and generate 200 megawatts of electrical power — the same amount of energy produced by a conventional coal power station.

"The power in a tornado is undisputed," said Louis Michaud through the Breakout Labs release. "My work has established the principles by which we can control and exploit that power to provide clean energy on an unprecedented scale. With the funding from Breakout Labs, we are building a prototype in partnership with Lambton College to demonstrate the feasibility and the safety of the atmospheric vortex engine."

You can learn more about the vortex engine at Michaud's FAQ.

Sources: Breakout Labs, Vortex Engine.

Top Image: Daniel Eaton/shutterstock.com.

Parrots obviously have a keen ear, as their incredible skills in mimicry attest. This caused researchers in the U.K. to wonder if they have certain preferences when it comes to music. As their resulting study shows, parrots' taste in music varies from individual to individual. But one thing was made perfectly clear: they hate electronic dance music, across the board.

Biologists studying African grey parrots found that they all enjoyed rock and folk music and "danced" along by bobbing their heads. One preferred soothing "middle of the road" music, while another enjoyed pop. But when exposed to electronic dance music, they were left "distressed."

The Telegraph elaborates:

The research initially involved three parrots, Léo, Zoé and Shango, being played a series of "rhythmic" songs, including tunes by U2, UB40 and Joan Baez.

They all appeared to enjoy this and were observed dancing and singing along, with excited calls and human words.

They also listened to several cantatas by Bach which appeared to relax them, encouraging them to rest and preen themselves.

The two male parrots - Léo and Shango - then took part in a second trial in which a touch-screen monitor was left in their cage, with two large buttons, which could be pressed by the birds' beaks and which activated a 15-second segment of two different songs: either I Don't Feel like Dancing, by the pop group Scissor Sisters, or the more soothing La Petite Fille de la Mer by Vangelis.

The touch screen was left in their cages for a month, and they could select the music any time they wished. And in fact, between them, they each settled on one song, Léo consistently choosing the Scissor Sisters and Shango opting for Vangelis. And between them, they played the two songs more than 1,400 times over the course of the month.

But at the other side of the scale, they detested bands like the Prodigy and Chemical Brothers — which caused them to scream in a distressed, scared way. "The electronic dance music was not appropriate for them," said the researchers.

The study is slated for publication in Applied Animal Behavior Science.

Image: SOMKKU/shutterstock.

The past 12 months has seen a dramatic influx in announcements proclaiming the discovery of Earth-like planets. It was only a few years ago that the detection of any kind exoplanet was cause for celebration, but these days news of a potentially habitable planet has become routine. But as astronomer and astrobiologist Caleb Scharf now notes, we need to relax and take a deep breath; just because these rocky exoplanets reside within a solar system's habitable zone doesn't mean they're anything like Earth.

As Scharf correctly points out, talk of a potentially 'habitable' world conjures images of fantastically blue and green planets blanketed with cloud cover — and just ready to burst with life.

But for astronomers it means something else, merely a planet that has the conditions to support liquid water on the surface, and atmospheric pressure high enough for water to exist without boiling off to vapor. It also implies the presence of an atmosphere that that can alter the transfer of radiation to and from the surface (a la greenhouse effect).

Writing in Scientific American, Scharf elaborates on what this implies: "So strictly speaking ‘habitable' includes a range of environments that we would find appallingly hostile, including high-pressure, high-temperature climates and those in a sub-arctic category with thin atmospheres."

His primary concern is that we simply lack information on the presence or absence of water or an atmosphere on many of these exoplanets, nor do we have any idea about their geophysical history or present state. He writes:

Which gets us to the other point, the cavalier use of the phrase ‘Earth-like'. Utterance of this can evoke all sorts of images. It may make us think of oceans, beaches, mountains, deserts, forests, fluffy clouds, fluffy bunnies, warm summers, snowy winters, the local pub, or the fabulous hubbub of the local souk.

But this is typically far from the meaning attached by scientists. It can simply indicate a planet with a rocky surface, rather than a world with a thick gaseous envelope. It can mean a world that is roughly the same mass and density as Earth. It can mean a planet orbiting a star like the Sun. Or it can just mean that we got bored of saying things like ‘a two-Earth mass object in a close to circular orbit around a roughly 4 billion year old main-sequence star that is similar in mass to the Sun.'

Although at some level this is purely to do with semantics I think it's important to consider. What I believe we really mean when we say ‘Earth-like' is that a planet is Earth equivalent. That is to say that while the planet might feel completely alien to human senses it nonetheless matches many of the same physical and chemical characteristics of Earth. It's a bit like renting a car at an airport where you've reserved the open top red sports-car, only to be told that they've run out but you can have ‘an equivalent' vehicle. It'll have four wheels, an engine, and yes you can wind the windows all the way down if you'd like.

Scharf's point is well taken. Many of the exoplanets that have been discovered are so-called super-Earths — planets that are orders of magnitude larger than our planet. The chemical and geophysical processes on those planets could be astoundingly far removed from what we see here on Earth.

Perhaps it's time, as Scharf points out, for astronomers, astrobiologists, and the media to refrain from using such hopeful and potentially misleading language. But let's face it — it's still damn mind-blowing whenever a planet is found within a solar system's habitable zone. And on that point we all reserve the right to get excited.

Read more at SciAm.

Top image: Image: PHL @ UPR Arecibo, ESA/Hubble, NASA. Inset image: Artist's impression of a sunset from the super-Earth Gliese 667Cc courtesy ESO/L. Calçada. The large sun is the red dwarf, 667C.

The idea of patenting a gene seems strange, and it's a practice that's made weirder by virtue of the fact that the genes of living humans can also be patented. How is this possible? And what are the potential pitfalls? Here's what you need to know about the current state of human gene patents — and why the current laws need to be reconsidered.

The Human Gene Patent

Patents are typically granted for something that's tangible, like a mechanical device. It's done to protect inventors and companies from being ripped-off by their competitors; they're the ones who put the time and work into developing the technology, so they should be protected from those looking to copy their ideas. It's a process that works, and it makes sense.

Recently, the system has been expanded to keep pace with developments in technology, including advances that have been brought about by the biotech revolution. Subsequently, patents have been granted for less tangible things — including "inventions" that are connected to fragments of genetic code.

