We’ve seen single-pixel cameras, and now MIT researchers have figured out how to create clear images of dimly-lit objects using single photons — in 3D, no less. The technique doesn’t involve any fancy new hardware, either, as the team worked with…
Canadian universities are making multi-million-dollar research deals with business and private donors that raise “alarm bells” and fail to safeguard academic freedom, according to a report to be released Wednesday. The University of Alberta has agreed to a $13-million oilsands […]
For those of you who are familiar with the evidence base on parental feeding patterns it won’t come as a surprise to you that just saying “No” (restriction) isn’t a wise plan – yet there are many who feel that the ability of parents to “just say no” is a viable defense against our current food environment.
Well, here’s more evidence, albeit from a small sample size of just 37 preschoolers, that demonstrated,
“the use of restriction does not reduce children’s consumption of these foods, particularly among children with lower regulatory or higher appetitive tendencies“
It’s worse than that though in that restriction actually increased children’s intake of restricted foods and had a more pronounced effect therein on kids who already struggled with larger appetites.
If we want to improve the overall health of children, rather than defending an environment that constantly thrusts garbage into our children by suggesting that in defence parents can, “just say no”, instead we need to decrease the number of opportunities where “Nos” might feel warranted.
[And just a quick correction to yesterday's post. Yesterday the Manitoba Child Care Association was identified erroneously as the source of the policy that led a daycare to fine a parent for not including Ritz crackers in their kids' lunches. The correct policy attribution is in fact to the Manitoba Government's Early Learning and Child Care lunch regulations.]
In the race to create a better battery, scientists have gazed longingly at silicon, prized for its ability to hold copious energy during charging. The material has a significant drawback, however: it likes to expand during said charging, causing i…
OTTAWA – Environmental conservation in Canada has reached a new low, according to a report from the office of the federal Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development released yesterday.
Citing “deteriorating biodiversity conditions in all of the main types of ecosystems in Canada,” Interim Environment Commissioner Neil Maxwell called on federal departments to seek “ground-breaking” new approaches to “break the pattern of unfulfilled commitments and responsibilities.”
Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada and MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands expressed gratitude for the Commissioner’s diligent research, stating that ”The deep cuts to Parks Canada are clearly causing serious problems in maintaining ecological integrity in parks, while across the federal government there is a disturbing failure to fulfill statutory responsibilities for species at risk.”
The Green Party Leader also emphasized the need to implement and provide funding for more stringent environmental monitoring standards, while echoing the Commissioner’s call for a more collaborative and integrated approach to supporting biodiversity, one that would take into account all aspects of an ecosystem.
The report, which examined the work of Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Parks Canada in protecting Canada’s natural environment, found that over 70% of national wildlife areas had “less than adequate ecological integrity”, and that over 90% “did not have adequate management plans.”
“The threats to bird populations are alarming,” remarked Andrew Park, Environment Critic for the Green Party of Canada, “We are losing the scientific capacity to monitor species as their numbers plummet.” The report states that according to Environment Canada’s own estimates, fewer than half of the Bird Conservation Region Strategies it committed to completing by 2010 had been finished, and “that monitoring for 30 percent of the bird species in Canada is insufficient to determine whether they are at risk.”
