Violin Chemicals Making a Smoother Sound

On November 29, 2006, in the NewScientist.com article “Why do Stradivari's violins sound sublime?” (found at http://www.newscientisttech.com/article.ns?id=dn10686), Paul Marks discusses a researchers dedication to discovering the chemical composition in the wood of 17th-century violins.

Seventeenth-century Italian violin makers, such as Antonia Stradivari, were known to produce exquisite violins that produced a very distinct honeyed sound. Recently, researcher Joseph Nagyvary of Texas A&M University has found that the chemicals used to treat the wood of Stradivari’s violins may have contributed to their unique tonal qualities. Nagyvary performed infrared and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy to examine wood shavings of the antique violins’ backboard while they were undergoing reparations. The chemical composition of the wood seems to have resulted from local preservatives the instrument-makers used from Lombardy, Italy. However, analysis of the trees in Lombardy reveals that the chemical composition of the wood in the region is different today. Traces of copper, iron, and chromium salts, probably used as wood preservatives, seem to have an effect on the acoustics of the violins, though Nagyvary believes this was not Stradivari’s intent.

Nagyvary first discovered the chemical effects on instrumental tones in 1998, when he first discovered a violin backboard could produce sounds similar to a Stradivari violin by being soaked in salt water and grape juice. Since then, he has devoted his work to dissections of Stradivari violins and their possible chemical compositions. Yet, Nagyvary’s passion for sound stemmed from his experience losing his voice, then regaining it with the aid of a plastic implant. As he still has yet to determine the exact types of salts used in the seventeenth-century violins, it seems he hopes to find the optimum formula of chemicals that could produce an optimum sound. His previous life experiences, such as his vocal surgery and his simple experiment with grape juice and salt water, have played defining roles in what direction his research takes him. Nagyvary is also a researcher who blends art and science. His love of music, though at first glance may not relate with his profession as a biochemist, still affects all aspects of his life. As a scientist, Nagyvary does not hesitate to let his life and identity influence his scientific work.

Many have criticized the pragmatics of studying the chemical composition of violin wood. For instance, Jon Whiteley, curator of music at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, argues that it is the shape of the violin that determines its sound qualities, and that chemical preservatives have very little to do with producing tone. Personally, I can see the interest and the intrigue generated by Nagyvary and his work. By discovering what kind of chemical structures affect sound, more specific and unique violins can be created to give more control in crafting various artistic styles. However, I do understand that the chemical breakdown of a violin’s backboard is not the only factor that determines sound. A joint study of instrument shape as well as chemical analysis should be used to fine-tune instruments into their best performances.


Additional Sources:

Nagyvary, Joseph. "Joseph Nagyvary's Home Page." Texas A&M University. 29 Nov. 2006 .

Uncontroversial Stem Cell Research?

The Associated Press reported in the November 18, 2006 New York Times online article “Stem Cell Experiment Yields Heart Valves” (found at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/18/health/18stem.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin) that researchers have found a way to grow replacement heart valves from amniotic stem cells.

Using stem cells from the amniotic fluid surrounding a growing baby, Swiss scientists from the University of Zurich have successfully isolated fetal stem cells and cultured heart valves that could potentially be used to fix babies born with heart defects. Led by Dr. Simon Hoerstrup, the scientific team separated stem cells from amniotic fluid removed during a prenatal test. Heart valve tissue was grown from the cells in the laboratory in specialized molds. Japanese scientists have completed similar experiments where they created rabbit heart valves from the rabbit’s own tissues. For babies, using valves made from their own tissue may allow the valves to grow with them, a feature not belonging to donor heart valves or artificial valves. The benefits of using stem cells from amniotic fluid are numerous. Amniotic fluid has high concentrations of stem cells and the stem cells can be kept frozen, making them ideal for creating replacement tissues for older patients as well as young patients.

The scientists working on this type of stem cell research are entering new territory. Stem cells have proven to be controversial in the past, yet obtaining amniotic stem cells does not require the demolition of embryos. Hoerstrup recognized the “ethical advantage” as a great plus of his team’s work. Though these scientists do not have to brave the treacherous waters of moral controversy that normally surround stem cells, they do have unmapped seas through which to navigate. The use of the laboratory-grown heart valves have only been minimally tested in animals, not humans. Hoerstrup and the other Swiss researchers face years of trial experiments involving sheep before any work can be done on humans. Such scientists require great long-term determination and perseverance. However, it seems that optimism is paramount to the success of these scientists. Hoerstrup states, “I’m pretty sure the ball will continue to be advanced down the field. We’ll get there one way or the other.”

