New Technique Helps Neuroscientists Determine Consciousness

<section class="entry-content instapaper_body clearfix" itemprop="articleBody">
<div class="add-container clearfix" id="add-block-placer">
</div>
<p>
  The line between the conscious and unconscious mind has always been hard to draw. How do you determine if someone is still alive or thinking if they can’t move, speak, or blink? In fact, about 40% of people originally thought to be unconscious are later found to have some level of consciousness.
 </p>
<p>
  In the past, scientists thought they could tell simply by looking at patients’ brains through electroencephalography (EEG). The device measures the electrical activity in the brain. Unfortunately, this idea wasn’t as accurate as they hoped. When they hooked one up to a slab of Jell-O, they
  <a href="http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4121556">
   discovered
  </a>
  that it registered similar brainwaves (specifically, alpha waves) to a living, conscious adult. Needless to say, neuroscientists know that EEG alone isn’t enough to tell a thinking human being from a delicious dessert.
 </p>
<figure class="richtext-image full-width">
<img alt="" class="richtext-image full-width" src="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/media/images/eeg.width-990_uQAohy9.jpg"/>
<figcaption>EEG alone can't tell if a person is alive or conscious.
        
    </figcaption>
</figure>
<p>
  Now, scientists believe they’ve hit on a new combination of tools to better delineate who’s aware and who’s not. Published in Science Translational Medicine, researchers at the University of Milan used magnetic stimulation combined with EEG to create a scale of consciousness. The stimulation of brain cells was achieved by putting a large magnet near a patient’s head, a strategy called transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). (This technique has also been used—somewhat controversially—
  <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/boost-kids-brainpower.html">
   to boost brainpower
  </a>
  .) This resulting brain activity, which the researchers called an “echo,” was then picked up by an EEG. This data was translated into a numerical score (the perturbational complexity index, or PCI) between 0 and 1, with higher numbers—about 0.6 and above—representing consciousness in healthy individuals.
 </p>
<p>
  Here’s Kelly Servick, writing for AAAS’s ScienceNow:
 </p>
<blockquote>
<p>
   Then the researchers tested the index with 20 people who had suffered different types of brain damage. Those who were believed to be in a vegetative state—awake but completely unconscious—got very low scores (between 0.19 to 0.31). Subjects who had emerged from a coma had varying degrees of awareness and intermediate scores. Two of the patients had a condition known as
   <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/08/paralyzed-patients-speak-their-pupils">
    locked-in syndrome
   </a>
   : Their cognitive abilities were normal, but they were unable to move. These patients, who could communicate by shifting their eyes, received PCI scores of 0.51 and 0.62—as high as the waking, healthy subjects. Without requiring any active participation from subjects,
   <a href="http://stm.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.3006294">
    this index can reliably place them on a continuum between conscious and unconscious
   </a>
   , the team concludes.
  </p>
</blockquote>
<p>
  Researchers hope the technique will lead toward a more reliable way to determine consciousness. Or at least tell humans from Jell-O.
 </p>
</section>
<p>
 Photo by
 <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/springm/3190760941/">
  springm/Flickr (CC-BY-NC-ND)
 </a>
</p>

Programmable lighting is an early application of the internet of things, but experts caution that to become widespread, smart devices must satisfy a real need.

