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.