What is it that is drawing people in? This is a fairly easy one to answer; the public are being shown the prettier side of science, in a non-threatening, comfortable environment. They are able to engage in the topic, but are also free to take it at their own pace, perhaps skimming over areas which are too challenging. There is no fear of failure in watching a documentary or reading an article online. It appeals to every level, whether you simply take away the fact that ‘there are planets and stars and they are really pretty’ or whether you are a step ahead of the program, actively trying to predict the next disclosure. Brian Cox rarely sets exams.

Perhaps we should consider where this interest can be exploited and built upon. The obvious places are schools and museums, by linking these environments to the pop culture that sparked initial interest. As much as I love the London Science Museum and would highly recommend it to all, I sometimes worry that it is lacking in a certain ‘je ne sais quoi’ (especially when compared to American equivalents). The floor of miniature wooden ships is a collection that will surely interest some, but is not necessarily inspiring to the general public. Perhaps such collections could be incorporated into a more relevant display. The ‘history of computing’ gallery, for example, could be improved by combining the excellent historical collections they currently house with information and hands on activities relating to modern technology. Perhaps also more collaboration with the institutions responsible for this recent surge in scientific interest could help to engage the public further. For instance, linking apps with displays in the museum, or having guest voice overs from popular documentary producers.

In schools there are already many fantastic programmes that aim to bring relevant science, which is often beyond the schools’ resources, into classrooms for free. These programmes are brilliant, but building them into the infrastructure of our formal science education would finally bring the ‘no child left behind’ policy into fruition. It would, of course, be wrong to drop the rigorous skills of science and maths and focus only on the more glamorous aspects of planets and exploding caravans. However, if more students can become engaged through putting the difficult and sometimes boring aspects of the curriculum into a wider and more relevant context, then it could prevent some students with great potential from falling off the radar. And those students who lack the necessary natural talents to progress onto further education will be able to appreciate the relevance of science when they leave.

It seems that in order to simultaneously harness the bright scientific brains of the future and bring up the average understanding of science we need to smooth the learning curve. But who can make these changes? A select few choose how to run the education system and national museums. However, as a science student there are a whole range of ways to individually fuel these recent improvements. From running workshops at schools and science festivals to starting your own pop-science venture, or simply taking the time to explain what you do to a keen friend. Everyone involved in science can help bring science to every Tom, Dick and Harry, and perhaps uncover some budding Einsteins in the process.

Prosthetic limbs have changed lives for those once restricted to wheelchairs. Technology has gone so far as enabling someone with no legs to become the 17^th fastest man in the World (Oscar Pistorius). The carbon-fibre composite legs do not, as is often misreported, act as springs. Instead, their strength and stability allow the athlete to fully engage other muscles, optimising performance.

The remarkable ‘E-Legs’ allow people who haven’t walked in decades to walk with ease and even climb stairs. They currently work using sensors in the crutches, which match the movement of the robotic legs to the person’s motion. Furthermore, there is considerable research being carried out into a system that would monitor electrical impulses directly from the brain. However, whilst progress has been outstanding, there is a huge cost associated with prosthetics and exo-skeleton suits (which will set you back around £100,000) making it unviable as a global solution. Without blood flow or nerve endings within these structures the overall functionality will also be limited.

Is there an alternative? Tissue engineering is another large area of biomaterials research. The key idea behind this is externally producing a scaffold of collagen (the biological building block of molecules), taking human cells from a patient and effectively growing a new (and disease free) piece of tissue that can be implanted without fear of rejection. Whilst it is fairly unlikely that entire legs or spinal columns can be restored to normal function after injury, there is nevertheless great scope for replacing damaged sections. Tissue engineering essentially ‘reboots’ a section of biology within us, and once the process has begun, the body will capably manage growth and continuation of recovery. There are still costs associated with this option, but the long-term prognosis seems superior to external aids.

Do we face the risk of becoming walking Frankensteins? Whilst I do think that all progress in this field should be monitored and assessed on an ethical level, I don’t believe that this progress is too far from what our ancestors did millions of years ago when they stepped onto the plains of Africa. We are adapting, and although this may bring physical changes to our species, it is unlikely to impact human nature.

