Kirsten: Yes
Justin: But the taste – like how come that one’s sour? But then I realized – no – taste is actually being analyzed. You don’t have as much video analyzing. You can create an eyeball but you don’t have a watcher behind it.
You can create recordings but you don’t have somebody, you don’t have a robot actually analyzing sound, disseminating it, telling you what it is, telling you about it. Like hmm, I think that’s the sound of smish smish smish, right? No. So actually having a robot…
Kirsten: You could.
Justin: Having a robot that clued in and maybe it’s just chemical analysis. Is it guessing? I guess because we all guess. [laughter] I don’t know, but that’s kind of me. I like that.
Kirsten: We all guess. Yes, I think and it’s
Justin: taste.
Kirsten: Yes, it is all chemicals. And so we have machines that do spectrographic analysis of chemicals that can tell you based on the light spectra, the reflective property of various molecules. What a particular substance is made up of? How many chemicals are in it? What potential chemicals they might be in? Why not extend that to aroma?
Justin: Yes.
Kirsten: Because those are volatile chemicals that are coming into the air.
Justin: Is it going to have like a taster there that’s got like bitters on one end and more sweets towards the other side? [laughter]
Kirsten: Yes it’ll be interesting. I think what’s really fascinating also is people talk about audio quality and how digital recordings don’t have the same audio – the deep, satisfying feeling that sometimes analog recordings have. It’s the same thing going to happen with the digital takeover of other sensory input in creating coffees for us to drink, in creating food for us to eat.
Justin: Yes
Kirsten: Or colors for us to see. Is that digital creation while we’re basing it on what we know and trying to map it as accurately to the human experience as possible? Is that going to somehow because it’s too much specific information, somehow lessen it? I don’t know.
Justin: Maybe.
Kirsten: Or because it’s missing the random stuff?
Justin: But then again there’s like millions and millions or maybe it’s billions of people who’ve been served a particular kind of hamburger where there’s an actual factory that comes up with the meat flavor that they add to it later.
It doesn’t actually have a flavor to it, they have to add the meat-tasting flavor to it. And still people eat the hamburgers and don’t care.
Kirsten: This is soy protein injected with meat flavor. This Week in Science is taking a break. Stay tuned. [radio break]
[Music]
Kirsten: And we’re back. That was Anton Barbo with “Science”. That’s part of our 2006 compilation CD. The 2008 compilation CD – I’m looking for people to submit songs to us.
Justin: Oh, that’s right. I got to get in to our recording studio. I’m going to announce some tracks.
Kirsten: That’s right. If you are a musician or a band or know somebody who is, write us a song. Science inspired. Make it something science-y, robot-y, end of the world-y. Yes, whatever, whatever. Beam it up, send us a song. kirstenatthisweek@science.com.
If you are interested and I’ll just basically tell you, send me a link to a song somewhere so I can take a listen to it and see if we want it on the show, on the CD or just send me an MP3 and that might work also. In the eventuality of actually bringing the song in a CD, I want a WAV file or an AIF file.
Justin: This has been, this is one thing that’s like, there’s a lot of publicity that takes place- International from submitting one of these songs.
Kirsten: That’s right.
Justin: What’s the girl that the first year we did this show? Did that little- gosh she wrote a song for us? What was her name, Winehouse? [laughter] And now look at her right? Now she’s doing really good. She’s got the Grammy nominations or something.
Kirsten: That’s right. Well we have a special guest on the line. Dr. Michael Stebbins.
Justin: Dr. Michael Stebbins!
Kirsten: I just got to turn Justin down every time he does that “Welcome!”
Justin: Good morning, Michael!
Kirsten: Wait.
Dr Michael Stebbins: Good morning.
Justin: Doctor?
Kirsten: Doctor? Doctor Doctor! [laughter] How are you today?
Dr Michael Stebbins: Good reference. I’m doing well today. How are you guys?
Kirsten: Fabuloso.
Justin: I’m doing good, yes.
Kirsten: Yes. You’re bringing us some nice news from D.C. today?
Dr Michael Stebbins: Unfortunately, no. But there is one amusing story if you’d like.
Kirsten: Oh, we always love to be amused. [laughter]
Dr Michael Stebbins: Alright, you want me to start off with the amusing story?
Kirsten: Mmm
Dr Michael Stebbins: And the challenge to the listeners?
Justin: Yes!
Kirsten: Yes, yes.
Dr Michael Stebbins: Cool.
Justin: They’re challengeable.
Kirsten: Challenge is good.
Dr Michael Stebbins: Ok. So the President released his budget a couple of weeks ago now. In the budget there was an overall increase in funding for research and development. But it was a low increase and for each department it’s still not clear because the budget was particularly in a very strange way.
However, when we redid some analysis on it, in particular a scientist named Genius for America actually posted an analysis of one section of the budget by a phone name Gerald Epstein from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In it he found that there’s a mystery $2 billion in the 2009 Homeland Security Research and Development budget.
Kirsten: A mystery?
Dr Michael Stebbins: Yes, because nobody seems to understand what it’s for. When we go through it, it’s probably for Project Bioshield which is the …
Kirsten: It’s a secret project?
Dr Michael Stebbins: Right.
