science journalism

Yes, of course snakes can fly! It's 2020, isn't it?

The New York Times and CNN are reporting this week on a scientific study on the phenomenon of flying snakes. There are at least five snake species in the world that are capable of exploiting some quirk of their physiology in order to “fly.” Certain lizards can flatten their ribs into a kind of sail, and flying squirrels “fly” from tree to tree by extending a furry membrane on each of their sides.

The new stories and study caught my eye because I met the lead scientist, Professor Jake Socha, about 20 years ago, when he was first investigating the airborne reptiles at the University of Chicago. Today, Socha is a professor at Virginia Tech, not far from where I live today.

If we can figure out how the snakes do what they do, Socha says, we have a shot at building unconventional robots that can do the same thing.

Back in the day, I drove to a field outside Chicago on a warm fall afternoon to watch snakes fly. The science magazine Discover wanted me to do an article Socha’s promising work. I remember spending the better part of that afternoon in one of three spots. I was either up on a scaffold, watching Socha release the snake from a protruding stick. Or I was on the ground, off to the side, watching the side view of the snake’s descent. Or I was just in front of the scaffold, on the ground, watching how the snake moved as he dropped down, almost at my feet.

I could have done this for hours. It was probably one of the coolest things I’d ever witnessed. The snake was a small paradise tree snake, which hailed from Asia. At first I thought, “Well, the snake’s just dropping out of the sky. No big whoop.” But no. The longer I watched, it was clear that this little dude was doing something different. A falling body would just plummet to the ground in an ungainly manner. This guy was unafraid of falling. He crawled out onto a stick, dipped down a little bit, and launched himself into the air. He wriggled through the air, and landed several feet from the presumed drop point.

We say birds and insects “fly” because they achieve lift. They can go up and down. But the lizards and squirrels I just mentioned are more often gliding. They leap from a high place, and with subtle movements direct their descent to a more desirable location—an adjacent tree—than simply hitting the ground.

I’m far from an expert on reptile motility, but that’s what the snake was doing back in Chicago all those years ago. Each time the snake launched, it seemed to suck up its belly, flatten its ribs, and turn its body into sort of an inverted U. That flattened shape allowed it to better slow its descent, and extend its linear travel path. It was not so much flying as gliding, which is just as good if nature has assigned you a lifetime of tree-dwelling. Its performance was intelligent, graceful, and amazing.

It was also, apparently, hard to photograph. At least, that’s what I was told when I got back to New York. I remember sitting in a meeting in which a renowned photographer told the magazine’s editor that he couldn’t possibly shoot the snake in the wild. It had to be in a studio with lights. He needed to set up a stationary camera, and have the snake pass directly in front of it. But he was not encouraging that the resulting shots would look good. Even if he managed to shoot a series of cool freeze-frame images, they’d be too static. How would readers of a print magazine know that the snake was flying?

It’s sort of like the problem early filmmakers faced when they started shooting movies featuring aircraft. No matter how fast a biplane was flying, aerial dogfight scenes looked pretty boring until you added a backdrop of clouds. That’s when the movie audience could appreciate the action.

Back in 2000, this editorial conversation drove me crazy. I was low on the totem pole. Just the writer. All I could pretty much do was sputter to myself. People have been looking at pictures of flying squirrels for years in nature magazines, I thought. How can you not take a picture of a freaking flying snake?

And today, as I was looking at the gorgeous footage of the flying snake in these new stories—which are here and here—all I could think was, back in 2000, I was writing for the wrong medium. What we really needed was the Internet. A good Internet, capable of running videos. And back then, a print magazine left much to be desired. And what Internet we had was shit.

The story never ran. The magazine paid for my travel to Chicago, and the nice dinner I had with Socha. I’m not even sure they paid me for the story. Because it never ran.

But I exacted my revenge some years later. The story finally saw the light of day in The Scientist and the Sociopath, a collection of some of my best science writing.

September 2020 update: Yes, it would be awesome if you checked out my book. But what you really should do is check out Socha’s new video on flying snakes. The snake starts flying at about the 16-minute mark in this recent video.

