"scientists" news and stories

Your dream could soon become a reality, if ReadyBot has anything to say about it. A group of scientists banned together to answer a challenge question: How many common and household commercial tasks can a two-armed, moderate-dexterity simple robot perform?

The answer: plenty. to see ReadyBot in action, click on the video, which is set to music similar to that of 50s Sears infomercials. So far, the Bot can raise and lower itself; grab, move, and tip dishes; and squeegee and wash countertops. Between this and a Roomba, just think of the possibilities! Your very own version of The Jetsons' Rosie (though it always irked me that she had female traits - ReadyBot will hopefully remain gender-neutral).

As you watch the clip, you'll notice that it moves fairly slowly, but the Bot scientists claim that this is intentional, and that it is intended to do work when people are at work or out of the house, so the lack of speed shouldn't be an issue.

Their ultimate goal? To program ReadyBot to complete approximately 80% of typical kitchen tasks (loading the dishwasher, washing dishes, etc) and then make it available for mass production. The scientists also claim that the price won't be too prohibitive, but we'll believe it when we see it.

In the meantime, one can only dream...

Recently, German researchers fed lab mice separate "human" and "chimp" diets, and within just two weeks, were able to notice distinct psychological and genetic differences in the rodents.

There were three different diets: a raw food-only diet; meals from the researchers' local cafeteria; and a pure fast-food diet. The researchers found a huge difference in the livers of the mice with a chimp diet versus those with a human diet (I'm scared to hear about the difference in their hearts and arteries!) They found thousands of differences in the genes expressed in the mouse livers, which they think may be caused by our differences in diets.

...You got all that? Okay. The scientists also found that said genes seemed to evolve faster than other genes.

So, basically, our ancestors' adoption of meat and cooked foods may have shaped us into the carnivorous, brownie-eating, beer-guzzling beings we are today.

Source

After six years testing the safety of cloning, the Food and Drug Administration has deemed cloned animals fit for consumption.

Don't like it? Well, you don't have much of a choice. The FDA also decided that labels won't have to divulge whether or not they contain parts from cloned animals, because the ingredients are no different from that of animals raised the old-fashioned way. Besides, aside from the creep-out factor, most people probably wouldn't choose to eat a cloned animal to begin with; they cost ten times as much as your average, farm-raised cow or pig.

Americans should be used to to science and industry playing a starring role in our food choices. From pesticides to force-fed ducks to hormone-laden dairy products, it shouldn't be any surprise that cloned animals were the next step.

And our food is already meddled with, sometimes without our knowledge (ever wonder how you can perfectly fresh peaches and strawberries in the middle of February?), and sometimes quite obviously (plutots, anyone?) But while this shouldn't come as a shock, this newest agricultural development does seem like an eerie foreshadowing of events to come.

Source

The Food and Drug Administration has concluded that "meat and milk from clones and their progeny is as safe to eat as corresponding products derived from animals produced using contemporary agricultural practices," meaning that not only is the meat likely to be approved for human consumption and sold at stores, but that there will be no label to distinguish it from natural meat. Consumer groups want to see a label on the meat because most (64%) people are uncomfortable with the idea of eating cloned food, but the FDA's decision is based on the fact that there is no food safety issue in question, and no need to "warn" people about what they're eating in this case. "The bottom line is, we don't want to misinform consumers with some sort of implied message of difference," said one researcher, although this does seem to be at odds with existence of labels that indicate the difference between organic/nonorganic produce and grass fed beef, where there is not necessarily a health risk or benefit in question.

The Consumer Federation of America said that they, along with other groups, will ask food companies and supermarkets not to carry food from clones. "Meat and milk from cloned animals have no benefit for consumers, and consumers don't want them in their foods."

Source

Aside from willpower and peer pressure, there are few things that can actually dissuade someone who really wants to drink from drinking. That's why AA has a 12-step program, not a 1-step one. But some scientists in Australia have just announced that they have a drug that may stop people from drinking. The compound blocks the production of a chemical called orexin that induces euphoria. So far, the compound has only been tested on rats, but it was remarkably successful in stopping the compulsion to drink alcohol in rats that had developed/were forced to develop an addition to it. In fact, they completely stopped drinking it when offered.

The theory is that the pleasurable effects of drinking, or the perceived pleasure that triggers the orexin system, are what drive the cravings and taking that away eliminates the reason for the craving to exist. Presumably, the drinker would still feel the effects of the alcohol, but there would no longer be any type of "high." Scientists also think that a similar treatment could be developed to treat other addictions, such as binge eating.

Obviously, it still has a long way to go before something like this will be available to the public, but it certainly sounds like it could help some people eliminate a step or two if they have a drinking problem.

Source