Green Party of Canada
Cell: (613) 294 3034
A team of researchers from the University of Manitoba has discovered how and why a mutated gene causes amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and the research may lead to new treatments for the disease more commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. … Continue Reading
School-aged students can now learn about science and research first hand at a new biomedical laboratory officially opened at the St. Boniface Hospital Health Research Centre (SBHRC) Thursday. The Youth BIOLab is a 3,000-square-foot fully functioning research laboratory that will … Continue Reading
On September 16, thousands of scientists participated in rallies, voicing their concerns about what they see as threats to science in the public interest. Katie Gibbs has a PhD in Biology from the University of Ottawa and executive director of the new …
Infographic: Fifteen years of NRC publications
Chalk one up for atomic force microscopy. As detailed in a paper published recently in the journal Science, researchers in China have used the imaging technique (as opposed to scanning tunnelling microscopy) to capture an image of a hydrogen bond …
<div class=”separator” style=”clear: both; text-align: center;”><a href=”http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ido2-yrTFnQ/UjduYW2wKyI/AAAAAAAAJ1k/32DKHP5NsfM/s1600/Gah.jpg” imageanchor=”1″ style=”margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;”><img border=”0″ src=”http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ido2-yrTFnQ/UjduYW2wKyI/AAAAAAAAJ1k/32DKHP5NsfM/s400/Gah.jpg” /></a></div>That’s what <a href=”http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57603090/study-u.s-teens-eating-better-watching-less-tv/”>the headlines</a> would have you believe.<br /><br />In fact that’s what <a href=”http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/09/11/peds.2013-1488″>a recently published journal article</a> would have you believe too. And truthfully, I hope the study’s conclusions – that teens’ screen time and the consumption of sweets and sweetened beverages are decreasing, while activity, eating breakfast and fruit and vegetable consumption are increasing – are 100% correct, but forgive me for my cynicism, I’m having a difficult time buying it.<br /><br />Firstly, I don’t think a comparison between the self-reported healthy living behaviours of 2001-2002 vs. 2009-2010 teens is possible. As I’ve pointed out before, teens, especially teens with overweight and obesity <a href=”http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/17477161003728469″>woefully under-report dietary intake</a>, suggesting that weight, or more likely the stigma attached to it, leads teens to tell researchers what they want to hear (that they’re eating less and better than they actually are). Given rising rates of obesity and more important, the ever-louder clarion calls of concern therein, I’d be shocked were 2009-2010 teens not <i>far more likely</i> to be under-reporting their unhealthy living behaviours and over-reporting their healthy ones than their lighter, less harassed 2001-2002, or even 2005-2006 counterparts. What I’m getting at is that kids who are primed more often as to the risks of unhealthy living by the media, their schools, their doctors and their parents, I’d bet are far more likely, consciously or unconsciously, to exaggerate the efforts they’re making therein and it would seem to me our angst and calls to action have increased exponentially since 2001, and dramatically even since 2005.<br /><br />Secondly their screen time assessment is flawed too as it’s impossible to compare true screen time when smartphones and tablets didn’t exist back in 2001-2002 or even in 2005-2006 (the first iPhone didn’t come out until 2007) and yet are now nearly surgically attached to most teens’ hands. So to say that TV watching is going down likely ignores the fact that iPhone/tablet use has gone up from absolutely none, to mind boggling amounts, potentially negating any benefit of a decrease in TV specific screen time.<br /><br />But my biggest struggle isn’t with the findings of the paper, or of their veracity, but rather the paper’s conclusions. Taken straight from the abstract the authors state, <br /><blockquote>”<i><b>These patterns suggest that public health efforts to improve the obesity-related behaviors of US adolescents may be having some success</b>.</i>”</blockquote>To which I have to respond with a loud WTF! Why? Because the very same paper that is explicitly suggesting that public health efforts designed to tackle obesity-related behaviours are “<i><b>having some</b> </i><b><i>success</i>”</b> also found that BMI <b><i>went up</i></b> during the study period! And their follow up line addressing that fact is what really boiled my blood,<br /><blockquote>”<i>However, alternative explanations for the increase in BMI over the same period need to be considered.</i>”</blockquote>Again, WTF?! Moving a teeny tiny bit more and eating a teeny tiny bit less (<b>and here that’s a full on hopeful guess as calories or even amounts the teens are eating aren’t quantified or even mentioned</b>) aren’t going to do the trick and it’s incredibly irresponsible to infer that they ought to have. Meaning that even assuming the study’s findings are true, why would the authors suggest to the world that these teeny weeny changes <i>should</i> have led to decreases in BMI such that given we didn’t see change, we need to come up with “<i>alternate explanations</i>”? Even if taken at face value these changes suggest an increase of just 0.2 days a week where kids report themselves as being physically active, that kids are watching 40 minutes less TV a day (but still near 2.5 hours of the stuff) and that they’ve made truly minute changes to their dietary behaviours – why would we need “<i>alternate explanations for the increase in BMI</i>” when no one in their right mind would expect these changes to affect weight? <b>Nearly nothing lifestyle changes don’t affect weight – if they did, there would never have been a need for this study in the first place!