To Automate Everything, Solve These Three Challenges

<p>
 “It was a pain,” my dad says of the programmable thermostat we had in my childhood home. It was a plastic rectangle the size of a small envelope that jutted out from the wall. He would flip down the protective cover and tap the buttons to make the numbers on the digital display slowly tick up and down.
</p>
<p>
 “I could never remember how to do it. I would have to find the manual and try to read and do it at the same time,” he recalls. “When the power went out, we would have to start over.” His countless minutes of frustrated button-pushing made sure the house was cool during muggy summers or toasty when we woke up on cold winter mornings—a common occurrence in Minnesota. Yet, despite his best efforts, there were times when the temperature still wasn’t quite right. The air conditioner would keep blowing, for example, when we left the house on weekends. And he’d have to manually override the settings to keep out the chill of a blustery snow day.
</p>
<div class="ad"></div>
<p>
 It’s hard to imagine that same thermostat being cutting edge, but that’s exactly what it was more than 20 years ago. It was programmable, but in no way was it intelligent. The only intelligence it contained was that which the user transferred to it. Today, most people’s thermostats aren’t much different, but that’s starting to change.
</p>
<p>
 Thermostats are relatively banal devices, but as the startup Nest has shown, they are ripe for an overhaul. Nest’s thermostats can sense when people are home, monitor weather reports, and respond to commands from a smartphone, adjusting the temperature as needed. “In some ways, it is a first step in the right direction,” says Lorna Goulden, a technology consultant, regarding Nest and the incoming tide of smart devices. Indeed, the thermostat is just one of a slew of new devices that blur the boundary between virtual and physical worlds. They promise to make our built environments more intelligent, responsive, and efficient.
</p>
<p>
 Collectively, they are called the internet of things or the internet of everything. The concept was first envisioned back in the late 1990s during the dot-com bubble. Then, people anticipated a near-future where computers and the internet were everywhere. Now, fourteen years later, connected devices are just beginning to slip into homes, from smart thermostats to apps that unlock your door without a key. Smart objects are slowly transitioning from pioneering to practical.
</p>
<div class="related"></div>
<p>
 Yet just as the internet of things is poised to remake our homes and offices, it’s facing perhaps its most critical test: adoption by the average consumer. The intelligent future promised by entrepreneurs won’t catch on if those devices can’t connect to each other automatically, lack intuitive programmability, or aren’t appealing designed. If they fail at any one of these, automating our homes may be more trouble than its worth.
</p>
<p>
 But if engineers and designers can nail each of those requirements, then much like electricity did a century ago, the internet will course through our homes so seamlessly we may pay little attention to it as we go about our daily lives.
</p>
<h2>
 Connecting Everything
</h2>
<p>
 There’s a good chance that you already have an internet-connected device in your home. It may be a DVR or a set of wireless speakers. These are early components of the internet of things, but they’re missing something important—the ability to interact with the other objects in your home. “They’ve got a little bit of a learning curve,” says Craig Miller, vice president of worldwide marketing at Sequans Communications, which creates computer chips for smart devices.
</p>
<p>
 The most intelligent smart devices may need not just one connection, but two: one to the internet and another to fellow smart objects. We know how to handle the first one—just add a chip for Wi-Fi or cellular service like LTE and you’re online. Coordinating with other smart objects can pose a problem, though. Currently, device-to-device communication is experiencing some growing pains, much like wireless networking for computers did in the 1990s. It took a few years for competitors to settle on a standard, Wi-Fi, and a few more before it became widely adopted.
</p>
<div class="pullquote">
<p>
 Users don’t want to—and shouldn’t have to—think about how their refrigerator might talk with their dishwasher.
</p>
</div>
<p>
 “It’s not a lack of standards, it’s the fire hose of standards that’s the problem,” says Rob Faludi, an adjunct professor in the Interactive Telecommunications program at New York University and chief innovator at Digi International, a networking company. “But that’s always a problem with devices,” he adds, referring to the historical differences between computer platforms such as Windows and Mac. In that case, users felt computers were valuable enough to put up with the problem of incompatible devices. Eventually, a consensus developed around key standards, and the market coalesced around them.
</p>
<p>
 For now, the torrent of different networking standards poses a problem for average users, who don’t want to—and shouldn’t have to—think about how their refrigerator might talk with their dishwasher. Most smart devices currently require users to delve into application programming interfaces, known as APIs, for which you need a good deal of programming knowledge to use properly. Companies such as Microsoft are hoping to simplify the operation of a smart home, building dashboards that allow users to control disparate smart objects from their PCs or an all-controlling smartphone. But even these tools require some effort and knowledge to implement. Simplifying this process won’t be easy—the more devices in a network, the harder it is to coordinate.
</p>
<p>
 Engineers have a long road ahead of them, but if they can make communication seamless, there’s a lot of potential in that connectivity. Faludi offers the example of a home air conditioner and a security system: Say it’s been a hot three days and the air conditioner hasn’t turned on. There’s a good chance the occupant isn’t home, and, if the front door is unlocked, it might be time to close that deadbolt.
</p>
<h2>
 Programming It All
</h2>
<p>
 Connecting devices is only part of the challenge. To really unlock the power of the internet of things, smart devices’ functions must be accessible to average users without making them cede too much power. If people don’t feel in control, they’ll be hesitant to adopt the technology. “It can be very discomforting to come into a house and all [these] things start happening,” explains Jason Johnson, co-founder of the Internet of Things Consortium. In reality, intelligent homes will be only partly automated, giving users final say over what happens, just like our current relationship with computers.
</p>
<div class="pullquote">
<p>
 What people really want is “the Apple experience.”
</p>
</div>
<p>
 Even one of the closest examples of full automation today, Alex Hawkinson’s SmartThings, prompts users for guidance at the outset and later allows its decisions to be overridden through a smartphone app. For example, objects connected to the bathroom fan and the shower faucet may prompt the user whether they want the vent to turn on or the heater to fire up. Another may connect to the blinds and default to raise in the morning and lower in the evening, but will still allow people to raise and lower them manually. That way, there aren’t any surprises.
</p>
<p>
 As more smart devices are added to a home, the number of possibilities—but also the complexity—could grow exponentially. Finding the balance will be tricky. “If the usability is lacking at any step of the way, and frequent updates present more frustration than excitement and delight,” explains Goulden, the consultant, “then interest will quickly fade.” What people really want, Goulden says, is “the Apple experience”—pull it out of the box and it’s ready to start using.
</p>
<h2>
 Designing for Everyone
</h2>
<p>
 There’s one final, and often overlooked, challenge—design. It’s easy to see how bad design can frustrate a user—take the baffling array of buttons on the thermostat at my parents’ home. The buttons’ position, hidden behind a panel, made the whole package nicer to look at but not any easier to use.
</p>
<p>
 Contrast that with Nest, which has no buttons. Rather, its physical interface consists of one rotary dial. Not only does it pay homage to old thermostats—making the device seem less threatening—it’s also intuitive: turn right to raise the temperature, left to lower it. “It was born out of frustration, which I think many people can relate to when they’ve tried to program their programmable thermostat,” says Kate Brinks, director of communications for Nest.
</p>
<p>
 The best, easiest-to-use smart objects will likely look no different than devices we use today, Faludi points out. “A big chunk of this will just be baked into things that we buy,” he says. “You won’t buy an ‘internet of things.’ ”
</p>
<p>
 There will be entirely new products, but that shouldn’t untether design from reality, Johnson says. “Technology products shouldn’t look like technology products.” Developers should shoot for “something that either spouse could bring home and put on the kitchen counter,” he says. “And it gets past that ‘Ew, what is that thing.’ ”
</p>
<figure class="richtext-image full-width">
<img alt="" class="richtext-image full-width" src="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/media/images/programmable-lighting.width-990_Jvde9xO.jpg"/>
<figcaption>Programmable lighting is an early application of the internet of things, but experts caution that to become widespread, smart devices must satisfy a real need.
        
