“All the science fit to air…and even some that's not” is the tagline for this irreverent radio show that takes an in-depth look at recent developments in the world of science and technology. The show is hosted by neurobiologist Charles Lee, now at the University of Chicago, and chemist Frank Ling, post-doc at the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California. They get to ask the interesting questions in their quest to grok the universe. "Grok?" you say. Yes, grok: To perceive a subject so deeply that one no longer knows it, but rather understands it on a fundamental level.

Grok is a word that's only been around since the 1960s, when Robert Heinlein introduced it in his sci-fi novel Stranger in a Strange Land, in which a Martian visitor acquires a wealth of information but is still unable to “grok” the earth. "Similarly, science is in the business of acquiring knowledge about nature, its rules, and its principles. Unfortunately, like the man from Mars, science still is unable to 'grok' some fundamental issues regarding the nature of the universe," says Dr. Lee.

Their show is broadcast at noon (Pacific Time) on Wednesdays from KALX 90.7 FM in Berkeley, California, and airs on stations (see the list) across the US, Canada and Australia . You can listen to the show on internet radio and podcast as well. It starts with a quick, chatty, look at the week's developments in science, and then moves on to a guest interviewee, followed by the “Grokatron 5000” supercomputer quiz (too wacky to explain, you'll just have to listen), and wraps up with the answer to their “World famous question of the week.” Last week's question of the week was “What is ATP?” Answer it here.

Lee and Ling have been broadcasting their show since 2001. They conceived of the show working in the news department at KALX when they were graduate students at the University of California, Berkeley. More than 200 episodes later, they have earned their PhD degrees, and are now doing post-doctoral research. Ling joined the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at UC Berkeley, and Lee studies the neurobiological mechanisms of sensory processing in the brain (how sensory systems go through the thalamus to their final target the cortex) at the University of Chicago. But the show goes on.

Here are just a few of the topics they've tackled this year and other years…

• Will a thinking machine be regarded as a person, differing from humans only in design? Guest: Anne Foerst, Visiting Professor of Theology and Computer Science, St. Bonaventure University (Dec 2004)
• Science relies on empirical evidence to support its central theories and tenets, while religious belief relies on the faith of the believer. Can these two separate world views be reconciled? Guest: Dr. Francis Collins, National Human Genome Research Institute (Oct 2007)
• Kicking the carbon habit – is nuclear power the answer? Guest: William Sweet (May 2008)
• How did the world's most iconic computer get started?Guest: Andy Hertzfeld, co-creator of the Apple Macintosh (Jan 2005)
• Is beauty in the eye of the beholder or can it be induced? Guest: Dr. Shunsuke Shimojo, Caltech (March 2004)
• What are the possibilities of low energy space flight? Guest: Dr.Ed Belbrouno, NASA (Aug 2007)
• The chemistry of global climate change.Guest: Dr. Yuan-Tseh Lee, Nobel Laureate (Feb 2004)
• Revolutions in cancer therapy. Guest: Dr. David Nathan, Harvard University (July 2007)
• Math and its philosophical implications. Guest: Dr. Gaurav Suri, Stanford University (Dec 2007)
• Changes in the global environment are threatening the existence of many species of birds. What can be done to help? Guest: Dr. Jeffery Wells, Boreal Songbird Initative (Jan 2008)
• see their list of past episodes...

For two weeks here on Cogito, the tables were turned and Cogito members got to interview the interviewers - about their show, their research, and groking the universe.

You can read the conversation straight through, or you can jump to the Q & A about the show, about neuroscience, or about energy and fuel issues.

About the show...

Charles Lee: Just thought I would post a quick "Hello" to everyone.   We're looking forward to some great questions in the next couple of weeks... but, we make no guarantees that we'll be able to provide equally great answers... ;)

Q: I'm curious as to who you would have on your show if you could interview anyone, dead or alive? What sort of questions would you ask, oh, Albert Einstein, for example?

Frank Ling: One person I've always admired is Madame Curie. If you look back at the lives of many scientists and especially hers, you see how much they were challenged, scientifically and personally. And yet, they didn't sway from their vision of finding the truth and using their discoveries for bettering the world. It would certainly be fascinating to find out what went through her mind and how she overcame her struggles.

As for Einstein, how did he get all those girls? :)

Charles Lee: What famous scientist would I interview?  I would interview Isaac Newton.  Like most historical figures, much of his past has been highly edited.  Little is often said of his interest in Alchemy, for instance.  Similarly, chatting with Galileo would be interesting just to see what gave him the strength to persist in the face of institutionalized opposition.  Finally, an interesting figure in my field is Ramon y Cajal, who is essentially regarded as one of the founders of modern neuroscience.  He apparently was also a colorful personality.

What are some of your favorite quotes, or even moments, from doing your show? Any insightful, witty things that just cut to the true essence of a field or idea?

Frank Ling: I love quotes! Here are two of my favorites from Einstein.

1. "Try to be a man of value than a man of success." Most times there are not tangible rewards in science. If people were only interested in getting ahead and succeeding, being faster and being stronger, I think collectively we would not get very far. The greatest discoveries come from people who think a little differently and see the world in a way not seen before. The value comes bringing new insight and understanding to the field, which ultimately benefits everyone.

