Centerblue.org

The blogosphere is on fire because of the recent brief submitted by Obama’s DOJ in response to a lawsuit, Smelt v. United States, seeking to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act that states marriage to be only between a man and a woman. The fires are being stoked by Americablog, which in my opinion twists what’s going on in the brief out of context for people who are not well-versed in the legal arguments being made. I’m not happy that Obama is defending DoMA, but let’s have a rational discussion about what’s really going on.

1) The President and Executive Branch have a duty to execute and defend the laws passed by Congress.

(A Republican) Congress passed DoMA in 1996, and Bill Clinton signed it lest he imperil his re-election. As such, it became the federal law of the land. The President and DoJ are required to uphold and defend those laws. It’s true that Americablog cites a couple of situations where the Executive Branch has declined to defend a law in the books. I have not had time to look up those cases to see what happened, so I will cede the point that it’s not 100% mandatory for the Executive Branch to defend every law in court. Nevertheless, it happens 99.9% of the time, including in situations that the Executive would prefer not to defend but does so because of its duty to execute the laws or because of some other policy reason.

2) Obama had two choices: do what’s done 99.9% of the time, or create a firestorm he’d rather push to Congress in repealing DoMA.

Obama had to make a choice: was this the time, the place and the manner in which to push for the repeal of DoMA? Had he done so, would it have been effective? Obama has indicated that he wants Congress to take the lead on issues like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (and perhaps by extension DoMA). We may not like it, but it’s simply politically smart to have the legislature that passed the law, un-make it. Neither he nor I have forgotten how badly Bill Clinton got burned when he tried to end the ban on gays in the military without having the assent of Congress. It bombed terribly. Obama the politican does not want a similar bomb to explode in his face.

Don’t like that Obama is a politician and acts out of self-interest? Who do you think he is..Jesus Christ? By insisting that such measures come out of Congress he covers his ass, and also ensures that he doesn’t end up weak and ineffectual like Clinton became when he was forced to sign the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell “compromise.” That’s politics, folks. Can he push Congress to repeal DODT or DoMA? Absolutely, and he should, and we should pressure him to do so. But this lawsuit was not that time.

So, assuming he had reason not to put a stake in the ground, he had no other choice but to defend the law in the books. And when you go to court to defend your position, you are required to do so vigorously regardless of what you privately think of the argument. You don’t go in there half-assed, with a little wink and a nod and hoping everyone understands.

3) The brief did NOT liken gay marriage to incest or pederasty.

Here’s the passage that has Aravosis and other people so outraged:

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State’s policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, “though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state”); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson’s Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages “prohibited and void”).

OK, so let me explain something that Aravosis doesn’t. When you argue a case in court, you’re looking to make a point. When you try to make that point, you cast about for other cases that also make that point. Often times, you won’t find a case that is exactly (or even anywhere near) the same in terms of the facts, so you have to look for cases with dissimilar facts but which argue for the same conclusion. You do this in hopes of persuading the judge that the conclusion that happened in the other cases should be applied to your case too, even if the facts aren’t similar. This is totally standard procedure, and so is doing a quick summation of the different facts in the other cases for the benefit of the court.

This paragraph in the brief is re-stating a well known and rock solid tenet of “conflict of laws” (an area of law that dictates, roughly speaking, what happens when laws between states conflict.) The well known maxim is that a state is usually required to accept the rulings and laws of a sister state, EXCEPT when the sister state’s laws run counter to the current state’s public policy. So just to give a theoretical example, if one state allowed polygamy and a polygamous couple went to another state and tried to have their marriage recognized there, that state would not have to uphold the marriage if it provided evidence that polygamy runs counter to the public policy there.

The point being made in the paragraph is just as in the hypothetical: one state need not recognize another state’s marriage if it believes the marriage to violate public policy, with the underlying assumption that there are states out there that do in fact believe same sex marriage violates their public policy (strong evidence of which would be the various state level anti-marriage amendments and laws that have been passed).

In trying to back up the point, the brief cites other marriage-related cases. They probably couldn’t find other examples of same sex marriages in the books to cite as evidence since they’re a new thing. So they cast about for what they could find–and they came up with an incest case and a pederasty case with totally different facts but which argued the same conclusion: that State A can refuse recognition of State B’s marriages.

