Smart glasses that help the blind see


(Image: Stephen Hicks)


These specs do more than bring blurry things into focus. This prototype pair of smart glasses translates visual information into images that blind people can see.


Many people who are registered as blind can perceive some light and motion. The glasses, developed by Stephen Hicks of the University of Oxford, are an attempt to make that residual vision as useful as possible.


They use two cameras, or a camera and an infrared projector, that can detect the distance to nearby objects. They also have a gyroscope, a compass and GPS to help orient the wearer.


The collected information can be translated into a variety of images on the transparent OLED displays, depending on what is most useful to the person sporting the shades. For example, objects can be made clearer against the background, or the distance to obstacles can be indicated by the varying brightness of an image.


Hicks has won the Royal Society's Brian Mercer Award for Innovation"" for his work on the smart glasses. He plans to use the £50,000 prize money to add object and text recognition to the glasses' abilities.


If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.



Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.


Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article


Subscribe now to comment.




All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.


If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.




Unprecedented warming uncovered in Pacific depths


The effects of climate change are being felt almost a kilometre down in the biggest ocean on Earth.


A new record of water temperatures shows how the Pacific has warmed and cooled since the last ice age. It shows that the ocean has warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than at any time in the previous 10,000.


The fact that the heat of global warming is penetrating deep into the oceans is yet more evidence that we are dramatically warming the planet, says Yair Rosenthal of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, who led the study.


Time capsules


To take the temperature of the ancient Pacific, Rosenthal's team turned to the preserved remains of single-celled organisms called foraminifera.


Each "foram" builds a hard shell around itself, and the amount of magnesium in the shell varies depending on the temperature of the surrounding water. By measuring the amount of the mineral in the shells, it is possible to work out the temperature of the water in which the forams lived.


Rosenthal examined preserved forams found in sediments from the seas around Indonesia. These seas receive water from the north and south Pacific, so their temperature should reflect the average across the entire Pacific. He focused on three species, which lived at different depths, giving him a measure of temperature changes between 500 and 900 metres deep.


Heat spike


Rosenthal found that after a period of warming following the end of the last ice age, the Pacific steadily cooled by 2.1 °C over the next 9000 years. Temperatures then shot up at an unprecedented rate: increasing by 0.25 °C in 200 years. The timing of the uptick reflects the onset of the industrial revolution.


Similar temperature trends are known to have happened over land – encapsulated in the famous hockey stick graph.


It takes more energy to heat water by 1°C than it does to heat the same mass of air, so the oceans act as a gigantic heat sink that shields us from the effects of global warming.


"If we didn't have the ocean, we would be much warmer", says Rosenthal.


Journal reference: Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1240837


If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.



Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.


Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article


Subscribe now to comment.




All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.


If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.




Parking app can predict when a spot will open up


SICK of searching for a city parking spot? Let your phone do the work. An app can automatically determine when its user has parked, and can alert others when the spot comes open again, all without manual input.


Built by Wen-Yuah Shih and Kun-Chan Lan of National Cheng Kung University in Tainan City, Taiwan, the app uses a phone's accelerometer to recognise when a motorist is driving, when the car stops, and when they get out of the car and start walking – inferring from this sequence that they have parked. The GPS position of the parking spot is then broadcast to other users of the app and marked as "occupied" on their street map (Expert Systems with Applications , doi.org/pjd).


The app uses the phone's compass to note a driver's walking path and waits for them to return in the direction of the parking space. If the user is then sensed moving away from the spot at driving speed the app broadcasts a "parking spot empty" message.


The app could also be programmed to predict when a driver is heading back to their car and send out notice that a parking space is about to become free. This could lead to a system in which fees for paid parking spots can be settled in advance, the researchers suggest.


This article appeared in print under the headline "Smart parking app finds you all the best spots"


Issue 2941 of New Scientist magazine


  • New Scientist

  • Not just a website!

  • Subscribe to New Scientist and get:

  • New Scientist magazine delivered every week

  • Unlimited online access to articles from over 500 back issues

  • Subscribe Now and Save




If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.



Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.


Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article


Subscribe now to comment.




All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.


If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.




