The beautiful Goal

This summer's World Cup got me all excited about soccer. It's no wonder I felt compelled in making a comeback on N2S3 with this nugget that speaks of science's ubiquity. A goal, hailed as the best free kick ever and forever linked to the beautiful game

Scientists studied Brazilian Roberto Carlos' 1997 free kick against the French team, a free kick that looks physically impossible... if you don't know your physic laws, that is.



The scientists observed two phenomena. First there was the Magnus effect, which give a spinning ball a curved trajectory. But this phenomenon has been known for a long time. The spinning ball faces air resistance at different velocities on its different sides which introduces a curve to its trajectory. (The World Cup's Jabulani was actually criticized for being too sensitive to the Magnus effect due to its perfect spherical shape.)

In addition to the magnus effect, the scientists reasoned that a ball launched at a particularly high velocity from a particularly great distance will, at some point, lose enough speed to abruptly change its initial trajectory. This is hardly a big revelation either. We've seen this before and quite often at that.

In fact, I liken this to a baseball pitcher who will handle its balls in different orientation before throwing it so the air affect the ball in different ways, creating its arsenal of pitches. The changeup, curveball, screwball and other pitches are all the result of how the ball and its seams interact with the air.

It's understandable the seams break the uniformity of the ball to the point where we see some wicked trajectories in baseball, but such a feat in soccer, where the ball is mostly uniform is, no doubt, remarkable.

Though we already knew the basics of how the seemingly magical goal happened, it's still fascinating to have it explained in one comprehensive coherent way.

But what could have pushed the scientists to devote their effort in validating and making sure the goal wasn't an hoax? Well... did I mention they are French?

Big questions and some answers

The Canadian institute for advance research (Cifar) has been touring the country for over a month and has asked some of the most profound questions in the canadian research sphere. Finding answers to these questions, I believe, would radically redefine the direction of research projects in their respective fields.

Montreal welcomed three of the 12 featured researchers and asked the audience to vote on what they considered the biggest and most pressing question to answer.

All three projects have merit and deserve the full support of the institute but being able to vote for the "biggest" question is an attracting way to get people involved. I first discovered that Gerard Bouchard, who needs no introduction in Quebec for having co-presided the infamous commission on reasonable accomodation, is a highly charismatic speaker. I was hung to every word he pronounced and of course, it helped that his theory was sound and grounded.

What makes a society resilient? Well, it has to do with the myths a society develops. Bouchard explained every society has myths or strong belief systems that shape how they act in different situations. There are master and corresponding myths. The first class or myths are, as Bouchard claims, at the roots of a society, while the second class of myths evolve with times and then changing contexts in order to support the 'master myths'.

"The American Dream" is one the United States' most enduring myth. Polls have shown that americans significantly believe, for instance, that the poor are ultimately responsible for their fate and live the life they live because they want to or do not exhibit the will to change it. "The American Dream" is America's master myth, engraved in the tissue of its society.

Following Bouchard's logic, one can see how several american values can be directly linked to the idea that America is the "Land of Opportunities" (entrepreneurship, equality of rights, Patriotism).

In the second pitch, Dr Hugh Wilson asked : Can we build a brain? His presentation spoke of how advanced the human brain is with comparison to current computer technologies. Building an articifial brain requires the creation of learning algorithms that could adapt to its environment.

This question is straight out of science-fiction's repertoire. The Matrix and Skynet are constant reminders that this ambitious project could lead to undesirable consequences...

I found the presentation to be the least interesting. How can political institutions best promote peace and prosperity? was about wealth and struggle between societies in establishing their own values and culture without compromising others right to do so... Well, I'm not much into social science.

The Next Big Question is a solid brand on its own. I have attended a few of these events and I must say, I like the concept. It's all about the idea of bringing cutting edge canadian research under the mainstream light. I'm pretty sure there is enough interest for it to stand as much more than a yearly Canada-wide tour.

Reporting on science

"Every day, science journalists head into the field to report, record and publish the slow progress of human knowledge... Imagine if you read tomorrow’s headline about the ongoing plane crash investigation."

This statement from blogger Drake Martinet reveals in a striking manner my main gripe about science reporting today. What you would read in the health and science pages of your newspaper is often minute details of a long process. Real breakthroughs take time and before reaching them there are often dead ends along the way. Each research that make it to mainstream is but a piece of a giant puzzle and we can all understand that a blue piece doesn't dictate that the whole puzzle represents a scene under the sea.

I think most science journalists realize that there is a need for proper training in understanding what they are being told. This is essential if we want to make better assessments of the impact a paper will have on its field. In fact, I would go as far as saying that no single paper can revolutionize a field on its own.