Specifically, a gene patent can be granted for a claim on a nucleic acid, or for a method of diagnosing a genetic condition. Claims can be made over a DNA or RNA sequence, or a method of identifying the existence of a DNA or RNA sequence in an individual. This can include both coding and non-coding DNA. So, for example, a patent can be taken out on the gene sequence responsible for a predisposition to Alzheimer's.

Product and process claims tend to fall within four broad categories, namely isolated DNA or RNA molecules, diagnostic kit tests, methods of diagnosis through genetic testing, and gene chips and microarrays. Consequently, by patenting human genes that can be associated with these potential products, companies stand to make a lot of money — hence the intense demand for human gene patent claims.

The Mad Rush to Patent

And indeed, once the practice of gene sequencing began in the late 1990s, there was a mad rush to patent human genes. As far back as 2005, a study showed that over 4,000 genes — about 10-20% of the human genome — were claimed in some way by U.S. patents (it's worth noting that a more recent study has taken exception to this claim). A similar number of patent claims appeared in both Canada and Europe. The wild west era of human gene patenting had begun.

The flurry of human gene patenting sparked a furious debate in legal, political, health, and philosophical circles. Since the practice began, a flurry of questions have been raised in regards to the sensibility of human gene patenting, and whether or not it's in the public's best interest.

A common argument was that the human genome — and all its inner workings — was part of the commons, and that no one should be able to own or patent it.

But of all the issues, the one that clearly stood out was the logic behind declaring a gene patent as an invention or a discovery — which to this very day qualifies it for patentability. According to the key statutory provision (Section 101 of Title 35) of the U.S. Code:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

This complex and open-ended wording is what has allowed companies to patent human genes — a practice that came under scrutiny in an important case that began back in 2009.

The Myriad Genetics Case

Several years ago, a U.S. company called Myriad Genetics was granted a patent for two human genes: BRCA1 and BRCA2. Both of these genes are linked to an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer — which would be of great interest to women wanting to know if their DNA carried this mutation.

Not surprisingly, Myriad Genetics was criticized for charging costly fees for its diagnostic services. Many people condemned the practice, arguing that women have the right to look at their own DNA without having to pay a license fee.

Even the ACLU chimed in, saying that the patents stifled diagnostic testing and research that could lead to cures, and that it limited women's options regarding their medical care. The ACLU also declared patents on these two human genes as being unconstitutional and invalid.

The case went to court. In 2010, a federal judge overturned Myriad's patents, arguing that genes are a "product of nature," and that they should not be patentable. The U.S. Justice Department noted that, "genomic DNA that has merely been isolated from the human body, without further alteration or manipulation, is not patent-eligible" and added that "the unique chain of chemical base pairs that induces a human cell to express a BRCA protein is not a "human-made invention."

However, the case went to appeal — and Myriad won its patents back. A three-judge panel decided that "isolated DNA" was somehow different than "naturally occurring" DNA — and that this distinction could allow fragments of human genes to be patented.

This decision prompted geneticist S.L. Salzberg to write a scathing commentary in Nature in which he pointed out what he saw as an absurdity: "By this argument, a blood sample or even an amputated limb is not 'naturally occurring' and is therefore patentable." Genes, said Salzberg, are not inventions. "This simple fact, which no serious scientist would dispute, should be enough to rule them out as the subject of patents," he wrote.

But by virtue of their decision, the judges had declared human DNA fragments to be something new, and hence, an invention.

The Arguments For and Against Human Gene Patents

To get a better sense of the nuances behind the court's decision, and the ensuing opposition to it, I spoke to attorney Russell Blackford. As we learned from him, it's not as black-and-white as many proponents and opponents of the practice make it out to appear.

"From my viewpoint, many of these patents seem like legal contrivances to get around the fact that we're not supposed to be able to patent things that are the products of nature, rather than the products of human invention," he told io9. That contrivance, says Blackford, may not be a bad thing in every case that we could imagine.

"Think, for example, of a new drug that is essentially the refinement of a naturally occurring substance, such as a chemical found in a particular variety of plant," he says. "It's a product of nature, but it might nonetheless be expensive and difficult to identify it and then demonstrate its medical value. The process of clinical trials alone can involve much expense and effort. Perhaps in a case like this we'd think that a patent is deserved, even though a certain amount of contrivance might be needed to bring it within the law."

And indeed, Myriad was able to patent isolated and purified DNA segments, which they claimed were different from naturally-occurring DNA because of their increased amenability for use in medical tests.

Consequently, Russell argues, these so-called "contrived" patents might not always be a bad thing. And in fact, he says that there could be cases where it's in the public's interest that they be granted.

At the same time — and for better or worse — gene patenting is a driver of big business. Advocates of the practice include biotech firms, Big Pharma, patent attorneys, and university intellectual property offices — virtually all of whom have strong financial interest in upholding the present system. More philosophically, some libertarians and freedom of speech advocates also support the current system who, along with the groups aforementioned, tend to oppose any limits on human gene patents.

But while recognizing the practical efficacy of contrived patents, Russell is not completely convinced that it makes sense.

‘"I question whether patents on short segments of human DNA can be justified along those lines," he says. "It's even possible that research into new therapies will be hindered if we end up with many different companies holding rights to different parts of the human genome."

Indeed, Russell is not the only one who has expressed this concern.

One vocal opponent to human gene patenting is Fiona Murray, who argues that gene patents are detrimental to scientific research. Her evidence has shown that basic research is being hindered by the existence of patents on genes.

Similarly, S.L. Salzberg contends that gene patents are antithetical to scientific progress. Specifically, he worries that patent holders hide their work, keeping their "invention" out of the hands of competitors until their claims can be more properly protected. This, he says, goes against scientific principles and the open dissemination and disclosure of important health information.

He also argues that human gene patenting discourages further work on genes. Given that there are well over 4,000 gene patents and 1,100 different claimants, it's extremely onerous for scientists to work on certain genes. It forces them to have to navigate through a costly and bureaucratic process of negotiating licenses and paying for these licenses. Consequently, says Salzberg, many would rather spend their time and resources working on other genes — including less important ones. Salzberg calls it an "indirect threat to human health."