Today on New Scientist


Target hub markets to halt new H7N9 flu wave in China

Closing Chinese poultry markets has helped stop H7N9 bird flu in humans, but the new outbreak may need smarter measures focused on well-connected markets


The Halloween trick that conjures ghosts of the mind

The "Bloody Mary" illusion evokes strange sights in the mirror. Douglas Heaven braves an apparition that could help people with schizophrenia


Zapping your brain enhances your love of classic art

People receiving electrical brain stimulation will rate artworks more favourably afterwards – but only if it's not abstract art


Crash-happy insect drone hits obstacles to help it flyMovie Camera

Instead of avoiding collisions, a new ball-shaped flying robot exploits them to help it travel through the air


Emission admission: New Zealand to fail carbon target

Despite a trading scheme that should cut its production of greenhouse gases, New Zealand looks set to emit three times its 2050 target


Iron 'nano-ants' made to haul huge loads with lightMovie Camera

Beads of haematite can pick up and carry other particles more than 10 times their size with the flick of a switch


Gene therapy needs a hero to live up to the hype

A modified version of the virus that causes AIDS could be the unlikely saviour of a promising treatment for a host of deadly diseases


Ditch the pedometer – the AI in your phone is better

Just your smartphone and its built-in sensors can do a better job of measuring the energy you expend during the day than a pedometer


Gaia: The death of a beautiful idea

The first major review of the evidence finds insufficient backing for the appealing Gaia hypothesis, but we should still celebrate its impact on research


Get round internet censors using a friend's connection

People living under repressive regimes will soon be able to access the web using the internet connection of friends in censorship-free countries


New dolphin species leaps out of Australian waters

Where once there was one species of humpback dolphin roaming the Indian Ocean, now there are three


Astrophile: Evil twin planet makes other Earths likely

Kepler-78b is hellishly hot but has the same size, mass and composition as Earth, raising the probability that a true Earth twin is out there


Sardine disappearance was foreseen but ignored

There are no sardines off Vancouver Island this year. Is it a blip, or another major fishery about to collapse?


'Bubble kid' success puts gene therapy back on track

Five children with a genetic disease that wipes out their immune system have successfully been treated with gene therapy


If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.



Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.


Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article


Subscribe now to comment.




All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.


If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.




The Halloween trick that conjures ghosts of the mind


AS I prepare the room, it feels as if I'm getting ready for a seance. I close the curtains to block out most of the light and place two chairs about a metre apart. I prop up a large mirror on one and sit in the other so that I can just see my reflection in the near darkness. Then I set a timer for 10 minutes and wait patiently for the faces to appear.


When they do, it is startling. At first the distortions in the mirror are small: a lifted eyebrow, a twitch of the mouth. But after seven minutes my reflection suddenly looks fake, like a waxwork. And then it is no longer my face. For a few seconds an old man with a thickly wrinkled brow and down-turned mouth stares back at me.


The first time Giovanni Caputo saw the faces, he was also haunted ...


To continue reading this article, subscribe to receive access to all of newscientist.com, including 20 years of archive content.



Zapping your brain enhances your love of classic art


"Oh yes, darling, it's fabulous!" Art appreciation classes might help you enthuse over other people's creative efforts, but zapping your brain might work just as well.


Zaira Cattaneo at the University of Milan Bicocca in Italy and her colleagues showed paintings to 12 people. Each rated the images before and after receiving either transcranial direct current stimulation, which uses electrodes to deliver a small current to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) – a brain area involved in processing emotion – or a mock treatment in which no current was used.


Volunteers rated images containing real-world scenes more highly after stimulation. There was no difference in rating after the mock treatment or for abstract art, possibly because it is processed by brain areas other than the DLPFC.


"The effect of stimulation was subtle, but still pretty remarkable considering the participants were basically just putting a battery on their head," says Anjan Chatterjee, a neurologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.


Explaining why we find something beautiful remains elusive. "Stimulating the DLPFC may improve your mood – like looking through rose-coloured glasses," says Chatterjee.


Neuroaesthetics – the interplay between brain activity and artistic taste – is a young field, says John Hyman, professor of aesthetics at the University of Oxford. "The study of art and aesthetic experience involves difficult and contested concepts. Neuroscience can't help us to understand these things unless it is combined with philosophy, in other words, with the study of these concepts."


For now, Cattaneo hopes the technique may help people with anhedonia, an inability to experience pleasure, one that sometimes affects people with Alzheimer's disease or schizophrenia.