Arguing by analogy is not the same thing as arguing from belief or from current facts. The DOJ brief is NOT saying same sex marriages are like incest or pederasty. They’re just other cases that argue, by analogy, for the same conclusion being sought by the brief.

4) Much of the rest of the brief points cited by Americablog re-state existing law.

Americablog takes great exception that the brief argues that gay marriage should not be treated the same as race for equal protection arguments. But for decades the law has been clear that there are three standards of increasingly strict review–and that only race, national origin and religious affiliation receive the highest protection standard under the Equal Protection Clause (which is to say most laws regarding these classes will simply be struck down). Even sex discrimination isn’t treated as strictly as race, and gets an “intermediate” level of scrutiny/protection. Everything else has always been on the lowest tier, requiring merely that a law have some “rational basis” to avoid being struck.

That the brief argued that this lowest basis should be used for DoMA is standard practice when arguing Equal Protection cases. Arguing that homosexuality should join race at the top of the Equal Protection pyramid is a losing argument that probably wouldn’t fly even in front of a liberal court, and this brief was certainly not the right time to make that argument.

Yes, it’s disappointing that the brief would argue that same sex marriage shouldn’t be considered a fundamental right (a better argument for marriage equality advocates than equal protection). Yes it’s sad that the brief would regurgitate old arguments about equal protection and public policy. But if DoJ was going to have to defend the law, it could really do so only on those three grounds.

5) The brief does not re-state key anti-gay arguments made in such cases by the Bush Administration.

The Washington Post pointed out that the brief upheld the validity of same sex marriages performed in states that permit them, unlike Bush’s arguments that same sex marriage is never valid. The brief also did not use the incendiary argument that kids raised in heterosexual married households are better off than those in gay households.

It’s a relatively small point, but key in my opinion to my belief that the brief is dryly stating legalese instead of trying to damage the gay marriage cause.

——————————
Conclusion

I know everything above is wordy and dense, so here’s the summary:

We have a right to be angry and disappointed that Obama’s administration would put its name anywhere near supporting DoMA. Obama has not done enough on behalf of gay issues, for repealing DADT and DoMA and he should be taken to task for that. He has been a disappointment on civil rights issues generally.

But let’s not fan the flames of anger and turn them into hatred by finding malice where there is none.

a) Obama and the Executive Branch are doing what’s done 99.9% of the time in defending a law passed by Congress and signed by another President.

b) Obama had a choice, to be that 0.1% of the time and take a stand in what was likely to be a losing cause by refusing to weigh in on DoMA, or to support the law. Whether we agree with it or not, Obama decided that this was not the time or the place, nor did he have the means or the will or the political capital or what have you, to dictate an end to DoMA on his own. Call him a coward or a political pragmatist, but he is on the record as wanting Congress to take the lead on these issues.

c) OBAMA DID NOT EQUATE GAY MARRIAGE WITH INCEST OR PEDERASTY. The brief made an argument by analogy with other cases, to prove a point using cases that had dissimilar facts but came to the same conclusion wanted by the writer. This happens ALL THE TIME in legal arguments, it is standard practice and says nothing about the writer’s personal beliefs about the case.

d) If you decide to argue a case, you can’t do it half assed. You have to do so zealously. In so doing, the brief employed the standard equal protection, fundamental rights, and public policy arguments that always come up in these marriage cases. We may not like the other side of these arguments, but they are what they are.

What do we do?

I’m not trying to completely exonerate Obama here. We need to apply the nails to his nuts and start pushing hard for him to start coming through on DoMA and DoDT. He’s had a lot on his plate with the economy, but his silence on these issues is increasingly unacceptable–and the brief only inflames the splinter in the gay community’s mind about it all. He’s on the record as wanting repeal of these laws. Fine. Let’s ride his ass to get on the phone with Congress and GET IT DONE NOW. I’m confident that if DoMA is repealed and someone somehow sues on that basis, that his administration will take the other side of this argument and defend the repeal.

