Unless you’re an avid science fiction fan or futurist, there’s a good chance you’ve never heard of “the Singularity“—broadly speaking, a hypothetical point in the future where technological development accelerates past the threshold where humans can predict or (more ominously) influence its further progress. The creation of superhuman artificial intelligence is typically seen as the most likely catalyst that could cause such a “runaway” technological event.

The essential idea is this: If we ever build a machine with more “intelligence” than a human, it’s feasible that this machine could design an even more intelligent machine, and then that new machine could design yet another, superior machine, and so on, the process bootstrapping itself upward to dizzying heights of intelligence.

It’s an extraordinary notion with surprisingly deep roots—its basics can be traced back to at least the 1930s. More recently, an entire subculture has formed around the concept of the Singularity.

Regardless of whether predictions of a technological Singularity are prescient or instead bombastic displays of misinformed hubris, the idea undeniably provokes stimulating discussions. The latest and greatest big gathering of folks talking about it takes place the weekend of September 8-9 in San Francisco at the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence‘s Singularity Summit 2007. Unsurprisingly, the official topic is “Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity.”

The list of prestigious speakers includes MIT roboticist Rodney Brooks and Peter Norvig, artificial-intelligence guru and Director of Research at Google. Tickets to the Summit are a mere $50, an order of magnitude less expensive than most high-profile conferences. Each ticket gives you a reserved seat and lunch for both days of the Summit, along with a three-hour Saturday night reception with the speakers. Huzzah!

Best of all, I’ll be there, representing Seed and having a blast. I hope you’ll consider dropping by to say hello.

The lost penis of King Tut has at last been found! (update: 5.5.06 – looks like Discovery removed the story… Does anyone have an updated link?)

Apparently I’ve been living under a rock – I didn’t know it was missing.

From the Discovery Channel story:

Photographed intact by Harry Burton (1879-1940) during Howard Carter’s excavation of Tut’s tomb in 1922, the royal penis was reported missing in 1968, when British scientist Ronald Harrison took a series of X-rays of the mummy.

Speculation abounded that the penis had been stolen and sold.

“Instead, it has always been there. I found it during the CT scan last year, when the mummy was lifted. It lay loose in the sand around the king’s body. It was mummified,” Zahi Hawass, chief of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities, told Discovery News.

While this is yet another feather in the plumage-festooned cap of Hawass (he’s arguably the world’s premier Egyptologist), this can’t be good for the rep of Egyptian archaeology among the “Pyramids were built by aliens or Atlanteans” fringe.

Sure, worrying about what that crowd thinks of Egyptology is akin to worrying about a corpse catching a cold, but it’s still worth some chuckles just to speculate some commentary: “If they managed to lose King Tut’s penis in a box of sand for nearly forty years, what else have they overlooked?”

The Times has an excellent summary, and you can read the FDA’s original press release here.

In essence, the FDA appears to be throwing a very clean baby out with slightly dirty bathwater: It says smoking marijuana is harmful, and then somehow leaps from there to the blanket statement that marijuana, regardless of administration method, has no medicinal use whatsoever.

This is a well-worn issue, and there’s not really much that’s new to say in defense of the FDA’s anti-marijuana position, or the War on Drugs in general. In contrast, there’s tremendous evidence that cannabis is in fact a beneficial medicine for a few illnesses – see my earlier post.

His reaction is below the fold.

I’ve never seen a seal so happy.

The page is in Danish, but I think ScienceBlogs readers are smart enough to figure out how to download and use this stuff. Many thanks to Lief Toudal Pederson of the Danish Center for Remote Sensing for putting together this data and making it available to the world – this is only one of his many impressive projects.

The plight of the polar bear is also useful, of course, in attracting people who need something cuter than a melting glacier or vanishing amphibians to make them care about the climate change. Now, new findings from Arctic are broadening global warming’s “cute appeal.”

What you’re looking at is one of nine walrus calves a research team discovered swimming aimlessly in deep water, hopelessly distant from any restful sea ice or solid land. Most likely, they all drowned or starved to death not long after the photos were taken. It’s unknown what happened to their mothers, upon which the calves are entirely dependent for up to two years after birth. According to the press release, this many abandoned calves so far from shore is entirely unprecedented.

From the press release:

“We were on a station for 24 hours, and the calves would be swimming around us crying. We couldn’t rescue them,” said Carin Ashjian, a biologist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and a member of the research team.

“If walruses and other ice-associated marine mammals cannot adapt to caring for their young in shallow waters without sea-ice available as a resting platform between dives to the sea floor, a significant population decline of this species could occur,” the research team wrote. The lead author of the study is Lee W. Cooper, a biogeochemist at the University of Tennessee.

It’s interesting to note that, though the scientists were in the Arctic to measure the impact of global warming on the oceanic ecosystem, their discovery of the abandoned walrus calves was totally incidental to what appears to be their real research: the measurement of plankton types and concentrations along with sea temperatures. These findings are a bombshell on their own. Unearthed from their burial in the press release’s tenth paragraph:

The researchers measured a mass of water as warm as 44°F (7°C) moving onto parts of the shelf from the Bering Sea to the south in 2004. This warm-water intrusion was more than six degrees higher than temperatures at the same time and location in 2002. The warmer water apparently caused seasonal sea ice to melt rapidly over the shallow continental shelf and retreat to deep water over the Arctic Ocean basins, where the water remained colder.

