Rice Catalyst Discoveries

François Viète, the Father of Modern Algebra

The previous installment of the History of Science blog examined the role of Andreas Vesalius as the first modern physician and how he marked the beginning of the Scientific Revolution. François Viète (Latinized as Franciscus Vieta) was a mathematician whose claim to fame arrived fifty years after Vesalius’s instrumental anatomy text. Viète (1540-1603) of Fontenay-le-Comte, France, originally studied law at the University of Poitiers. After graduating in 1560, he worked in law for only four years before deciding to pursue other fields. Viète spent a few years tutoring Catherine de Parthenay, the heiress of an influential French family. In 1570, he left for Paris and began studying the topics that most interested him: mathematics and astronomy. Within a year, Viète published a mathematical paper, the first of many to come. Due to his family’s high status, Viète was appointed a position in the government of Brittany, a northwest region of France, by the reigning Charles IX in 1573. Upon Charles IX’s death, Henry III took the throne and made Viète his royal privy counselor. As royal counselor, Viète was responsible for a variety of duties. Once he was even tasked with decoding a difficult Spanish cipher.  Convinced that it was unbreakable, the King of Spain accused the French of using black magic upon Viète’s  breaking the 500-character code.

Aside from his political work, Viète continued his personal pursuit of mathematics. As the political and religious climate of France became increasingly heated, Viète took time away from politics to focus on academics. Viète produced his most important texts during this period. In 1591, he published Isagoge in Artem Analyticem, where he encouraged the use of  letters as variables in the place of known and unknown quantities, a change that proved immensely useful in furthering the field of mathematics. Earlier mathematicians had been hindered by verbal descriptions of unknown quantities, more complicated symbolic systems of values, or other cruder ways of representing mathematics. Allowing the painless rearrangement of equations, Viète’s notation method spread from mathematics to many other fields, including physics, chemistry, and economics. Even the logical notation used in philosophy arose in part due to Viète and his algebraic notation. Viète’s pioneering symbol system completely altered the field of mathematics, rightfully earning him the title of “Father of Modern Algebra.”

Vijay Venkatesan is a freshman from Baker College at Rice University.

Music can change the way we perceive our world.

Music. Each one of us has particular memories associated with that word. Some of us remember our favorite melody while others start playing their favorite song on repeat in their head. We all have certain moods and when we are sad, we play sad music and when we are happy, our music also tends to be happier. Does that make any difference in our perception of the world? Can sad music actually make the world seem tinted in a dim light and happy music make us just see smiley faces everywhere? Can music really have such a major impact, not just a pastime but a psychological effect that may be permanent? I mean, we all know that if we associate a particular song to an incident, that association remains intact forever. For example, if you were listening to a particular song when you heard about an accident, the accident will forever be linked with the song and whenever the song is played, you will remember that accident and its details. Sometimes these associations can potentially be really bad for our mental health because we can start to remember stuff we wanted to forget just because a particular song is being played in the mall and that may cause depression and other mental conditions. But the case in point right now is not about what ifs. It is a proven fact that music can change how we see the world and can paint the world in different colors. A research study in the Netherlands asked forty three young adults to come prepared with fifteen minutes of sad music and fifteen minutes of happy music. Then there was a visual perceptions test during which “Multiple faint, visual stimuli of either happy or sad faces were presented one at a time in a visually noisy, gray background.” The subjects were to report if they saw sad or happy faces or to not respond at all if they could not see a face. During the study, music was being played in the background. The study showed that the subjects were more likely to see happy faces if the music being played was happy and sad faces if the music was sad, even if there was no face being shown (only gray noise). So in fact, it is true that music can sort of act as a curtain or filter in front of our eyes, showing us only what it wants us to see. When you click play on a song today, think about what impact that music might have before you make your choice.

Mariam Junaid is a freshman from Baker College at Rice University.