</b><br /><br />Moreover, by tying these findings to obesity, again, even were the findings to be true, lends weight to the <i>let’s treat this flood with more swimming lessons</i> approach to dealing with childhood obesity reinforcing the notion that kids who struggle with weight and have not been successful with their swimming are just lazy, TV watching, soda swilling gluttons, when really, they’re not inherently different than any kids who came before them – no lazier, and no more gluttonous.<br /><br /><b>Kids have not changed, the world around them has, and what we really need to be doing for our kids is building them levees, not preaching about swimming lessons.</b><br /><br />Just to name a few top of head things we could do – we could establish zoning laws forbidding fast food restaurants and variety stores from setting up within walking distances of new schools; create reformed nutrition education programs; establish school gardens’, herald the return of home economics, remove no-name junk food from our kids’ cafeterias, and ban the in school use of junk food as the reward for anything and everything a kid ever does. We could put an end to advertising targeting kids. We could could pass front-of-package health claim laws that actually prevent marketing BS from preying on parents and we could regulate a diet industry that sells hope in bottles. We could enact incentive and/or disincentive taxation plans to encourage healthful eating and discourage junk, and we could re-organize farm subsidies to in turn make fruits and vegetables more affordable and junk potentially more expensive.<br /><br />There is no shortage of sandbags.<br /><br />Getting excited about likely exaggerated personal lifestyle improvements in the name of tackling childhood obesity, all the while watching rates rise further, is just another distraction from what really needs to change – not the kids, but rather the world in which we’re sitting back and passively watching them grow up.<br /><br />Truly, I’m flabbergasted by the enthusiasm this study has received. Kids haven’t suffered an epidemic loss of willpower, nor are any amount of swimming lessons going to lead them to beat this flood. Kids need our help. They need sandbags, not namby-pamby excitement about at best minimal, and at worst totally made up improvements to their swimming, which while no doubt laudable, detracts from the real work of filling actual frickin’ sandbags.<br /><br />Sorry for the rant.<br /><br /><i>[By the way, that's a selfie of me taken immediately after I first finished reading the article]</i>
Want to get your message heard on a social network? Try raging about it. China’s Beihang University has published a study of Sina Weibo users which suggests that anger-fueled online posts have more of an influence than those reflecting other emoti…
<div class=”separator” style=”clear: both; text-align: center;”><a href=”http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QrxmV9Qnsx8/UjXcpB80aFI/AAAAAAAAJ1M/qpsPc8OtFh0/s1600/Diet.jpg” imageanchor=”1″ style=”margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;”><img border=”0″ src=”http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QrxmV9Qnsx8/UjXcpB80aFI/AAAAAAAAJ1M/qpsPc8OtFh0/s400/Diet.jpg” /></a></div>That’s certainly <a href=”http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/09/obesity-eating-disorders/2772885/”>what the recent news</a> will have you believe, but what of the actual science that’s been used to generate the headlines?<br /><br />Looking to <a href=”http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/09/04/peds.2012-3940″>the paper in question</a> the first thing to point out is that it’s not a clinical trial or even a cohort analysis, but rather is a case study of just two patients.<br /><br />Both of the two teens in question chose traumatic diets as a means to fuel their losses. <br /><br />The first patient, Daniel, is described as having approached his weight loss by means of eating no more than 600 kcal per day while running high school cross country. He also apparently eliminated sweets, fats, and carbohydrates, and ate only “diet food”. <br /><br />The second patient, Kristin, is described as having commit to a dietary regimen of 1500 kcal while running 7 miles per day for 3 years. <br /><br />The authors of the case studies very sagely point out that in children, weight loss, especially rapid weight loss, should prompt primary care providers to explore the possibility of an eating disorder as eating disorders can present at any weight. In the case of these two teens, their eating disorders first manifested in the traumatic diets they both undertook in order to lose weight. Had their family physicians or pediatricians explored their losses when they began, the severity and disordered nature of the efforts might have been uncovered long before these two teens developed their traumatic-diet-induced psychological and physiological signs and symptoms.<br /><br />What this paper did not however conclude is that weight loss in teens leads to the development of eating disorders and yet I’ve seen this references to this paper crop up regularly on Twitter since its publication and wielded by various trusted allied health professionals as proof that weight loss in children and teens is in and of itself risky.<br /><br />What’s risky isn’t loss, it’s traumatic diets, and frankly they’re risky for anyone at any age. <br /><br />The take home message from these case studies is that primary care providers would be well advised to respond to rapid and/or extreme losses of any patient, <b>of any age</b>, as a red flag suggesting their possible adoption of a traumatic diet, but the simple suggestion of the headlines and the no doubt well-intentioned tweeters, that, “<i>teens who beat obesity at risk for eating disorders</i>” leaves out the all-important qualifier of their traumatic means of losing.