Justin: Well, it was. Thanks a lot.
Dr Michael Stebbins: Project Bioshield was funded in 2004 in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill to fund the procurement of medical counter measures and the therapeutics, and vaccines. They could be purchased by United States government and placed in the strategic national stock pile for use in the event of a bioterrorist attack or other national medical emergency.
Kirsten: Right.
Justin: They’re going to buy lots of Theraflu or something.
Kirsten: That’s right.
Dr Michael Stebbins: Exactly. So it was about $5.4 billion that was put up then. But now there’s this extra $2 billion. Nobody can figure out what it’s for.
Kirsten: Then you guys are a bunch of smart people looking over this budget.
Dr Michael Stebbins: People has been coming through this budget and they can’t even determine, they can’t even agree upon whether the Department of Energy, for example, is getting a cut or if it’s getting an increase because the budget is put together in a very convoluted way this year. So this particular one …
Kirsten: Tricky tricky.
Dr Michael Stebbins: This $2 billion we have no idea what it’s for. Now, it’s in a weird part of the budget, too. It’s in the part of the Homeland Security Research and Development budget for procurement of facilities and equipment. Since Project Bioshield has already been appropriated $5.4 billion total, we’re really not sure what the extra $2 billion is for.
Justin: After party?
Dr Michael Stebbins: $2 billion would build one hell of a building. Here’s the challenge to listeners. If they can figure out what the $2 billion is for, I’ll give them a signed copy of my book, for example, if they want that.
But I don’t think anyone’s going to be able to figure it out because we’ve actually gone as far as to, off the record, people at the Department of Homeland Security aren’t really sure of what it’s for. At least they’re not saying.
The press is not ticked up on this stuff but if people want to read about it, they can read on it on Scientist and Engineers for America Action Fund website which is sefora.org and it’s one of the top stories. It’s the mystery $2 billion.
Dr. Epstein went through this thing in detail. Really, if he can’t figure it out, it’s kind of astonishing. Anyhow, so there’s the $2 billion at stake here. You don’t get any part of the $2 billion if you figure out where it’s from. But you’ll get this little bit of satisfaction, perhaps – that the administration has to explain it. Wouldn’t it be nice if the press actually took a look at this too. Because how an you have a mystery $2 billion?
Justin: Well, the problem is the people who join the press corp. They’ve been typically speaking just over generalization are the people who are like “Gosh, Math is hard. I want to try to do a job where I just hock.”
Dr Michael Stebbins: Aw.
Kirsten: Justin.
Justin: Oh yes, gosh I just self-monitor and I’m saying better because I just like yes, it got me.
Dr Michael Stebbins: But there are a lot of press people who do cover Homeland Security stuff. The fact that they haven’t done actually taken – they haven’t figured out that there’s an extra $2 billion. If you look at it, it’s a 188% increase in Homeland Security Research and Development.
No other department gets anything close to that increase. So if you’re just flipping through the budget, you’d see this. But if you look everywhere else through the budget there’s no mention of where this $2 billion will go. If you think there was a $2 billion initiative that the President was launching, you’d kind of brag about it.
Kirsten: That’s a bit of money there.
Dr Michael Stebbins: What is this? Is the $2 billion a typo? Nobody knows.
Kirsten: So if somebody were to want to contact you about this particular issue where should they …?
Dr Michael Stebbins: Absolutely. They can get in touch with me through the website stebbins@sefora.org. They can get me there. I’d be happy to discuss it with them because we’re perplexed. So that’s where we’re at on the budget. We are still pouring through it trying to figure out the details of it so we could tell the public exactly what all the changes that the President made in the budget this year are. But we are having serious trouble actually going through it and getting straight numbers.
Kirsten: Wow.
Justin: But it’s the Department of Homeland Security. It can’t be for anything bad. I mean, they didn’t call it the Department of Internal or American Compliance with the – It’s not the Department of War, right? It’s the Department of Homeland Security. It’s fine. I’m sure they’re going to spend that $2 billion on nice things.
Dr Michael Stebbins: Well, we used to have a Department of War, now called the Department of Defense. They should change the name.
Justin: Yes, the more lethal your department becomes, the more you have to water down the name to make it friendlier. [laughter]
Dr Michael Stebbins: So lookout for the Department of Floppy Bunnies.
Kirsten: That’s right.
Justin: That one, those are killers.
Dr Michael Stebbins: Those guys are evil.
Kirsten: They’ve got big fangs, big fangs.
Dr Michael Stebbins: So, there’s that. Anyhow, Congress is now investigating a Washington D.C. based firm which critics charge manufacturer’s uncertainty on behalf of chemical companies. Now we’ve talked about this phenol. This is the chemical additive that makes plastic soft. And which there’s been some concern about because there’s been some indication that low doses of this substance can disrupt hormone systems in laboratory animals and possibly increase the risk of cancer and other serious illnesses. The American Chemistry Council has defended the chemical saying that it’s completely safe. However …
Kirsten: There’s always one of those. [laughter]
Justin: Inst there?
Dr Michael Stebbins: There’s always a however. However, there’s been a release of a letter from this company called The Weinberg Group where they actually state to DuPont that there are several.