But let’s not mistake this brief for a President who would actively seek to write us out of the Constitution like the last one attempted. Wanting “cover” for his political ass may be cowardly or the sign of a man who prefers consensus, but it’s an entirely different animal from someone who actively hates us and wants to bow to the Radical Right.

Let’s be angry because he has not done enough to keep his promises yet and has forced himself into an embarrassing corner by having to argue this case. Let’s not pillory him for something he hasn’t done.

He’s not out to destroy us. He (and Congress) just need a good hard push.

UPDATE: DOJ spokesperson makes statement about Obama’s stance on DoMA:

As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court. The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.

Spokesman also points to standard Executive Branch policy:

Executive Branch agencies will enforce federal statutes unless they are clearly unconstitutional and the Department of Justice will defend statutes against constitutional attack whenever reasonable arguments can be made in their defense.

Today there is news that scientists in the US and Japan have successfully created stem cells from regular human skin cells instead of relying on politically and ethically touchy embryos. In doing so they have accomplished a rare feat: they have managed to make everyone happy on all sides of the stem cell issue.

Personally it’s hard to see the ethical problem in using embryos to derive life-saving stem cells, especially if those embryos were destined for a dumpster in the back of a fertility clinic anyway. The “right to lifers” who object seem not to blink an eye at placing more importance on protecting a potential-but-unactualized human being than providing life-saving treatments to actual human beings who are desperately in need. So for me, this new discovery conjures a sigh of relief more than anything, knowing that these revolutionary treatments can now happen unimpeded.

For those on the other side of the issue, though, it must seem like a vindication. And you know what? They’re right, though perhaps not for the reasons they’d prefer.

Whatever anyone thinks of those who opposed embryonic stem cells, they were correct in insisting that we take a step back and ask ethical questions about revolutionary science. In that sense, they were vindicated because they forced the ethical discussion and ultimately the discovery of a stem cell solution that posed no ethical dilemmas to anyone.

The pace of technological change continues to accelerate at an exponential rate, leaving less and less time to ask–and more urgently, answer–fundamental moral questions about the technology we are unleashing.

Here are some examples of questions that must be answered in the next couple of decades, and some of them quite soon:

Some people find our slowness in facing these and other looming ethical questions so alarming that they have urged that we relinquish broad areas of technology lest we face destruction, the most famous example being Sun Microsystems founder Bill Joy’s seminal article in Wired magazine named “Why The Future Doesn’t Need Us.”

I think no such thing–the potential benefits of all these technologies vastly outweigh their risks, and in any case it’s impossible to put any technological genie back in its bottle. But it’s imperative that we ask these questions and come about these technologies in a way that is as safe, sane, and ethical as possible.

Score one for people who questioned the ethics of stem-cell technology–not because I agree with your stance about human embryos, but because you encouraged asking the right questions.

It’s been quite a while since I’ve done one of these–but there have been no shortage of scientific miracles in the last few months as technology continues its exponential acceleration.

MEDICINE/BIOTECHNOLOGY

Anti-aging pill on the horizon, soon to be available. This has got to be one of the most exciting technological advances of the year. Researchers are working on creating a pill that preserves the mitochondria in cells, the degeneration of which is a major cause of aging. The treatment is, in fact, entering human trials now. It is based on the compound in red wine you may have heard of called reseratrol; one pill would contain the equivalent of resveratrol found in 1500 bottles of red wine. Not only does it attack aging itself, but also shows very promising results against diseases of aging such as diabetes.

New enzyme kills HIV dead. A new enzyme has been developed that literally kills HIV inside the cells it infects, never to have it return. This isn’t just treating someone who’s HIV+. This is actually making them HIV negative again. It’s going to take some time to test it, engineer it on a large scale and make it widely available–5 to 20 years–but there is good solid hope on the horizon.

Alzheimer’s cure is found. Just what the title says–a new treatment blocks Alzheimer’s-causing amyloid plaques in the brain, and even reverses the early stages of the disease. Trials are to start within the next two years.

