Check out
Dedicated server hosting in Europe
Are you looking for quality dedicated server hosting in Europe? Our company has two datacenters in Prague and Brno. If you are starting own business in Europe, you can put your website on our dedicated servers. Check out our dedicated server hosting service ...
Search
Calendar
| Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa | Su |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | ||||
Navigation
12,746 articles from Guardian Unlimited Science
- title
- Guardian Unlimited Science
- tags
- description
- Articles published by Guardian Unlimited Science
- last updated
- February 10, 2012 (21:21)
- homepage
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/science?gusrc=rss&feed=science
- feed url
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/rss
- date added
- September 13, 2007 (14:53)
- meta
- alexa, technorati, rojo
-
MONDAY 17. NOVEMBER, 2008
-
01:03
Elgar hits right note for elephants
The rousing, patriotic sweep of Elgar's Nimrod, the mournful tones of Nessun Dorma and the urgent eight-note allegro con brio opening to Beethoven's fifth - they have all been helping animal behaviour experts make life more comfortable for the elephants at Belfast zoo.
The researchers have discovered that playing classical music to the animals reduces abnormal behaviour such as swaying, pacing and trunk tossing, although they said that the elephants do not seem to have a favourite composer.
"We tend to see in some situations that elephants don't cope well with captivity because they have this inherent instinct to roam vast distances," said Dr Deborah Wells at Queen's University in Belfast. "The rationale underlying this study is really to try and improve their welfare and in particular to try to improve these stereotypical patterns of behaviour that elephants are prone to."
Wells's team recorded the behaviour of four female Asian elephants every minute for four hours a day, over three five-day periods. "Every behaviour the elephants could perform, we recorded," she said.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds -
01:03
Jupiter and the more brilliant Venus are heading for a spectacular conjunction low in the SW at nightfall. As they sink towards the horizon, a pair of celestial royalty is wheeling overhead. The constellations of Cepheus and Cassiopeia represent the mythical king and queen whose daughter, Andromeda, was rescued from the sea monster, Cetus, by the hero Perseus. All the players in the tale, including Perseus's steed Pegasus find their place in our autumn sky.
To locate the area depicted on our chart, face a few degrees N of E at nightfall and tilt your head back. The overhead point lies in the upper-right of the chart but migrates to the lower-right corner by 21:00 BST as the sky turns above us. The most obvious pattern is the quashed "W" or "M" of Cassiopeia, half as long as the Plough. Just as the end stars of the Plough, the Pointers, indicate Polaris, so Schedar and Caph, at the corresponding side of Cassiopeia, point to Alderamin, the leader of Cepheus.
Polaris itself lies just beyond the left of the chart and both Cassiopeia and Cepheus are circumpolar in that they remain forever above our horizon as they turn about the pole. Indeed, the slow wobble of the Earth's axis means that Alderamin will become our pole star by about AD 5,500. Cepheus, though, is generally dim and its form may be hard to distinguish amid the stars of the Milky Way which washes through this region. On the best moonless nights, even the stars of Cassiopeia may be almost swamped by the stellar backdrop.
Mu Cephei, Herschel's Garnet Star, is a striking red supergiant and one of the largest stars known. Best admired through binoculars, it pulses slowly between the third and fifth magnitudes. Delta is the prototype of the Cepheid variable stars which have proved invaluable in plumbing intergalactic distances. With their periods of pulsation tied to their absolute brilliance, if we measure the apparent brightness and period of a Cepheid in a distant galaxy, we can infer its distance. Delta itself varies between mag 3.5 and 4.4 every 5.37 days.
Gamma may be Cassiopeia's most famous variable. Young blue-hot and spinning rapidly, it varies unpredictably as it sheds material into space. Now near magnitude 2.1 and the brightest star in Cassiopeia, it was even brighter in the past while as recently as 1940 it shone more weakly than any of its partners in the "W". Rho is one of the largest and most luminous stars we know. Its variable light around mag four or five reaches us across some 12,000 light years making it one of the most distant individual stars we can see easily without a telescope.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds -
01:03
Taking vitamin A and E supplements does not lower your risk of cancer, according to the results of a large clinical trial involving nearly 15,000 men in the US.