Journal reference: Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, DOI: 10.1093/scan/nst165


This article appeared in print under the headline "Artificially stimulating a love of art"


If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.



Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.


Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article


Subscribe now to comment.




All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.


If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.




Crash-happy insect drone hits obstacles to help it fly



Sometimes being clumsy is useful. Instead of avoiding obstacles, a new ball-shaped flying robot exploits collisions to travel through the air, inspired by the behaviour of insects.


A prototype called GimBall created by Adrien Briod and his colleagues at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne was able to fly autonomously several hundred metres through a forest despite colliding with trees.


Equipped with a compass and an altitude sensor, GimBall was able to maintain its course by keeping a constant altitude, powered by twin propellers and steered by fins. A novel gyroscopic system, made up of a double carbon fibre ring, keeps the robot upright. When it bumps into an object, a rotating, protective frame, which spins separately from the interior mechanism, absorbs the shock.


Spiky threat


It lacks positioning sensors, so the robot's trajectory isn't that precise, but it can go faster through cluttered spaces by throwing caution to the wind. It can easily handle an impact when flying at a speed of about 5 kilometres an hour but a stronger collision will break it. "Insects don't survive run-ins with car windshields either," says Briod.


Spiky objects, like branches, that can penetrate gaps in the cage are also troublesome. But the team plans to improve how the robot tackles obstacles by getting it to detect surrounding shapes. "A detection system could help it find its way into a building or circumvent objects," says Briod.


Its lightweight design is a major advantage: at barely 370 grams, it can easily stay in the air, allowing it to navigate through complex spaces. The researchers foresee it being used in difficult environments, such as in smoky areas that would throw off sensors used by typical robots.


GimBall will be presented at the iREX conference, an international robot exhibition, in Tokyo, Japan, on 5 to 9 November.


If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.



Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.


Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article


Subscribe now to comment.




All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.


If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.




Emission admission: New Zealand to fail carbon target


Talk about a wrong turn. New Zealand's carbon emissions are set to be three times as high as its target, despite the country having an emissions trading scheme.


The government wants to cut emissions to half of 1990 levels by 2050. But projections it released last week show that they are likely to be 50 per cent higher than 1990 levels by 2040.


The Emissions Trading Scheme has a low carbon price of NZ$3.70 (US$3) a tonne, but under the Kyoto protocol companies can buy cheaper carbon credits from developing nations.


That means the emissions cuts are happening elsewhere, says Ross Garnaut of the Australian National University in Canberra. "New Zealand's legitimate abatement comes mainly in other countries rather than at home."


Just too cheap


The cheap carbon credits won't be available after 2015, when New Zealand leaves the protocol. That will mean the cost of producing carbon in New Zealand will rise to around $3 a tonne, or whatever the local price is at that time.


But that won't be enough to affect emissions much. "$3 is not going to shift a cost-benefit analysis significantly," says Suzi Kerr of Motu Economic and Public Policy Research in Wellington.


The government will meet its targets by cutting domestic emissions, building carbon sinks and buying international offsets, says the Ministry for the Environment. But Kerr says the plan is not clear. "New Zealand doesn't have a long-term vision about how it is going to get its emissions down."


If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.



Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.


Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article


Subscribe now to comment.




All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.


If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.




Iron 'nano-ants' made to haul huge loads with light



Ant-like beads of haematite could be the giants of nanoscale construction. Tiny particles of the iron mineral have been made to pick up and carry cargo more than 10 times their size. The feat could be used in targeted drug delivery or building artificial muscles.


Iron-based nanoparticles are ideal cargo-carriers because they can be steered using magnetic fields or by following a thinly etched track. Previous versions relied on chemical glues to pick up stuff, but getting them to drop it has proved difficult.


To tackle that problem, Jérémie Palacci at New York University and his colleagues started by suspending haematite nano-beads and a variety of cargo particles in a hydrogen peroxide solution. Shining a light gave the haematite electrical charge, which broke bonds in the neighbouring solution.


The resulting halo of water and oxygen was not in chemical balance with its surroundings, a disturbance which drew larger particles to the beads. A bead and its cargo could then be steered together. To make the bead release its load, the team simply turned off the light.