One often-overlooked aspect of China’s rise is its great focus on science and technology. Though still years behind America and Western Europe, it has been closing the distance rapidly through a mixture of investment and education. 10,000 Chinese received engineering PhDs in 2009, compared to around 8,000 Americans; the Chinese government claims that half a million more receive bachelor’s degrees in science and mathematics every year.[2] This large pool of educated workers has been complemented by enormous state investment in research and development, particularly in renewable energy. In 2010 alone, China spent nearly US$49 billion on green technology research, more than any other country.[3] Chinese firms such as Huawei and Lenovo have become world leaders in computing and mobile communications, markets which were previously the dominion of American and Japanese companies. China has furthermore worried Western nations with its rapid acquisition of new military technologies; its first stealth fighter, the Chengdu J-20, made its maiden flight in January 2011.

However, China’s technological ambitions extend beyond Earth’s atmosphere.  Though a relative newcomer to spaceflight (its first astronaut flew in 2003) China’s National Space Administration (CNSA) now operates one of the world’s most active space programs, having conducted 18 successful orbital launches in 2011 alone. China has a far stronger recent launch record than neighbouring Russia: just one Chinese orbital launch failed in 2011, compared to four Russian launches. China is also self-reliant for its manned missions, unlike the Americans, who have been dependent on Russian Soyuz spacecraft to reach the International Space Station (ISS) since the retirement of the Space Shuttle in July 2011.

Additionally, China’s ambitions in orbit are far more concrete than those of its spacefaring rivals. There are no definite plans for the re-use of the ISS and its modules after its retirement in the 2020s; if such an agreement cannot be made, America, Russia, Japan and the European Union will then be left without a working space station. China, however, intends to have at least one large laboratory outpost in orbit by 2022, and even launched its first space station module, Tiangong-1, in September 2011. Shortly after, China successfully conducted an autonomous orbital docking – a vital support capability for any long-term orbital station – and will dispatch at least one human crew to Tiangong-1 in 2012.[4] Tiangong-1 itself is expected to be the basis for a future class of robotic resupply spacecraft, similar to the Russian Progress spacecraft. In December 2011, China launched the tenth satellite of its Beidou positioning constellation, opening up a lucrative domestic market for location-based services and granting it increasing independence from the ageing American GPS network.[5]

Nor does China intend to ignore more distant real estate. Its Chang’e 1 and 2 lunar satellites, launched in 2007 and 2010 respectively, have generated one of the most detailed 3D maps of the Moon, and will be followed in 2013 by the Chang’e 3 lunar rover. Sample-return missions are planned for later in the decade, and China plans to land astronauts on the Moon by 2025 – a significant ambition, seeing as the United States, its most powerful rival, abandoned its plans for manned lunar exploration in 2010. China has also set its sights on Mars: its first Martian satellite, Yinghuo-1, was launched in November 2011, although it was lost when its mated Russian spacecraft, Phobos-Grunt, malfunctioned after launch. It is doubtful that China will be discouraged by this mishap.

Of course, China’s rapid investment in the space sector has led to concerns being voiced in the West over the potential military applications of such technologies. The Beidou network is widely feared to be a dual-use system, providing both commercial location services and guidance for China’s cruise missiles, which are aimed in great numbers at Taiwan. China is also one of only three nations to successfully develop anti-satellite (satellite-destroying) missiles; in 2007, it destroyed a weather satellite with a kinetic missile, sparking denunciations from the United States and other nations. If China continues to develop its orbital presence, it may gain a major strategic advantage over regional rivals such as Taiwan and Japan – and possibly even the Western powers.

Is the Chinese domination of space a plausible scenario for the 21^st century? Perhaps not. Technologically, it is still playing catch-up with the United States, and will continue to do so for at least a decade. It is worth remembering, after all, that NASA developed space stations and conducted a moon landing over 40 years ago, while China is only now reaching a comparable level of advancement. The Beidou network is still under development, and will not be globally operational until 2020. Even if the ISS is retired without a successor at the end of this decade, it will still have provided over two decades of orbital research and invaluable manned spaceflight experience – something Chinese astronauts will struggle to match until the Tiangong program reaches fruition in the 2020s. And while China’s lunar ambitions are impressive, it has yet made few ventures into the wider solar system, while American, Russian and European probes and space telescopes have dominated space science for nearly half a century.

Nonetheless, China is advancing more rapidly in the field of spaceflight than any other nation, and benefits from a reliable and independent manned launch capability. The United States, by contrast, will lack the ability to launch its own astronauts without Russian or commercial help until its planned Space Launch System enters service around 2016. No other nation has a lunar exploration program as well-planned as China’s, and it is also the only country with a demonstrably functional independent space station project. It is also worth noting the economic and technical constraints suffered by China’s rivals: NASA faces major budget cuts and Russia’s Roscosmos has been plagued by launch failures, while the CNSA enjoys steady state funding. As China’s economic rise continues, the demand from domestic and foreign firms for its satellites will further spur development. Moreover, the Chinese government may – as its American counterpart has recently done – encourage the development of private manned spaceflight companies. This will drive down launch costs and open up lucrative new markets such as space tourism and microgravity manufacturing (production of goods for space-related purposes). Whether the 21^st Century will be a “Chinese century” remains uncertain, but it is highly probable that China will play a leading, if not dominant, role in orbit and beyond.