    </figcaption>
</figure>
<p>
 And rather than just being “smart” for technology’s sake, the devices should also address people’s actual needs, he says. “We need to develop products that are very practical, that are solving very real problems,” he says. “Not just, ‘Gee whiz, wouldn’t it be cool if I could turn on the lights from my phone?’ ”
</p>
<p>
 Goulden adds that, in her consulting, she advises clients that smart objects should act as an extension of the user. “How do you take an individual’s identity and how do you relate that to the objects that are around them?” The more relatable the object, the simpler it is to understand.
</p>
<h2>
 Too Smart a Future?
</h2>
<p>
 As the internet of things becomes a larger—and less visible—part of our lives, it could change the entire meaning of privacy. The media went wild in July when two security researchers
 <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/security-researchers-find-a-way-to-hack-cars/">
  turned a Jeep Cherokee
 </a>
 into a child’s toy, controlling it remotely through the car’s digital diagnostic port. But future security hacks need not be so flashy to be concerning. The internet of things has the potential make not just individuals but hospitals, governments, and cities vulnerable. If everything—from medical devices like pacemakers or pill dispensers to infrastructure like bridges and railroads—is on the network, then the consequences can be deadly.
</p>
<p>
 The number of vulnerable points—the “surface area” for attacks—with a connected device is often greater than people realize, says Chris Poulin, a research strategist with IBM Security. For example, if you have a Nest, it’s not just that someone could get into the physical blob on your wall. There’s also, “the mobile app, which connects to Nest’s [data servers], and then to the Nest in the house, which connects to the WiFi, which again connects to Nest’s data servers…the surface is just really broad.”
</p>
<p>
 That’s part of what the Federal Trade Commission worried about in their
 <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/01/ftc-report-internet-things-urges-companies-adopt-best-practices">
  report last January
 </a>
 . People need to consider not just unauthorized access to their smart fridge or connected garage door, they stated. Consumers should also be aware that their personal information being collected from their smart objects could potentially be accessed by future banks, employers, or insurers who might make decisions based on that information.
</p>
<p>
 In September, the FBI released a
 <a href="http://www.ic3.gov/media/2015/150910.aspx">
  cyber crime public service announcement
 </a>
 , explaining how the internet of things can be exploited. Among their recommendations for how to defend against those exploits is a simple suggestion: “Consider whether IoT devices are ideal for their intended purpose.” In other words, the first step for a consumer should be, is that smart fridge really necessary? Lee Tien, a specialist in privacy and civil liberties at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says consumers must watch out for themselves because the companies aren’t always able to. Especially when devices are made by small startups, he says, and “not in the first tier of expertise of security.” Bruce Schneier, a computer security and privacy expert, says after devices are shipped, companies have no incentive to update old software or computer chips to ensure future loopholes are fixed—they’re too busy working on their next thing. He says until the makers of devices go open-source and allow outside engineers to help find and fix security problems, this will always be the case. However, the new problems are slowly growing interesting solutions. Companies like Honeywell that once were known for protecting your home now protect industrial plants working in oil, gas, chemicals, or minerals and use the internet of things. For consumers, Schneier says large companies that control your entire ecosystem of technology, whether it be Google or anyone else, will be how people keep their hardware and software up-to-date. “Apple does security for all iOS users. This is the future.” Yet there is a contingent that doesn’t see privacy concerns holding up adoption. Faludi argues that people are “always going to have concerns about security and privacy,” adding that, “they’re problems for developers to solve, but they’re not really any kind of barrier.” Researchers like Faludi are wary that a lack of confidence in the future could stop adoption.
</p>
<h2>
 On the Cusp
</h2>
<p>
 Despite the hurdles, the potential for the internet of things is enormous. Not only could it simplify many aspects of our daily lives, it could also make our homes more energy efficient, saving us money and reducing our environmental footprint. And few stand to benefit more than people with disabilities. For some, even simple tasks take an inordinate amount of time and effort. Automating those would allow them to direct their energy toward more important things in their lives.
</p>
<div class="newsletter"></div>
<p>
 It may take some time for that to happen, though. Smart objects are starting to trickle into the marketplace, but widespread use of the internet of things is still five to ten years off, according to industry analysts at Gartner, a market research firm. That’s good news for the engineers, developers, and designers who are trying to work out the many kinks that remain.
</p>
<p>
 Should they succeed in making smart objects intuitive, transparent, and minimally invasive, though it’s likely that people like my parents, who are sick of tapping buttons to program everyday life, will adopt them. There are signs they’re getting closer; My dad called the other day, clearly smiling through the phone. “Your mom and I are thinking about getting a Nest.”
</p>
<p>
<i>
  This post was originally published on October 16, 2013. The section “Too Smart a Future?” was updated on October 14, 2015.
 </i>
</p>
<p>
 Photo credits: Nest Labs,
 <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/philips_newscenter/9655036938/">
  philips_newscenter/Flickr (CC-BY-NC-ND)
 </a>
</p>