Assembly line


"The drop-off has been problematic in other papers. We had to come up with really jerry-rigged situations in order to do it," says Ayusman Sen at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, who was not involved in the new work. "They have a better way of picking up and dropping particles than anyone else." The same iron bead can even be used repeatedly to round up a whole flock of larger particles.


Palacci's team envision using the nano-beads in future micro-manufacturing plants, for instance, to create artificial muscles by laying down the required particles and building fibres along tiny tracks. "That would be really cool," he says. "If you can make that, you can start thinking about everything muscles are used for in biology and try to see if you can mimic it."


Journal reference: Journal of the American Chemical Society, DOI: 10.1021/ja406090s


If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.



Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.


Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article


Subscribe now to comment.




All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.


If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.




Gene therapy needs a hero to live up to the hype


A modified version of the virus that causes HIV could be the unlikely saviour of a promising treatment for a host of deadly diseases


IN TECHNOLOGY, it is called the hype cycle: what initially seems a promising breakthrough leads to inflated expectations – until it becomes clear that a great deal of time, money and effort will be needed to realise that promise. Disillusionment sets in until the first real successes are reported, and then the hype is on again.


So it has gone with gene therapy. When, in the late 1980s, the genes for debilitating inherited diseases began to be identified, many believed that cures were within reach, by replacing the faulty genes with working ones. But getting the right gene into the right place without doing more harm than good proved tricky. Now, 23 years after the first gene therapy trial for a rare immune disease called ADA-SCID, researchers finally have some successes to report (see "'Bubble kid' success puts gene therapy back on track").


Still, a major barrier remains: cost. The first gene therapy drug to be approved for clinical use, to treat a pancreatic disease, is also the world's most expensive drug. At the moment, the production of modified viruses – the vectors used to shuttle genes into a person's cells – is prohibitively expensive, meaning only a handful of those with the diseases in question can be treated.


Pharmaceutical companies may have the means and know-how to scale up production, but inherited genetic diseases are not common. So the industry has been reluctant to invest in treatments for them, preferring instead to channel cash towards bigger killers like cancer.


By a stroke of fortune, a promising form of cancer treatment relying on immunotherapy uses the same viral vector that gene therapists are working on to treat diseases like SCID: a modified version of the virus that causes HIV. Some 700 trials using this kind of safer vector are under way, treating a range of degenerative and immune disorders.


It may seem ironic that a virus that has killed so many holds the potential to yield a cure for a host of other deadly diseases, but such is scientific progress: it comes from unexpected places. That should give fresh grounds for the pharma industry to look again at gene therapy. With a bit of ingenuity and effort, gene therapy might finally live up to the hype.


This article appeared in print under the headline "Live up to the hype"


Issue 2941 of New Scientist magazine


  • Subscribe to New Scientist and you'll get:

  • New Scientist magazine delivered every week

  • Unlimited access to all New Scientist online content -

    a benefit only available to subscribers

  • Great savings from the normal price

  • Subscribe now!




If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.



Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.


Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article


Subscribe now to comment.




All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.


If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.




Ditch the pedometer – the AI in your phone is better


FORGET Fitbits, Fuelbands and other pedometers. Your smartphone and its built-in sensors can do a better job of measuring the energy you expend during the day.


Amit Pande of the University of California, Davis, designed an activity tracking algorithm for smartphones. It works by training a neural network, which functions like a simplified human brain, to recognise features in the data gathered by the phone's accelerometer and barometer. The system also takes account of variables like age, gender, height and weight to estimate energy expenditure.


The team compared their system to the Fitbit and Nike's Fuelband, the leading activity monitors on the market, as well as a professional, wearable calorimeter. It was more accurate than the commercial devices and closely matched the calorimeter.


Fitbit and Fuelband tested particularly badly on stairs. In trial runs up and down four flights of stairs, the commercial devices estimated that more energy was expended going down than up – clearly untrue. In contrast, the smartphone performed better thanks to its barometer, which measures the tiny changes in atmospheric pressure that tell the device when someone is going up and down stairs.


"This is a new market, so in the beginning people are not so worried about accuracy," Pande says. "But we want accurate data so that physicians can use it to improve their understanding of human beings."


Pande and colleagues will demonstrate the system at the Wireless Health conference in Baltimore this week.


Pande is not alone in taking the smartphone-only approach to monitoring human activity. Health data start-up Ginger.io also relies on activity traces from your smartphone's sensors, as well as your text and phone activity, to make predictive health insights and alerts.


