Where Knowledge Junkies Get Their Fix
the mag
10 Trailblazing Scientists About to Change Your Future
by the mag - February 3, 2008 - 3:10 PM

countup-layer10.jpg

by Eric Furman

1. Erich Jarvis, Neurobiologist

jarvis.jpgWhen Duke professor Erich Jarvis wanted to find the key to human communication, he turned to birds. Strange, but true. Jarvis has been studying songbirds’ brains for insight into human linguistics, and his research has led to a startling discovery: Birds use two distinct neural pathways to learn songs—one in the front of the brain and one in the back. Guess what? Humans learn to speak in the same way. Jarvis believes this is an evolutionary clue suggesting that, when we shared an ancestor 300 million years ago, our brains were hardwired for language. Theoretically, once Jarvis and other neuroscientists fully understand this genetic blueprint, they can alter it and, in the process, make it easier to learn new languages and possibly even repair brain damage.

2. Nathan Wolfe, Epidemiologist

Nathan_Wolfe1.jpgInstead of spending his days in a lab, UCLA professor Nathan Wolfe has thrown himself into the heart of the jungle. Trekking right along with hunters in Cameroon, he’s attempting to learn how they’re exposed to diseases by asking them to donate blood samples (their own and their prey’s). Wolfe’s method is difficult, but his idea is simple: HIV, Ebola, and other human viruses originated from human-animal contact, so it’s possible that these hunters—who come in close contact with their catch—are the ones inadvertently triggering the outbreaks. Wolfe’s work will go a long way toward predicting where emerging diseases could occur and stopping the next HIV or Ebola epidemic before it starts.

3. Emily Oster, Economist

emily_oster.jpgA few years ago, as an economics PhD student at Harvard, Emily Oster chose to focus her attention on the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Traditionally, that was the turf of sociologists, anthropologists, and public health officials. But the 26-year-old Oster wasn’t afraid to hop the scientific fence and join the other side. She also hasn’t been afraid to suggest things we haven’t heard before—namely, that treating herpes and other STDs (instead of AIDS) can significantly reduce HIV transmissions. Oster also believes that while the HIV numbers commonly used by the UN, popular press, and researchers are about three times too high, the disease is spreading faster than ever in Africa. By casting her economist’s eyes on the issue, Oster has forced the old turf-guarders to reevaluate their approaches to AIDS in Africa and come up with new solutions.

4. Hiroshi Ishiguro, Roboticist

Hiroshi_Ishiguro_530.jpg
Most robots look like, well, robots, but Ishiguro’s robots look remarkably human. To many people, this is discomforting—creepy even. To Ishiguro, it’s essential. As director of Osaka University’s Intelligent Robotics Lab, Ishiguro believes robots’ main role in our future will be to interact naturally with people—to pitch in as the workforce shrinks or to do necessary, unpleasant tasks. And because Ishiguro contends that people respond better to his humanlike robots (aka, androids) than other machine-like ones, he’s taken a no-holds-barred approach to studying cognitive behavior and human activity. In addition to nearly perfecting his silicone molds and metal skeletons, he’s figured out how to mimic even the most minute human movements, such as breathing, blinking, and even fidgeting. The result is “android science.” The idea is that by using robots that are indistinguishable from humans in scientific experiments, researchers can still elicit natural responses from their subjects but also have more control over the environment. So far, Ishiguro has already learned plenty about his students using the Geminoid HI-1, an android version of himself, which he operates via remote control to teach class.

5. Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Forensic Anthropologist

schwartz_72.jpgJeffrey Schwartz became the first modern man to lay eyes on a young George Washington. Yes, that George Washington. Although he normally works on forensic cases reconstructing faces from bones, Schwartz re-created Washington by working from the outside in. Using only clues from statues, portraits, dentures, and clothing, Schwartz plugged his “evidence” into a three-dimensional computer program, which allowed him to combine and manipulate the clues to arrive at his reproduction. Schwartz created renderings of the founding father at ages 19, 45, and 57, and from the looks of it, George Washington might have been the George Clooney of his day. The lasting ramifications of Schwartz’s applications and research will be seen almost immediately, as other forensic anthropologists follow his method to see what distant past heroes (and villains) really looked like.

6. Pardis Sabeti, Biological Anthropologist

dr_sabet.jpgPulling a typical all-nighter in med school, Pardis Sabeti achieved a not-so-typical feat—she confirmed the effects of genetics on the evolution of human diseases. By inputting different DNA sequences into an algorithm she created, Sabeti was able to find genes still linked to their neighbors—suggesting that their success within the gene pool is due to natural selection, not pure chance.