The First Modern Physician: Andreas Vesalius

Although Andreas Vesalius (1514-1564) came from a long family line of physicians, he originally intended on studying arts before finally deciding on medicine. Vesalius studied at three different universities before attaining his doctorate in medicine. At the time, the best understanding of human anatomy was based on the work of Galen, a Greek physician. Galen compiled the knowledge of Greek philosophers with his own dissections to form his own comprehensive theories of anatomy and physiology. Vesalius focused on performing his own dissections rather than relying on Galen’s texts or others’ dissections. This independent study would prove to yield great amounts of knowledge for the field of anatomy.

Unlike Galen, Vesalius took utmost care in performing his dissections,  making sure that he did not damage the cadaver by going “outside-in.” Vesalius’s adherence to the scientific method in his study of anatomy was ultimately rewarding: he discovered many errors of his predecessors and produced a highly significant text. In 1543, Vesalius published De humani corporis fabrica libri septem (The Seven Books on the Structure of the Human Body). Commonly known as Fabrica, his text set a new standard for the understanding of human anatomy. Fabrica was the first anatomy textbook to contain accurate depictions of the human body and its various tissues and systems, made possible by the students of Renaissance artist Titian. Vesalius’s text also included corrections of Galen’s work. Vesalius demarcated the nonexistent muscles depicted in Galen’s illustrations. He also noted that much of Galen’s work—and inaccuracies—came from his dissections of dogs rather than humans. In one instance, Galen suggested humans had two components to the jaw; however, Vesalius’ work showed humans having only one component. Vesalius also debunked the common misconception (of Biblical origin) that women had one fewer pair of ribs than men. Vesalius discovered and documented many other anatomical features for the first time, such as the specific structures of the brain, details of the nervous system, and the structure of the human heart. Vesalius had a great impact on the study of medicine as well. He argued that medical students should personally study cadavers by hands-on dissection, a practice that medical students still perform today.

After publishing his text, Vesalius returned to work as a royal physician for the Holy Roman Empire until his death. His efforts not only had an immediate, great impact on the understanding of human anatomy but also motivated other scientists to begin comparing human anatomy to those of animals. Due to this wealth of comparative anatomy, Darwin was able to assemble his On the Origin of Species a few hundred years later. Vesalius improved both the knowledge and techniques of physicians through dedication to empirical rigor. The field of medicine would be greatly diminished in importance and utility if not for his work.

Vijay Venkatesan is a freshman from Baker College at Rice University.

News that Will Turn Your World…or Your Star…Inside Out

What astronomers see out in space is often a reflection of what might happen in our own corner of the universe. Asteroids collide with one another, stars collapse, etc. Observing these phenomena reveal much about even own space in the galaxy and therefore when the supernova Cassiopeia A occurred, astronomers took notice. What they found was unusual.

When astronomers observed Cassiopeia A, they noticed that the supernova was turned inside out and that the iron, which normally forms in the center of the supernova remnant, was on the outside instead.

Cas A is 11,000 light years away from Earth and exploded 330 years ago. As with other stars, Cas A was fueled by hydrogen until all this was spent and the core began to collapse as it heated up. The increased temperature allows the star to fuse other materials, and depending on the size of the star, heavier materials can be fused. Layers of materials fuse, continually cooling and expanding as the core collapses, until all that is left is a core of iron because the iron requires too much energy to fuse. The lack of outward pressure following the fusion forces the star to collapse, as the subatomic particles of the core are crushed towards one another, turning protons and electrons into neutrons and neutrinos. Neutrinos ‘bounce’ out layers and parts of the star as it collapses providing enough energy to even fuse heavier elements such as gold, silver, platinum, or uranium. By studying the light emitted from this supernova, scientists can determine the supernova remnants and its composition. Cas A is anywhere from 15 to 25 times the mass of the sun that exploded prior on its path and therefore it would be expected that it would collapse as the other one did. However, the experts were startled to see what occurred.