David Koepsell, author of Who Owns You: The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes, contends that it is inefficient to grant what he calls "government-sponsored monopolies," and that biotech companies and other corporations need to be made to compete with the actual values of their products. "Even setting this radical argument aside," he writes, "gene patents are not the most economically efficient way to exploit publicly-funded science, nor necessary to spur useful innovation in drugs."

Stephan Kinsella has made a similar case, arguing that patents do not encourage innovation.

Biotech pioneer Craig Venter agrees, saying that he generally opposes gene patents (except in certain cases) noting that, "There were a couple of gene patents that were worth a lot of money, so all of a sudden every university and every biotech company spent a fortune on patenting genes. I think only the patent lawyers got rich."

Interestingly, there's also the issue of enforceability — or lack thereof. A recently study in the U.K. revealed that there was little to no impact on the practice of developing genetic tests in the public sector in that country — and it was because the gene patents were essentially ignored.

Unfortunately, ignoring the problem will not solve these issues or make it any more sensible. Current patent laws are clearly insufficient and need to be reconsidered. That's not to suggest that innovations in genetics cannot be patented, and that companies shouldn't be rewarded for their efforts. What needs to be put into place is something more logical and sensible — a patent policy that works to defend the rights of biotech innovators, but not at the expense of scientific inquiry and the public interest.

Update: As some readers have pointed out, there was a recent court ruling that could have important implications to the Myriad case. Earlier this year, Prometheus Laboratories was told that they cannot patent a medical test that relies on correlations between drug dosages and treatment — a decision that could challenge the patentability of human genes. Writing in News and Insight, Alison Frankel explains:

The plaintiffs in both cases have relied on the same argument: that the patents in dispute are naturally occurring phenomena that do not qualify for patent protection. The Supreme Court bought that argument wholeheartedly in Mayo's case.

"We conclude that the patent claims at issue here effectively claim the underlying laws of nature themselves. Those claims are consequently invalid," wrote Justice Stephen Breyer. Just as Einstein could not have patented E=mc2 and Newton could not have laid claim to the law of gravity, Breyer wrote, so Prometheus cannot patent a test kit that correlates a patient's blood chemistry with the best drug dosages for treatment. The decision overturned a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upholding Prometheus's patents.

"We were really pleased with the Prometheus decision," said Sandra Park, an ACLU attorney fighting on behalf of a host of researchers and breast cancer patients to invalidate Myriad Genetics' right to patent isolated breast cancer genes. "The decision bodes well for the ultimate outcome of the Myriad case," she said.

Top image by zentilia, via Shutterstock. Inset images via Shutterstock.com/Nikita G. Sidorov.

Drug addiction in China is highly stigmatized. And now, some doctors are trying to cure it with a radical procedure known as as a "stereotactic ablation." More simply, it's the practice of destroying parts of the brain's "pleasure centers" (the nucleus accumbens) in heroin addicts and alcoholics as a way to stop drug cravings. At the same time, however, damage to this region could also impair a person's ability to experience natural longings and other emotions, including joy.

Ablations are not entirely exclusive to China. They're sometimes performed in the U.S. and U.K. on a select number of patients who have untreatable depression or obsessive compulsive disorder. But experts tend to agree that the technique should never be used to treat addictions.

Indeed, given the way the procedure is being researched and conducted in China, there is genuine cause for concern. Writing in TIME, neuroscience journalist Maia Szalavitz explains:

The authors [of a new study], led by Guodong Gao, claim that the surgery is "a feasible method for alleviating psychological dependence on opiate drugs." At the same time, they report that more than half of the 60 patients had lasting side effects, including memory problems and loss of motivation. Within five years, 53% had relapsed and were addicted again to opiates, leaving 47% drug free.

Conventional treatment only results in significant recovery in about 30-40% of cases, so the procedure apparently improves on that, but experts do not believe that such a small increase in benefit is worth the tremendous risk the surgery poses. Even the most successful brain surgeries carry risk of infection, disability and death since opening the skull and cutting brain tissue for any reason is both dangerous and unpredictable. And the Chinese researchers report that 21% of the patients they studied experienced memory deficits after the surgery and 18% had "weakened motivation," including at least one report of lack of sexual desire. The authors claim, however, that "all of these patients reported that their [adverse results] were tolerable." In addition, 53% of patients had a change in personality, but the authors describe the majority of these changes as "mildness oriented," presumably meaning that they became more compliant. Around 7%, however, became more impulsive.

The surgery is actually performed while patients are awake in order to minimize the chances of destroying regions necessary for sensation, consciousness or movement. Surgeons use heat to kill cells in small sections of both sides of the brain's nucleus accumbens. That region is saturated with neurons containing dopamine and endogenous opioids, which are involved in pleasure and desire related both to drugs and to ordinary experiences like eating, love and sex.

And as Szalavitz's article also points out, there is a disturbing amount of scientific fraud associated with the procedure. Many Chinese scientists conduct shoddy and unethical research where "rewards for publication in international journals are high."

Moreover, it's particularly disturbing to see mind-altering ablations being performed in a country where citizens are essentially property of the state. And given that thousands of Chinese have undergone the procedure — and that their behavior is being modified — it's a practice that should definitely cause serious concern.

There's lots more to Szalavitz's article, including a good discussion on why some scientists support the research.

Top image Shutterstock/Oliver Sved.

Back in 2000, internet pioneer Jaron Lanier astonished the digital world by turning his back on the very thing he helped to create and promote — namely, the unabashedly enthusiastic and quasi-utopian vision of the future Web that took root in the late 1990s.

In his Wired article, "One-Half of a Manifesto," he attacked "internet intellectuals," and "cybernetic totalists," arguing that the Web was likely devolving into an online lynch mob. Nearly a decade later, Lanier has not changed his tune. And as a recent interview with Smithsonian's Ron Rosenbaum has shown, he's as opposed to Web 2.0 culture as ever before.

These days, Lanier is concerned with the rise of a detached "hive mind" mentality — which he fears could destroy political discourse, economic stability, and the dignity of the person. It could eventually result, he says, in a social catastrophe.