Via WaPo’s Wonkblog comes the definitive guide to critiquing research findings that rub you the wrong way. And while this chart refers more specifically to studies on things like health and budget policy, it works surprisingly well for scientific studi…
<div class=”separator” style=”clear: both; text-align: center;”><a href=”http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WLBKYICJZz4/UjCGwkb8L4I/AAAAAAAAJ0o/cN5qUg1hX0o/s1600/Lorax+babybel.JPG” imageanchor=”1″ style=”margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;”><img border=”0″ src=”http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WLBKYICJZz4/UjCGwkb8L4I/AAAAAAAAJ0o/cN5qUg1hX0o/s400/Lorax+babybel.JPG” /></a></div><a href=”http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/1/22″>Another great little study by Brian Wansink and crew</a> – this one looking at children’s snacking, calorie consumption and satiety depending on the type of snacks they were offered.<br /><br />201 3rd-6th graders were randomly assigned to receive one of four different snacks: 1. Potato chips. 2. Cheese. 3. Vegetables. 4. Cheese and vegetables. Simulating many homes, the kids were allowed to eat as much of their assigned snack while watching a 45 minute television program. Perceived fullness was measured before, midway through and after the 45 minutes. <br /><br />While not at all surprising, the findings were dramatic enough that I felt they’d be worth sharing. Kids who ate the veggies and cheese consumed 72% fewer calories than those consuming the potato chips and kids who had overweight or obesity to begin with – 76% less. <br /><br />Personally I’m all for kids snacking – but as this study dramatically demonstrates, the type of snack you’re offering matters a great deal. <br /><br />Here’s Dr. Wansink<br /><br /><iframe width=”480″ height=”270″ src=”//www.youtube.com/embed/HH025lW5Hw4?rel=0″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>
A national study on pot use and psychosis released by the Schizophrenia Society of Canada (SSC) Tuesday shows the drug can trigger and worsen psychosis in young people already prone to the psychiatric disorder. The research is part of a … Continue Reading
Grab your Marauder’s Map and get ready to roll. Researchers at Zhejiang University in China have pioneered a new, time-efficient method of producing real world invisibility cloaks made out of Teflon. While it isn’t the first time we’ve come across…
The Highlander Center for Research and Education was founded in New Market, Tennessee in 1932. It played a crucial role in the civil rights movement and has provided training and education for the labour movement throughout the Southern United States. Redeye’s Peter Driftmier toured the centre recently and prepared this report.
To find out more about Redeye, check out our website.
The Federal Government’s budget sequester has left the nation’s science and technology funding at its lowest in years. As predicted, labs are ditching projects and scientists; researchers are looking overseas for jobs and funding; health initiatives ar…
Ok, so it’s not magic – it’s better – it’s evidence based!
With a team of some of the who’s who in nutritional epidemiology Dr. Rebecca Mozaffarian and colleagues explored the various whole grain identifiers currently festooned on fronts-of-packages. They looked at that food industry sponsored Whole Grain stamp (up above), whole grain as the first ingredient, whole grains first without added sugars, the word “whole” before any grain in the ingredients as well as the ratio of total carbohydrate to fibre. With each they further investigated their relationship with other health-related criteria including fibre, sugar, sodium, calories, trans-fat and price.
545 products later and guess what? Products proudly displaying that food industry sponsored whole grain stamp were found to be significantly higher in both sugar and calories. So too were products identified on the basis of a simple hunt for “whole grain” as a first ingredient and the word “whole” before each grain.
The best measure?
The ratio of total carbohydrates to fibre where a ratio of 10:1 or lower was the best measure and identified products that broadly contained more fibre, less sugars, less sodium and less trans-fat, along with fewer calories.
So if you’re trying to figure out which bread, cracker or cereal to buy, to help with your decision, simply divide any product’s total carbohydrates by its fibre and look for a number less than 10.
Now this isn’t a perfect formula as many products nowadays are now being spiked with ingredients such as oat hulls to artificially increase fibre content, but in a pinch, it’s certainly an easy rule to remember.