I have never heard of stem cells that do not harm embryos. If progress can be made with amniotic stem cells as much as progress has been made with embryonic stem cells, many changes would take place in scientific funding, within the political arena, and among groups worried about the moral and ethical implications of stem cell research. The removal of the element of controversy will allow great strides to be made in growing tissues and replacement parts from amniotic stem cells without the hassle of red tape and intense public debate. I think the ultimate success of growing replacement heart valves from stem cells depends on how well the science community explains the process to the public, so that unneeded worry and controversy can be avoided.

“Ma’am, a ‘sonic hedgehog’ is causing your facial defects.”

In the November 12, 2006 New York Times article “‘Sonic Hedgehog’ Sounded Funny, at First” (found at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/weekinreview/12schwartz.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin), John Schwartz examines the repercussions of creative titles researchers give to newly discovered genes.

The numerous types of genes in existence provide scientists with the gargantuan task of remembering endless code titles and numbers that identity various genes. Such indistinct tags given to genes can make it extremely hard and boring for researchers continually refer to genes. In order to make names memorable and different, researchers began giving creative and unusual names to the genes they discovered, mostly in flies and other animals. Resulting are genes named “faint sausage,” “smurf,” “sonic hedgehog,” “lunatic fringe,” “death executioner Bcl-2,” and “mothers against decapentaplegia.” However, when applied to human health, the luster of the weird names dissipates. When medical professionals need to explain to patients what gene may be causing brain damage, defects, and other genetic diseases, the funny names for the fatal genes are not funny any longer. Though possible that a doctor with a sense of humor, who can comfortably translate odd names to their ailing patients, can avoid tenseness, many agree that the best route is to simply rename the genes.

Science does not provide an exciting atmosphere one-hundred percent of the time. When boredom sets in, scientists seem to reach into their underutilized creative sides, often stifled by the nature of their work, to alleviate the monotony of their tasks. However, it seems that research scientists and medical scientist view the same issue in different lights. While researchers use odd names to tell genes apart, doctors see the odd names as a hindrance to science and how it can be applied to others. Dr. Susan Povey, a biology professor at the University College London, leads the genome nomenclature committee of the Human Genome project, working to rename the more offensive gene names that have surfaced. Interestingly enough, Povey states that the committee as encountered dissention from researchers extremely fond of the creative names they have bestowed upon their discoveries. She states, “They don’t like somebody who doesn’t know much about it telling them what to call it.”

I can definitely see the benefit of giving unique names to genes. They allow scientists to distinguish similar-looking masses, making genes easier to learn, easier to remember, and easier to explain to other researchers. However, it is comforting that some sort of controls is being set by other scientists, who recognize the possible harmful potential such names have. Though, I find it worrisome that some scientists are so ardent about their weird names that they will proudly not allow others to change them. Such pride cannot be beneficial in keeping scientific research and research ethics pure and rational. While I don’t think the inventive naming of genes should be abolished completely, I do believe mediate naming is essential. Setting guidelines, calling already objectionable titles by their initials, and regulating how abnormal names can help reduce potential offense patients may take.

A Better Basketball?

In the November 4, 2006 Science News Online article “Dribble Quibble: Experiments find that new basketball gets slick” (found at: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061104/fob4.asp), Peter Weiss reported that the new standardized plastic basketballs used by the NBA do not exceed the former leather basketballs used.

This summer, the National Basketball Association, or NBA, introduced a newly designed plastic basketball from the sporting goods brand Spalding. For the past 35 years, Spalding provided the NBA with the former standard leather-covered basketball. Since the introduction of the new basketball, many NBA players have complained of the poorer performance level from the balls. Physicists at the University of Texas at Arlington, led by James L. Horwitz, performed various tests on the new plastic basketballs and old leather basketballs to compare the two materials. Horwitz and his colleagues slid the basketballs on silicon sheets, which mimic the friction coefficient of a human hand. Dry plastic basketballs traveled much less than the dry leather basketballs, yet when the balls were made damp to imitate sweat, the friction coefficient of the leather balls increased and the coefficient of the plastic balls were cut in half. Thus, the new plastic basketballs become increasingly slick, less elastic, and more uncontrollable.

