Of satellites, maps, and worldbuilding

It’s kind of mind-boggling how much technology has changed our relationship with maps over the past decade. I remember when my mental approximation of geography was based either on (depending on the appropriate scale) globes with pastel continents on them, Mercator projections, or road atlases. While those primitive geospatial approximations still have utility in certain contexts — and retain a certain retro chic, of course — satellite imagery is pretty much the basis for every map we encounter in our daily lives. (Most of us never have the pleasure of turning the hefty pages of 6-foot-tall atlases). Since Google Maps isn’t exactly. . . aesthetic . . . most of the time (although it can be, if you browse it on a large enough screen) it’s nice to have things like this now and then:

It’s hypnotic, isn’t it? (via It’s Okay to Be Smart).

Of course there’s one area in which old-fashioned maps haven’t been supplanted by satellite imagery: maps of fictional lands. (Here are a few, including some of my favorites — the awesomely unrealistic maps of L. Frank Baum’s Oz — and here is a tumblr.)

I was completely obsessed with fantasy maps as a child; many an original fantasy saga of mine made it to the map stage, which of course required fairly well-developed history, politics, religion, climate, language, and culture (in one case I wrote a whole illustrated encyclopedia), then petered out as I put off the chore of writing a plot because it just seemed so much less rewarding. There’s actually a word for this activity – worldbuilding – which makes it sound much more respectable than what it was in my case: “I’m motivated more by visuals than by text and my attention span is way too short to write a whole trilogy.” I think my attraction to worldbuilding is hardly unusual among fantasyphiles.

Anyway, I will say no more about fictional maps because Nicholas Tam has written an absolutely wonderful essay on the topic, covering the worlds of Tolkien, Faulkner, Baum, Jordan, and many more.

Continue reading

Posted in Artists & Art, Data Visualization, Littademia, Maps, Retrotechnology | Comments Off

Elizabeth Turk’s marble sculpture

Inspired by gravity, space, decay, and natural forms (from schools of fish to murmurations) sculptor Elizabeth Turk’s marble sculptures resemble skeletons or corals. They’re particularly lovely when she takes them to the shore and lets the waves crash on them.

The only problem is . . . well, some of the ribbonlike sculptures look like tapeworms to me. (I know, I know. It’s an ex-biologist problem. . .)

Posted in Artists & Art, Film, Video & Music | Comments Off

Miscellaneous Links

A beautiful visualization of ocean currents

Pictures of math: a tumblr of science/math visualizations

And for those of you following such things, Myriad (the gene patent case) is remanded for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Prometheus: NYT, GEBN, Patent Docs, Patently-O. And a very interesting passage from the last post on Prometheus:

The first critical mistake is the Court’s assumption that Prometheus’ [diagnostic test] claims recited a “law of nature:” “The claims purport to apply natural laws describing the relationships between the concentration in the blood of certain thiopurine metabolites and the likelihood that the drug dosage will be ineffective or induce harmful side-effects.” The facile assumption that this relationship is a “law of nature” is incorrect, and potentially the most damaging misstep by the Court.

First, let us assume for the moment that there are in fact such things as “laws of nature.” What would their characteristics be? A first approximation would suggest that a law of nature is immutable and universal, that it is not subject to change, and it applies in all circumstances. See, Evidence Based Science. Thus, gravity and the speed light apply to you and me equally, and under all conditions. (I’m purposely using these two examples, for reasons that will become clear.) However, this is not the case with the toxicity of any drug, including thiopurines, as acknowledged by the Court: the amount of a toxic dose varies between individuals for two reasons. First, different people metabolize at different rates, thereby producing different metabolite levels for a given dose. Second, individuals have differential responses to a given amount of the metabolites; a given level of the metabolites may be toxic in one person and not toxic in another. . . .

This relationship is a byproduct of human (or perhaps more generally mammalian) biology, which from a logical point of view is a contingent relationship that could have been otherwise: we could have evolved in such a way that the toxicity range was higher or lower, or the drug was entirely ineffective. That is, it’s an arbitrary and contingent fact that humans evolved so that thiopurine drugs were effective at all for treating immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorders, or that we metabolize them in a manner that makes them toxic at specific dosing ranges. Indeed, given that humans are not exposed to thiopurine in nature, it is hard to understand how it can even be argued that it is a “natural law” that these drugs have a specific range of toxic or effective dosages at all.

No comment.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Free book: Gina Kolata’s Rethinking Thin

If you’d like a good used hardback copy of Gina Kolata’s Rethinking Thin, which I think is quite a good book about the science of weight loss, I will mail it to you for free.* :) Email me with your address.

*Continental US addresses only, sorry – I can’t afford to send packages abroad right now.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Sciencedebate 2012: Should this be the top question for the next President?

You can vote for the science questions you’d most like the presidential candidates to answer, and add your own questions, here:

We’re not interested in quizzing candidates on the 4th digit of pi or the particulars of cell mitosis. We want to know their positions on the big science and engineering policy questions that affect all our lives. The questions we will consider most successful will probe the candidates on the important issues of our day around science.