Artificial Life in 3 to 10 years. A widely read Associated Press article discussed the likelihood of artificial life in the test tube being possible in the next three to ten years. Why would we want to do this? Well, we could create a life form that converts agricultural waste to pure ethanol or gasoline, for example–or build a life form that can eat toxic waste and clean up the environment. Hopefully the scientists creating these critters won’t get the smart idea of allowing them to reproduce….

ROBOTICS

The amazing Robot Asimo. Just watch the video of a robot being developed by Honda. Spooky.

Robotic insects take flight. Researchers have built an insect-sized robot that can fly. Its intended use is for covert surveillance, detecting chemicals, and probably eventually delivering explosives.

NANOTECHNOLOGY

IBM develops single-atom storage capability. IBM is developing technology that allows a single atom to store computer data. Eventually this will allow you to store the equialent of all of Youtube on a device the size of an iPod.

Nanoscale data retrieves data 1000 times faster for 100,000 years. On a similar vein, UPenn researchers are using nanowires to develop computer memory that accesses data 1000 times faster than today, and can store data for 100,000 years, all using less space and power than current Flash and RAM memory.

Solar cells made from plastic are now possible. One of the biggest problems with solar technology is that it requires large, inefficient and unwieldy silicon panels. Not anymore. Scientists have developed nanotube-based solar panels that can be printed on films of plastic. These films can then be “painted on” just about anything–walls, roofs, on top of cars, whatever. Once these are developed in mass quantity you can literally have solar energy available anywhere you have a surface on which to paint the film.

Nano-generators become reality. Scientists have visions of legions of nanobots coursing through our bloodstream in a few decades, directly attacking all manner of illnesses and keeping us perpetually healthy (and young.) But they need a power source, or else these nanobots are just floating pieces of micro metal. Researchers are working on that too, recently unveiling nano-generators that can use unconventional forms of energy such as ultrasonic waves, mechanical vibrations, and even your body’s blood flow to generate energy. You could also put them in your shoes, so that your walking creates energy to power devices you have on your person.

OTHER

3D desktop fabrication coming to your home. This is another wondrous technology–you can literally build objects by printing them out. This is a precursor to what nanotechnology promises to deliver, though the tech here is not nano-based. It’s still incredible enough. Watch the video yourself. It’s billed as a way of building models…but the same technology could eventually allow you to, say, download the blueprints for that fancy set of shoes you want without even visiting the store. A similar machine from another company is going on sale for less than $5000.

Photon propulsion could cut trip to Mars down to one week. A scientist is presenting his discovery of a new propulsion technology to agencies like NASA and JPL. If it pans out, it would greatly increase propulsion speeds for various space missions–including cutting down the travel time to Mars from six months to a week.

Scientists from the US’s Sandia National Laboratories have announced a breakthrough in energy fusion technology that even conservatives among them are calling the most revolutionary energy production invention in decades. The technology is essentially a special circuit that can fire many times flawlessly and carry enough power to sustain high-yield nuclear fusion. If larger-scale production of the circuits produce more sustainable power as predicted by the modeling studies it is very possible we may end up with fusion power plants fed by cheap seawater within 20 years.

There is, however, one small catch (isn’t there always?) The funding that produced this circuit comes from the US Department of Defense. Specifically, the research was geared towards more accurately modeling nuclear weapon explosions since the US is observing a moratorium on nuke tests. Will the US release this invaluable strategic technology to private industry so that it can build fusion plants? Will the US have a choice given our mounting dependence on foreign and dwindling fossil fuels? Time will tell.

Here’s a very interesting video on where technology is progressively taking us by 2100. (Turn the volume down, the music is rather annoying).

What’s contained in this video isn’t the dream of some sci-fi junkie. The possibilities depicted are the work of some of the planet’s most respected scientists and thinkers who understand the accelerating trends in artificial intelligence and nanotechnology. Work is already underway to make some of the earlier predictions shown in the video a reality.

One notable omission from the video is how our emerging technology will handle global warming–because if we don’t deal with that problem then all bets are off. But I do believe that we will eventually possess ways of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere so that we can return our planet to its normal pre-industrial state (and there’s a prize out there waiting to be claimed right now by whoever comes up with an initial answer).