Both vitamins are powerful antioxidants - substances that can tackle harmful byproducts of the body's metabolism which can cause DNA damage and hence trigger cancer. However, the study shows that taking the vitamins in supplement form has no effect at all on cancer.
"There have been a number of previous studies that have suggested that vitamin E and vitamin C might be important in the prevention of cancer," said Dr Howard Sesso, an epidemiologist at Brigham and Women's hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. These were mostly small lab studies or research on animals. But a 1998 study of men in Finland suggested that vitamin E supplements reduced prostate cancer cases by 32% and deaths by 41%.
"The lack of an effect that we observe for vitamin E or C on cancer does convince us that these particular doses that we tested really have no role for recommendation for cancer prevention," said Sesso.
His team recruited 14,641 male doctors and assigned them to four groups which took a different combination of the supplements or their placebos. The team looked at the number of deaths from cancer and found no statistical differences.
Sesso reported the results of the Physicians Health Study II trial at the American Association for Cancer Research's meeting in Prince George's county, Maryland.
Ed Yong, health information manager at Cancer Research UK, said there was growing evidence vitamin supplements did not prevent the risk of cancer. He said having a healthy diet was more important.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds -
SUNDAY 16. NOVEMBER, 2008
-
01:04
-
01:03
The posters outside the Natural History museum's Darwin exhibition have a wary feel. They show the old boy shushing at the passers-by with a forefinger over his lips and a worried look in his eyes. Inside, the curators explain how he sat on his theory of evolution for fear of its social consequences with the help of a letter he wrote to his friend, Joseph Hooker. In 1844, 15 years before he found the courage to publish On the Origin of Species, he said: 'I am almost convinced that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable.'
Henry Kissinger is meant to have come up with the witticism that 'academic politics are so bitter because the stakes are so low'. Many contest his claim on the line, but if it was his he was as wrong about intellectual life as about so much else. The stakes in the academic politics of evolution have always been high, and Darwin was right to think of murder.
Rapacious capitalists used Darwinism to justify extremes of wealth. Fascists and racists used it to justify mass murder. In the Sixties the understandable backlash against 'scientific' racism went to the opposite extreme, creating a biology riddled with taboos and no-go areas. To say that humans were as much the product of evolution as any other animal was like announcing you had joined the Nazis. In 1975, the colleagues of EO Wilson shamefully abused the Harvard scientist for daring to argue that biology influenced human behaviour. The American Anthropological Association claimed he had attempted 'to justify genetically the sexist, racist and elitist status quo in human society' (an act of intellectual thuggery Time magazine likened to the Catholic church's denunciation of Galileo).
But Wilson won in the end. Academic policemen could not rule scientific arguments out of bounds indefinitely because they did not like the political consequences. The exercise was pointless as well as unprincipled, because the political uses and abuses of science are so varied. Sociobiology did not necessarily lead to 'racism', 'sexism', 'elitism' or any other 'ism'. It could just as easily prompt the liberal thought that because we had evolved a universal human nature we were all entitled to universal human rights. If the Natural History museum had opened its exhibition at the turn of this century, its staff would have been at one with intellectuals enjoying their freedom to argue without being shouted down. With Marx and Freud discredited, Darwin was the last of the big thinkers whose reputation was undiminished. He had settled the question of how life developed. The sociobiologists of the late Nineties dreamt they could go further and settle just about everything else.
In Philosophers' magazine, Jeremy Stangroom described a euphoric debate on the boundless possibilities for scientific advance. Ian McEwan told the audience: 'I have stood back amazed, as things that were once the preserve of poets, philosophers and fiction writers, have been drawn into the great maws of experimental science: reputation, gratitude, cheating, and on a grander level, human beauty and beyond that, mind, consciousness and human nature. These were once not respectable subjects for scientific enquiry, but in 20 years this has all changed.'
Almost a decade on, and McEwan and the poets have been reprieved. The millennial hopes of finding the biological causes for everything from gratitude to the appreciation of beauty have faded. The trouble with sociobiology was always that you could invent apparently convincing explanations for contradictory forms of human behaviour. Take sex. If men were solely monogamous or serially monogamous, occasionally adulterous or incessantly treacherous, bigamous, polygamous or merely libidinous, there was a superficially plausible account of how their behaviour evolved in pre-history. Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College, London, can make up pseudo-scientific theories off the top of his head. He told me the best thing about playing Darwinian party tricks was that no one could falsify your conclusions in a controlled experiment because no one could travel back in time to study our African ancestors.