Obviously, this is a case of incidental evidence dovetailing nicely with the research data. The link is pretty clear: The abnormally warm water has melted the sea ice the walruses normally use to rest themselves and raise their young, resulting in the heartbreaking photos and testimonies of the researchers which undoubtedly adds a compelling poignancy to their results. The question is: Is it a good thing that their actual research data are taking a backseat to their chance encounter with abandoned walrus calves?

I’d love to know what you think.

My surroundings had now transformed themselves in more terrifying ways. Everything in the room spun around, and the familiar objects and pieces of furniture assumed grotesque, threatening forms. They were in continuous motion, animated, as if driven by an inner restlessness. The lady next door, whom I scarcely recognized, brought me milk – in the course of the evening I drank more than two liters. She was no longer Mrs. R., but rather a malevolent, insidious witch with a colored mask.

Even worse than these demonic transformations of the outer world, were the alterations that I perceived in myself, in my inner being. Every exertion of my will, every attempt to put an end to the disintegration of the outer world and the dissolution of my ego, seemed to be wasted effort. A demon had invaded me, had taken possession of my body, mind, and soul. I jumped up and screamed, trying to free myself from him, but then sank down again and lay helpless on the sofa. The substance, with which I had wanted to experiment, had vanquished me. It was the demon that scornfully triumphed over my will. I was seized by the dreadful fear of going insane. I was taken to another world, another place, another time. My body seemed to be without sensation, lifeless, strange. Was I dying? Was this the transition?

After a doctor arrived and examined him, finding no physical abnormalities besides extremely dilated pupils, Hofmann realized he wasn’t in danger of losing his mind or dying and his experience suddenly took a turn for the better:

Now, little by little I could begin to enjoy the unprecedented colors and plays of shapes that persisted behind my closed eyes. Kaleidoscopic, fantastic images surged in on me, alternating, variegated, opening and then closing themselves in circles and spirals, exploding in colored fountains, rearranging and hybridizing themselves in constant flux. It was particularly remarkable how every acoustic perception, such as the sound of a door handle or a passing automobile, became transformed into optical perceptions. Every sound generated a vividly changing image, with its own consistent form and color.

Late in the evening my wife returned from Lucerne. Someone had informed her by telephone that I was suffering a mysterious breakdown. She had returned home at once, leaving the children behind with her parents. By now, I had recovered myself sufficiently to tell her what had happened.

Exhausted, I then slept, to awake next morning refreshed, with a clear head, though still somewhat tired physically. A sensation of well-being and renewed life flowed through me. Breakfast tasted delicious and gave me extraordinary pleasure. When I later walked out into the garden, in which the sun shone now after a spring rain, everything glistened and sparkled in a fresh light. The world was as if newly created. All my senses vibrated in a condition of highest sensitivity, which persisted for the entire day.

Thus went the world’s first acid trip.

Inspired by this experience, Hofmann went on to make several other important contributions to the study of these fascinating substances: he synthesized psilocybin from “magic mushrooms,” documented the LSD-like active ingredient in morning glory seeds and obtained the first samples of Salvia divinorum that led to its official botanical identification.

Hofmann celebrated his 100th birthday this year, on January 11th. After a life spent experimenting with and directly experiencing the effects of numerous psychedelic drugs, he remains physically healthy (considering his age!) and mentally sharp, and is internationally revered and respected for his pioneering work. The same can’t be said, however, for his “problem child,” which, contrary to scientific evidence, many governments around the world continue to define as an unsafe, addictive drug with no acceptable medical use.

The tide is turning. Just last week, The Lancet published an editorial calling for an end to the “demonization” of psychedelics like LSD and a renewal of scientific inquiry after decades of suppression.

But any successful change in a nation’s drug policy will require more than a page in a respected journal. If you’re reading this and you agree psychedelics deserve further study for potentially useful applications, why not celebrate this year’s Bicycle Day with an e-mail to your favorite representative government official letting them know? If you want to learn more about what you can do to support this research, erowid.org or the website for the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies are good places to start.

“I think that in human evolution it has never been as necessary to have this substance LSD. It is just a tool to turn us into what we are supposed to be.” – Albert Hofmann

On second thought, calling it “sad” might be a bit excessive. Pauling was the only person to win two individual Nobels, after all (one for chemistry, one for peace). His great achievements are too numerous to fully list here; suffice to say he was a pioneer in molecular biology, genetics, immunology, the nature of chemical bonds and scientific activism. But by his death in 1994, many in the scientific community regarded him as an embarrassment, an out-of-touch quack at best and a dishonest shill of the health supplement industry at worst.

What happened?