Mike Brown of the National University of Singapore says he is impressed with Pande's work, but notes that there are some obvious downsides to phone-only activity sensing. "iPhones and Androids need to charge at least once a day. Fitbit and Nike Fuelband can work for seven to nine days on a single charge," he says." And ever try to run a marathon carrying a phone?"


This article appeared in print under the headline "Ditch the Fitbit – track fitness with your phone"


Issue 2941 of New Scientist magazine


  • New Scientist

  • Not just a website!

  • Subscribe to New Scientist and get:

  • New Scientist magazine delivered every week

  • Unlimited online access to articles from over 500 back issues

  • Subscribe Now and Save




If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.



Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.


Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article


Subscribe now to comment.




All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.


If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.




Gaia: The death of a beautiful idea


THE idea that we live on a planet that takes care of us is intuitively appealing. So it's no wonder that James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis – that the biosphere acts like a living organism, one that self-regulates to keep conditions just right for life – became so popular. Although rooted in science, Gaia appeals to the same side of human nature that gods and guardian angels do.


It's a complex hypothesis, and was never going to be easy to test. But the evidence has been mounting since Lovelock put it forward 40 years ago, and now the first major review of that evidence has been conducted. The verdict? Gaia doesn't hold up (see "My verdict on Gaia hypothesis: beautiful but flawed").


Gaia may yet bounce back. But if it has been struck a fatal blow, it could be the most fitting example yet of what T. H. Huxley called "the great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact".


That's science. Some will lament the demise of a beautiful, comforting idea, but Gaia should be remembered for being an elegant hypothesis that stimulated vital research on what is now (inelegantly) called the Earth system. There will be no tragedy in its passing.


This article appeared in print under the headline "Death of a beautiful idea"


Issue 2940 of New Scientist magazine


  • New Scientist

  • Not just a website!

  • Subscribe to New Scientist and get:

  • New Scientist magazine delivered every week

  • Unlimited online access to articles from over 500 back issues

  • Subscribe Now and Save




If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.



Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.


Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article


Subscribe now to comment.




All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.


If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.




Get round internet censors using a friend's connection


People living under repressive regimes will soon be able to access the web using the internet connection of friends in censorship-free countries


FOR people living under repressive regimes censorship is an everyday reality, and browsing the internet freely is impossible without some serious technical know-how. This week Google threw its weight behind an idea that lets people circumvent censorship by using the internet connection of a friend in a non-censored country.


A collaboration between the University of Washington in Seattle and non-profit firm Brave New Software, uProxy lets users share their internet connection with friends on social networks through a browser extension.


When both parties have the uProxy extension installed, one can forge an encrypted link through the other person's browser and out onto the internet via their social network connection. As well as giving people access to censored content, it could allow people in the UK to watch the US version of Netflix via a US friend's connection, for example, or those in the US to log in to the BBC iPlayer to catch the latest episode of Sherlock.


So far it has only been tested in a closed trial for selected users, but its developers promise to open up the code to curious security researchers. This will also ease fears that any back door may have been left open for authorities such as the US National Security Agency to access and spy on users' browsing habits. Censors can't stop uProxy simply by blocking social networking websites either because, instead of the standard web, it accesses the contact lists via background, hard-to-block online processes.


UProxy was funded by Google's charitable arm, Google Ideas, and the firm is also helping in its development. And it isn't the only anti-censorship tool that uses our friends to get online. Lantern – another Brave New Software project – also relies on your social network to find a trusted computer to connect to the wider internet. Unlike uProxy, it can use friends of friends, widening the pool of potential proxies. Like anonymising software Tor, it is funded by the US Department of State.


Adam Fisk, CEO of Brave New Software, says there are advantages to using a person's social network in this way. For one, censors will have trouble finding and blocking the IP addresses of all your peers. With Lantern and uProxy, the more people that use the service, the harder it is to censor, as more and more trusted proxies become available.


"We're capitalising on the emergence of social networks," says Raymond Chang, a graduate student at the University of Washington who is working on uProxy.


Many anonymising tools still require a high degree of computer literacy to use, although there are some apps that allow people to make encrypted calls and send emails. Google makes its money through easy-to-use web applications, so it's reasonable to expect that uProxy will exhibit some of the same characteristics.