We cannot measure the temperature of a star by looking at its brightness because a dim star close to us will look brighter than a bright star further away. Instead, if the object is very hot, the energy jump the electrons make will be greater so different black lines would be observed towards the blue end of the spectrum. In other words we look at the object’s colour – if it is blue, the object is hot and if it is red the object is cool.

What if we want to know how fast an astronomical object is moving towards or away from us? Imagine standing on a platform, dropping pebbles towards the Earth at a constant “release rate”. An observer on the ground hears the pebbles landing at the same rate that you throw them. However, if the platform starts descending, the observer will hear more frequent collisions even though you’re maintaining the same release rate. When you drop a pebble, the platform chases it before you release the next one. Thus, the distance between consecutive pebbles reduces. The observer can either conclude that you’re dropping the pebbles more frequently or that you’re moving towards him. Astronomical objects can be observed in a similar fashion; instead of pebbles, however, they emit waves of light. When an astronomical object moves towards us, its light waves are “compressed,” which causes the object to appear bluer (called “blueshift”). Conversely, objects moving away from us will effectively “stretch” the waves they transmit, making them appear more red (“redshift”). This simple rule enables astronomers to determine the relative movement of distant planets, stars and galaxies, and even led us to the discovery that our universe is expanding.

We know that some stars spin. How? A star’s surface is uniform so we cannot tell from its disk, which we usually can’t see. The answer lies in spectroscopy, of course! Consider what happens to the star’s light as it spins: one side moves away from us and the other towards us. This dual movement results in absorption lines that exhibit both blueshift and redshift. Visually, the absorption lines get wider, indicating that the star is spinning faster.

Some stars are so far away and so close together that even the most powerful telescopes cannot distinguish them. Once again, spectroscopy comes to the rescue: by observing the redshift and blueshift in spectral lines, and analysing changes in the spectrum over a period of time, scientists are able to determine whether or not  more than one object exists in a system.

Spectroscopy allows us to find the temperature, spin, velocity, composition and size of objects millions light years away from us. Temperature and size allow us to work out how far away an object is, whilst its composition give us information about its age. Spectroscopy is a versatile tool that has facilitated otherwise unimaginable discoveries, and has created a toolkit for learning about the wider universe.

I am a keen runner, and whilst I have no intention of donning a pair of barefoot trainers, I am not fundamentally opposed to the concept. I do, however, oppose the heated, yet unsubstantiated arguments that arise from both sides as they aggressively defend their choices. In fact, I was recently confronted by a complete stranger for buying ‘archaic’ running shoes!

So, what do the barefoot supporters claim? The theory is that your gait is altered unnaturally by running shoes, putting excessive pressure on areas of your lower body that are not designed to cope with it.

Is this scientifically sound? There is some supporting biomechanical evidence, and many reported cases of individuals finding vast improvements in their running in terms of ability and associated pain. However, the most commonly injured tissue during running is tendon, which can occur in both the knee and the heel. The mechanical properties of the tendon are not well understood and this makes it very difficult to achieve conclusive research. What we do know is that tendon develops its composition, cell structure and tissue structure based on its loading history. Thus, if you regularly stress it in a particular direction or under a particular weight then it will adapt to optimize its performance under these conditions. This has been shown in animals, where the entire composition and structure of the tendon (which is not uniform) is seen to ‘flip’ when the limb is loaded in the opposite way over an extended period of time.

How does this relate to running? If you have become accustomed to your feet being supported in a certain way, then suddenly changing this (e.g. by dramatically altering you technique or footwear) can be catastrophic for your tendon, causing anything from tendonitis to complete rupture, as the tendons are simply not adapted to this style.

So should we all be burning barefoot shoes and kitting ourselves out with the latest, most supportive trainers? Probably not. After all, plenty of runners experience tendon problems when wearing fully supportive trainers. Say, for example, that you spend all of your time in flat, unsupportive shoes and have been merrily and comfortably bounding around. You may well have a natural gait that lends itself to the barefoot running shoes, and your tendons will have adapted to cope with this. In this case, perhaps it is harmful to force your feet into ultra-constrictive trainers that change this. However, tendons are designed to adapt to circumstances and with careful training, injuries can be avoided.