<p>Internet-connected devices promise to automate our lives, but we still have to solve these three challenges.</p>

Carbyne: The New Strongest Stuff on Earth

<section class="entry-content instapaper_body clearfix" itemprop="articleBody">
<div class="add-container clearfix" id="add-block-placer">
</div>
<p>
  A few decades ago, scientists learned about a curious form of carbon, known as carbyne, thought to be even stronger than graphene and diamond, two of the strongest materials known to man. They managed to synthesize chains of it in the lab and some astronomers even think they’ve detected its signature in space, but no one really understood its properties—until now.
 </p>
<p>
  The Physics arXiv Blog:
 </p>
<blockquote>
<p>
   It’s hard to believe that carbon has any more surprises up its sleeve. And yet today, Mingjie Liu and pals at Rice University in Houston calculate the properties of another form of carbon that is stronger, stiffer and more exotic than anything chemists have seen before.
  </p>
<p>
   The new material is called carbyne. It’s a chain of carbon atoms that are linked either by alternate triple and single bonds or by consecutive double bonds.
  </p>
</blockquote>
<p>
  Much like graphene, carbyne is just one atom thick, giving it incredible surface area for any given mass. Scientists also estimate that it is nearly 3 times stiffer than diamond.
 </p>
<figure class="richtext-image full-width">
<img alt="" class="richtext-image full-width" src="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/media/images/carbyne-strong1.width-990_3vTqYPr.jpg"/>
<figcaption>A twisted strand of carbon nanotube
        