Lantern may also be easy to use, as the plan is to build Gmail encryption right into the system, with all the complicated key exchanges hidden from the user.


Dan Staples of the Open Technology Institute in Washington DC says letting users place trust in people they know for access to the internet is unique. "No matter what, I have to place my trust in someone when I use digital technology," says Staples. "I think the uProxy and Lantern projects are taking a positive approach."


This article appeared in print under the headline "Get online via your friends"


Issue 2941 of New Scientist magazine


  • Subscribe to New Scientist and you'll get:

  • New Scientist magazine delivered every week

  • Unlimited access to all New Scientist online content -

    a benefit only available to subscribers

  • Great savings from the normal price

  • Subscribe now!




If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.



Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.


Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article


Subscribe now to comment.




All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.


If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.




New dolphin species leaps out of Australian waters


(Image: Guido J. Parra, www.cebel.org.au)


They were hiding in plain sight. Where once there was one species of humpback dolphin roaming the Indian Ocean, now there are three.


Humpback dolphins (dolphins of the Sousa genus) live around the coasts of Africa, south Asia and Australia. They are named for a small hump just in front of their dorsal fin.


It has always been difficult to determine how many humpback dolphin species there are. Many biologists think there are just two: the Atlantic (Sousa teuszii ) and Indo-Pacific (Sousa chinensis ) – but others think the Indo-Pacific dolphins are divided into two species.


To try and settle the question, Martin Mendez of the American Museum of Natural History in New York and colleagues extracted genetic material from 235 dolphins from across the animals' range and examined 180 dolphin heads.


They found that the Indo-Pacific dolphins could be considered as three distinct species – the two suspected ones, as well as a new as-yet-unnamed species off northern Australia.


This finding reveals that the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin population is more vulnerable to extinction than ever. What was once considered to be a large population spanning the entire Indian Ocean and beyond is actually three much smaller populations.


Journal reference: Molecular Ecology, DOI: 10.1111/mec.12535


If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.



Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.


Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article


Subscribe now to comment.




All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.


If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.




Astrophile: Evil twin planet makes other Earths likely


Astrophile is our weekly column on curious cosmic objects, from the solar system to the far reaches of the multiverse


Object: Earth-sized exoplanet

Composition: Rock and iron

Temperature: Scorching


Earth now has a twin – but it's evil. There's a planet the same size as Earth in a distant solar system, and it shares our planet's mass and composition. However, the rocky exoplanet is so close to its star that it orbits it once every 8 hours, making it hellishly hot, with almost no prospect of hosting life.


The planet, Kepler-78b, is not the first world to come within 20 per cent of Earth-like size or mass – those distinctions go to Kepler-10b and MOA-2007-BLG-192-L b, respectively.


It's not even the first to claim a rocky make-up, a title that went to COROT-7b in 2009. Kepler-10b is also thought to be rocky. But it is the first to have all three characteristics at once, and raises astronomers' hopes that life-friendly Earth twins are out there.


"This is an existence proof," says Andrew Howard of the University of Hawaii in Honolulu. "When you have one, you know that Nature can make Earth-sized rocky planets outside of the solar system."


Tiny wobbles


As its name suggests, Kepler-78b was first spotted by the now-defunct Kepler space telescope, which spent 3.5 years watching stars for regular dips in brightness, called transits, characteristic of a planet crossing in front of them. That revealed the planet's sizes. The more starlight it blocked, the bigger the planet.


But it gave no direct hint of any given planet's mass, and therefore the planet's density, a clue to composition.


The most successful technique so far for measuring planet masses is by watching the star for the tiny wobbles the planet's gravity induces. The larger and closer a planet is to its star, the bigger the wobble. Earth-mass planets are tiny enough that they would be difficult to detect unless they were close.


When Kepler-78b was discovered with an 8 hour year, two teams jumped at the chance to measure its mass. "Everybody instantly knew this was our one great shot," Howard says.


Iron and rock


Howard's team used the Keck telescope in Hawaii to observe the star. At the same time, a team led by Francesco Pepe of the University of Geneva in Switzerland used the HARPS-N telescope on Spain's La Palma Island.


Howard's team now reports that the planet has a radius of 1.2 Earths and a mass of 1.69 Earths. Pepe's team calculates a radius of 1.16 Earths and a mass of 1.86 Earths. Both give bulk densities of roughly 5.5 grams per cubic centimetre, which is similar to that of Earth and implies a composition of iron and rock.


