You might have noticed some changes in the last few weeks. We’ve expanded TRN.

We’ve made the news briefs longer, and each brief has links to the researchers’ websites and to related TRN stories and briefs. The changes are designed to make it easier for you to learn more about how these developments relate to the larger context.

The changes are also precursors to the launch of our new publication, Energy Research News.

Stay tuned, and let us know what you think.

Now we have an idea about how much we don’t know about human biology — lots.

In recent years we’ve learned that interactions among proteins are fundamental to how our bodies function. It looks like there are about 650,000 protein interactions. The interactions we’ve identified make up less than 3/10 of a percent. Put another way, we haven’t identified 99.7 percent of the protein interactions that happened in our bodies.

This sure gives me pause. Are your kids studying hard to become biologists?

The idea of planting trees to suck CO₂ of the atmosphere as a way of slowing down global warming has been around for years. We even know that planting trees in the tropics would be more helpful than in higher latitudes. But one problem with trees is that we humans tend to cut them down and burn them, and the ones that escape the chainsaws eventually die and decay. Either way, the CO₂ they’ve absorbed ends up back in the atmosphere.

A couple of German scientists have found a solution: plant lots of trees and after a while cut them down and bury them. By entombing the wood in old mines we can keep the CO₂ out of the atmosphere.

Hmm. Carbon buried in the ground. Sounds uncomfortably like fossil fuels. What’s to keep future generations from digging up the wood and, say, burning it?

Another problem is the number of trees we’d need to plant. The scientists estimate that we’d have to plant about 4 million square miles of forest to take up the CO₂ produced in a year. That’s an area about the size of Europe. The scientists note that it’s also about as much virgin forest as we’ve cut down in the last century.

If you’re concerned or even just curious about the health and environmental impacts of nanotechnology, keep an eye on what’s happening around you. The number of consumer products that include nanoscale ingredients has grown from 212 to 609 in a little over two years, a rate of about three and a half per week. Take a look in your pantry, medicine cabinet and garage. If what you see matches any of the products on this list from the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, you may be your own best test subject.

The idea of spewing sulfur particles into the stratosphere to counter global warming just seems wrong on the face of it. It’s a little like trying to rescue a recipe gone horribly wrong. New ingredients might mask that accidental spice overdose, but the odds of ending up with something resembling what you set out to make are slim.

First we found out that if we tried this form of geoengineering we could never stop. Now a study shows that the process would trash the ozone layer in the Arctic and delay the recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole by 30 to 70 years.

I’ll keep you updated.

Computers are great for simulating and analyzing evolution, and now they’re also good for directing it. A nifty experiment combined a computer with a microfluidic chip to evolve a population of enzymes. In a sense, evolution becomes just another computer program.

How fast do you make a decision? It might be faster than you think.

It looks like your brain does the deciding before your mind makes itself up. A study using functional magnetic resonance imaging found that people’s brains cue up decisions as much as 10 seconds before people think they’ve made them.

This site doesn’t have a lot to do with science, but it’s pretty cool. Click to change, space to clear.

The skin is certainly a sensitive instrument, but a chemical sensor? Scientists have found that mice sense oxygen levels through their skin, and it’s possible that we do too. When oxygen levels are low, mice increase the production of red blood cells to boost their bodies’ oxygen processing efficiency. Boosting red blood cell production is a treatment for a range of diseases, and the study could eventually leads to better ways of doing so.

Looks like we’re taking more than our share of the vegetables: human activities eat up nearly a quarter of the planet’s plant growth. A study of human impact on ecosystems found that we consume 23.8% of Earth’s land-based net primary production. Agriculture makes up more than half the consumption. The rest is other forms of land use and human-caused fires. This is an unprecedented dominance of the biosphere by a single species, and shows how risky large-scale biofuels production could be for the ecosystem.