Clarification of results may drive researchers in the search for truth. Spalding’s own research during the development of the new plastic basketballs found that the friction coefficient of the new balls outranked that of the leather balls. Conflict arose when NBA players started to complain of the new basketballs. Mark Cuban, owner of the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks, covered the costs for the University of Texas in order for Horwitz and other physicists to conduct their research. Thus, motivations of the scientists may not stem purely from curiosity, but from necessity and responsibility. Though initial results have already been submitted to Cuban and the NBA, Horwitz and his team continues to conduct research on the basketballs, including air tunnel tests, though Cuban or the NBA plan to change the balls. Here, more unabated curiosity of the scientists seems to play a part, as the researchers are no longer getting compensated for their studies.

Though the debate over which type of basketball is better may not apply widely to the general public, it does provide a unique concern that may indirectly affect the sports world and fans of the NBA. The evidence against plastic balls now exists, and though nothing is being done to change the standards of basketballs on the professional level, any future complaints surrounding the gear of the game may take longer to process. In terms of scientists, it is interesting that tests performed on the same ball ended with different outcomes, as shown by the mixed results from Spalding and the University of Texas. Though such research may not be pragmatic to humankind overall, at least private corporations are funding this type of research, not the university itself. The continued work of Horwitz should reveal interesting ideas about basketballs, but its usefulness may be in question.

Additional Sources:

"The Physics of Basketballs." UT Arlington. University of Texas, Arlington. 6 Nov. 2006 http://www.uta.edu/uta/gateway-features/horwitz-de.

Yup, Face Transplants

BBC News announced on October 25, 2006 in the online article “UK gets face transplant go-ahead” (found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6083392.stm) that surgeons in London have been granted permission to select patients for performing the world’s first full face transplant surgery.

The ethics committee of London’s Royal Free Hospital gave Peter Butler and his team of surgeons consent to perform a full face transplant surgery. Only a partial face transplant has been successfully performed. Butler and his colleagues now start the process of finding candidates for the full face transplant operation, who must be able to handle the psychological impacts that the surgery will have on them. The transplant operation consists of two major steps. In the first step, surgeons remove from a donor the skin, muscle, and fat of the face area in addition to eight blood vessels, four arteries and four veins. Secondly, the bloods vessels, arteries, veins, and nerves are connected to the recipient over the course of several hours. Once surgery is completed, the patient must take immunosuppressant drugs so that they will not reject the foreign tissue that is now their face. Due to the recipient’s own unique bone structure, they should appear different than the donor.

The research and study done in face transplants motivates scientists for years. Butler has not only been studying the surgery itself, but has also familiarized himself with how the body can reject tissue, mental issues, and the impact of identity. Butler wants to give a sense of hope and normality to patients still unsatisfied after many, many reconstructive surgeries. Because of the controversial nature of face transplants, which touch on the loss and augmentation of one’s identity, surgeons such as Butler are extremely motivated to introduce new medicine, yet remain cautious due to the intense risks that they can havoc on an unstable patient. Scientists also play a large role in deciding if such a procedure lines up with morality. Members of the hospital’s ethics committee must seriously decide whether to progress or halt a decade of research by people such as Butler. In addition to deciding if the immunosuppressant drugs are safe, the committee bears the task of being able to see how science and philosophy intertwine. This physical surgery has great mental effects which relate to identity, how people recognized each other, and how people recognize themselves.

The issue of identity is a prevalent one. I believe full face transplants have great potential to give those suffering from disfigured or injured faces a chance to live a normal life without being shunned by society. However, I fear the line where face transplants can be used for the wrong reasons. For instance, the surgery could one day go as far as to aid a fleeing criminal, play a role in identity theft, and reshape the entire spectrum of plastic surgery, maybe even customizing a face that you wish to have. I find it comforting that groups, such as the Royal Free Hospital’s ethics committee, take the time to consider the social effects of atypical procedures. Scientists should continue to monitor their fellow researchers and doctors so that scientific progress can be used for the greatest benefit to the public, and not be wasted on those who do not truly appreciate it, which could bring harsh affects to the way we live.

“A New Way to Be Human”

James van der Pool explores in the BBC News online article “Introducing humans version 2.0” (found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6076860.stm), posted on October 24, 2006, the ramifications of computers with equal or greater intelligence than a human.