Unfortunately, it's so hot that much of that rock is probably molten. And it's going to be difficult to extend this technique to finding cooler, more comfortable Earth twins – because of their distance from their host star.


Ongoing mystery


"We didn't find a shortcut to Earth-sized planets in the habitable zone," Howard says. "It's going to require a new generation of ultra-stable spectrographs, probably on the world's biggest telescopes."


But Kepler-78b also poses a more immediate mystery: why does the planet exist at all? When the planetary system was forming, its young star was bigger than it is now, and would have engulfed Kepler-78b at its current orbit. That means the planet must have formed further away and travelled in towards the star since then. But if that is the case then it should have fallen all the way in by now.


In any case, the planet's prognosis doesn't look good: theorists predicts that within 3 billion years, gravity will make Kepler-78b spiral into its star and be ripped to shreds.


Journal references: Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature12767 ; DOI: 10.1038/nature12768


If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.



Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.


Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article


Subscribe now to comment.




All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.


If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.




Today on New Scientist


Dark matter no-show puts WIMPs in a bind

First results from the LUX detector in South Dakota fail to confirm earlier glimpses of the particles thought to be good candidates for dark matter


Ancient mural may be first picture of volcanic blast

An image daubed on a wall 8500 years ago has been interpreted as an exploding volcano – now evidence shows the volcano really did erupt at the time


My verdict on Gaia hypothesis: beautiful but flawed

We now have the evidence to pass judgement on James Lovelock's wildly popular notion that life engineers hospitable worlds, says oceanographer Toby Tyrell


Ohio to execute prisoner using untested drug combo

Shortages of drugs for lethal injection are forcing states to switch to new combinations of drugs, untested for how painlessly they kill


Exoplanet hunters may find ET by glut of alien corpses

Little green men may be easiest to find once they have died out, according to a model of the future of Earth's atmosphere


Health divide widens between Europe's rich and poor

Recession and spending cuts have had a damaging effect on Europeans' health and could threaten the well-being of future generations, warns WHO


First fungal farmers found harvesting bacteria

We know of many insects that farm fungi, but now it appears that some fungi are farmers themselves, cultivating and consuming bacteria


If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.



Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.


Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article


Subscribe now to comment.




All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.


If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.




Sardine disappearance was foreseen but ignored


Western Canada's sardine fleet returned with no fish this month. The loss of the fishery, normally worth CAN$32 million (US$30.7 million), took many by surprise. Yet researchers warned last year that it could happen.


There are still sardines off the US Pacific coast. But the vanishing of the Canadian fish is part of a process that could mean they all disappear for decades, says Juan Zwolinski of the University of California at Santa Cruz.


Pacific sardine populations fluctuate with water temperature. Colder water means fewer fish. Temperatures last fell in the 1940s, but heavy fishing continued, devastating the stock and ending fishing until sardines returned when waters warmed in the 1980s.


"We think this is set to happen again," says Zwolinski, who tracked the population over the past century. He found that sardines have reproduced less since waters cooled in the 1990s. Almost all eggs now come from fish born a decade ago, which are nearly gone.


What's more, acoustic results show that the fish have become smaller over the past decade, partly because of chillier water. This is a problem: the fattest sardines migrate farthest north, so the shrinking fish could help explain Canada's shortage. Smaller fish also reproduce less.


Flaky fish


Despite all this, Canada has continued to up their quotas.


These natural boom and bust cycles make all sardine fisheries fundamentally unsustainable, says Alec MacCall of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in La Jolla, California. "There can be periods of decades when no fishing should be allowed since reproduction cannot even replace the parental stock."


Fishermen need to earn a living, however, making it almost impossible to simply turn off a fishery. Instead, the US limits catches to just 15 per cent of the stock, and tries to match the boom and bust by cutting quotas when waters cool.


But although this is better than Canada's approach, Zwolinski fears the US has not cut quotas enough, as managers do not take account of other factors like the breeding condition of adult fish. As a result, even the US's small catches may be too large.


NOAA is holding an urgent meeting this week to review the US 2014 sardine quota.


Journal reference: PNAS, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1113806109


If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.



Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.


Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article


Subscribe now to comment.




All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.