And indeed, among his many concerns is the rise of anonymity and the tribalistic urges it often unleashes. He points to the recent row involving Reddit's Violentacrez and Gawker as an example. Rosenbaum writes:

At last we come to politics, where I believe Lanier has been most farsighted-and which may be the deep source of his turning into a digital Le Carré figure. As far back as the turn of the century, he singled out one standout aspect of the new web culture-the acceptance, the welcoming of anonymous commenters on websites-as a danger to political discourse and the polity itself. At the time, this objection seemed a bit extreme. But he saw anonymity as a poison seed. The way it didn't hide, but, in fact, brandished the ugliness of human nature beneath the anonymous screen-name masks. An enabling and foreshadowing of mob rule, not a growth of democracy, but an accretion of tribalism.

It's taken a while for this prophecy to come true, a while for this mode of communication to replace and degrade political conversation, to drive out any ambiguity. Or departure from the binary. But it slowly is turning us into a nation of hate-filled trolls.

Surprisingly, Lanier tells me it first came to him when he recognized his own inner troll-for instance, when he'd find himself shamefully taking pleasure when someone he knew got attacked online. "I definitely noticed it happening to me," he recalled. "We're not as different from one another as we'd like to imagine. So when we look at this pathetic guy in Texas who was just outed as ‘Violentacrez'...I don't know if you followed it?"

"I did." "Violentacrez" was the screen name of a notorious troll on the popular site Reddit. He was known for posting "images of scantily clad underage girls...[and] an unending fountain of racism, porn, gore" and more, according to the Gawker.com reporter who exposed his real name, shaming him and evoking consternation among some Reddit users who felt that this use of anonymity was inseparable from freedom of speech somehow.

"So it turns out Violentacrez is this guy with a disabled wife who's middle-aged and he's kind of a Walter Mitty-someone who wants to be significant, wants some bit of Nietzschean spark to his life."

Lanier is particularly concerned about what he calls "digital Maoism" and the onset of dysfunctional and socially isolated online communities. He points to everything from online bullying to the rise of well-organized online virtual lynch mobs in China. And disturbingly, he says we're all concentrating ourselves into a "cruelty beam" — the same social effect that fueled much of the impetus behind the totalitarian experiments of the 20th century.

I've barely scratched the surface of this provocative interview, and it's definitely worth reading in full. Lanier also goes over the economic problems inherent with the Web, and he talks about his new book, The Fate of Power and the Future of Dignity. Check it out.

Image via.

It's been three years since we last heard from Swedish indie rockers Shout Out Louds, but their latest single, "Blue Ice," is certainly bound to draw some renewed attention. In collaboration with ad agency TBWA Stockholm, they have produced 10 limited edition kits that can produce a functional album out of frozen water. And it actually works — albeit with some warble and a bit of crackle. But as Co.Design reports, it wasn't easy developing the technique.

According to TBWA art director Alex Fredlund, they approached professors at different universities who all said it could never work. Undaunted, TBWA developed the technique themselves. From Co.Design:

After receiving a negative imprint of the song's master cut, they started experimenting; the office became a kind of amateur chemistry lab, and the team spent hours testing different types of liquid, various drying techniques, and multiple kinds of molds.

"One of the biggest challenges was that the bubbles made the ice cloudy and messed up the tiny tracks, which made the needle jump." Further trial and error revealed that using distilled water did the trick, giving the final product a nice clarity and even surface. Another insight? Time is not, in fact, on your side when working with a frozen substance; functionality and sound quality diminish immediately once the melting starts. A silicone cast allowed for quick and easy record removal, essential to ensuring it could be used straight out of the freezer.

The Shout Out Loud's upcoming album is called Optica, and it's due out on February 26, 2013. Here's what the non-frozen version of "Blue Ice" sounds like.

Photo blog Love These Pics has compiled an impressive gallery of 42 of the world's most beautiful crater lakes.

Typically formed inside the cone of an extinct volcano, crater lakes are unusually gorgeous, mostly on account of their remarkable circular symmetry and often stunning environmental backdrops. They often feature water that is at times a cloudy turquoise color, or a deep shade of blue. And of course, craters can also form from celestial impacts — and even atomic explosions. Here are 10 of our favorite photos from the gallery.

Photo credits and descriptions:

1. Lake Pinatubo, Philippines, formed after the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo has filled with water from monsoon rains. At 800 m (2,600 ft), it is the deepest lake in the Philippines. Photo by monggoy.

2. Lake Quilotoa is a water-filled caldera and the western most volcano in the Ecuadorian Andes. The crater is about 2 miles wide and the lake is about 820 feet deep. It is tinted green by dissolved minerals. Photo by Kevin Labianco.

3. Crater Lake at the Mouth of Taal Volcano in Luzon. Photo by Deck Chua.

4. The Okama Crater Lake at Mount Zaō, Japan, "also known as the ‘Five Color Pond' because it changes color depending on the weather." It "lies in a crater formed by a volcanic eruption in the 1720s. The lake is 360 meters (1,200 ft) in diameter and 60 m (200 ft) deep, and is one of the main tourist attractions in the area." Photo by Laurenz Bobke.

5. Iceland, Klausturhólar- Kerið, a volcanic crater lake in the southwestern part of Iceland, "is approximately 55 m (180 ft) deep, 170 m (560 ft) wide, and 270 m (890 ft) across. Kerið's caldera is one of the three most recognizable volcanic craters because at approximately 3,000 years old, it is only half the age of most of the surrounding volcanic features. While most of the crater is steep-walled with little vegetation, one wall is sloped more gently and blanketed with a deep moss, and can be descended fairly easily. The lake itself is fairly shallow (7–14 metres, depending on rainfall and other factors), but due to minerals from the soil, is an opaque and strikingly vivid aquamarine." Photo by Progresschrome.

6. Lonar Crater Lake at Aurangabad, India. Lonar crater lake was formed by a meteor strike about 50,000 years ago. Photo by Akshay Charegaonkar.

7. Out of this World: "I took this picture inside the crater of the Ijen komplex. I spent nearly the whole night in this unreal and beautiful place to shoot timelapse sequences for my new short," noted the photographer. Photo by Dennis Stauffer.

8. Katmai Crater on Mount Katmai, Alaska. Photo by Captain Budd Christman, NOAA Corps.

9. Heaven Lake, a crater lake at Tianchi at the border of China and North Korea. Photo by Globe Images.

10. The Pingualuit Crater is an impact crater filled with water. Photo by Denis Sarrazin / NASA / Earth Observatory.

See all 42 of the crater lakes here.

