general science

Yesterday news broke that the possible revolutionary findings of the physics experiments that detected particles traveling faster than the speed of light may have been corrupted by two mechanical errors, one of them being a loose cable. Since proof of particles breaking the speed of light would contradict Einstein’s special theory of relativity, not to mention certain principles of quantum mechanics, the initial report in September was met with a great deal of skepticism from the scientific community, and even members of the team that released the data expressed doubts at the time. Since the announcement, the research team and physicists around the world have been reviewing the results to see if they could detect any flaws in the experiment.

The tests were performed by the OPERA collaboration, a research venture between CERN and the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy. Initially they measured neutrinos traveling from one location to another 450 miles away and found that some arrived 60 nanoseconds earlier than should be possible under the limits of light speed, creating a stir in scientific community.

Now the same team that made the finding has uncovered two flaws in the experimental design which may have altered the results. The first issue is that the GPS tracking system they used may have been providing incorrect timestamps. The second, more attention-grabbing, problem is a faulty connection between the cable linking the GPS signal to the master clock. Oddly enough, the two concerns would actually have opposite effects on the neutrino time measurements, so the question of how fast neutrinos actually move is hardly settled. More neutrino tests will be performed this spring using CERN’s Large Hadron Collider.

While some may look at the likely debunked results with a degree of snark, we can also look at this story as a reminder of how important it is to review your work. Because these particular results were so unusual and had such potential impact on modern science, close scrutiny was guaranteed. But what about our typical, everyday research? While the flaws in the OPERA team’s experiment are hardly cringe-worthy, I’m sure we can all recall incidents in our personal and professional lives in which a drastic oversight was made in a project. If anything, this should be an encouragement – even world-class physicists make the same mistakes we do. Though one advantage for physicists is that they can always just shrug and point to the Uncertainty Principle.

Read more about the OPERA experiments and the faulty cable discovery here.

This month’s Laboratory Equipment magazine features a reader survey on liquid handling devices that shows just how common these items are in the lab. In fact, 91% of the respondents indicated that they are using a liquid handling system, and about 75% are using their equipment at least several times per week.

The most commonly used devices are pipets (75%) and pipet tips (70%), followed closely by syringes (68%) and then filters (67%). Less popular items include flow controllers (16%) and liquid level meters (10%). Overall, 80% of respondents said that they are completely or mostly satisfied with their equipment. Hopefully that group includes our customers…

The uses for liquid handling devices are spread out across a range of applications without any dominant focus. The most frequent applications are basic research (36%) and sample preparation (34%). Less common answers include wastewater (16%), pharmaceutical  (16%), and water analysis (20%).

Click on either of the charts below to enlarge.

On the eve of the Nobel Prize announcements, last week the people over at Improbable Research handed out their annual Ig Nobel Prizes to recognize some peculiar scientific achievements. If you’re unfamiliar with the group or the prize, their stated criterion for winning this award is, “For achievements that first make people LAUGH then make them THINK.” Examples of award worthy research from this year include: finding out how our decision process is affected when we have a strong urge to urinate, discovering a type of beetle that mates with a certain type of beer bottle, and a special Peace Prize to the mayor of Vilnius, Lithuania, for running over illegally parked luxury cars with a tank.

This tongue-in-cheek approach may put the Ig Nobel on par with something like the Razzies, except that the Improbable Research group isn’t (usually) mocking their recipients as many Ig Nobel winners are highly respected leaders in their fields. In fact, Andre Geim has the unique honor of having received both an Ig Nobel prize (In 2000, for using magnets to levitate a frog), and an actual Nobel Prize (In 2010, for his experiments with graphene).

You can check out the full list of recipients here, or if you just want to watch the video of a mayor running over a car in a tank, you can do that too).

Cruising around the Scandinavian coastline in November might not sound like the most ideal place to conduct an environmental impact study, but for Norway’s Institute of Marine Research it was necessary in order to investigate the levels of anthropogenic particles in the Skagerrak strait. As you can imagine, this setting presented some unique challenges for the research team. In order to gather and analyze microscopic samples from this body of water, which is located between Norway, Denmark and Sweden, researchers had to come up with some new sampling methods and fashion their own equipment to solve problems that had plagued previous studies.

Norwegian Researchers Hard at Work^

One key obstacle that these scientists needed to overcome was how to distinguish between anthropogenic particles, which are man-made bits of matter that impact the environment (i.e. oil-spill droplets, asphalt, rubber tire wear, fly ash), from those particles with similar characteristics which appear naturally (volcanic ash, peat). To make this distinction, the samples were subjected to morphology analysis of their color and texture to first determine their origin before being counted.

The second major challenge was how to prevent contamination, which is easier said than done considering the harsh and unpredictable nature of the sea. One of the steps the researchers took to solve this was to develop control samples, free of any contaminants, which they could actually bring on board the ship with them. To further reduce the potential of contaminating samples, they also created new methodology and constructed their own customized sampling apparatus.

You can see a schematic of the sampling equipment the Institute researchers built in their published study. Their setup involved a submersible water pump that was positioned inside a waterproof case connected to the sampling filter (10 μm hydrophobic polycarbonate membrane filters, along with a 30 μm square mesh nylon filter as a support) which was placed directly in the sea. To protect the filter from wave turbulence they modified one of our filter holders (this one) with a new outlet fitting and a larger, semi-enclosed inlet with a smooth surface. The filters were also placed in protective holders before and after filtration for protection and to reduce the risk of contamination. As an added protective measure, the filter apparatus was ultrasonically cleaned prior to use. The entire sampling apparatus was held 2 meters outside the boat (to further prevent contamination) and the sampling depth was limited to between 0.1 and 1.5 meters to protect it from large waves.

While it will take many more studies before conclusions can be drawn about the state of this particular body of water, the scientists were encouraged by the results of the new methodology they created. They note in the conclusion how these improvements have standardized the sampling and reduced the risk of contamination. The scientists also suggest that this sampling equipment could be adapted for larger particles.

To read the full study, visit here.
^Image from Survey of microscopic anthropogenic particles in Skagerrak. Lysekil and Flødevigen 2010-11-20, Institute of Marine Research.

If you haven’t taken a look at the semifinalists for the Google Science Fair you still have a few days left to view the submissions and cast your votes! At stake is a $50,000 scholarship from Google, along with an opportunity to apprentice with Google or one of their partner organizations. There are 60 very interesting entries spread across three categories and covering just about every discipline of science. Suffice to say that the projects went beyond the paper-mache volcano. Some examples include:

• A portable solar autoclave for easy sterilization of medical tools in the third world.
• A proposal to utilize gold nanoparticles for the treatment of prostate cancer.
• Building a conductometric biosensor from scratch to detect food-borne illnesses such as Salmonella, using readily available materials.
• A new type of farm implement designed to harvest and thresh crops that requires little to no fuel and can be built from easily available resources and materials.

Impressive stuff indeed! Especially considering all of these submissions came from 13-18 year-olds, a time when a lot of us were just trying to get a grasp on puberty. Kudos to Google and their partners for this project: CERN, the LEGO Group, National Geographic, and Scientific American. And of course, best of luck to all the entrants! Surely there are some incredibly proud parents, teachers, and mentors behind them.