In essence, he challenged the established notions of nutrition, particularly regarding vitamin C. Pauling was influenced by the work of biochemist Irwin Stone, who pointed out that the majority of plants and animals produce their own vitamin C in proportion to their bodyweight, with humans, apes and a handful of other (primarily fruit-eating) species being the rare, incapable exceptions due to a purported genetic defect. Pauling reasoned that since vitamin C is present in most animals in concentrations vastly greater than the amount most people consume each day, some common illnesses might be the result of this perpetual vitamin C deficiency.

Consequently, he proposed that “megadoses” of vitamin C could effectively treat several illnesses, most notably cancer and the common cold, and published a few books to popularize these ideas. In 1973, he formed the Linus Pauling Institute of Medicine, where he performed multiple experiments to verify his claims.

The real trouble started when other researchers tried–and failed–to replicate his results. Despite exhaustive examination, today the efficacy of vitamin C as a cold and flu treatment remains questionable. Three successive studies by the prestigious Mayo Clinic testing orally administered vitamin C demonstrated no significant cancer-fighting effects. Additionally, it was revealed that Hoffman-La Roche, a company that at the time produced most of the world’s vitamin C supplements, extensively funded Pauling’s Institute. Naturally, all this damaged his credibility and he was relegated to the fringes of science in the twilight of his life.

Fortunately for poor old Pauling, this story might yet have a happy ending. Two papers published in the last year are forcing a re-appraisal of vitamin C’s effects on cancer. The first, from the September 20th, 2005 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that vitamin C selectively killed various cancer cell types, leaving normal cells unharmed, but only when in serum concentrations achievable solely via intravenous administration.

The second study, published in the March 28th, 2006 Canadian Medical Association Journal, presented 3 well-documented cases where intravenous injections of very high doses of vitamin C had apparently extended the lives of advanced cancer patients. An accompanying commentary should temper any pro-Pauling optimism with its discussion of spontaneous remission rates and unknown sample sizes, but it leaves the question open and the door cracked for further inquiry.

It’s curious – if Pauling’s original experiment demonstrating vitamin C’s anti-cancer effects was based on both oral and intravenous vitamin C supplementation, why did the subsequent studies attempting to “replicate” his findings forego testing both routes? When they couldn’t replicate Pauling’s results, why wasn’t their methodology challenged? It seems increasingly plausible that if anyone had bothered to notice and correct these fundamental oversights, Pauling’s reputation would have been redeemed and a potentially valuable cancer therapy might have gained mainstream acceptance much sooner.

The frightening implication of all this is, if it somehow happened to one of the greatest figures of 20th century science, it can certainly happen to anyone who speaks out about the credibility of unorthodox ideas. For instance, without the benefit of these recent studies, a science journalist writing about Pauling’s vitamin C theories without calling them baloney and flapdoodle would likely have been a target for professional derision and ridicule – and perhaps still will be.

But perhaps instead the ultimate vindication of a great mind’s last discovery is at hand. And hopefully, Pauling’s tragic downfall and unfolding redemption will provide a valuable lesson in science’s fallibility for those who truly seek objectivity.

The press release details how University of Washington/Albert Einstein College of Medicine researchers using a mouse model of multiple sclerosis (MS) appear to have discovered that the disease inhibits the brain’s production of neuroprotective endocannabinoids, which results in greater brain damage. Then, to my great joy, the press release twists itself into a pretzel to avoid saying that smoking pot actually helps MS. Instead, it cautiously suggests that “synthetic marijuana-like compounds” and “marijuana-based medications” might be useful for MS sufferers. The paper itself uses the term “cannabinoid-based medicine.”

Does this kind of hairsplitting seem just a little disingenuous to anyone else?

Despite my criticism, I think the researchers should be commended for their work, which seems to suggest that marijuana itself, as well as its synthetic derivatives, holds promise for MS treatment. But why not call a spade a spade?

For comparison, a similar 2003 UK study that demonstrated the neuroprotective potential of cannabinoids didn’t mince words: “Cannabis may also slow the neurodegenerative processes that ultimately lead to chronic disability in multiple sclerosis and probably other diseases.”

Could it be that mainstream US researchers are hedging about marijuana’s medicinal uses because of its current federal illegality? Surely not! Surely they’re more interested in science’s quest for knowledge and truth than federal funding and profitable pharmaceutical patents! Right?

But I digress. Back to marijuana’s efficacy against MS.

Decades of anecdotal reports that marijuana treats the symptoms of MS (particularly muscle spasms) have led to numerous small-scale studies over the years that confirmed the drug’s subjective benefits for MS patients, but critics maintain marijuana’s objective benefits for MS remain unclear.

The US-based National MS Society, arguably the most influential MS organization in the world, currently does not recommend marijuana for any form of MS treatment whatsoever, citing insufficient data and marijuana’s “uncomfortable” side effects like dry mouth, mental clouding, and the “feelings of being ‘high.’” Instead the Society suggests FDA-approved drugs like baclofen and tizanidine, which boast much more comfortable side effects including burning urination, diarrhea, vomiting, yellow eyes, skin rashes and hallucinations.

Who in their right mind would risk mental cloudiness and the dreadfully unpleasant feeling of being high when there are FDA-approved drugs with such minor side effects instead?