Using data recorded by NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory, Una Hwang of the Goddard Space Flight Centre, Maryland and J Martin Laming of the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, studied the distribution of elements across the remnants. They found the amount of iron that they had expected, but surprisingly the iron was “on the outside, with apparently nothing in the center”. This observation has shed some light on a fairly rare occurrence—a neutron star kick.  A neutron star kick is the recoil a neutron star experiences following supernovae explosions. Hwang and Laming suspect that this kick is caused by instability in the core of the supernova, reasoning that if momentum is conserved, then the ejecta of the collapsing supernova would move in the away from the neutron star, as seen in Cas A. Subsequently the iron should have moved in the opposite direction as well—but it didn’t. For now, astronomers are still unsure why.

Truth be told, the answer to many of these questions about neutron stark kicks are largely unknown. Other approaches to interpreting this data such as observing the movement of titanium-44 in the supernova, have been used but still the data can be deemed “noisy and inconclusive”.  The best chance of astronomers understanding this phenomenon is through data that will be collected by NuSTAR, the first high energy X-ray observatory set to launch this year. Hopefully, this will provide better data, but until then our understanding of these astrological phenomena remains incomplete.

Alex Kumar is a freshman from Baker College at Rice University.

Remarkably Simple Brain Structure

We often talk about the brain as this complex set of nerves and electrical impulses that is the control center of our body. It is so complex, in fact, that our own minds (brains) cannot decipher the human brain’s complexity (quite an irony!). Just recently, a lecture at Rice in the Electrical Engineering Department hosted David Eagleman, a leading neurologist with his lab in Baylor Med. In his talk, Eagleman tried to unfold the way our brains interpret time. It is quite a complex thing to decipher because our brains even perceive time differently than the outside world. So, one would think that this wonderful piece of equipment that we have been endowed with would be very hard to model or picture how it’s structured. However, researchers have just discovered that the structure of the brain is remarkably simple – “two-dimensional sheets of parallel fibers crisscrossing other sheets at right angles in a gridlike structure that folds and contorts with the convolutions of the brain.” Researchers had imagined before for the structure to be much more complex in which fibers are traveling in all directions with perhaps no simple way to describe them (sort of like spaghetti). Using diffusion spectrum magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Wedeen traced how water molecules were moving across the brain fibers and tracked the orientation of the fiber at each of the intersections. Wedeen states that the brain looked like “mutually parallel fibers all coming in like the teeth of a comb and crossing it in one direction.” Now the question comes up as to how this can be useful? Understanding the brain’s structure can actually be very helpful in understanding why and how brain development can go wrong in diseases such as Alzheimer’s or other mental illnesses. Analyzing a simple structure of fibers crossing each other at right angles is a much easier task than analyzing a spaghetti-net of fibers leading to any direction in the brain. As Eagleman mentioned in his lecture, understanding the brain can lead to a better understanding of diseases such as schizophrenia, which Eagleman hypothesizes as a temporal order problem where the brain has not recalibrated the timings of events.  Just as this hypothesis can lead to a better understanding and then perhaps treatment of schizophrenia, understanding just the structure of the brain can lead to even more possibilities for treatment of many common mental illnesses.

Mariam Junaid is a freshman from Baker College at Rice University.

Ptolemy the Second: Alhazen

Abu Ali Hasan Ibn al-Haitham (anglicized as Alhazen) was an Arabic scientist who, like al-Khwarizmi, proved to be prolific for the field of science at a time when European scientists were making few contributions. While many details of his life are lost to history, Alhazen’s work paints the picture of an incredible, scientific mind. Born in 965 in Basra, Iraq, Alhazen was on the path to becoming a religious scholar or minister when he decided to pursue his interest in science instead. Interestingly enough, much of Alhabzen’s later work would challenge the theories of Aristotle, Ptolemy, and Euclid that he studied before conducting his own experiments. Alhazen favored the study of optics, experimenting with refraction, dispersion of light into component colors, catoptrics (the function of mirrors in optics), and shadows and eclipses. He was nearly successful in accurately describing the laws of refraction, which took another three hundred years to be perfected. Kitab-al-Manadhir­, known as Book of Optics in English, was his most influential work and the result of ten years of writing and experimentation. One development from this text was Alhazen’s theory of light. According to his theory, sources such as the sun or fire emanate light, which reflects off of objects before being received by the eyes. Alhazen’s concept of light contradicted the theories of Ptolemy and Euclid which argued that light was emitted from the eyes. Alhazen’s theory was very much revolutionary, rejecting ideas that had been accepted by the scientific community for hundreds of years.