It therefore seems that the best footwear is totally dependent on your own biochemistry and training program. So, if you have found the best shoes for you, that’s great, but remember that they might not be the ideal solution for others. We need to focus on our individual needs rather than trying desperately to convert each other!

The corona exhibits a number of unusual properties. The Sun’s core is about 20 million degrees Celsius; its surface is a cool 5000 degrees and, logically, one would expect its temperature to decrease further away. But in reality, temperatures increase dramatically above the Sun’s surface. On average, the corona is about two million degrees Celcius – four hundred times hotter than the Sun’s surface and comparable to parts of its core.

The reason we know it is so hot is because it emits large amounts of X-rays. These are a very energetic form of radiation, which associate with high temperatures. The gases in the atmosphere are heated to such an extent that their electrons get stripped off, causing the atoms to become positively charged “ions”. The resulting soup of positive ions and negative electrons is known as plasma, which emits X-rays when heated.

This discovery was made in 1942 by Swedish physicist Bengt Edlen, who studied the spectral lines created by the corona (for more on spectral lines, read this). In spectroscopy, a certain pattern of spectral lines corresponds to a specific element. However, Edlen observed spectral lines which didn’t appear to associate with any known elements, and dubbed the unknown substance “Coronium”. He later showed that the corona was not composed of any new elements. Rather, it consisted of atoms such as iron and nickel which had lost thirteen or fourteen electrons.

Typically, iron only loses two or three electrons. The more electrons you try to remove, the harder it becomes, because the positive charge of the nucleus binds electrons very strongly. Thus, knocking off thirteen electrons from an atom requires a colossal amount of energy – an energy which, not surprisingly, translates to about 2 million degrees. One explanation for this immense amount of energy is that the Sun’s enormous magnetic field induces electrical currents in the corona. These highly unstable currents can collapse, causing a surge of power which heats the corona to the observed temperatures.

We see the Sun rise and fall every day, and perhaps this numbs us to its staggering importance. The Sun powers life; it gives us light, heat and energy; it keeps our planet in orbit. Without it, we would cease to exist. It is therefore unsurprising that scientists remain so keen to learn more about it.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the mental health professional’s Bible, does not currently recognise addiction per se as a mental disorder. Thus, early researchers compared symptoms of substance dependence (or drug addiction, which is in the DSM) with those of excessive internet users. They found that internet addicts often appeared to fit the criteria, which included “heavier use than intended” and “large time devoted to use”. Particularly influential was Dr Kimberley Young. She attempted to create a formal definition of internet addiction by adapting the DSM criteria for another disorder called pathological gambling. This led to the development of the Internet Addiction Test, a version of which was used in the study reported by The Independent, and which is available online here at Young’s website.

Studies using tests such have found that 5-10% of respondents fit the criteria for “addiction”, and some have called for Internet Addiction Disorder to be recognised in the next version of the DSM. However, defining internet addiction based on criteria for substance dependence or pathological gambling seems fundamentally flawed. While gambling or taking drugs are essentially unconstructive behaviours, internet use incorporates a variety of activities, many of which are productive. Indeed, internet use may often allow us to perform “normal” tasks through a different medium. If this is the case, should we even be concerned if our use appears excessive? Have a look at Young’s internet addiction test, but imagine that “on-line” and “Internet” were substituted with “hanging out with friends”. I’m sure that many of us often “hang out with friends longer than intended” or “fear that life without friends would be boring”, but we would find it ridiculous if someone suggested that we had “Friend Addiction Disorder”. Yet, socialising is one of the major activities associated with internet. Similar logic can be applied to other internet-enabled activities such as reading, watching TV shows or educating ourselves.

The idea of people suffering from some general internet addiction thus seems too simplistic. Indeed, what appears to be internet addiction may often be addiction to a certain aspect of the internet, which could still manifest itself in the absence of the web. For example, someone who is addicted to internet gambling probably suffers from pathological gambling rather than addiction to the internet. Apparent compulsive use of the internet may also be symptomatic of some other underlying disorder. In a 2000 paper, Shapira and colleagues found that 20 subjects displaying “problematic internet use” all fit the criteria for other disorders as well, the most common being mood and anxiety disorders. Other studies have found similar results. To illustrate this point, consider someone with social anxiety, who may use the internet a lot because they are scared to go out. If the internet did not exist, then they may equally have stayed home watching TV excessively.