Neuroscientists have been making headway in creating computers to perform functions of the human brain. Using silicon implants on the brain connected to a computer, external mechanisms can be controlled by the simple act of thought. Researchers started with tests on animals. John Chapin of the State University of New York placed electrodes on a rat’s brain so that he could use radio signals to control the rat’s whiskers. Duke University’s Miguel Nicolelis has connected the brains of monkeys to computers so that the monkeys can control robotic arms just by thinking about it. Human brains have also been tested. Connecting the brain of a mute paralyzed man to a computer, scientists are slowly training the computer to read the man’s brain activity, translating his thought of speech into computer-generated sounds. In another study, another paralyzed man was outfitted with a brain implant that allowed him to actually move objects using his thoughts.

The neuroscientists that are on the forefront of these “artificial intellects” are branching into a field of great ethical debate. Many experts predict that as computer power continues to grow, a computer may soon reach the intelligence level of human beings. Chapin wants his “remote control rat” to help him understand how each part of the brain works and what each part operates. Other than attempting to better understand how the brain functions, other scientists feel a nobler and more social purpose arises from artificial intellects. Nicolelis believes that, with this technology, “the brain is finally freed from the body and it can act upon the world directly.” Downloading our thoughts to computer, improving existing intelligence, and mind-control with silicon implants gives scientists the opportunity to forcibly control other humans and the ability to create a new species, in essence. In creating machines that hold the ability to exceed our own intelligence, scientists must be ready to deal with issues such as man’s immortality, playing God, and a world where humans could be repressed by beings greater than themselves.

Hugo de Garis, who has contributed to developing machines who can gradually improve their intelligence, fears that the advent of artificial intellects would create a world reminiscent to George Orwell’s “1984.” I cannot help but think the same. Scientists must be aware of the danger of letting this technology get out of hand or get into the wrong pair of hands. While, computer-enhanced intelligence can benefit those who need assistance, such as paralytic victims, allowing computer intellect to supersede our own may have disastrous results. Such machines will then be out of our control and exist outside of our understanding. Becoming the inferior beings of Earth may be a shock to the human race’s system that we may not take. Man may me immortal, but such a trait will come at a great price of oppression.

Striding Towards “Smellovision”?

On October 13, 2006, BBC News investigates in the online article “Creating a stink in the name of science” (found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6043428.stm) the work of researchers to create synthetic smells.

Professor Takamichi Nakamoto at the Tokyo Institute of Technology has created and developed various machines and devices to recognize and reproduce scents. One “odor recorder” uses a sensor to pick up a given smell and then mixes various chemicals in order to reproduce the smell. For example, a lemon can be placed to the electronic smell receptor and the lemon scent is recorded, analyzed, and a chemical combination is created to try to match the lemon scent that was picked up. Similar to the most basic functions of a rudimentary brain, the machine’s “neural network” is the electronic control system that analyses scent. The device, however, usually doesn’t match the smell right on the first try. It must compare its produced scent with the recorded scent to gradually and slowly make adjustments so a more distinguished smell is ultimately made. The power of the device is limited as there are an infinite number of scents and only so many chemicals that Nakamoto and his team can load into the machine at a time.

Nakamoto’s goal is to be able to one day reproduce all smells. Already, their technology has been used in Japanese virtual games and in some Japanese cinemas, where films such as The New World and Spirited Away has screened certain scenes with correlating scents. Though, “smellovision” for television has been researched in the past, Nakamoto believes that scent is a great benefit today for enhancing learning. He asserts that a person can retain information better when that information is presented to them in conjunction with a smell. Though Nakamoto sees the most probable uses for his work in the fragrance and entertainment industries, it appears he ultimately wants synthetic smell reproduction to improve the way people are educated and perceive worlds that they may not have direct access to.

Initially, many tend to think of the idea of “smellovision” or of scented entertainment as an absurdity with no practical purpose. However, with intense and specified brainstorming and searching, there may be uses for this kind of research. For instance, the odor recorder could be used to improve learning programs and memory enhancement, or for streamlining businesses in the perfume industry. I think that the biggest obstacle will be getting those funding the development of this technology to overlook the obvious, superficial uses that marketers would be tempted to push on consumers, and use Nakamoto’s research for more profound and meaningful purposes.