Sabeti now plans on using her algorithm to deconstruct the malaria parasite. By seeing how the parasite has evolved to develop drug resistances, she hopes to detect genetic vulnerabilities in malaria’s makeup. If she’s successful, future cures will be designed to attack those weaknesses. Meanwhile, Sabeti isn’t your typical lab rat. She’s the lead singer of the alt-rock band Thousand Days and sounds more than a little like Liz Phair. And did we mention that she’s a Rhodes Scholar who just graduated summa cum laude from Harvard Medical School in 2006?

7. Thomas A. Jackson, Aerospace Engineer

Piloting a real-life Luke Skywalker X-wing fighter is every aeronautical engineer’s fantasy, and Thomas Jackson is helping make it a reality. A scientist for the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Jackson is setting the direction for the supersonic combustion ramjet—aka, the scramjet. By scooping up oxygen from the atmosphere as it ascends, the scramjet eliminates the need for the heavy liquid oxygen and solid oxidizer used by a typical space shuttle. And once it catches on, it will revolutionize air travel. How does a 2-hour flight from New York to Sydney sound? Or a layover on the Moon? And the best thing is, it’ll all happen sooner than you think. In April 2007, NASA successfully test-powered a hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet engine to Mach 5.

8. , Probabilistic Roboticist

SebastianThrun.jpg

Sebastian Thrun is a Stanford professor who drives a Volkswagen—but not just any Volkswagen. Thrun’s Touareg is autonomous, and its name is Stanley. The VW drives itself thanks to state-of-the-art road-finding and obstacle-avoidance software, along with radar systems, video screens, and laser range finders. Like every driver, Stanley makes mistakes, and Thrun programmed him with that in mind. Stanley’s decisions are based not on absolutes, but on probabilities, which results in more natural and realistic driver reactions. But Thrun isn’t so sure people will immediately hand over the keys to a bunch of Stanleys. It may take up to 30 years, he says, “simply because we don’t know how to insure a car where no one is at the wheel.”

9. Nima Arkani-Hamed, Particle Physicist and Applied String Theorist

NimaArkani-Hamed.jpgNima Arkani-Hamed thinks big. He has a theory that our universe is one of an infinite number of universes—meaning the largest thing we can wrap our minds around is actually pretty tiny. He didn’t pull the “multiverse” out of thin air, though. After becoming a Harvard professor at age 30, Arkani-Hamed first made a name for himself by suggesting that our universe is five-dimensional. Then he moved on to the multiverse, theorizing that our own universe has a hidden feature called “split supersymmetry,” which means that half of all particles have partner particles. The theory will be tested soon in Switzerland’s brand-new Large Hadron Collider (LHC), and if the LHC finds Arkani-Hamed’s partner particles, it could prove that the multiverse is real—and that our place in it is that much smaller.

10. Margaret Turnbull, Astrobiologist

MargaretTurnbull.jpgHunting for aliens isn’t necessarily the most respected academic endeavor in the world, but Margaret Turnbull pursued it anyway. More precisely, she set out to catalog the stars most likely to develop intelligent alien civilizations. Turnbull’s system was painstakingly tedious. She started with the 120,000 cataloged stars, narrowed down her list to 17,129 (excluding the ones that were too hot, too close together, or too erratic), and then parsed that list down to 100 candidates. Her final criteria? An ideal star would be at least 3 billion years old and have a high iron content (the better to spin off life-yielding planets with).

Turnbull’s mind-blowing patience has paid off. In 2015, NASA will be launching its Terrestrial Planet Finder, which will use space telescopes to look for planets beyond our solar system, and it’ll start with the stars on Turnbull’s short list. In other words, nobody’s laughing at Turnbull’s search for aliens now.

This article originally appeared in mental_floss magazine. Care to subscribe?

Comments (19)
  1. I’m holding my breath for that moon base, really, I am….how about inventing an aftermarket transmission that could be installed in a lot of different models of cars to boost their fuel efficiency by 10-25%?

  2. Imagine my surprise to see Erik Jarvis right on top! So cool. He’s a really nice guy too.

    I’d really like some links though.
    Crazy Android man?
    G. Washington pics?
    Sabeti’s music?
    Anything about astrobiology?

    Great Article!

  3. Bird talk?
    AIDS?
    Anthropologists?

    All good, but what about this: I just heard about this today. They are now doing coronary bypass surgeries without cracking open the chest. And this is a REGULAR PROCEDURE! Wow! University of Chicago Hospitals.

  4. Links would be nice!

    I’m jumping all over my multi tabs in Firefox chasing down this stuff.

    Good article.

  5. the robot looks kinda cool
    android exactly like urself

    split supersymmetrical
    5 dimensional mulitverse sounds wicked!