A monthly roundup of technological breakthroughs in energy, computing, nanotechnology, and biotechnology–and how these converging technologies are transforming our society, solving problems, and creating new ones.

Let’s round up evil-doers before they commit crimes: (computing, ethics) I’m sure my friend Boztopia will “love” this one. A team of neuroscientists has come up with a powerful technique that can scan deep inside a person’s mind and read his intentions before he acts, “Minority Report” style. It raises some serious ethical questions about how and whether this device should be used in interrogations and police work. That tearing sound you hear is that of the Bill of Rights enduring further shredding.

If you live 20 more years, you may get to live forever: (biotechnology) Research into senescence continues to gather speed, as more scientists come to view old age as a curable disease rather than as an inevitability. Researchers like Dr. John Langmore are looking at telomeres in the DNA code, which become damaged as cells keep replicating over time and cause eventual degeneration–in the same way that making copies of copies of copies of a piece of paper eventually results in a mess. Understanding how this works could lead the way to stopping and reversing the aging process.

World’s first “bionic woman:” (robotics) US Marine Claudia Mitchell is the world’s first person to have a prosthetic arm she can control through thought alone. It can do things like cutting up food, and she can feel touch when something touches her artificial hand.

Let’s suck carbon dioxide out of the air: (environment) Bowing to the inevitable fact that we are not likely to reduce carbon emissions enough in time to prevent a climate disaster, Al Gore and Virgin Group boss Sir Richard Branson have announced a $25 million “Earth Challenge” Prize to be awarded to whoever comes up with a workable method of permanently removing at least one billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere per year. There are already ways to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, such as this contraption that looks like a goal post devised by a Columbia U. researcher, but such devices still lack a way of cheaply and permanently sequestering the carbon they capture.

Robots (may) have feelings too: (robotics) Astonishingly, researchers are working on giving robots emotions and feelings that may be seen in mainstream robots within ten years. They are getting their robots to react to stimuli with emotions like happiness and fear, or to spontaneously feel “hunger” as a way of telling them they need to recharge their batteries. If they can be taught feelings, can ethics follow? Let’s hope so.

Creating the Jordi LaForge visor: (computing) Jordi was the blind Chief Engineer on the Enterprise-D who wore a visor to help him see. A new implant puts receptors in some blind patients’ eyes that is interpreted by a computer and then sent to the user’s brain as signals he can understand. The device won’t equate to full sight, but would allow totally blind patients to see imagery and navigate about. However future versions should allow more sight, including recognizing someone’s face.

The computer that won’t work if you look at it:(computing) Well that’s a bit of an overstatement, but a start-up called D-Wave claims it has demo-ed the world’s first quantum computer. The computer relies on the state of quantum qubits rather than on binary 0’s and 1’s, and could be used to solve certain thorny problems in just a few seconds that would take regular computers eons. Hype or real? Who knows, but we’ll find out soon enough as the company makes its increasingly powerful computer available to corporations for research.

A 2012 laptop’s speed = 1997’s world’s fastest supercomputer: (computing) Intel recently demonstrated a new 80-core teraflop chip that will be widely available on computers within 5 years, and whose power is greater than the most powerful supercomputer on Earth just ten years ago. It will also only consume 62 watts of power, less than what a single processor consumes today.

A monthly roundup of technological breakthroughs in energy, computing, nanotechnology, and biotechnology–and how these converging technologies are transforming our society, solving problems, and creating new ones.

1) (Nanotechnology/computing) Scientists create memory chip the size of a white blood cell. It is the densest such chip ever developed. It provides a possible path for circumventing the physical limits of silicone-based chips in the years ahead. Also, it is a potential milestone for creating machines that can operate at the nano level inside our bodies and such.

2) (Nanotechnology) Gut-crawling microrobot to debut in 2009. Think that the idea of robots crawling through your body to fix you is fanciful science fiction? Coming soon to a doctor near you in just two years: a robot the width of two human hairs that can travel through the arteries and organs of your body, penetrating far deeper than current methods. It will be able to provide images, and even perform non-invasive microsurgery.