Yesterday we told you about the biggest scientific breakthroughs of 2012. But now we turn our attention to those developments that make us realize just how futuristic things are quickly becoming.

And the past year provided no shortage of futureshock. We watched a cyborg compete at the Olympic Games, and marveled at the news that NASA was actually working on a faster-than-light warp drive. It was also a year that featured the planet's first superstorm, the development of an artificial retina — and primates who had their intelligence enhanced with a chip. Here are 16 predictions that came true in 2012.

1. A Cyborg Competes Against Able-Bodied Athletes at the Olympics

For the first time ever in Olympic history, a double-amputee raced alongside able-bodied athletes. Nicknamed "Blade Runner," South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius's remarkable achievement raised as much enthusiasm as it did concern — some observers felt that his advanced prosthetic "Cheetahs" gave him an unfair advantage over the other athletes. But while Pistorius failed to medal, his remarkable achievement signified the dawn of the cyborg age.

2. NASA Starts to Work on a Faster-Than-Light Warp Drive

Speaking at the 100 Year Starship 2012 Public Symposium earlier this year, physicist Harold White stunned the aeronautics world when he announced that he and his team at NASA had begun work on the development of a faster-than-light warp drive. His proposed design, an ingenious re-imagining of an Alcubierre Drive, may eventually result in an engine that can transport a spacecraft to the nearest star in a matter of weeks — and all without violating Einstein's law of relativity. Though still in the proof-of-concept phase, White and his colleagues are trying to turn theory into practice — and potentially change the nature of space travel as we know it.

3. Scientists Enhance the Intelligence of Primates with a Chip

Back in September, scientists demonstrated that a brain implant could improve thinking ability in primates — and by a factor of 10 percent. By implanting an electrode array into the cerebral cortex of monkeys, researchers were able to restore — and even improve — their decision-making abilities. The implications for possible therapies are far-reaching, including potential treatments for cognitive disorders and brain injuries. And it also means the era of animal uplifting has begun.

4. The Earth Experiences its First True Superstorm

Back in 1999, Art Bell and Whitley Strieber published a book titled The Coming Global Superstorm. It predicted that global warming would eventually result in sudden and catastrophic climatic effects — including the onset of unusually large storms. Now, 13 years later — although some are still loathe to admit it — the Atlantic Ocean experienced its first bona fide superstorm. Sandy was a colossal hurricane that occupied a space measuring 1.8 million square miles (4.6 million square kilometers), and stretched from the Mid-Atlantic to the Ohio Valley, and into Canada and New England. It may have been the first, but it certainly won't be the last.

5. The World's First Cybernetic Hate Crime Occurs at a McDonalds in France

Steve Mann, the "father of wearable computing," was physically assaulted while visiting a McDonalds in Paris, France. The Canadian university professor was at the restaurant with his family when three different McDonalds employees took exception to his "Digital Eye Glass" device and attempted to forcibly remove it from his head. Mann was then physically removed from the store by the employees, along with having his support documentation destroyed. It was the first ever recorded assault of a person instigated by the prominent display of a Google Glass-like wearable computer.

6. Augmented Reality Goes Mainstream

Speaking of Google Glass — this was the year that augmented reality finally hit the big time. Back in April, Google unveiled preliminary designs and a short concept piece showcasing the technology — an initiative to create smart shades straight out of Vernon Vinge's Rainbows End or Warren Ellis and Darick Robertson's Transmetropolitan. Soon thereafter, beta testers could be seen cruising the streets of California with their sweet wearable devices.

7. Researchers Create a Robot With Legs That Can Run Faster Than any Human

Boston Dynamics, along with funding from DARPA's Maximum Mobility Program, significantly revved up their Cheetah Robot this year. The previous iteration ran at a speed of 18 mph (29 kph), but the new version clocked upwards of 28.8 mph (46.3 kph) — demolishing its previous record, and even surpassing the fasted recorded human speed on Earth. Not content to stop there, Boston Dynamics also upgraded their robotic pack mule (a.k.a. "Big Dog") so that it can respond to vocal commands.

8. The First Successful Commercial Cargo Delivery to Space Goes Off Without a Hitch

Early on the morning of October 10, SpaceX's supply-hauling Dragon capsule was successfully captured by astronauts aboard the International Space Station, marking the first-ever commercial cargo delivery to the manned space outpost. With 11 resupply missions remaining in the SpaceX/NASA contract, it seems the private company's billion-dollar delivery deal with The Agency is off to a good start — as is the prospect for commercial space flight in general.

9. An Electric Car is the Year's Best

If anyone ever doubted that electric cars were the future, those concerns were officially laid to rest in 2012. Tesla's luxury Sedan, the Model S, captured one of the auto industry's most prestigious awards by taking home Motor Trend's Car of the Year honors. It marked the first time that an electric car has taken the top prize — a vehicle that doesn't run on gas or have an internal combustion engine.

10. Doctors Communicate With a Man in a Coma

Back in 2010, neuroscientists confirmed that it was possible to communicate with some patients locked in a vegetative state by using an fMRI scanner. Though limited, the breakthrough suggested that more meaningful dialogue with patients in a coma could someday be possible. And now, two years later, it finally happened. A Canadian man in a vegetative state used his thoughts to tell scientists that he is not in any pain, marking the first time a patient in such a condition has relayed information relevant to their care.

11. The First Large-Scale Geoengineering Project is Detected Off Canada's West Coast

This wasn't how it was supposed to play out, but a massive and illegal geoengineering project was detected off Canada's west coast in October — the product of a "rogue geohacker" named Russ George. Backed by a private company, the U.S. businessman unilaterally conducted the world's most significant geoengineering project to date by dumping around 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the Pacific Ocean, a technique known as ocean fertilization. The experiment, which is in violation of two United Nations moratoria, outraged environmental, legal, and civic groups.

12. A Child Attends School By Sending a Robot in His Place

The rise of telecommuting robots has increasingly allowed stay-at-home workers to create a virtual presence at their remote workplaces. It now appears, however, that working professionals aren't the only ones taking advantage of telepresence technologies: A six-year old boy with severe allergies from Seneca Falls, NY, is using a VGo robot to attend school — and it's an experiment that appears to be working. The technology is quickly attracting the attention of other educators, including districts in Colorado, Arkansas, and Pittsburgh. It may only be a matter of time before VGo and other telepresence robots will make their way into other schools.