Jones and other sceptical biologists dismiss conjectures about the evolution of human behaviour as Just So Stories ... Kipling told us 'How the Camel Got His Hump'; socio-biologists tell the tale of 'Why Humans Get the Hump'. The first is fiction, the second may as well be.
Along with Just So ... I think we need also say: 'So what?' After the freethinkers had faced down the intimidation of the Sixties generation of academics, the results of their research were trite, even when true. For all his doubts about sociobiology, Jones accepts there is an evolutionary explanation for why old men desire beautiful young women and why rich old men are more successful in bedding beautiful young women than poor old men - but, well, the reason is no mystery.
I remember an evolutionary psychologist telling a meeting in the Nineties that step-parents were more likely to murder children than natural parents who shared a child's DNA. One over-wrought speaker bellowed that those who denied the truth of his findings had 'blood on their hands'. Clearly, what he said about comparative murder rates was right. Equally clearly, the overwhelming majority of step-parents do not murder their stepchildren. His sociobiological truth is thus no help to social workers trying to save the life of the next Baby P.
Niall Ferguson ends the book of his TV series The Ascent of Money saying we should see finance as a product of evolution. He explains the boom-and-bust cycle by tapping into research that we are hard-wired not to think logically. It is fascinating, but sceptical economists provide better explanations than biologists for why crowds go mad in a bubble market. Financial and political leaders led us to ruin because they did not understand Keynes, not Darwin.
The cautious old man with the flowing beard outside the Natural History museum is a realistic Darwin for our grim times: rightly nervous and well aware of the dangers of going too far too fast.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds -
01:03The government's policy change over 'top-up' treatment is not all it seems, writes Jon Robins
-
01:02
It is the ultimate, infallible tribute to a Briton: placing their portrait on a banknote alongside images of their life and work. But now a leading UK biologist has announced that pictures on the £10 note, which commemorates the achievements of Charles Darwin, are 'little better than fiction'.
Professor Steve Jones, of University College London, said putting a hummingbird on the current £10 note was a blunder. 'The note is supposed to encapsulate Darwin's trip to the Galapagos, with him looking at a hummingbird as a source of inspiration. But there are no hummingbirds on the islands,' said Jones at last week's opening of the Natural History Museum's exhibition, Darwin.
'Mockingbirds and finches were important in getting Darwin thinking about evolution, but hummingbirds played no role at all. Presumably the artist just happened to like them.' Jones said he had written to the Bank of England but had received no answer. A spokesman for the Bank referred The Observer to its website which insists the hummingbird was of 'the type characteristically found in the region of the Galapagos Islands'.
But hummingbirds are not even mentioned in On the Origin of Species, said Jones. 'So why depict them? This is not a trivial issue. We are surprised by the numbers of people who believe in creationism and rubbish like that only to find the currency in which we place our trust is telling us lies about evolution.'
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds -
01:02
It is an image worthy of a Keats poem or a Constable landscape: great orchards bursting with fruit, fields crammed with ripening vegetables and hillsides covered with sheep and cattle.
But this is no dream of long-gone rural glories. It is a vision of the kind of countryside that Britain may need if it is to survive the impact of climate change and higher oil prices, according to leading agricultural experts.
They have warned that only a total revolution in the nation's food industry can save Britain from serious shortages of staples as world oil production peaks, the climate continues to heat up, the population grows and our dietary needs continue to evolve.
In turn that means a complete shake-up in the way we farm the countryside. At present Britain imports more than 90 per cent of the fruit it consumes.
'We face some awesome changes in the way we deal with food production,' said Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University, London. 'For the past century we have relied on oil to produce more and more food for ourselves - mainly through the use of petroleum products to make cheap fertilisers.'
The problem is that oil is becoming more and more expensive and is also linked to dangerous emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
As a result, food experts such as Lang have been pressing the government to develop a proper strategy for ensuring that Britain is able to supply itself with food for the rest of the century, but in a way that fits in with the nation's goals on climate change.