3) (Computing) Military develops robotic insects. These nasty little bad boys will be remotely controlled, can fly into targets undetected, and will perform a variety of military operations from disabling computers to exploding. But can you imagine these little buggers in the hands of terrorists?

4) (Energy) Military unveils awesome projectile railgun. The military has been busy with futuristic technology. This nasty railgun, straight out of a Doom video game, can launch a small 7-pound projectile that can travel 250 nautical miles and hit its target with the force of a car at 380 mph. It can take down a building with one shot. Ouch! Who needs cruise missiles when you can lay down the smack with this nastiness?? (That goes for terrorists as well as us, of course–better not be finding this toy at the local Wal-Mart!)

5) (Energy) Military unveils new crowd-controlling ray gun. Isn’t it nice to know our military is putting our taxpayer dollars to good use with all this technology? Next up: a non-lethal ray gun it can point at people that can make them feel they are about to be burned alive, causing them to cease whatever rioting they may be doing and run away at top speed. The military says the gun is harmless, but critics claim they may have nasty side-effects.

6) (Computing) Researchers encode entire image onto a single photon. They essentially put a picture image onto a photon and were able to store it and retrieve it later. This could be a huge breakthrough in computer storage, as it would pave the way for society being able to store unimaginably large amounts of data using very little substrate.

7) (Energy) Company claims creation of new battery-ultracapacitor hybrid. EEStor claims to have created this new battery that has ten times the life of existing ones, and can be used on everything from laptops to cars. If true, it would transform our energy equation in a multitude of ways–from making intermittent solar/wind power much more reliable to allowing hybrid-electric cars to fully serve as stable backup for the power grid. Our iPod’s and laptops would run a hell of a lot longer too!

(Energy) New process makes ethanol out of trash. Forget corn, which we’d rather eat than shove down our gas tanks. A new process converts landfill and industrial trash into ethanol, with very little pollution created. We create enough trash to replace 25% of our gasoline if we used this process.

9) (Computing) Australia science agency demoes 6 gb/s wireless speeds. This new wireless peer-to-peer technology would let you download an entire DVD in six seconds. Researchers say this is just the beginning and will shortly be able to double these speeds.

10) (Computing) “Minority Report” style computer interface ready for prime time. Forget keyboards and mice, and take a cue from the (relatively primitive) iPhone. Direct manipulation of computer imagery, as shown in the “Minority Report” movie, is going to be a great new way to interact with our machines. There is a great video of the technology here, although it appears to be temporarily unavailable. Two videos showing the technology can be found on YouTube here and here.

11) (Computing) 65% of computer users spend more time with computer than with significant other. Lastly and sadly, this is not an innovation but a demonstration of a negative effect technology is having on society. Put down World of Warcraft and go cuddle your SO!

2006 was a remarkable year in the realm of science, as the law of accelerating technological returns continued apace at an increasing speed. From the advancement of brain-machine interfaces to using stem cells to cure blindness, humanity made astounding leaps in its use of technology to better understand and manipulate the world around it. This technology also forms an essential foundation for tackling the tremendous problems posed by increasing energy scarcity and global climate change.

I list here what I consider the top achievements for the year.

Robotics/Artificial Intelligence

1) Researchers demonstrate direct brain control over robot. Scientists have developed a method for allowing the control of a robot using thought control. The possibilities of this technology are immense–ranging from guiding machines in combat to providing direction to a planetary rover on Mars.

2) Researchers unveil self-aware robot. They created a four-legged machine but did not give it instructions on how to move. It had to learn that it was four-legged by trial and error, and by testing hypotheses. It eventually developed a sense of “self” that allowed it to strategize on how to move correctly, and later how to adapt as a result of an “injury” to one of its legs. This differs from previous robots that have had to be programmed to do specific tasks, without an ability to adapt. In so doing, this robot behaves more in line with a “conscious” animal like a cat.

Biotechnology

1) Pill made from red wine compound extends life of fat unhealthy mice. Obesity is a major problem in our society and a major cause of disease and premature death. Scientists have discovered that giving obese mice a pill made out of high doses of resveratrol, a compound found in red wine, eliminates the problems of obesity (fatty organs, insulin levels, etc.) even though the mice didn’t lose the weight. It also reversed the contributions of a bad diet on things like heart disease, cancer, etc. These mice went on to live as long as healthy ones, and research is underway to see if healthy mice given the compound will have their lives extended even longer.