Professor Jake Socha, VT Biomedical Engineering and Mechanics, discusses his research studying the movement of flying snakes.


Yes, I am trying to post here more often. Thank you for noticing. If you want to sign up for my newsletter and claim your collection of free ebooks, go here. Thanks!

***

Blue snakes at top: Trevor Cole via Unsplash

Hacker News readers weigh in on my 2000 Discover article

Photo by Sasha • Stories on Unsplash

Back in January I told you how an article I wrote for Discover magazine in the year 2000 was suddenly back in the news, garnering, among other things, a mention in a CNN piece. That same Discover story was recently re-discovered by a slew of readers at the computer science news site, Hacker News, sparking a thread of nearly 150 comments.

The thread is here, if you want to check it out.

A reminder: The 20-year-old Discover story asked scientists, physicians, and other experts to predict what life would be like in 2020. “What You’ll Need to Know in 2020 That You Don’t Know Now,” appeared in the September 2000 issue of the science magazine. Among other things, we reported that in 2020 we’d need to know how to talk to our homes, that we’d fret a lot about our online reputations, and we’d need to have our irises scanned to board aircraft. All sorta, kinda true, as the folks discussing it on this thread point out.

There are certainly some quibbles among the comments, which is what makes these kind of things interesting.

Does that mean I’m an “old” writer?

Does that mean I’m an “old” writer?

“Prepare Yourself for 2020”

“Prepare Yourself for 2020”

If you’re interested, my original story lives on the Discover magazine website.

The CNN article is here. (My article is mentioned late in the piece.)

If you’re into science, my Discover story also appears in my nonfiction book, The Scientist and the Sociopath, which is a collection of my best science writing.

The Scientist and the Sociopath, by Joseph D'Agnese

I hope you liked this post. If you want to stay better in touch, please consider signing up for my newsletter. I use that platform to talk about various writing projects, and upcoming books. As a thank you for subscribing, you’ll get a handful of ebooks, including one that you can’t get anywhere else.

Credit: Crystal ball image by Sasha • Stories on Unsplash

That Time I Predicted the Future–and CNN noticed…

Photo by Sasha • Stories on Unsplash

Before January 2020 slips away, I should probably talk about how I ended up mentioned in a CNN article five days into this New Year. Before the old year ended, I started getting emails from various people–reporters, educators, others–asking me to comment on an article I wrote for Discover twenty freaking years ago.

In the year 2000, I wrote an article that predicted what life would be like in 2020. “What You’ll Need to Know in 2020 That You Don’t Know Now,” appeared in the September 2000 issue of the science magazine. Among other things, I wrote that in 2020 we’d need to know how to talk to our homes, that we’d fret a lot about our online reputations, and we’d need to have our irises scanned to board aircraft.

Twitter screenshot

Am I a genius prognosticator and futurist? Hardly. I was just a reporter who interviewed a bunch of really smart people. As I recall, when the editors of the magazine hired me to write the story, they already had the title in mind but weren’t 100 percent sure that it would bear fruit. My editor and I drew up a list of scientists the magazine had worked with or had interviewed in the recent past, and set me free to contact as many as I could and ask them how they saw the future shaping up.

“Prepare Yourself for 2020”

“Prepare Yourself for 2020”

At the time I thought some of the predictions were off the wall. The one about cleaning up our digital reputations, for example, seemed nutty to me. But in the year 2000, I had been surfing the web for all of three years. Social media as we knew it didn’t exist. Facebook wasn’t created until four years after my article, but geniuses like virtual reality pioneer Jaron Lanier, quoted in my story, were already thinking about how such platforms would alter the way we interact with others and how we think of ourselves.

When I look at the article today, it feels like a lot of predictive literature—it’s only accurate if you look at it a certain way. Yes, some of us are talking to our homes, but does Alexa count? Some of us are having our irises scanned to get preferential TSA treatment, but most of us are shlepping our way through security the old-school way.