    </figcaption>
</figure>
<p>
  Sebastian Anthony writing for
  <a href="http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/163997-carbyne-a-new-form-of-carbon-thats-stronger-than-graphene">
   Extreme Tech
  </a>
  , highlights some of the potential uses:
 </p>
<blockquote>
<p>
   A single gram of graphene, for example, has a surface area of about five tennis courts. This could be very important in areas such as energy storage (batteries, supercapacitors), where the surface area of the electrode is directly proportional to the energy density of the device.
  </p>
</blockquote>
<p>
  Unfortunately, carbyne chains are not entirely stable and can react explosively when they touch another chain, though Liu and her team say that will likely only happen at higher temperatures. At room temperature, the substance condenses in a matter of days. That should open up all sorts of uses for this novel material.
 </p>
<p>
  It’s just another fascinating discovery for carbon, the chemical basis of all known life.  You can learn more about carbon’s allotropes, specifically carbon nanotubes, in the NOVA episode “Making Stuff: Stronger.” Be sure to fast-forward to 25:51.
 </p>
<div class="cove-box flex-video" data-cove-id="1701025927" data-cove-params="&amp;topbar=false">
</div>
</section>
<p>
 Photo by
 <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeissmicro/9344348940/">
  ZEISS Microscopy/Flickr (CC-BY-NC-ND)
 </a>
</p>

"Debugging" the Wings of a Plane

<section class="entry-content instapaper_body clearfix" itemprop="articleBody">
<div class="add-container clearfix" id="add-block-placer">
</div>
<p>
  Flying headfirst into a fine mist of bugs sounds like the stuff of nightmares, but it could be a solution for a classic aerospace engineering problem, or as NASA calls it, “
  <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/connect/chat/laminar_flow_chat.html#.UhO4KmRVQkc">
   aviation’s holy grail
  </a>
  .”
 </p>
<p>
  Jason Paur of Wired:
 </p>
<blockquote>
<p>
   Laminar flow is the aerodynamic phenomenon engineers use to minimize turbulence in airflow next to the wing’s surface. Less turbulence means less drag. Less drag means greater efficiency. But laminar flow is highly susceptible to irregularities on the wing surface.
  </p>
</blockquote>
<p>
  These irregularities include rivets, hinges, flaps, and yes, insects that stick to plane wings. The more insects on wings, the lower the fuel efficiency of the plane.
 </p>
<figure class="richtext-image full-width">
<img alt="Wing of Plane" class="richtext-image full-width" src="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/media/images/plane-wing.width-990_TzTOn1c.jpg"/>
<figcaption>The future of flight takes some guts (of bugs, that is).
        
    </figcaption>
</figure>
<p>
  Bugs are unavoidable at lower altitudes, and the mess that’s created during takeoff sticks with the plane through the entire trip. Engineers are working to minimize the splatter, but they can’t test their possible solutions on planes carrying passengers for obvious safety reasons. So what’s an engineer to do? Well, the German Aerospace Center has been flying Airbus A320s no more than a few hundred feet off the ground, where most bugs are in the air column, at the Magdeburg-Cochstedt airport in Germany. The research team has made as many as 30 low-level passes per day on each of their four separate outings.
 </p>
<p>
  The splatter patterns have given them some interesting ideas.
 </p>
<p>
  Again, Jason Paur:
 </p>
<blockquote>
<p>
   The researchers think it is possible to design a leading edge slat – the device that slides forward during take off and landing at the front of the wing – that would direct the airflow in a way to minimize the number of bugs impacting the wing.
  </p>
</blockquote>
<p>
  It may not make for a smoother ride, but it’ll make for a cleaner—and more fuel efficient—plane.
 </p>
</section>
<p>
 Photo by
 <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/krispykat69/4235976155/">
  KrispyKat69/Flickr (CC-BY-NC-ND)
 </a>
</p>

These underwater predators aren't as dangerous to humans as we may think.