2) Stem cells to be used to cure blindness. Scientists are using stem cells to restore retinal cells lost due to degenerative eye diseases, and have successfully restored vision to blind mice using this approach.

3) Brain-machine interfaces took drastic leaps forward in 2006. Several advances were seen this year on this front. In one study, a paralyzed patient became able to control his wheelchair by thought alone. Other scientists are developing a brain chip that can process muscle control commands and deliver them directly to paralyzed limbs, bypassing the source of paralysis.

4) Human bladders are grown in a lab and implanted in patients. Eventually scientists will be able to grow any organ using a patient’s own cells and then implant it to replace a diseased one, completely eliminating any tissue rejection issues.

5) Robotic worm can move through intestines. Scientists have developed a “worm” that can move through human intestines. It may someday contain cameras that can penetrate far deeper than today’s colonoscopies.

Nanotechnology

1) Nanowires generate electricity from body movement. Scientists have developed inexpensive nanowires that can harness our movement to provide energy to power machines. Anything from walking to breathing to the movement of our blood will eventually be able to provide energy to everything from IPOD’s to nanobots roaming inside our bodies. In a related development, nanowires have also been developed that convert light to electricity.

2) Polymer nanospheres target and destroy cancer cells. Researchers have developed particles that can target cancer cells and prevent them from spreading by slowly releasing drugs. This will greatly reduce the damage caused by conventional chemotherapy. This is part of a greater emerging movement in medicine that uses nanoparticles to specifically target and destroy disease at its source inside the body.

3) Semi-conducting nanowire transistors to make tiny computers and sensors possible. Scientists have developed a way to mass produce nanowire transistors that are much smaller and more efficient than existing ones. This will eventually make possible everything from tiny computers to ultra-sensitive sensors that can pick up the presence of hundreds of cancer markers and pathogens–in as little as five years from now.

4) Nano-membrane provides cheap drinkable water from the oceans. At a time when glaciers that provide life-giving water are disappearing at an alarming rate, with farmlands threatened by climate change all over the world, and with aquifers quickly being drained to nothing, our civilization needs a water solution fast and it needs it now. Nanotechnology provides the way, as scientists have developed a nano-membrane that reduces the cost of saltwater desalination by 75%. This will eventually lead to the creation of desalination plants that can efficiently create fresh water from the oceans. In a related development, nano-magnets have been created that can purify contaminated water.

Energy

1) Scientists design life forms to create ethanol from wood chips and agricultural waste. Ethanol provides an answer to our dangerous petroleum dependency, but using corn/soybeans/sugar/etc. for it causes competition between food and fuel. A much better answer is to use cellulosic agricultural waste and wood chips to create ethanol, but the means didn’t exist to do that until now. Scientists have developed organisms that metabolize these products and turn them into ethanol. This holds great promise as a new energy source in the future, and a cellulosic ethanol plant is already under construction. As an added bonus, ethanol contributes very little to global warming (since the amount of carbon spewed is roughly equal to the amount consumed by the plants themselves.)

2) Plug-in automobile hybrids are here. These hybrid automobiles allow you to plug them into a wall outlet, which will recharge their newer better batteries and allow more of their energy to come from electricity and less from fuel. This can be done with minimal construction of new plants by taking full advantage of plants’ peak capacities, rather than letting them stand idle during times when not everyone is running their air conditioners at full blast. Additionally, these cars will eventually serve to stabilize the power grid by providing excess power during times of emergency and by allowing users to sell power back to the grid when it’s unneeded.

3) Cheap super-efficient solar power is (almost) here. From drastically increasing the efficiency of solar cells, to being able to concentrate sunlight for increased performance, to more cheaply mass-producing solar cells, solar power is now close to being cost-competitive with fossil fuels. I hope to see the day soon when any household can put solar panels on its roof and not rely on the fossil fuel power grid for its needs.