From now on, take everything you hear with a grain of salt. research papers are the arguments in the debates between scientists. They are like replies in an ongoing conversation and unless you've been following from the beginning or you've been provided with a context, there are chances you will misinterpret the statement you've just heard.

Watch For Trees

Watch for Trees from n2s3 on Vimeo.

Watch for Trees is the name of a fictional activist group promoting urban forests. The group would travel to different cities in Canada placing trees on the sidewalk, effectively creating a "forest" for the public to cross. There would be a WfT representative next to each tree to talk about one particular positive aspect of trees in urban environments.

The project was put together by my team and I as part of our final assignment for the Science Communication program in Banff Alberta.

The Big Gamble

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
Robert Frost


In many cases, when actions are taken, it takes a lot of time to start seeing results. The federal government showed it's not willing to wait for those results as it has decided that much of the research that has been done on climate change by the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) is not enough to warrant the renewing of its funding. The writing has been on the wall for years though. The foundation has not received new money ever since the Harper government took office.

Furthermore, climate-change scientists have been on their toes following a succession of actions that highlights this government's realignment in priorities. These actions almost double as a declaration of war to climate-change research. The latest of these moves has been the muzzling of Environment Canada where answers from the department are now vetted by government officers. As a result, the number of interviews and requests has dropped by over 80% according to documents from Environment Canada.

It's obvious our decision-makers have decided they no longer trust scientists to do their jobs properly. The fact that certain aspects of climate change are still being contested gives the Harper government ammunitions to keep on undermining the incoming incremental evidence. In its conduct, the government is saying that if at first scientists cannot bring undeniable proof, then it will deny the proof. In doing so, the government effectively neutralizes any chances of progress and uses the quagmire as evidence that the scientists' work is irrelevant and a waste of money.

The Harper government could be right in keeping tabs on certain agencies to make sure public funds are well spent. But the larger picture points to a worrying trend. As funding for basic climate-change research is getting slashed, more money is being poured into applied research such as projects that aim at reducing the environmental impact of oil sands (just saying). Canada is giving up on its lead in researches that could create new industries to instead concentrate on getting the most out of aging and dying industries.

In comparison, Science agencies in the United States have seen an increase in their share of the latest budget as the Obama administration tries to spur innovation. The United States will be looking into growing a market for renewable energy. Wind, solar and hydroelectric solutions will therefore be brought into prominence south of the border.

At the very least, our neighbors will pour resources into finding cheap energy alternatives such as clean coal and nuclear energy. By promoting clean and renewable energy, the United States are promoting the development of an economy that runs on new foundations. These bases will become the ground of partnerships with other countries taking similar approach. Once markets such as China and the EU take the plunge, the rest of the world will have no choice but to follow. Of course, Canada could have been ahead of the curve.

But I suspect we will learn the hard way that in a competitive world, the status quo is hardly ever the right decision.

Americans reevaluate Science

If you're into science, there is a lot like about the american's latest budget. Science agencies will see their share increase as the government tries to spur innovation. In fact, our neighbor's new attitude toward science is a sign the community's advices are being taken seriously.

The United States will be looking into growing a market for renewable energy. Wind, solar and hydroelectric solutions should therefor be brought into prominence south of the border.

At the very least, their government will pour resources into finding cheap energy alternatives. I guess the frontrunners in that category are clean coal and nuclear energy.

By promoting clean and renewable energy, the United States are taking steps into the construction of a new economy. This will become ground for partnerships with the other countries that are taking this approach. Once markets such as China and the EU take the plunge, the rest of the world will have not choice but to follow. Of course, Canada could have been ahead of the curve had it aggressively invest in new energies. But we all know how that ended.

We need to remain cautious and temper our optimism. Basic science needs long term support to be effective. With that said, the decision to cut NASA's space exploration program is not going to sit well with everyone. The new budget is betting on smaller agencies reasoning they are more flexible, think outside the boxe and are more likely to bring their projects to term. It's a valid argument when you omit that the problem with NASA's program might have had more to do with a lack of funding in the first place.

Regardless, the budget is still exciting news for the community and sets the bar to a standard I hope Canada will try to reach.

Friend or foe

The Game Show Network used to feature a show based on the prisoner's dilemma.

Friend or Foe paired two strangers who would answer questions as a team. The better they were, the more money they would make. But at the end of the show, each contestants would need to make a choice. They would secretly rate their partner as a friend or a foe. Two friends would share the loot, but if one rated their partner as a foe while the other considered him a friend, he would keep all the prize money. Then, of course, if both picked foe, they would both leave empty handed.

These type of dilemma are particularly interesting because what benefits both is less attractive than what benefits a single individual but if both are in it for themselves, then nobody wins.