Why you won't be attacked by a shark

<div class="related"></div>
<p>You know the scene: A woman’s legs kicking underwater. A black mass rising slowly from the depths. A triangular fin slicing through the water. For many, it’s that <a href="http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/08/international-shark-week/">time of year</a> when <i>Jaws</i> is on the mind.</p><p>But according to <i>Oceana</i> , of the nearly 500 species of sharks, only about a dozen are potentially dangerous to humans. Even for those species that are, humans aren’t preferred prey. Furthermore, they don’t attack people that often—certainly not enough to warrant their stereotype. In fact, sharks can be a greater danger to other sharks than to humans. Unborn sand tiger sharks, for example, have been known to devour their own siblings inside the womb. Not only are the sharks eating their fellow brothers’ and sisters’ bodies, but also the unfertilized eggs in a fit of “embryonic cannibalism.”</p><p>Juliet Eilperin, reporting for <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/06/us-shark-attack-statistics-fears">The Guardian</a> , dove into the Florida Museum of Natural History’s International Shark Attack File and found that of the 80 unprovoked shark attacks on humans in 2012 worldwide, just seven resulted in death.</p><p>In other words, the odds are pretty slim. Eilperin elaborates:</p><p>More Americans were killed by collapsing sinkholes (16) than sharks (11) between 1990 and 2006, and more by tornadoes (125) than sharks (6) in Florida between 1985 and 2010.</p><p>You can minimize those chances even further by staying aware when in the water. Christopher Neff, a shark attack expert at the University of Sydney, explained to <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130704-shark-attack-prevention-response-ocean-beach-animal-science/">National Geographic</a> that people should consider the following three questions:</p><p>First, I ask, “What’s the weather?” because swimming while it’s overcast or stormy isn’t a good idea. Incoming storms can cause the tide to stir up baitfish, and we want to avoid getting in the way of sharks and their prey. It’s recommended that bathers stay out of the water for 24 hours after a storm, not just [until] the next morning.</p><p>Second, “What’s the time of day and the environmental conditions?” We all know to avoid swimming at dawn and dusk and when the water is cloudy. But we also want to be conscious of other marine life and the seasons…</p><p>And third, “What am I doing?” Tips that can help reduce risk include not swimming alone or far away from shore. Simply put, swim in a group and stay close in.</p>
<div class="ad"></div>
<p>Should you spot a shark swimming menacingly toward you, there are a few things you <i>shouldn’t</i> do. David Shiffman, a Ph.D. student at the University of Miami’s Abess Center for Ecosystem Science, debunks a few shark fighting myths over at <a href="http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/08/how-to-survive-the-shark-attack-that-is-never-going-to-happen-to-you/#.UgEln_bNdnW.twitter">Smithsonian Magazine</a>. For one, punching a shark in the nose is not necessarily the best option. Neither is playing dead, especially since some sharks like defenseless prey. Instead, you should go for the eyes—striking a shark’s eyelid-like protective barrier can surprise them.</p><p>Regardless, you can at least be sure you won’t be bitten by a <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2013/08/05/shark-week-jumps-the-shark-an-open-letter-to-discovery-communications/#.UgEEh2RVQkc">Megalodon</a> any time soon. (No matter how much respondents to a recent Discovery Channel poll want the ancient giant to be alive, the species is still very much extinct.)</p><p>For more shark facts, visit Ed Yong’s <a href="http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/06/like-shark-week-but-with-actual-facts/">Not Exactly Rocket Science</a> or follow marine conservation biologist <a href="https://twitter.com/WhySharksMatter">David Shiffman on Twitter</a>.</p>
<p>Photo by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sharkbait/2992242065/">sharkbait/Flickr (CC-BY-NC-ND)</a></p>
<div class="newsletter"></div>

Alison Bruzek

Articles

New Technique Helps Neuroscientists Determine Consciousness

To Automate Everything, Solve These Three Challenges

Carbyne: The New Strongest Stuff on Earth

"Debugging" the Wings of a Plane

Why you won't be attacked by a shark

Support Provided By