13. A Paralyzed Woman Controls a Robotic Arm Using Only Her Mind

Researchers made significant improvements to BrainGate this year — a brain-machine interface that allows users to control an external device with their minds. Cathy Hutchinson, who has been paralyzed from the neck down for 15 years, was able to drink her morning coffee by controlling a robotic arm using only her mind. Hutchinson is one of two quadriplegic patients — both of them stroke victims — who have learned to control the device by means of the BrainGate neural implant. It's the first published demonstration that humans with severe brain injuries can control a sophisticated prosthetic arm with such a system.

14. Self-Driving Cars Become Legal in Several States

Slowly but surely we're entering into the era of the driverless car. 2012 marked an important year as three states made autonomous vehicles legal, including California, Nevada, and Florida. Upon signing the bill into law in California, Governor Jerry Brown said they're "turning today's science fiction into tomorrow's reality." Self-driving cars, once perfected and produced en masse, will help with traffic congestion and significantly reduce the chance of auto accidents through the use of GPS, radar, and other technologies.

15. Scientists Create an Artificial Retina

Two British men who were completely blind for years were able to regain some of their vision after undergoing surgery to fit eye implants. The pioneering treatment is at an early stage of development, but it marks an important step forward in an effort to help those who have lost their sight from a condition known as retinitis pigmentosa. And in related news, other researchers successfully streamed Braille patterns directly onto a blind person's retina, allowing him to read letters and words visually, with almost 90% accuracy. Developed by researchers at Second Sight, the headset-like device is set to revolutionize the way degenerative eye diseases are treated.

16. Researchers Create the First Complete Computer Model of a Living Organism

Stanford researchers created the first complete computational model of an actual organism — Mycoplasma genitalia, a sexually transmitted disease and the world's smallest free-living bacteria at 525 genes. The breakthrough represented a significant step forward in the field of artificial life - and the promise of developing entirely new organisms. Through future work, scientists may be able to develop new approaches for the diagnosis and treatment of disease — including the creation of yeast or bacteria designed to mass-produce pharmaceuticals — and to create personalized medicine. And in other computer news, researchers successfully simulated a nuclear explosion down to the molecular level.

Images: Pistorius via Startribune, uplift via, Steve Mann, SpaceX, MotorAuthority, geoengineering via Giovanni/Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center/NASA, VGo robot via Derek Gee/Buffalo News, VGo, self-driving car, artificial organism, coma and artificial retina via BBC.

A man who illegally exported a Tyrannosaurus skeleton from Mongolia has plead guilty to all charges and now faces up to 17 years in prison. As magistrate judge Ronald L. Ellis' ruling suggests, it's no small matter to engage in fraud of this kind.

The skeleton, which sold for more than $1 million via Heritage Auctions in May, was described as a "superb Tyrannosaurus skeleton," a remnant of a long-extinct animal that "ruled the food chain of the ancient flood plains that are today's Gobi Desert."

Too bad it got into the country illegally. The New York Times reports:

The odd story of the Tyrannosaur on the auction block surfaced several months ago when a paleontologist, Mark A. Norell of the American Museum of Natural History, noticed the listing in the Heritage catalog.

He wrote an open letter about the 24-foot-long skeleton, saying, "These specimens were undoubtedly looted from Mongolia."

Within days, the president of Mongolia had obtained a court order to block the auction of the skeleton, which had been sold but not transferred.

At about the same time, Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, filed a civil complaint seeking the forfeiture of the skeleton so that it could be returned to Mongolia, where dinosaur skeletons are deemed government property.

That request cited several experts who said the particularized coloring of the bones meant that they had come from a specific area in Mongolia known as the Nemegt Basin.

Under Mongolian law, the removal of fossils is a crime; violators may be jailed and fined.

Mr. [Eric] Prokopi contested the forfeiture request from federal officials but was eventually charged with the criminal offenses.

During the trial, Prokopi admitted to shipping the skeleton from the Gobi: "I forwarded a few shipments of fossils of Mongolian origin from Great Britain to the U.S. that were mislabeled," he said. "I imported and transported Mongolian fossils that were exported from Mongolia without the proper permits."

Prokopi was told to return to court in April for his sentencing where he could be handed a 17-year prison term.

But as part of a plea agreement, he will hand over the Tyrannosaur skeleton that was put up for auction, two additional Tyrannosaur skeletons, and hadrosaur remnants. He also agreed to forfeit two Oviraptor skeletons that were seized from his home in Florida.

More here.

Top image via extravaganzi.

The White House's Office of Science and Technology is currently mulling over a proposal from Caltech scientists that describes a plan to capture a near-Earth asteroid and bring it into the moon's orbit. If approved, the $2.6 billion plan would see the development of a robotic spacecraft that would transport a 500-ton asteroid to the lunar orbit by 2025 where it could be mined for resources and even converted into a base for human habitation. At the same time, it would also offer an unprecedented opportunity to jump-start a mission to Mars — and even launch missions into deep space.

The proposal was put together by the Keck Institute for Space Studies (KISS), a group that is investigating the feasibility of identifying, capturing, and returning an asteroid to the vicinity of Earth. The report, a collaborative effort involving scientists from NASA Ames, Goddard Space Flight Center, the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, and many other institutions, is an effort to explore the ways in which space-based natural resources can be exploited. And indeed, given the tremendous costs of sending material into orbit, it's an idea that makes a lot of sense.

Interestingly, the notion of capturing asteroids dates back over a hundred years, but it has only been in recent times that the technology for doing so has been achievable. Specifically, the scientists are banking on three key developments: the ability to discover and identify sufficiently small near-Earth asteroids for capture, the development of a sufficiently powerful solar electric propulsion systems to allow for the transportation of the captured rock, and the ability to host astronauts in cislunar space by the mid-point of the next decade — which would enable both exploration and exploitation of the NEA.