Actually, strike that. Not a single one of the scientists and thinkers I interviewed predicted 9/11—an event that occurred eleven months from the publication of that magazine issue. Indeed, none of the articles written by my fellow reporters in that futures issue predicted that a single act of terrorism would forever alter American life, security, and so on.

So I can completely understand the tone of the CNN article that gently mocks the predictions of futurists.

Anyway, if you’re interested, my original story lives on the Discover magazine website.

The CNN article is here. (My article is mentioned late in the piece.)

And here’s just a random article about how science fiction writers imagined the 2020s.

If you’re into science, my Discover story also appears in my nonfiction book, The Scientist and the Sociopath, which is a collection of my best science writing.

The Scientist and the Sociopath, by Joseph D'Agnese

Here’s to a wonderful 2020 for all of us, and to a future most of us have barely imagined.


I hope you liked this post. If you want to stay better in touch, please consider signing up for my newsletter. I use that platform to talk about various writing projects, and upcoming books. As a thank you for subscribing, you’ll get a handful of ebooks, including one that you can’t get anywhere else.

Credit: Crystal ball image by Sasha • Stories on Unsplash

Time Is Not Money. Sleep Is.

Zzzzzzzzzz….

Zzzzzzzzzz….

You’re on deadline, and the project just isn’t coming together. You fuss, polish, tinker, and do just about everything you can to make it gel, but despite your best efforts, you just can’t seem to make any meaningful headway. So you stop. You quit for a day and get a good night’s sleep. Next morning, the thing comes together beautifully, seemingly without a hitch. Why is that?

Some months ago*, I interviewed a sleep scientist for an article in a science magazine. The doctor’s words came back to me as I read a section in Chapter 9 of The Wealthy Freelancer, entitled “Take Time To Incubate.” It’s the part of the book where authors Steve Slaunwhite, Pete Savage, and Ed Gandia point out that time away from a project—i.e., “sleeping on it”—often works wonders.

It does, and here’s why.

Our brains are compulsive digital recorders. They collect information about every single experience we have. You meet a client over coffee to hash out details for an upcoming report. While your conscious mind deals with the business at hand, your unconscious mind slavishly records everything around you: Your client’s body language. The light levels in the coffee shop where you meet. The music on the loudspeaker. The weather. Every freaking thing.

This is a wondrous ability, but you don’t need to remember everything. You just need to remember the important stuff.

“Remembering the important stuff” is called learning.

The sleep doc used this analogy. “If I teach you how to shoot baskets,” he said, “and I test you after you practice a few hours, chances are you’ll retain a certain level of skill. But if you go home and sleep, the next morning you’ll be better at it than when you finished your practice. It’s not just that time has gone by.Improvement happens when you sleep. If you don’t sleep, you don’t improve.”

Scientists think sleep has a pruning effect. As you sleep, your brain prunes unimportant memories— experiences, colors, sights, sounds, false starts, dead-end concepts—like the dead branches of a tree. Your brain decides what to discard and what to keep.

The goal of sleep is to organize your thoughts and consolidate learning.

You may bristle at the suggestion that you are still learning. But competent freelancers know that projects that push them into new territory help them grow.

The temptation as a freelancer is to ruthlessly push yourself to finish a task, even if it’s not going well, because your income is tied to how quickly you can finish up and invoice.

But you might work smarter if you consciously enlist your unconscious to do its job.

Want to consistently land high-paying projects and clients? Want to raise your income? Want to improve, work efficiently and prosper?

Go to bed.

***

* This article first appeared on July 24, 2010, on a website run by the authors of the book, The Wealthy Freelancer. I’m reposting it here in an ongoing effort to collect my old posts in one place. The original blog no longer exists, but you can check out the continuing work of author Ed Gandia at High-Income Business Writing.



Yes, I am trying to post here more often. Thank you for noticing. If you want to sign up for my newsletter and claim your free ebook, go here.