The current top question is If scientific findings contradict the Bible which do you disregard? Personally, I don’t love this question – it implies that a President can’t be religious if he/she is pro-science. And I would rather avoid that impasse and seek common ground on scientific issues like climate change, to the extent that is possible. Whether you disagree or agree, consider taking a position at Sciencedebate.org.

Submit a questions for the candidates to ScienceDebate.org

Posted in Science, Science in culture & policy | Comments Off

Lunch Break: The Constructal Law

I’ve been reading a book called Design in Nature, by Adrian Bejan and J. Peder Zane. It’s an extremely thought-provoking book and I haven’t fully decided what I want to say about it, so my review is still coming, but I wanted to give you a heads up that today at noon, Adrian Bejan (who is a professor of mechanical engineering at Duke) will be talking about the book and its central theme: the “constructal law,” which is sort of a unified theory for design in nature*:

Both the natural and human worlds are constantly in flux, from changing weather patterns to buzzing insects to information traveling on the Internet. Duke Professor Adrian Bejan has a theory that he says unites all such things under a single principle. His constructal law of nature explains why particles, animals and people evolve patterns — such as riverbeds, wings and highways — to move about the earth. In a live, online “Office Hours” conversation March 22, he will take viewer questions about the science behind this design in nature.

You can submit questions for Bejan before today’s webcast by email (live@duke.edu) or Twitter #dukelive.

More: Nature review of Design in Nature (firewalled, sorry)
Design in Nature at Amazon.com

*Bejan makes very clear in his book that he is talking about design principles and physics, NOT Intelligent Design. It’s kind of alarming that when scientists use the word “design” now they have to include that qualifier.

sciseekclaimtoken-4f6d43cf9a9db

Posted in Book reviews, Books, Design, Education, Film, Video & Music, Science, Web 2.0, New Media, and Gadgets | Comments Off

What neuroscience tells us about creativity

A preview of Jonah Lehrer’s new book on creativity, Imagine:

What do you think? I haven’t yet read it, but Lehrer is always an engaging writer; I’m sure it’s both entertaining and literate.

My only concern is a general one: there is by no means a consensus yet on the neural mechanics of “creativity.” While we certainly know more about neural networks than we did years ago, we do not yet have this mystery unpacked. And while I’m sure Lehrer realizes this, I fear that a surge in catchily-titled popular brain science books has perhaps implied to the public at large that we have a better handle on complex concepts like creativity than we actually do.

Why do I say this? Because I keep encountering an enthusiastic belief (in non-science contexts) that neuroscience is somehow newly actionable in contexts like law or policy: that we have somehow passed a cognitive science tipping point where we can confidently ascribe functions like creativity to well-defined physical processes, and use that information to reform nonmedical aspects of our lives. I seriously doubt that time has come. Neuroscience has much to contribute to nonscientific fields, to be sure. For example, as more people have come to appreciate that the brain continues developing and maturing into young adulthood – an appreciation that neuroimaging helped to spread – we as a society have changed our attitudes toward teenage decisionmaking and risktaking in important ways. We understand that teenagers do not think the way adults do. But our understanding of how any of our brains fundamentally work, in most cases, is a nascent, unsettled understanding. We have a great deal to learn. So while I am fully behind public neuroscience literacy, and popular science books are an important part of that, I hope that engaging writing and well-crafted narratives don’t make it seem as if we have all the loose ends tied up neatly in a bow!

More: Read an excerpt in the New Yorker; find Imagine: How Creativity Works on Amazon.. Also, a lovely post by Maria Popova of Brain Pickings on creativity.

Posted in Biology, Books, Neuroscience, Science, Science in culture & policy | Comments Off

Feynman wins for best sciart quote ever?

Via Maria at Brain Pickings, this wonderful Richard Feynman quote:

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.” ~ Richard Feynman

Precisely! :)

Read the original post at Brain Pickings.

Posted in Blogs and Blogging | Comments Off

I love it when Robert Krulwich agrees with me!

NPR science correspondent Robert Krulwich, he of the oh-so-familiar voice, quoted me/BioE in a sciart blog post yesterday about “Magnetic Movie,” a short film by the artistic team of Ruth Jarman and Joseph Gerhardt. Here’s the original BioE post quoted by Krulwich, “Art vs. Science, Part 1″ (back at Scienceblogs). I wrote it after seeing the “Magnetic Movie” at the Hirshhorn Museum in DC; seeing it in person is truly better than online, but it’s worth a watch either way. :)

Posted in Blogs and Blogging, Data Visualization, Film, Video & Music, Science, Science in culture & policy | Comments Off

Anatomical chairs for your medical library?

From my friend Shana: wonderful anatomical wingchairs:

“Tante Wera” wingchairs: “Flow”
Limited edition

Posted in Conspicuous consumption, Frivolity, Medical Illustration and History, Science | Comments Off