To capture the asteroid, a robotic space probe would rendezvous with the object, analyze it for its suitability, capture it (including de-spinning it), and then transport it to lunar orbit (a process that could take as much as six to 10 years). The spacecraft would be powered by solar electric propulsion system, and be launched into space by a single Atlas V-class rocket. And the system is completely scalable, allowing for multiple missions.

And as the report suggests, a seven-meter, 500-ton asteroid in high lunar orbit would provide a "unique, meaningful, and affordable destination for astronaut crews in the next decade." The authors suggest that it would be a "disruptive" development in the future of space exploration, a breakthrough that would offer an "affordable path to providing operational experience with astronauts working around and with a NEA that could feed forward to much longer duration human missions to larger NEAs in deep space." It would also go a long way to meeting NASA's goals of sending astronauts to an NEA by 2025.

Moreover, the presence of an asteroidal space base could enable human exploration farther out into the solar system. By working in and around such objects, astronauts will be able to extract resources like water or other materials. A volatile-rich asteroid could provide shielding against galactic cosmic rays, while the water could be used for propellant to transport the rocky habitat.

And in fact, the idea could spark the development of an entire industry in which devices and spacecraft can be constructed directly in space from these resources. The researchers predict that asteroid capture could provide new opportunities for space exploration not seen since the Apollo missions, describing it as "mankind's first attempt at modifying the heavens to enable the permanent settlement of humans in space."

You can read the entire report here.

Image: Rick Sternback/KISS.

For many scientists, having their research published in a major journal is about as good as it gets — especially if that publication happens to be the prestigious journal Nature. But for 15-year old Neil Ibata, it's already a case of "been there, done that."

Working with a team of astronomers, including his father Rodrigo Ibata, Neil took part in an analysis of dwarf galaxies surrounding Andromeda, our nearest galactic neighbor. Working with his father, Neil developed the code for a computer model of these celestial objects. His simulation showed that the galaxies appear to orbit in concert and align in a vast, thin disk — a discovery that came as a complete surprise to the researchers.

Speaking to the news agency AFP, Rodrigo Ibata said he was "expecting the complete opposite" result. Though the researchers are not sure what it means, they believe the finding could reshape the understanding of how galaxies are formed.

And it shouldn't come as a complete surprise that Neil Ibata managed this tremendous accomplishment. He is an accelerated student attending the Pontonniers International School in Strasbourg. And in addition to his Python programming skills, he speaks German, English, and Chinese, and he studies piano at the local conservatory.

You can read the entire paper at Nature.

Source: RFI.

Image: Reuters/Jean-Marc Loos.

In an unprecedented discovery, paleontologists working in China have found the fossilized remains of an ancient bird with ornamented tooth enamel. Called Sulcavis geeorum, the bird lived during the Early Cretaceous period, about 121 to 125 million years ago. And as its fine row of robust teeth indicate, it likely had a highly specialized diet much different than the beaked birds of today.

Sulcavis was an enantiornithine, an early group of birds that lived in large numbers during the dinosaur era. But unlike other birds, this new fossilized specimen features a discrete set of teeth with grooves on the inside surface, which probably strengthened them against harder food items. The bird likely used these teeth not to grind or chew, but to crush tough objects.

According to the researchers, a team led by Jingmai O'Connor, no previous bird species have any form of dental ornamentation, whether it be preserved ridges, striations, or serrated edges. It was during the Mesozoic era that other birds were losing their teeth (which they inherited from their dinosaur ancestors). O'Connor's team is not sure why Sulcavis was so successful during the Cretaceous, only to die out. They speculate that differences in diet must have played a part, and that the teeth were not a good long-term adaptation.

The study, which was published in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, suggests that the teeth allowed Sulcavis to adopt a durophagous diet — a diet consisting of prey that had hard exoskeletons, including insects and crabs.

The finding greatly increases the known diversity of tooth shape in early birds, suggesting a wider array of ecological diversity among birds than previously assumed.

The study appears in the current issue of Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology (it's not available online, but we'll update this page with a link once it's up).

Images by Stephanie Abramowicz.

After studying a curious feature in the tail section of oviraptor fossils, a paleontologist from the University of Alberta has concluded that these small dinosaurs must have used their tail plumage to attract mates, a strong indication that these creatures were more sophisticated, elegant — and daintier than previously thought. The theory also adds further credence to the suggestion that feathers played an important intermediary function in the lives of dinosaurs prior to providing them with the capacity for flight.

To reach this conclusion, researcher Scott Persons studied the vertebrae section in the tails of four different dinosaur species, including oviraptors. He discovered that the bones were fused together to form a blade-like structure called a "pygostyle" — a feature exclusive to birds.

Consequently, the fossils of Similicaudipteryx (an early oviraptor) indicate that a fan-like structure likely emanated from the pygostyle. And because Similicaudipteryx could not fly, its tail feathers were likely an ornamental display that it used to attract prospective mates.

Persons speculates that, because the oviraptors who came later also featured a similar tail structure, they likely used their tail plumage for the same purpose.

Moreover, Persons argues that the feathers weren't just a static display, and that they were shaken by the dinosaurs. He points to the fossil evidence as proof. Similicaudipteryx's tail-tip vertebrae were short and numerous — indicating considerable flexibility. And when compared to modern reptile and bird tails, the dinosaur's tail muscles had the attributes necessary for vigorous tail shaking — including large muscles that extended far down the tail.

"You stick a feather fan on the end of a highly dextrous and muscular tail and you've got what I think is a tail built for flaunting, that could shake a tail feather side to side, raise it up, strike a pose," Persons told the CBC.

And in fact, Persons argues that the shaking could have been to an extent greater than what's seen in modern-day peakcocks and turkeys.

The study appears in the journal Acta Palaeontologica Polonica.

Sources: University of Alberta and CBC.

Image: Sydney Mohr.

A new video game called Endgame:Syria has been rejected by Apple for inclusion into the App Store because it violates its guidelines strictly forbidding content that "solely target[s] a specific race, culture, a real government or corporation, or any other real entity." The game's developer, Auroch Digital, defends the app, saying that it's not so much a game as a novel way to inform the public about the nature of the conflict, a struggle that has claimed the lives of over 60,000 people since March of 2011.

Given the seriousness and scale of the civil war, Apple has good reason to be sensitive to anything that could be construed as inflammatory or even callous in regards to real events. Moreover, given that users are encouraged to take part in the simulation and adjust the variables of the conflict, it could even be interpreted as a glorification of the war.