Ironically, the term “Internet Addiction Disorder” was first coined by Dr Ivan Goldberg as a joke. It served as a protest against the tendency toward seeing behaviours as medical conditions. It seems fitting to give him the last word:

“To medicalize every behavior by putting it into psychiatric nomenclature is ridiculous. If you expand the concept of addiction to include everything people can overdo, then you must talk about people being addicted to books, addicted to jogging, addicted to other people.”

Glia can be divided into two categories: microglia are like the immune cells of the brain, vacuuming debris and foreign bodies; macroglia come in several flavours, and the most important of these for information processing are the astrocytes – star-shaped cells found throughout the brain.

Astrocytes have a well-characterised support role. They control the composition of the soupy solution that surrounds the neurons, for example by controlling potassium ion concentration. They also help clear away the chemical transmitters which neurons release to communicate with each other. Their role in these simple tasks has begun to receive widespread attention in recent years, and is central to how our brains functions. For example, by controlling how quickly chemical transmitter is cleared from neuronal junctions, astrocytes can shape the messages that neurons send to each other, making them longer, shorter, widespread or targeted.

Furthermore, astrocytes are play active roles in brain signalling. Like neurons, they can receive, process and send signals, and express many of the same chemical receptors that enable them to receive chemical messages. Although they can’t send electrical signals, they can communicate with each other via a different method, using local changes in calcium concentration that spread throughout the cell and often into neighbouring cells. They can even release chemical transmitters, including ATP, serine and glutamate, which signal back to neurons. It thus appears that glia are just as capable in all brain signalling functions.  But do they really do this in a living, signalling, behaving brain?

This question has raised much controversy. Whilst it has become clear that glia can send messages, some scientists debate that this is only a property they exhibit in a petri dish, and may not be important in real life. It is is still, nevertheless, an important area of research as we continue to discover the unknown capabilities of glia. One group of scientists have shown that inhibiting the glia in the region of the brain that controls breathing disrupts the regular, cyclical activity of this network[3]. As we begin to see how glia can alter and contribute to signalling in the brain, a new layer of complexity is being added to the baffling world of neuroscience.

However, the functions of glia are not purely positive. Malfunctions in glial signalling are starting to be implicated in a number of diseases. Take spinal cord injury, which is devastating and often results in untreatable paralysis. This is largely because neurons in our spinal cord cannot re-grow once broken, leaving lower limbs without connections to the brain. Glia, not neurons, are responsible for this outcome. Following an injury the local glia react, multiplying to form a physical scar. They also release chemicals that inhibit neuronal re-growth. It has been shown that if you kill off the glia following spinal injury in animals, neurons grow back and connect to cells below the injury[4]. However, glia serve in important purpose: they stop neurons growing excessively and making aberrant connections. Reducing or controlling the glia, and doing so safely (i.e. without abnormal connections forming), is an important and active area of research for spinal cord injury.

The signalling function of astrocytes can also go wrong. Such dysfunction is beginning to be implicated in epilepsy, a disease in which an imbalance of excitation and inhibition in the brain causes seizures. It can result from dysregulation of chemicals in the brain, including potassium and glutamate, both of which are controlled by astrocytes. Indeed, several studies have found that brain samples from epileptic patients have altered levels of glutamate metabolism in glia[5], and blocking glutamate transporters in animals can induce seizures[6].

Over the last few decades glia have had their status rapidly lifted from simple “glue” to active and important signalling cells in the brain. Twenty years ago neuroscientists probably thought the dynamic and interconnected networks of the brain couldn’t get more complicated. Whilst this new layer of complexity isn’t making neuroscience any easier to grasp, it has certainly made it more intriguing.

1.  Fellin, T., Communication between neurons and astrocytes: relevance to the modulation of synaptic and network activity. Journal of Neurochemistry, 2009. 108(3): p. 533-544.
2. Araque, A. and M. Navarrete, Glial cells in neuronal network function. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci., 2011. 365(1551): p. 2375-2381.
3. Hülsmann, S., et al., Metabolic coupling between glia and neurons is necessary for maintaining respiratory activity in transverse medullary slices of neonatal mouse. European Journal of Neuroscience, 2000. 12(3): p. 856-862.
4. Moon, L.D.F., et al., Robust Regeneration of CNS Axons through a Track Depleted of CNS Glia. Experimental Neurology, 2000. 161(1): p. 49-66.
5. Eid, T., et al., Loss of glutamine synthetase in the human epileptogenic hippocampus: possible mechanism for raised extracellular glutamate in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. The Lancet, 2004. 363(9402): p. 28-37.
6. Demarque, M., et al., Glutamate Transporters Prevent the Generation of Seizures in the Developing Rat Neocortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 2004. 24(13): p. 3289-3294.