It is simply not acceptable for Britain to continue to import foodstuffs such as beans from countries like Kenya, they say. The nation needs to be self-sustaining and to do this in an environmentally friendly manner.
One key approach relies on a return to past methods of food production. The nation needs to re-learn the gardening skills it lost a century ago and to change its diet to one that includes less meat, fewer dairy products and more fruit and vegetables, said Lang. 'This country produces less than 10 per cent of the fruit it eats. That has to change. We need to consider orchard planting on a massive scale as well as encouraging people to eat more fruit and vegetables.'
Nor is it acceptable that 40 per cent of the grain produced in Britain is used to feed the cattle and sheep that provide us with meat and dairy products. Growing grain which is then fed to animals is an inefficient way to deliver protein to the populace.
Instead cattle and pigs should be confined to hillsides where they can graze and not use up grain that has required oil-based fertilisers for its growth. Prime land should be used to feed people directly, Lang insisted.
This point was backed by Dr David Barling of City University's Centre for Food Policy.
'The debates around what and how much food the UK should produce and import should be based upon the priorities of providing a vibrant food economy that is socially just, environmentally benign and provides for a healthy population. This is not the case currently,' he said.
Such changes in the use of the countryside have other implications, however. More people will be required to work this altered landscape while productive land will have to be protected from development. 'We are going to have to revolutionise the way we use the countryside,' said Lang.
That transformation will require a return to old ways that might be welcome but equally there could be changes that might cause upset, such as the building of more rural homes to house those needed to work there.
'We will have to face up to these challenges as well,' Lang concluded.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds -
01:02Athene Donald's work could improve hip replacements and early tests for Alzheimer's
-
01:02Plan to create new 'dark-sky parks' to promote Highlands as world-class stargazing spot for tourists
-
01:02
A video clip featuring an 'invisible' moonwalking bear that has stealthily grown to be an internet hit has been revealed as a subtle road safety campaign planted by London transport officials.
The minute-long film called simply Awareness Test has caught out millions of viewers on the video-sharing website YouTube and other sites. It has been watched more than 10 million times. It begins by asking the viewer to count the number of passes in a short basketball game, relying on the fact that as the eye concentrates on the ball moving quickly between the players it can completely miss a man dressed in a bear suit who moonwalks across the screen. The viewer is told about the bear and shown the clip again, followed by the road safety message 'Look out for Cyclists'.
'The point is that we shock people. They're shocked to realise they would miss a great bear walking right across the screen in front of them; sometimes they miss it the second time too, and it makes them think how easy it can be to miss a cyclist on the road when you're watching for other things like cars or road signs,' said a Transport for London (TfL) spokesman. 'It's a compelling message and we're delighted at the number of hits.'
The clip was played in cinemas across the UK for a week before being transferred to the internet eight months ago to let 'viral marketing' take its course. 'The idea is to reach new people with new messages. We want to make sure that we're promoting road safety to the audiences we need to reach and that's not just TV and newspapers any more but networking sites and digital media,' the spokesman said.
London has seen road safety for pedestrians and motorists improve dramatically over the past decade, but cycling accidents remain high with one cyclist killed or seriously injured every day on the capital's roads. Road safety experts believe drivers still don't look out for bikes. Psychologist Professor Cary Cooper, of the University of Lancaster, said: 'If you are encouraged to concentrate on detail, you tend to miss the periphery.
'In this case, if you just sit back and watch the whole screen you will see the moonwalking bear, but if you are counting the passes you cannot pick it up. This is a common psychological phenomenon. It's quite possible that if you are concentrating very hard on what someone is saying, for example, afterwards you will have no recollection of what they were wearing.
'This concept is particularly relevant for drivers if you are focusing too much on certain aspects and can't see cyclists - when driving you have to be aware of everything around you. Of course, it's particularly surprising when you miss something as profound as a moonwalking bear. People just can't believe that, and of course they are rightly shocked.'
The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, a keen cyclist, said he was pleased at the apparent success of the campaign: 'London is a terrific city for cycling and is generally safe, but the greatest danger to cyclists is complacency and that is why such safety campaigns are so important,' he explained.
'I want our city to be a cyclists' paradise. That is why reducing accidents is a priority and I hope this campaign will contribute to that aim.'