Of course the real lesson to be learned here is one that is not particularly surprising – it’s that the food industry sponsored whole grain stamp seen up above should be ignored, as should pretty much all industry sponsored front-of-package claims and programs.
Other than a few models from Boston Dynamics, most robots don’t exactly leave us quaking in fear. That might be off the table soon, though, thanks to a breakthrough from researchers at the National University of Singapore (NUS). They’ve developed …
Kirobo, the mini-robot / Japanese Space Agency marketer, has spoken his first words in space after being launched last month. The University of Tokyo and Toyota research project wished Earth “good morning” and mouthed other space platitudes from h…
It may be hard to believe, but that transparent disk in the photo above is actually a fully functioning speaker. A team of researchers at Harvard’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences have pioneered a never before seen application of ionic …
Mouse brains were the first to be grown, but when it comes to discovering the inner workings of the human brain, as Juergen Knoblich of the Institute of Molecular Biology (IMB) in Austria put it: “mouse models don’t cut it.” The institute has ma…
Because that’s exactly what it appears it’s designed to do.
Taubes lays out the experiment in his recent NuSi promoting Scientific American piece. He’s going to take 16 individuals with overweight and obesity and house them in a research facility so as to ensure careful and total control over their dietary intake. Next he’ll feed them a diet that’s 50% carbs, 35% fat and 15% protein. He’ll then tweak calorie intake until subjects are neither gaining or losing weight. Once weight stable he’s going to pull the carbs out from under their feet and drop the 50% carbs in their diets down to 5% but will do so while keeping calories entirely stable.
And here’s Taubes’ description of the implications of his study design,
“In this case, if fat accumulation is primarily driven by an energy imbalance, these subjects should neither lose nor gain weight because they will be eating precisely as many calories as they are expending. Such a result would support the conventional wisdom—that a calorie is a calorie whether it comes from fat, carbohydrate or protein. If, on the other hand, the macronutrient composition affects fat accumulation, then these subjects should lose both weight and fat on the carbohydrate-restricted regime and their energy expenditure should increase, supporting the idea that a calorie of carbohydrate is more fattening than one from protein or fat, presumably because of the effect on insulin.“
I’ll get to why in just a second, but I predict they’ll all lose between 6-20 pounds in the first 2 weeks of a diet consisting of 5% carbs following a step down from one that consisted of 50% despite the fact calories will remain constant. I also imagine that the experiment won’t last much longer than the time it’ll take for them to lose that weight as most folks don’t have the time/luxury of spending months and months in a metabolic ward.
So why will they lose so much weight while calories are kept stable? Won’t that indeed confirm Taubes’ hypothesis is right on the money?
Not exactly. No doubt some of their losses may well be consequent to the fact that there are differences in what I’ll broadly describe as the bioavailable calories of different foods and macronutrients – and so indeed, Taubes may well demonstrate that calories in and calories out is a far from perfect equation (though that’s not exactly news), but the bulk of their losses will be consequent to the fact that during the low-carb phase these individuals will burn through their bodies’ natural carb stores, their glycogen, and in so doing they’ll liberate all the water stored with it.
Depending on your source and each body’s level of training, by weight glycogen is responsible for 1-4% of muscle weight in an individual with fully stocked stores (as the study subjects’ here will given their 50% carb loading diets). Every gram of glycogen in turn also carries with it near 3 grams of water and if you lose the glycogen, you’ll lose the water too. Folks with obesity carry a great deal of muscle. According to friend and author Brad Pilon, in his work he’d found those with obesity to sometimes have a full standard deviation more lean mass than he’d have predicted and regularly carried with them 100lbs of muscle (especially taller men). That’s consistent with my findings here in my office and also passes McMaster Professor Stuart Phillips’ sniff test. Consequently this study subjects’ muscles’ glycogen stores will weigh somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1-4lbs. Add in the water associated with those pounds and now we’re talking 4-16lbs that will be rapidly mobilized when carbs are cut (and even more if the deck is super-stacked by only including men with class II or higher levels of obesity). They’ll also have liver glycogen stores of between 50-150 grams which when lost along with associated water, will drop them an additional 0.5-1.25lbs. Couple those losses with the tiny bit extra you might expect consequent to the differing thermic effects of food and I’d bet, in total, losses will range between 6-20lbs despite the fact total calories won’t have changed.