Alhazen’s method of disproving the prevailing view of light was equally groundbreaking. Unlike the Classical Greek scientists preceding him and even the scientists succeeding him, Alhazen generated an observation-derived hypothesis and created a rigorous experiment to determine the validity of his claims. Alhazen’s use of the scientific method sets him apart from other early scientists, and the Latin translation of his Book of Optics and its emphasis on the scientific method held great influence over Roger Bacon and Johannes Kepler.

In addition to researching optics, Alhazen studied other fields with equally significant results. His adherence to the scientific method led him to become one of the first scientists to reject astrology as an empirically invalid field. Alhazen also formulated a precursor of Newton’s First Law of Motion. His work in optics and other fields earned him the nicknames Ptolemaeus Secundus (Ptolemy the Second) and the “Father of Physics” during the Middle Ages. Alhazen, in conjunction with other Islamic scientists, made significant contributions towards the study of science. Their hundreds of years of work, translated into Latin and widely distributed throughout Europe, would eventually become the intellectual foundation of the Renaissance.

Vijay Venkatesan is a freshman from Baker College at Rice University.

Allergies: A Biological #FirstWorldProblem?

In the words of rap artist Kanye West, “That that don’t kill me, can only make me stronger.” Mr. West’s words are particularly appropriate for the immune system, where an episode of infection from a pathogen leads to the production of memory B-cells. These memory cells stay in the body even after the infection is gone, and are capable of producing a strong, sudden secondary response to minimize the severity of re-infection by the same pathogen. This essentially explains why babies are more susceptible to infection; over time, though, exposure to a variety of pathogens helps to build a stronger immune response.

What has long perplexed immunologists, however, is the opposite: cases where the immune system responds to a lack of active threats from microbes and pathogens. Epidemiologists have observed that the prevalence of allergies and autoimmune diseases is much higher in the developed world than in developing countries. This is the basis of the hygiene hypothesis: the idea that lack of exposure to pathogens in a controlled, hygienic environment causes the immune system to shift gears and attack benign substances, like pollen or dust. In effect, the hygiene hypothesis is the immune system’s equivalent of the ultimate #firstworldproblem.

For years, the hygiene hypothesis has remained an effect without a cause. Much research exists on observed phenomena that reinforce the principle. One study found higher asthma rates in urban, Westernized settings than rural agrarian settings in Ethiopia. Another study of hay fever found lower rates of disease among children in large families, with a follow-up study showing similar effects for children enrolled in day-care, pointing to the ability of exposure to pathogens to promote a protective immunity. Still, few developments have been made on understanding the etiology or mechanisms of this hyperactive immune response.

A recent study from a research group at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston suggests a biological basis for the hygiene hypothesis. The study compared early-life immune development of mice in sterilized environments to mice in normal, pathogen-exposed environments. The mice in hygienic environments built up higher levels of invariant natural killer T (iNKT) cells, which caused higher intestinal and pulmonary levels of a cytokine ligand (CXCL16) that led to increased incidence of inflammatory bowel disease and asthma. More intriguing was the finding that exposure to microbes caused normal immune system development early in life, but not in cases where the mice were exposed later in life.

The main takeaways here are that the hygiene hypothesis is contingent upon exposure to microbes early in an infant’s life, and that a general mechanism allows for further exploration of the pathway and prevention of the hygiene hypothesis. These findings offer strong opportunities for further research in how we might prevent or control conditions like allergic reactions or autoimmune diseases.

Amol Utrankar is a sophomore from Will Rice College at Rice University.