My Unpublished Interview with Astronomer Vera Rubin

 

In 1999, I wrote an article for Discover magazine about Ralph Alpher, one of a trio of scientists responsible for conceiving the Big Bang Theory. During the course of reporting that article,* I had occasion to interview Vera Rubin, the celebrated dark matter astronomer who died at the age of 88 on December 25, 2016. Articles (like these here and here and here) covering her passing noted that she ought to have received the Nobel Prize but never did, no doubt because she was a woman working in a field at a time when men dominated.

As it happens, my interview with Dr. Rubin touched on the painful topic of those who deserve but do not win Nobels. We were talking not about her work per se, but about Alpher and other male colleagues of hers. Her comments were insightful but I didn’t have room in the final story to share everything she told me. I’m releasing the brief transcript now because I think they shed light on Rubin's thinking on the matter, and because she and the three cosmologists at the center of the Big Bang story are no longer with us. (Gamow died in 1968, Herman in 1997, and Alpher in 2007.)

Back in the 1940s, along with his thesis advisor, George Gamow, Ralph Alpher wrote the first paper on the origin of elements in the universe. Later, he wrote a second paper with his colleague Robert Herman that theorized that the radiation of that first bang should still be bathing the universe. The men actually predicted how that 14 billion-year-old relic—called cosmic background radiation—could be found. At the time, radio astronomy was in its infancy and Alpher and Herman could not find scientists willing to gamble on their idea. But in the 1960s, they were proved right when a team at Princeton found proof of the Big Bang in exactly the way Apher and Herman had predicted.

The Princeton team received the Nobel Prize in 1978 for their work, yet the work of the earlier scientists was seemingly ignored. To make matters worse, later books and academic journal articles perpetuated the error by either incorrectly attributing Gamow, Alpher and Herman’s work, or ignoring it entirely. By then Gamow had died, but Alpher and Herman, who had left academic for industry during much of the ensuing years, devoted nearly 30 years of their lives trying to set the record straight.

Here’s what Dr. Rubin told me about how that miscarriage of scientific justice impacted the lives of the two men she called friends.


How were they affected by the whole thing?

I don’t think either of them put it behind them. It was a major factor in their lives. I think they both felt that they had been unfairly treated by the entire field. [My husband mathematician-physicist] Bob [Rubin] and I used to tell Bob Herman that we really thought they should just forget about it.

The fact that neither one of them were doing a lot of cosmology or astronomy really meant that their work just wasn’t in the forefront of astronomy. One way people learn about what you’re doing is by your continuing to do it. Your current work is always kind of a reference to your past work. But in their case, they both went off and did something very different, so there was no one to bring their early work to the attention of the community except them themselves. It was just an unfortunate circumstance, I guess.

But I think it bothered [and] continues to bother Ralph. I think it bothered Bob [Herman] too. There were constantly books written about the history that they didn’t think was correct, and they continued to write authors to make corrections. That’s probably what they should have done, but it meant it wouldn’t be something they could really put behind them. So I think these things were always continually being in the forefront. It’s been 33, 34 years.

 

Dr. Alpher says he’s writing a book to set the record straight once and for all.

I suspect that it will be a very bitter book. He and Bob Herman are very, very dear to us and it was a horrible injustice, but I don’t know what you do in such a circumstance. It would have been nice if he had had a happier life. They could have known that they did something very, very valuable and they could have been happy with this. I think perhaps injustices are in the eye of the beholder, unfortunately. But they were still the first people to do it and they did get a wide variety of enormously prestigious awards. Perhaps they could have asked themselves the alternative. It could have not been discovered during their lifetime. Wouldn’t that have maybe been worse? There’s no doubt that they could have been and should have been treated nicer by the community. They really do have a legitimate complaint. But they could have responded a little differently.

I think the truth is that in science, when I was very young a very wise man said to me, “In science most of your satisfactions have to be internal ones.” I think that that in a sense is correct; you have to be happy. They should have been exuberant with the work that they did. It was rediscovered. It was great. They had not gotten the recognition they deserved, but if their personalities had been different they could have been happy with the knowledge of this great thing they had figured out. And they perhaps could have even been treated better by the community if they had not just been so obviously angry.