With so many people now aware of the trick behind the moonwalking bear, TfL has moved on to another clip that is just starting to take off with a few thousand hits since it arrived on YouTube last week. This time we will leave it to you to spot the trick in the film - a short video in the style of an Agatha Christie whodunnit.
Both clips were made for TfL by advertising agency WCRS. Fergus Adam of WCRS said that, while they were delighted at the phenomenal success of the moonwalking bear, this was not the future of advertising.
'This kind of viral marketing has really peaked already and is on the decline, for all sorts of reasons; people are far less likely to pass on funny or interesting clips to friends or colleagues and there are fewer and fewer things that can get this kind of worldwide spread through the web,' he said. 'Only 5 per cent of web users are actively spreading these things. YouTube is littered with videos just sitting there.'
• To view the videos, go to youtube.com and search for 'Awareness Test' and 'Test Your Awareness: Whodunnit?'
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds -
SATURDAY 15. NOVEMBER, 2008
-
01:17In an extract from Outliers: The Story Of Success, by Malcolm Gladwell questions the idea of natural genius
-
01:10
We're all suckers for a big number, and you'll be delighted to hear that the Journal of Consumer Research has huge teams of scientists eagerly writing up their sinister research on how to exploit us.
One excellent study this month (DOI: 10.1086/593947) looked at how people choose a camera. The researchers took a single image and made two copies: one where the colours were more vivid, and one where the image was sharper. They told participants each image came from a different camera, and asked which they wanted to buy. A quarter chose the one with the more colourful image.
Then researchers piled it on. They said the other camera had more pixels, using a figure derived from the diagonal width of the sensor. Suddenly more than half picked this camera. Then they told them the other camera had more pixels, but this time they used the number of pixels as evidence: a figure measured in millions. Suddenly, three quarters chose the supposedly better camera.
This week you'll have noticed the news on rosuvastatin, or Crestor. The Jupiter trial on rosuvastatin reported months early, and most papers called it a "wonder drug". "Heart attacks were cut by 54%, strokes by 48% and the need for angioplasty or bypass by 46% among the group on Crestor compared to those taking a placebo or dummy pill," said the Daily Mail. Dramatic stuff. The Guardian said: "Researchers found that in the group taking the drug, heart attack risk was down by 54% and stroke by 48%".
Is this true? Yes. Those are the figures on risk, expressed as something called the relative risk reduction. It is the biggest possible number for expressing the change in risk. But 54% lower than what? The trial was looking at whether it is worth taking a statin if you are at low risk of a heart attack or a stroke, as a preventive measure: it is a huge market - normal people - but these are people whose baseline risk is already very low.
If you express the same risks from the same trial as an absolute risk reduction, they look less exciting. On placebo, your risk of a heart attack in the trial was 0.37 events per 100 person years; if you were taking rosuvastatin it fell to 0.17. Woohoo. And if you express the risk as numbers needed to treat, probably the most concrete way of expressing a benefit from an intervention, then a couple of hundred people need to take the pill to save one life.
So is it a good idea for you to take rosuvastatin? That's not my job to say, but the way figures are presented can have a huge impact on the decisions we make. This phenomena has been studied in many groups for many years.
In 1993, Malenka et al recruited 470 patients, and gave them details of a hypothetical disease, and a choice of two hypothetical treatments. In fact, it was the same treatment, with the risk expressed in two different ways: 56.8% chose the medication whose benefit was expressed as a relative risk reduction, while only 14.7% chose the medication whose benefit was in absolute terms.
Are patients uniquely stupid? Joy, no. The same result has also been found in experiments looking at doctors' prescribing decisions. We're all fooled by big numbers, because we're all idiots. That's why it's important to think clearly, and ignore all newspapers.
• Please send your bad science to bad.science@guardian.co.uk
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds -
FRIDAY 14. NOVEMBER, 2008
-
17:37
You have memorised your passwords and your PIN is secret, now it is the house keys that must be hidden from prying eyes.
Using only a camera, a computer and a key-cutting machine, scientists have duplicated sets of keys after taking snaps of them from more than 60 metres away.
Computer experts at the University of California in San Diego set out to show how easily keys could be copied from a digital image to highlight the potential security risk of leaving keys on display.