Influencing Public Sentiment on Artificial Meat

The advantages of artificial meat are enormous and incredibly appealing. According to a recent article in the Economist, current meat growth practices use around “30% of the world’s ice-free land,” but only about 15% of the nutrients fed to stock animals goes into meat production. While the benefits offered by more efficient and effective meat production are easy to see, Nikki Olson of the Institute of Ethics and Emerging Technologies believes that convincing people to eat artificial meat will be a challenge that many scientists underestimate. Olson bases this claim on “deeply engrained cultural traditions, rising concern regarding the safety of biotechnology, and the seriously unfortunate associations people might have with the meat and its production.”

Olson lists what she believes are the five most important factors that scientists and marketers must address in order to sway public sentiment towards a pro artificial meat mindset: education, raising aesthetic appeal, maintaining a good “status” sense around artificial meat, branding, and leveraging big data and neuroscience. The first of these—education—is relatively obvious in its importance. Many people are skeptical about engineered foods and put off by “GMO’s” (genetically modified organisms); people should be aware that the tissue in artificial meat is identical to that of animals. Olson claims education about these issues is essential, especially since people tend to hesitate when purchasing novel goods—and artificial meat is incredibly novel.

Olson claims that to raise aesthetic appeal is a “marketing problem…that will require a marketing genius.” This is because many people tend to view “food” and “laboratory” very negatively when the two words are used in the same context, resulting in what is colloquially known as the “yuck” factor of artificial meat. In order to invert this poor public sentiment, Peter Diamandis and Ray Kurzweil, two prominent futurists, believe that laboratory meat should be portrayed as cleaner and safer than the products of current meat production. When people become aware of factory farming and other current practices, they will most likely view laboratory meat with less distaste.

Thirdly, Olson talks about “high society’s engagement with artificial meat.” Olson says that it is important to make artificial meat “fashionable” to the public eye. One way to do this is to market artificial meat as a product for the upper class. However, this idea is unrealistic because artificial meat would be produced on a large scale to benefit all socioeconomic classes. An alternative option posed by Olson increases the popularity of artificial meat through techniques such as celebrity endorsement, which would help make the food fashionable.

Olson believes that branding artificial meat by emphasizing the societal and environmental benefits can help enormously in creating public trust. By portraying a company that cares about society, the public will infer that the company will also care just as strongly for its customers by providing a high quality product. Olson argues that appearing transparent is essential improving public sentiment. Many consumers become suspicious when large corporations operate covertly; allowing customers to understand the process of artificial meat production will increase public trust.

Finally, Olson speaks of leveraging big data and neuroscience to increase the popularity of artificial meat. There is a growing market for ethically sound meat; widespread awareness of the terrible ethics of factory farming could raise public opinion of artificial meat. Also, as the use of MRI machines and scanning technologies decreases, such technology may be utilized during market research, helping artificial meat companies get a better sense of ways to improve marketing ploys.

Inciting public excitement about artificial meat will be a challenging task. Because food is associated with culture and tradition, the public will be resistant to the radical switch to artificial meat. However, following Olson’s five guidelines will greatly improve public attitudes toward artificial meat and make it a viable commercial product.

Andrew Stout is a freshman from Baker College at Rice University.

Flowing Water is the Key Ingredient to Mars

As beautiful as those glowing orbs of colors in the sky are, our solar system and the rest of what we can possibly observe in the universe are actually extreme, hazardous, wastelands full of floating debris. Outside the warm, nurturing shelter of Earth’s atmosphere, oxygen is a scarcity, while dangerous radiation and wandering junk fill the space at freezing temperatures. Altogether, these conditions make it difficult to sustain life, if not impossible. One of the most exciting advents in astronomy has been to find another planet capable of supporting life—one that could possibly lead to the discovery of extraterrestrials or potentially serve as a new home for us. So far, this search has been mostly unfruitful, because of our technological limitations. The leading candidate that has been known about for a while and has been and is being studied closely is Mars, our galactic neighbor. Mars is the most likely to sustain life because of one of the key ‘ingredients’ to life: water. The water in Mars, however, was widely accepted to being held up in frozen ice caps, hydrated minerals or buried glaciers. Recently though, significant evidence that supports the theory that Mars has flowing water has emerged.

