Research Watch

Are quantum computers close enough to commercialization that you might get to use one in the next few years? Probably not. But an intriguing sentence at the end of a story in the New York Times hints that the answer could be yes — indirectly.

The story by John Markoff sums up recent advances in quantum computing research and focuses on renewed interest from IBM’s research labs in quantum computing. He closes the story with Google researcher Hartmut Neven saying that quantum computer maker D-Wave has proposed building a quantum computing facility for the search giant.

Neven has been researching quantum algorithms for pattern recognition, particularly for image search. He wrote a blog post 11 months ago about Google’s progress using a D-Wave chip.

D-Wave’s claims of commercially-viable prototype quantum computers tend to elicit skepticism from quantum computing researchers. The company does, however, have a heavyweight partner in NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which fabricates D-Wave’s superconducting quantum chips.

So who knows? Maybe sometime in 2012 if you do a Google search for images of Mayan temples, the results could be brought to you courtesy of the weirdness of quantum physics.

Check out the New York Times editorial “48th Is Not a Good Place“. The quality of our science, technology, engineering and math education is bad news for the country’s economic competitiveness, to say nothing of our can-do self-image.

Nice article in The Atlantic about researcher John Ioannidis’ meta-studies of medical science. Turns out that a third to half of the most respected medical studies have faulty conclusions.

In the article Ioannidis argues that we need to accept that much of medical research is flawed and adjust our expectations accordingly: “Science is a noble endeavor, but it’s also a low-yield endeavor.”

With major league baseball playoffs in full swing, I’m thinking we should come up with a batting average system for rating researchers and journals.

The Guardian’s Martin Robbins wrote an excellent spoof of a generic mainstream media science news story. The spoof shows the formula behind much of science journalism. It makes me wonder how long it’ll be before someone writes a program to write a science news story.

Robbins’ follow-up column examines the reasons for this state of affairs. I especially like his description of the disconnect between the news cycle and the process of doing science.

Albert-László Barabási, the physicist and network theory guru whose work we’ve covered over the years, has a new book that promises to show how human behavior is predictable. Bursts: The Hidden Pattern Behind Everything We Do, due out April 29, is based on a study of the electronic trails we all leave behind.

The key finding is that the pattern of our activities is ordered rather than random. Our behavior is bursty, like network traffic. In other words, there are long periods with little going on punctuated by bursts of activity.

Barabási has developed an online game, BuRSTS, as part of the book’s promotion. Once you register, you can adopt one of the book’s 84,245 words, which allows you to see all the words other people have adopted. My word is “staircase”, the 1,146th word adopted. You win points by guessing unadopted words and by inviting people to register. The top guesser and top inviter each day wins a signed copy of the book.

BuRSTS is also an experiment. Here’s how Barabási describes it:

“BuRSTS is an experiment designed to take advantage of the opportunities defined by the layout of a book…  It is designed to bring the text alive and create a collective burst similar to the one described in the book. It is also a game of cooperation and prediction, creating an imprint of human activity.”

Check it out and let me know what you think at eric [at] trnmag [dot] com.

Do you know of similar research? How about other collective online activities that could be used to illustrate Barabási’s idea? And if you join the game, let me know what your word is.

A nice column in the New York Times by biologist Aaron E. Hirsh explains the rise of Big Science — massive, centralized projects with large staffs and expensive equipment — and the emerging trend of distributed citizen science.

Hirsh lauds the participation of nonscientists for providing the widespread fieldwork needed to study planetary-scale phenomena like climate change. He also said it should give people greater appreciation for and a sense of participation in the Big Science research their tax dollars help pay for.

Hirsh said the Internet is tailormade for supporting citizen science. People can use the Net to log their observations at home, on vacation and even on the go. I hope the trend, and the attention columns like Hirsh’s bring to it, spurs scientists to develop online toolkits and worksheets to help us nonscientists do the job right. It’ll ensure more thorough data collection and lighten the load on the data crunchers. It’ll also make people more likely to participate.

Confirmation hearings for Steven Chu, Obama’s pick for energy secretary, were today. ERN posted a Q&A with six energy researchers looking at the challenges ahead. Also check out the related blog item about the confirmation hearings.

Make sure to check out this week’s ERN: energy-storing wind turbines, self-repairing biological solar cells, tiny fuel cells and more.

Make sure to check out this week’s ERN: wind-powered vehicles, titania leaves, coffee grounds and more.

Turns out that stovetops produce a lot of very small nanoparticles that are a threat to respiratory and cardiovascular health.

Researchers have known that burners on gas and electric stovetops emit nanoparticles when they’re used, but until now they hadn’t been able to measure the smallest nanoparticles — those under 10 nanometers. A study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology found that stovetops produce as much as 10 times as many particles under 10 nanometers as nanoparticles over that size.

Nanoparticles readily enter the bloodstream through the lungs, pass through cell membranes and accumulate in organs. Nanoparticle toxicity is related to its surface; nanoparticles of a substance are more toxic than the same mass of larger particles of the same substance.

I guess we’ll have to update the old saying. If you can’t stand the nanoparticles, get out of the kitchen.