TR Editors' blog
Insights, opinions, and our editors' analysis of the latest in emerging technologies.
Blog Topics
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- ...
: Technology has to act fast on these pollutants. You know global warming is really taking effect...
- walt
: I hope those students learn that "burn...volts" makes no sense.
- doanwon
: My first thought is whenever the magnetic field aligns the coil, it will exert a force parallel...
- plasticdoc
: This is just one subject which could be used to prevent boredom when teaching young students the...
- bildan
: The ground systems depend on where you are and what equipment you have. It can be either fully...
- ...
: Students showcase a new wave of biological machines.
- ...
: Very informative... I enjoyed and learned.
- ...
: Wow!!! I have view your article and this is interesting and very useful. I need any more...
- nancy16
: When doing research on cancer. Scientist should not indulge in whether the cancer was inherited...
- david k
: There is strong history of the street view as art. Ed Ruscha took photos along the Sunset Strip...
|
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
What Physics Can Teach Us About Cancer
The National Cancer Institute launched 12 physical science-oncology centers.
By Katherine Bourzac
Today the National Cancer Institute announced that it has awarded grants to twelve institutions to apply the tools and methods of the physical sciences to cancer research. The Physical Science-Oncology Centers will be at sites including MIT, Cornell, Arizona State, and Johns Hopkins. A full list of the centers with links to explain the research focus of each is available here.
This approach to cancer biology is one that TR has been following. One of the primary approaches being pursued by these centers involves applying the measurement tools of engineering and materials science to the study of cancer cells. In recent years, researchers have pulled on cells with the tips of atomic-force
microscopes, squeezed them between plates, and applied other physical
methods, and found, for example, that cancer cells have a different stiffness than healthy ones. They have also discovered that a cell's physical environment can affect its behavior just as much as its chemical environment.
According to the Institute, another main line of research will be "Information Coding-Decoding-Transfer and Translation in Cancer." This is a bit convoluted but essentially refers to systems biology. As I wrote in this article about the field's founder:
"Systems biology
takes a cue from engineering and treats organisms as complex systems.
Systems biologists, often using computer models, try to understand how
genes, proteins, cells, and tissues interact to create complex
organisms. By mapping out, rather than reducing, biological complexity,
systems biologists hope to reach a new understanding of the fundamental
processes of life, from embryonic development to normal metabolism to
the emergence of diseases like cancer."
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
iRobot Cofounder Developing UAVs for Search and Rescue
Helen Greiner's stealth-mode robotics company will focus on emergency response.
By Kristina Grifantini
We finally have a hint of what The Droid Works, a stealthy-mode start-up founded by Helen Grenier, one of the
cofounders of iRobot, will develop.
The NSF has given The Droid
Works a grant worth nearly $100,000 to develop indoor and outdoor unmanned air vehicles. According to the report, the UAVs will be used for emergency response:
Indoor applications would enable the UAVs to respond to emergency
situations that involve large steps, closed doors and rough terrain.
The NSF grant will be used to develop indoor flight control and safety
technology for the UAVs.
Other researchers are developing UAVs and other robots to assist with a rescue or survey an area following a disaster. Robin Murphy, a professor of computer science at Texas A&M University, is leading one effort to use snake-like robots to rescue people trapped beneath rubble. More recently she developed a way to use multiply UAVs to survey an area and locate survivors.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Fact-Checking Bush on Research Spending
The president's comments on basic research aren't quite true.
By Kevin Bullis
In last night's State of the Union address, President Bush blamed Congress for failing to fund his American Competitiveness Initiative--a failure that led to hundreds of researchers losing their jobs. But he was only telling part of the story.
In the address, President Bush said, "Last year, Congress passed legislation supporting the American Competitiveness Initiative, but never followed through with the funding." He then asked Congress to "double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences."
The request for doubled funding is a repeat from 2006, when Bush announced the American Competitiveness Initiative, which would, over 10 years, double the funding at key agencies involved in physical-sciences research. The initiative was in response to a National Academies report highlighting the need to increase basic research funding if America is to remain competitive worldwide.
So far, those funds have failed to appear. The 2007 budget request included the funds, but the appropriations bill stalled. (See "Alternative-Energy Spending Fizzles Out.") The 2008 budget request also included the funds, but again, the spending was never approved by Congress.
But the president's statement that Congress "never followed through with the funding" leaves out the fact that Congress failed to do so in part because of pressure from him. The funding increases for basic research had actually been included in a catchall spending bill, but they were cut at the last minute in response to veto threats from the president, who had set a firm limit on the amount of domestic spending he would allow. The added research money put the bill over the limit, and the Democrats weren't willing to cut money from other areas, such as the funding for energy research that Bush had wanted to be cut. What's more, nearly a billion dollars in earmarks--Congressional pet projects--also directed money away from basic research.
As a result, hundreds of researchers from two national research labs who had been expecting increases in funding suddenly found themselves without jobs. The cuts have also put in jeopardy two international research projects, including one for a large experimental fusion reactor that could address long-term energy needs. (See "Federal Research Funding Cut.")
|
More Technology News from 
|