    I wonder if they could travel in and out of that! hahahaha ^_^

  6. How could you leave out Aubrey de Grey? Look him up and read about what he’s doing. Don’t dismiss it outright. This video is on TED.com - great website by the way. Follow this: www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/39

  7. Prof. Schwartz is, without a doubt, the best professor someone could ever have! I stuck around an extra semester just to take another class with him!

  8. As robots become more common, legal issues will arise. Contracts will be one tool for regulating robot bad behavior or unwanted spying.

  9. Dr. Rick Strassman’s Studies in Dimethyltryptamine:

    www.rickstrassman.com

  10. Re: 1. Erich Jarvis, Neurobiologist

    So let me get this straight…it took us 300 million years to figure this out and we still have many years to go to perfect it????? If evolution was fact humans would be the stupidest creatures in the universe. 300 millions years…total non-sense…we’ll never unlock our real potential until we stop believing this evolution non-sense.

  11. Putting an economist in a list of “scientists.” What an insult to everyone else included.

  12. Rational Scientist… Funny name, as you’re not rational, and based on you’re spat about evolution, you’re not a scientist … but You are a moron!

  13. Eric Furman:

    Please research your list. I am not familiar with all the fields but in astronomy, or even astrobiology, Margaret Turnbull is a very poor choice. She did _not_ start, lead, or even significantly contribute to the effort to plan the TPF mission. There are many astronomers who did (research Chas Beichman, Sara Seager, Roger Angel, David Spergel, and Wes Traub to name a few). I am writing because this is the second time I’ve seen her on such a list. Defining a sample of stars to search for Earths is not a revolutionary task, especially considering she made no new observations to arrive at that list. I suspect you are getting fooled by self promotion.

  14. Sorry to say it, you evolved from apes. Bonobo and chimpanzee DNA is approximately 98.7% identical to that of modern humans. As with us, they share posable thumbs, 3d color vision, diseases and illnesses that are only contractible in apes and humans, some apes have been found to walk upright, smoke and use human sign language when taught. No other animals have these traits. Sorry, evolution is true. The law of gravity is called a theory, that doesn’t mean there isn’t gravity. Intelligent design is not based on science, evidence or truth at all. Read a real book on science. Science is based on provable facts, not fabled books or or untestable faith.

    Chimpanzee intelligence usually ranges about the same as a 5 year old child, and some can be smarter than that. When I was five years old I was able to form complex philosophical ideas about god, space, infinity, a possible holographic universe(for idiots, basically the matrix), parallel universes, and I believed we evolved from apes. You, those who do not believe in evolution, have an intellect that is far below your physical age.

    Go to youtube right now and watch a video on Bobnobos, particularly one with susan savage, then come back here and tell me we’re not related.

  15. oh, right. economics ISN’T a science. idiot.

  16. Why hasn’t one of these mofo’s figured out how to get Israel out of American politics? You dont have to go to Harvard to see that the AIDS epidemic in Africa could be quashed if those poor bastards would just stop f******g everything and everybody!

  17. jenni the law of gravity isn’t a theory. It is in fact a law which is why it is referred to as such. Theories and laws are different in that a law has been proven and is universally accepted where as theory is unproven. While a theory has some evidence that supports it a great deal more is required for it to become a law.

    Your belief in evolution is pointless because science does not deal in beliefs. Last time I checked science dealt solely with facts but they have started to shy away from that in recent times and just come up with bullshit that sounds good to the unthinking masses.

    I suggest that you or anyone else that allows their own bias to get in the way of the facts reexamine their thinking. If you wish to see some of the facts that make the theory of evolution implausible then www dot scienceagainstevolution dot org would be a good place to start.

  18. Regarding #8, just do what RI did up until recently. Insure the car, regardless of driver.

    And the other interesting thing is once you get enough autonomic vehicles on the road, the unpredictability factor goes down so there should be fewer accidents.

  19. Calling economics a non-science is like calling video games a non-art. It’s subject to opinion, and almost anything can be incorporated into science.

    It amazes me how you’re all up-in-arms, too, about how ‘they’re working on this? What about these supposedly more important things?’ The thing that pisses me off about you people is how you just don’t THINK about what you say. The REASON that someone is working on the numbers of the AIDs issue instead of perfecting surgery, or working on robots instead of cutting fuel costs, or investigating human evolution instead of working on pulling Americans out of the Middle East is because it’s NOT THEIR PASSION. Or their jobs!

    That’s like telling someone who loves graphic design and spent years studying to make video games “Oh, why don’t you do something USEFUL with your time like cring cancer?”

Comment

commenting policy