If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.




'Bubble kid' success puts gene therapy back on track



Continue reading page |1|2


Five children with a genetic disease that wipes out their immune system have successfully been treated with gene therapy


Editorial: "Gene therapy needs a hero to live up to the hype"


MOST parents dream of a 5-week-old baby who sleeps through the night, but Aga Warnell knew something was wrong. Her baby, Nina, just wasn't hungry in the way her other daughters had been.


Within weeks, Nina became very ill, says her father, Graeme. She was admitted to hospital with a rotavirus infection. Then she picked up pneumonia.


It turned out Nina had a condition called severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID). She had been born without an immune system due to a genetic defect. It is also known as "bubble boy" disease, since people affected have to live in a sterile environment. "The doctors said 'you need to prepare yourself for the fact that Nina probably isn't going to survive'," says Graeme.


A year-and-a-half later, Nina is a happy little girl with a functioning immune system. She has gene therapy – and its latest improvements – to thank for it.


SCID was the first condition to be treated with gene therapy more than 20 years ago. A virus was used to replace a faulty gene with a healthy one. But in subsequent trials, four young patients were diagnosed with leukaemia two years after receiving a similar treatment. An 18-year-old also died following a reaction to a virus used in gene therapy for a liver condition. It was the start of a rocky road (see "Trials and tribulations of gene therapy").


Gene therapy has come a long way since, and Nina's case, along with others, mark a turning point: researchers seem to have found a safer way of manipulating our genes.


Preliminary results for the first two children to receive the improved SCID gene therapy – 18 months ago – were presented at the European Society of Gene and Cell Therapy conference in Madrid, Spain, last week. The children's immune systems have continued to improve since receiving the treatment, says Bobby Gaspar of Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, who led the trial.


Three further children – including Nina – have been treated since then, and they too are showing signs of a full recovery.


All five had a form of the disorder called ADA-SCID, caused by a faulty gene for adenosine deaminase. This enzyme usually dispatches a toxic molecule from white blood cells. In its absence the toxin builds up, killing the cells that fight infections.


Stem cells were harvested from Nina's bone marrow and given a working version of the ADA gene, before being injected back in. That was in April, and she wasn't expected to show much of an improvement before December. But by August her white blood cell count had nearly doubled, and today she has the immune system of a healthy newborn baby.


"At last, the successes are beginning to be more than the failures," says Inder Verma at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California. "All of the hard work has come to a point where gene therapy could become a more routine modality of medicine."


The concept of gene therapy is simple: insert a working gene into a person with a faulty version, and its product should overcome the defect. But the reality is more complicated, because you need something to integrate the gene into the patient's DNA and persuade the cells to read it. In other words, you need a vector.


Viruses are the obvious choice as they survive and spread by inserting their genes into the host's genome. Retroviruses work like this, so were the first choice for the initial gene therapy trials. The problem is that they insert genes at random locations in the genome, as well as inserting regulatory sequences that can sometimes activate nearby genes and trigger cancer.


To overcome this, researchers have turned to lentiviruses. These still insert genes randomly, but can be modified to disable some regulatory sequences. "The new generation of lentiviral vectors is much safer, although the risk is not zero," says Patrick Aubourg at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research in Paris. "However, we don't use gene therapy to treat a toothache, we try to treat diseases which result in early death."


Earlier this year, three children with a degenerative enzyme disorder were successfully treated using a modified lentivirus, along with three with an immune disorder called Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome. Promising results have also been seen in degenerative disease adrenoleukodystrophy and the blood-cell disorder beta-thalassaemia. Around 700 gene therapy trials using lentiviruses are ongoing.


Other vectors are showing promise too. For example, adeno-associated virus (AAV) doesn't insert its genes into the genome, but places them alongside it, meaning they get read but are not passed to subsequent generations of cells. That is a problem if you are interested in relatively short-lived cells, like immune cells, but not if you want to modify neurons or liver cells, which last decades.



Continue reading page |1|2


Issue 2941 of New Scientist magazine


  • Subscribe to New Scientist and you'll get:

  • New Scientist magazine delivered every week

  • Unlimited access to all New Scientist online content -

    a benefit only available to subscribers

  • Great savings from the normal price

  • Subscribe now!




If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.



Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.


Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article


Subscribe now to comment.




All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.


If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.