I think they are remarkable, wonderful people, and they did something that was wonderful. It would have been very nice if that could have been such a joy that they could have embraced the community and which in turn might have embraced them. But none of that happened. 

They never forgot it, in ways that I can’t even repeat. But they could tell you who said something a little bit better and who said something a little bit worse. Sentences were examined in a way that I think the poor authors never intended them to be.

Bob [Herman] and Ralph have been very dear friends for a long time. With Bob [Herman] I or my husband have actually said, “Why don’t you, you know, talk him out of going on with this?” It never worked. It really affected them.

I don’t know if the Nobel Prize complicated things. If Penzias and Wilson had not gotten the Nobel Prize… But there too, and now I will say some things that are truly awful but this is how the establishment behaves. Someone has to nominate you for the Nobel Prize.

 

I didn’t know that.

Yes, yes, yes. [Nobel Prize-winning chemist] Harold Urey used to brag—I knew him and he used to brag that that 11 of the people he’d nominated had gotten Nobel Prizes. If you’re outside the establishment, you stand a much poorer chance of having these good things happen to you. If they really had not left the academic world, things may have been different. I really think there lies the explanation. Their lives might have been very different if they had remained in the academic world.


* The article is collected in my book, The Scientist and the Sociopath.


Yes, I am trying to post here more often. Thank you for noticing. If you want to sign up for my newsletter and claim your free ebook, go here.

Oliver Sacks: Farewell and Thank You

I was saddened to hear of the passing of Oliver Sacks, whose work made a big impression on me during the handful of years I was writing for science publications. He and I had never met, but he did one thing for me that I’ll always be grateful for. He chose one of my nonfiction articles for the Ecco/HarperCollins annual anthology, Best American Science Writing 2003. It was my second appearance in that collection, and I was just as surprised the second time around as I was for the first. So thank you, Dr. Sacks. Hail and farewell.

The story he picked was the one I did on sanctuaries for retired lab chimps. You can read it here.

New book: The Scientist & the Sociopath is out!

The Scientist and the Sociopath by Joseph D'Agnese

I’m pleased to announce the publication of my new book, The Scientist and the Sociopath, a collection of some of my best science writing.

At least two of the articles in this collection have already appeared in the prestigious Best American Science Writing anthologies, but it’s nice to have one volume collecting my pieces from Discover, Wired and Seed.

The book, which features a cover by awesome artist Jeroen ten Berge, is something of a milestone: it marks my foray into digital publishing. The title is available immediately as an eBook on Amazon and Smashwords. In the weeks to come, B&N, Apple iPad, Sony, and all the rest will be next. You can download a free sample from all of these sites onto your digital device. You can always find more details on the book page of this website. But for now, here’s the pitch:

DECEPTION

A modern-day computer scientist struggles to unlock the secrets of a mysterious book apparently written in a secret code, matching wits with a sociopathic con man who died 400 years ago.

RECOGNITION

A humble cosmologist conceives one of the biggest theories of the universe—and watches helplessly as the Nobel Prize goes to someone else.

DEDUCTION

A maverick doctor investigates bizarre ailments using a method that seems shockingly radical in modern medicine: befriending patients and asking them how they feel.

THE SCIENTIST AND THE SOCIOPATH presents remarkable nonfiction stories, some of real-life scientists tackling theories and discoveries that will change our world, others of laymen grappling with some aspect of science in their lives.

Along the way, there are smashed ancient skulls, dead chimps in the back of pickup trucks, flying snakes, lordly windmills, haunted warriors, and beautiful, geeky kids building us a new world, one Lego at a time. 

These all-too-human players overcome their own foibles to make sense of the unknown, touching on everything from the Big Bang theory to tissue engineering, human evolution to cryptography, strange animals, robots, and the secret of human ingenuity. 

Culled from the author’s extensive reporting for magazines such as Discover, Wired and Seed, these tales are bundled together for the very first time. This collection includes two bonus stories on green energy and two never-before-seen stories.


Yes, I am trying to post here more often. Thank you for noticing. If you want to sign up for my newsletter and claim your collection of free ebooks, go here. Thanks!