At a computer conference in Alexandria, Virginia, Stefan Savage, a computer security expert who led the "Sneakey" project, surfed the photo-sharing website Flickr and found pictures that clearly showed peoples' keys, even if personal information in the shots had been blurred out.
In one demonstration, the team cut duplicate keys after analysing images taken on a mobile phone. In another, they used a telephoto lens to take pictures of a set of keys on a cafe table from the roof of a university building.
The software re-orients images of keys and determines the dimensions of the peaks and notches that connect with a lock's mechanism. Then the information can be plugged into a key-cutting machine to produce an exact replica.
"We built our key duplication software system to show people that their keys are not inherently secret," Savage said. "Perhaps this was once a reasonable assumption, but advances in digital imaging and optics have made it easy to duplicate someone's keys from a distance without them even noticing."
Experts have been able to copy keys by hand from high-resolution photographs for some time, but Savage believes that cheap digital cameras and computer software mean almost anyone with basic technological know-how could do it.
"If you go onto a photo-sharing site such as Flickr, you will find many photos of people's keys that can be used to easily make duplicates. While people generally blur out the numbers on their credit cards and driver's licences before putting those photos on-line, they don't realise that they should take the same precautions with their keys," Savage said.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds -
17:30
-
16:38
Astronomers have taken the first pictures of planets orbiting a distant star using telescopes on the Hawaiian island of Mauna Kea.
Three giant planets were snapped around a star known as HR 8799 in the constellation of Pegasus, 130 light years from Earth. Until now, images of "exoplanets" beyond our solar system have only been taken from space, or inferred indirectly.
"We've been trying to image planets for eight years with no luck and now we have pictures of three planets at once, " said Bruce Macintosh an astrophysicist from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. The planets are several times the mass of Jupiter.
The astronomers used the Keck and Gemini telescopes on the island, according to a study in the journal Science. In the same issue, scientists using the Hubble Space Telescope reveal pictures of another planet, called Fomalhaut b, 25 light years from Earth in the constellation of Piscis Australis. It is the first exoplanet to be discovered purely visually.
"I nearly had a heart attack at the end of May when I confirmed that Fomalhaut b orbits its parent star," said astronomer Paul Kalas at the University of California, Berkeley. "It's a profound and overwhelming experience to lay eyes on a planet never before seen."
None of the planets are likely to host life, but astronomers believe at least some of the solar systems also have smaller, rocky planets like Mars or Earth that are much harder to spot.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds -
15:29Intelligent design and young Earth creationism are both false, but that does not discount the notion of creation, writes Michael Poole
-
15:25
In the light of disturbing YouTube footage of teenagers experimenting with legally obtained but unregulated and untested 'herbal highs', science correspondent Alok Jha examines Britain's drug classification system
-
13:42
-
11:11Plankton, bats, primates, fungi and bees - which species would have the greatest impact on our planet if it were lost?
-
03:39Great Southern ShakeOut held to prime residents of the area most vulnerable to earthquake
-
01:08As a child, Jo Rose discovered her father was a sperm donor. At 36, she still hasn't found him. She describes the battle to have her rights recognised, and find her identity
-
01:06Women in Leicester urged to get check-up if they had unprotected sex between 2002 and 2007
-
01:06From 14 November 2008 to 19 April 2009 the Natural History Museum in London is staging Darwin's Big Idea, an exhibition to mark the 200th anniversary of his birth
-
01:06
Naposledy aktualizované zdroje
-
PhysOrg (dnes, 21:24)
-
-
Yahoo! (dnes, 21:15)
-
NYT > Science (dnes, 19:55)
-
ScienceNOW (dnes, 19:55)
-
ScienceDaily (dnes, 19:34)
-
CBC - Technology & Science News (dnes, 18:39)
-
Discovery (dnes, 18:32)
-
Sci-Tech Today (dnes, 17:29)
-
BBC Science/Nature (dnes, 17:15)
-
National Geographic News (dnes, 17:01)
-
TIME (dnes, 11:10)
-
EurekAlert (dnes, 06:00)
-
NASA (2. 2, 21:27)
-
Technology Review Feed - Tech Review Top Stories (16. 1, 22:07)