But Auroch Digital designer Tomas Rawlings disagrees, saying that it's an important tool meant to educate and entertain. Speaking through a release, Rawlings stated that: "Our aim is to use games as a format to bring news to a new audience and submission processes such as this do make it a lot harder for us. I get that Apple want to make sure really offensive titles don't pass into their store, but ours is far from that. In fact the response to the game has been broadly positive with much of the mainstream media picking up on the story."

Endgame:Syria is a free interactive game that's available on Android and playable on iOS devices (as its also a HTML5 game). GameTheNews describes it this way:

Developed in around two weeks, the game allows users to explore the options open to the Syrian rebels as they push the conflict to its endgame. Each choice the user makes has consequences – the types of military units you may deploy, the political paths you choose to tread. Not only does each choice impact the current situation but your choices may also impact the final outcome. Users can play and replay events to see how different choices on the ground might lead to different outcomes.

Will you choose to accept peace at any cost? What if the war goes badly and the only options left mean more extreme actions; would you agree to follow this path? Can you win the war and the peace that follows? Find out in Endgame Syria.

Auroch Digital claims to be "the world's first news correspondents who cover global events as games," what is a twist on events in a playable form. Previous titles from the company include a game that exposes the cruelty of child labor in Uzbekistan.

"This decision is a shame really as it makes it hard to talk about the real world," says Rawlings. "We had hoped that Apple would be more nuanced in how they applied this rule but we got a bit worried when it had been in submission for around two weeks without a decision — we then figured that because of the controversy of using the gaming medium to cover an ongoing war meant passing the game had become an issue for them."

Moving forward, Auroch Digital plans to alter the game to make it conform to Apple's guidelines, which will likely make it more ambiguous and open to interpretation.

More about the game and how it was developed here.

Paleontologists have confirmed the existence of a new species of ichthyosaur, a group of marine reptiles that terrorized the world's oceans during the dinosaur era — and this one was an absolute monster. Called Thalattoarchon saurophagis — meaning "lizard-eating sovereign of the sea" — it measured 28 feet (8.6 meters) in length and featured an enormous skull adorned with razor sharp teeth. And because the bus-sized beast lived over 244 million years ago during the Triassic era, it was likely the first marine predator to prey on other animals its own size.

Thalattoarchon's fossilized remains were partially uncovered in 1998 when paleontologists dug up well-preserved sections of its skull, fins, and entire vertebral column. The original team, which included study co-author Nadia Fröbisch of Berlin's Museum of Natural History, returned in 2010 to dig up the rest of the fossil, including the remaining parts of its skull and jaws.

Analysis of the remains showed that Thalattoarchon was indeed a top-tier predator from the Middle Triassic period; its teeth — which were incisor-like and featured two cutting edges — indicated a macropredatory feeding style.

And fascinatingly, the discovery of the extinct ichthyosaur shows how ecosystems can quickly bounce back from even the most extreme events, including mass extinctions. Writing in National Geographic News, Brian Handwerk explains:

"This animal occurs only eight million years after the biggest mass extinction event in Earth's history, the Permian extinction, which literally wiped out up to 95 percent of all the species in the ocean," Fröbisch explained. "The ocean was a pretty empty place afterward."

But not for long-the fossil record shows that species returned quickly. The presence of a top predator like Thalattoarchon during that time period shows that the system was intact within a relatively short time, since marine ecosystems build from the bottom of the food chain up. In other words, the monster had tons of food to eat.

"So with the appearance of Thalattoarchon we know it was complete and that it had the same structure as modern ecosystems, the same structure we've seen in place, with different players, ever since."

Despite thriving some 160 million years, Thalattoarchon and fellow ichthyosaurs went extinct for unknown reasons-leaving no living relatives.

The entire study was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Illustration by Raul Martin, National Geographic.Photo By Jörg Fröbisch, Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany.

Back in November 2011, a multinational crew of six ended their 17-month long simulation to Mars and back. Confined to a trailer for 520 days, the pretend-astronauts had every detail of their lifestyle tracked, including their sleep-wake cycles, physical movements, intellectual activities, and light exposure. Now, looking at the results, it appears that the simulated journey had some noticeably detrimental effects, including a condition known as hypokinesis (decreased physical movement), an increased need for sleep, lack of motivation, and a lower tolerance for light — an indication that there's still lots of work to be done to prepare astronauts for a prolonged mission to the Red Planet.

Over the course of their simulated journey, the crew became increasingly sedentary, as shown by their decreased waking movements and increased need to sleep and rest. In addition, the majority of crewmembers also suffered from disturbances in sleep quality, an inability to stay alert and vigilant, and problems maintaining a natural circadian rhythm (one member fell into a 25-hour sleep cycle).

Writing in Science Now, Sean Treacy elaborates:

The volunteers moved less while awake and asleep, and spent more waking hours each day engaged in restful activities — playing video games, reading books, or watching movies. The crewmembers' wristwatches, which were equipped with light sensors, showed that the more lethargic they became, the more they shunned the lighted parts of the ship. By the final few months of the mission, three of the crewmembers slept about an hour more per day than they had at the beginning of the simulation.

The beds were small, recalls French crew member and flight engineer Romain Charles, and so narrow that he often had to sleep with his arm across his face. "I just had to learn to sleep like that," he says. But even though he adapted to the sleeping arrangements, it became difficult to take on intellectually laborious tasks, like improving his Russian language skills, in the final few months of the mission. Instead, he spent his spare time playing the video game Counter-Strike. "It really helped me get through that," Charles remembers.

It wasn't until the final 20 days of the mission that the crew, excited for their seclusion to finally end, became nearly as energetic as they were when the mission began.

This is problematic, of course, given the need for astronauts to stay alert and attentive at all times — especially in anticipation (or prevention) of an emergency.

Moving forward, mission planners will have to take heed of the study's findings. Potential solutions include the introduction of more blue lighting to simulate conditions on Earth, including the effect of dawn and dusk. The crew could also adopt stricter schedules for both meals and physical activity. In addition, more work will need to be done to understand how to best treat sleep-wake cycles that have been thrown out of whack.

The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Images: NASA, AFP.