I’d bet too that there’s a great chance this will be a crossover study (or one will soon follow) where Taubes will show us his subjects’ massive and total regains when carbs are reintroduced (and glycogen and water reaccumulate) as that will certainly appear to support his hypothesis. Subjects may even gain back more as some papers suggest glycogen starved muscles are able to acutely store larger amounts of glycogen following a carb reintroduction.
I imagine glycogen will be mentioned in the study’s discussion section, how could it not be, but what do you think the headlines are going to focus on when the findings that keeping calories constant in a metabolic ward setting but dropping carbs led to massive weight loss are published? Do you think the press will appreciate the result is entirely expected and hence perhaps not even newsworthy?
If simply cutting carbs was a sustainable, enjoyable, and consequently realistic, strategy for the masses, the world would already be slim as it’s been down the low-carb road plenty of times before, and I’m unclear on how this particular study is going to do anything other than confirm something we already know to be true.
Lastly, I must as always point out, I’m not anti-low carb. I don’t think low-carb is unsafe. I do think low-carb helps many with weight loss. And I do think society’s increased reliance on heavily processed carbs has been a contributor to its growing weight. But I also think that low-carb diets have proven themselves to be difficult for many to sustain and consequently that low-carb diets are far from a realistically applicable global panacea for the problem at hand.
Taubes has rightly raged against the damage done by the oversimplified application of calories-in-calories-out, which is why I find it so confusing that he seems to be championing the equally oversimplified message of, to paraphrase, it’s the carbs stupid.
[UPDATE: A source who wishes to remain anonymous has informed me the study's formal primary endpoint will be energy expenditure and the secondary endpoint changes in fat mass.]
Human brain-to-brain interfacing seems like the stuff of fiction (Pacific Rim, anyone?), but researchers at the University of Washington have made it a reality. A team led by faculty members Rajesh Rao and Andrea Stocco claim to have pioneered the…
SickKids to bring 2,000-plus scientists under one roof
VANCOUVER — It appears birds observe the speed limit — even if drivers don’t. A new study by two Quebec researchers has found that birds flee from the path of an oncoming vehicle based on the posted speed limit, and […]
Ford has joined forces with Russia’s Saint Petersburg Polytechnic University for a three-year research project aimed at improving vehicle connectivity, with inspiration coming from an unlikely source: space robots. By studying the way robots inter…
Nokia Here collection vehicles aren’t the only way the Finish giant is gathering data about our highways and city streets. The company’s researchers are also using anonymous smartphone, PND and even CAN bus data to further our understanding of tra…
Alt-week takes a look at the best science and alternative tech stories from the last seven days.
Two years on, the Fukushima nuclear meltdown is still causing problems, and the Japanese government is looking at a particularly cool way (literally)…
‘View basic science as a long-term investment that will yield completely unexpected dividends’
Apparently, slime mold has feelings too. Researchers at the University of the West of England have a bit of a history with Physarum polycephalum — a light-shy yellow mold known for its ability to seek out the shortest route to food. Now, they’re …
Bet you wouldn’t have guessed that the answer to more efficient storage might exist in a Chubby Checker song. Yep, by doing the twist, scientists are thinking it’ll be possible to store up to 20 times more data in the same space, which could lead …
Remember those “Fortaleza” AR glasses we saw in a leaked Microsoft document back when the Xbox One was still the Xbox 720? It looks like those might actually be a thing, if a patent application from Redmond is any indication. It touts the idea of …
A team of researchers at the California Institute of Technology, led by Professor Changhuei Yang, have figured out a way to crank their microscopy up to 11. Usually, scientists are forced between a rock and a hard place: they can have high res ima…
The city responsible for the first solar-powered family car and a building shaped like a UFO is no stranger to creativity. Eindhoven, Netherlands was recently named “most inventive city” by Forbes magazine, probably thanks to the High Tech Campus …
It’s official: humans suck at self-discipline so much, researchers thought it necessary to create a tooth sensor that detects if you’re smoking or stuffing your face and can tell doctors about it. The National Taiwan University Team led by Hao-hua…
Remember the names Martin Kaltenbrunner and Takao Someya — that way, you’ll have someone to blame when kids start pointing and laughing at gadgets we consider high-tech today. Leading a team of University of Tokyo researchers, they have recently …