Physics

1) Cloaking device becomes a reality. The pesky cloaking devices used by Romulans and Klingons that were such a pain to the Star Trek Enterprise crew may eventually become a reality. A cloaking device has been created that makes an object invisible–but only in the microwave frequency range for now (not in the visible light range). The problem with creating such a device for the visible light range is that it would have to be built at the nanoscale level due to the smaller frequency of light and that’s beyond the current capabilities of nanotechnology–for now.

I’m usually the type who’s “live and let live” when it comes to the role of religion in society–but I do get upset when religious belief tries to take the place of rational science.

Apparently there is a brouhaha brewing over the Grand Canyon involving what the National Park Service can say as to its geological age, and regarding what materials are available for sale at a nearby Canyon-related bookstore. In short, the NPS must give a “no comment” answer to any queries about the Canyon’s geological age, at the same time allowing the sale of a book at the bookstore claiming that the Canyon came about as a result of the Flood and Noah’s Ark. From the news release by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER):

Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”

In a letter released today, PEER urged the new Director of the National Park Service (NPS), Mary Bomar, to end the stalling tactics, remove the book from sale at the park and allow park interpretive rangers to honestly answer questions from the public about the geologic age of the Grand Canyon. PEER is also asking Director Bomar to approve a pamphlet, suppressed since 2002 by Bush appointees, providing guidance for rangers and other interpretive staff in making distinctions between science and religion when speaking to park visitors about geologic issues.

In August 2003, Park Superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale at park bookstores of Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, a book claiming the Canyon developed on a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. NPS Headquarters, however, intervened and overruled Alston. To quiet the resulting furor, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna told reporters and members of Congress that there would be a high-level policy review of the issue.

According to a recent NPS response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by PEER, no such review was ever requested, let alone conducted or completed.

Park officials have defended the decision to approve the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, claiming that park bookstores are like libraries, where the broadest range of views are displayed. In fact, however, both law and park policies make it clear that the park bookstores are more like schoolrooms rather than libraries. As such, materials are only to reflect the highest quality science and are supposed to closely support approved interpretive themes. Moreover, unlike a library the approval process is very selective. Records released to PEER show that during 2003, Grand Canyon officials rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while approving only one new sale item — the creationist book.

Come on, people. The Grand Canyon is not the right forum for arguing Creationism. The rocks speak for themselves. The tendency of the Bush administration to gag science it doesn’t like is disturbing (the gagging of NASA scientists over the global warming issue comes to mind).

NASA has revealed plans to create a self-sustaining moon base on the south pole of the moon by 2024, with initial scouting missions to begin in the next few years. The base would serve as a way station for astronauts heading further out into space, including Mars. Hydrogen and oxygen would be mined from nearby rocks to provide breathing air and rocket fuel. The article doesn’t state how food would be generated, but would presumably rely on hydroponics and the like.

I’m personally very excited about this development. I was born when the nation was still putting men on the moon, which went on until 1972. Since then our space program has essentially stagnated because of a lack of clear vision and funding. Recently, international cooperation for space projects has increased and the possibility also now exists for private industry to get involved for everything from space tourism to mining. These developments all again make mankind’s trek into the stars a possibility.

Why should we spend so much money creating a moon base when we have pressing problems from starvation to global warming here on Earth? No exact figures are available, but the base will be very expensive. Nevertheless, space exploration opens new avenues of research into many fields with potential applications back on Earth. It could also create entire new non-Earth polluting industries as a source of jobs.

Most importantly, perhaps, it prevents humanity from keeping all its eggs in one basket. Stephen Hawking recently said that it is imperative for humankind to create settlements and colonies on other planets. Should some global catastrophe hit such as an asteroid or runaway extreme global warming or the like, our race will have a chance to survive if it has spread out into the stars.

Nobody knows if humankind is the only intelligence in the universe. Whether it is or not, and despite our capacity to do great evil, the intelligence granted to us through evolution is something too important to gamble on at the risk of some natural or man-made catastrophe. It’s imperative we follow Hawking’s missive. When we do, I hope we take with us the hard lessons we have learned on Earth, such as the need to preserve our environment as a limited resource.

I will obviously follow these moon base developments very closely in the years ahead.