Last year, Alfred McEwen of the University of Arizona and his colleagues found liquid ‘tracks’ of water by using high-resolution imagery techniques. These recurring slope lineae (RSL) that have been found at various locations on Mars’ surface suggest that water on Mars does in fact flow under certain conditions such as during the warmer Martian months and at equator facing slopes. At this past week’s Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in the Woodlands, Texas, McEwen and company have provided additional evidence that this flowing water phenomenon occurs. As they have revealed, 23 additional slopes depicting these RSL have been recorded.

Scientists are fairly certain that RSL are indications of water movement because of their knowledge of water movement on Earth. RSL are similar in appearance and behavior of saline groundwater permeating downhill through the ground in Taylor Valley in Antartica. Through these studies, scientists have made it possible to estimate the soil’s permeability through calculating and observing the tracks formed by the water. Scientists are fairly certain of the movement of water on Mars and are confident that this is indeed water, not just sand or rock that is being moved because of the color, shade, and movement of the RSL. As Joe Levy of Oregon State University stated, “The RSL and the [Antartic] water tracks are both flowing like water through sediment. If it moves like water, it may very well be water.” These results are promising in astronomers’ quest to learn more about the mysterious geography of Mars and are promising studies in our search for conditions that could support life out in the cold, barren space.

Alex Kumar is a freshman from Baker College at Rice University.

Should the Fat Foot the Bill for Social Costs?

When we think of “epidemics,” we think of diseases of poverty like HIV/AIDS, malaria, or tuberculosis. Increasingly, though, we are forced to accept that one of the most prominent emerging epidemics in contemporary Western society is obesity. The numbers are clear: 35.7% of Americans are obese, and the number is rising at an alarming rate, as illustrated by this animated CDC map.

The economic impact of this obesity epidemic, measured as the accumulation of individual health expenses and the social burdens imposed by the obese population, is estimated as high as $147 billion per year. Noted Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer proposes that we charge obese individuals for the costs they impose on others, in order to offset the expenses that obesity places on the rest of society. I’m not so inclined to agree, and I think this is a perfect example of a case where scientific insight can lend a voice to a philosophical debate.

First off, it’s also worth noting that obesity is as much a social phenomenon as a medical/biological one. Socioeconomic factors such as poverty and income inequality are associated with obesity. Similarly, environment plays a large role; the density of fast-food franchises and the socioeconomic status of a geographic area are negatively associated.

From a scientific perspective, obesity can be conceptualized as an addictive disorder, where food is the drug of choice. Dr. Jeffrey Friedman, an obesity researcher at Rockefeller University, believes that obesity should not be framed as a deficit of commitment, but a genetically influenced biological wiring to eat when food is available. The evolutionary rationale for this behavior postulates that the drive for overeating is residual from a time where food was more scarce. In an age where food can be obtained from a trip to Kroger—requiring much less effort than strenuous hunting-gathering—the innate tendency is to accumulate food and resources where possible.

In support of that perspective, a 2011 study showed that levels of ghrelin—a hormone signaling meal initiation and hunger—remained high long after subjects started weight loss regimens. This suggests that not only does the body have a built in urge to consume resources, but also has a fail-safe that encourages weight regain—meaning that failed diets can be partially ascribed to biological predisposition.

Based on this, I’m not sure that Singer’s suggestion of charging obese individuals for their imposed costs is fair. In a sense, it constitutes a monetary burden in response to an innate biological quality and a possible addictive disorder. Charging people for their medical conditions seems too problematic to be an acceptable solution. While obesity does impose significant costs on society, transferring those costs to the obese may not be the most scientifically sound and ethically defensible solution.

Amol Utrankar is a sophomore from Will Rice College at Rice University.