2. "If we knew what we were doing, we wouldn't be calling it research." One thing great about science is that we can live with a reasonable amount of uncertainty.  And that's exciting, because we can always question what we thought we knew and try new experiments. Re-search: search and search and search. :)

Charles Lee: Favorite quotes?  I'm glad to see that Kurt Vonnegut made it onto your list of quotes.  "So it goes" indeed.  Well, one quote that is often repeated that I find very interesting is Newton 's famous quote of "If I have seen far, it is beacuse I have stood on the shoulders of giants."  This is a nice quote because it indeed indicates that the progress of science is cumulative.  But like most quotes, the purported story behind it is more unique.  Newton was apparently a very vindictive person, and he apparently used the phrase "shoulders of giants" as a veiled insult against another scientist Robert Hooke, who was a man of small stature.  So, the quote, I think serves another purpose, and also illustrates that science is still a very human endeavor, filled with the same human trappings that pervade all other areas of life.

How do you decide who to interview?

Charles Lee: We usually choose our interviews based on either what is making news in science or good general science books that have been recently released.  Usually authors of science books tend to make good interviewees, since they have distilled their story into book form and can communicate a nice condensed version in an interview.

Frank Ling: We do get a lot of books from authors and a lot of them have fascinating stories. Sometimes, we have to choose because there are too many good ones out there! I also like getting professors who are inspiring. It always brings perspective into one's own work I think and gives me a chance to think about my own research in a different way.

While you were in college or high school, what non-science course would have liked to have take (or you did take) to help (or that did help) with your current work?

Charles Lee: It's always useful to learn another language.  I took German for several years, which is actually very useful in science since a lot of early terminology in the physical sciences were coined by German scientists.  One of the other reasons that I studied German was that it is also a very important language in the global marketplace, which of course can not be said of Latin.  Nevetheless, if you have an interest in learning languages, you should certainly do it.  Just keep in mind that it might not be the most practically useful.

Frank Ling: Non-science courses? I think I would have taken a drama or a communications course. After graduating, I've found that learning to express yourself is really important and I think also an enlivening experience. (I'm trying to make up for this with the radio program!) You really feel that you can make difference and all your fears of what others think about you go away. Who knows, maybe this could lead to a career in comedy? :)

How did you get into having your own radio show? When you were still students at Berkeley , did strangers ever come up to you knowing you from the show? And what was the most fun interview you ever conducted?

Charles Lee: I initially started working for the news department at the radio station.  Afterwards, Frank and I proposed the idea of a science show to the public affairs director at the station.  We produced a pilot episode, and then it just took off from there into a weekly show.  We have been recognized in public a few times, either because of our names or because someone recognized our voice (usually, Frank's).  It's always flattering and kind of fun to be recognized because of your work.  As far as the most entertaining interviews, it's really hard to say.  I've sort of lost track after 350+ episodes.  But, I did thoroughly enjoyed my interviews with Prof. Sylvia Nassar and Prof. John Stachel.  They were very passionate about their subjects, and the enthusiasm I think can be heard in the interviews.  Of course, there are many more that have been equally entertaining, but it would be far too daunting to try and list them all.

How was your interview with Dr. Sylvia Nasar? On a personal front, I really loved the movie "A Beautiful Mind", and the life story of Dr. Nash has been a source of inspiration for me. It has led me to believe that nothing is impossible if you set your mind to it.

Charles Lee: I personally enjoyed this interview.  She is a very dynamic speaker, and had obviously spent a great deal of time researching Nash's life.  Also, most of our interviews are recorded over the phone, so it's always a pleasure when guests come into the studio as she did.  The message of the biography is really one of hope.  As she put it, there really are few stories that have a genuine third act.  Nash's story was fascinating because you have a meteoric rise followed by a decline and then a redemption culminating with the Nobel Prize.  Nasar's reaction to these events is also quite heart warming, and she really had a strong emotional investment in the ongoing events of his life. 

Frank Ling: I also enjoyed the Sylvia Nasar interview. I had the honor of getting her a cup of coffee. Certainly, if you put your mind to it, anything is possible. One of our interviewees, Dudley Herschbach likes to remind his students "The hard we do right away, the impossible takes a little time." He was a Nobel Laureate in chemistry.

Earlier you said that the pasts of figures like Isaac Newton were carefully edited. Being a student of history, I'm interested in this type of thing. Have you ever done any research on this area of historical editing? If so, what were your findings?

Charles Lee: Well, on our show, we've interviewed several authors who have discussed the “story behind the story” of several famous scientific discoveries.  Besides the Newton story, we recently interviewed an author who did some historical research that suggested that Alexander Graham Bell stole the idea for the telephone from Elisha Gray.  We interviewed an author discussing the story of how Johannes Kepler appropriated Tycho Brahe's astronomical observations after his death.  There was also an author discussing the great rivalry between Camillo Golgi and Ramon y Cajal.  Now, I don't think that the history of science is intentionally edited to remove these more negative aspects.  Like most things, these stories are often simplified to make them easily transcribed.  Also, I think that there is a tendency to want to lionize our heroes, and pave over their deficiencies.  After enough time passes, I think that events can be viewed in a more neutral frame.  Nevertheless, history is probably never completely free from bias, since the historian is always guiding the focus of the investigation.  Anyway, those are just some thoughts...

Do you feel that taking a few history courses can help when one is involved in science?  Do such history courses help one to get a better understanding of the developments in science over time, and how one should approach introducing a new technology to the public? 

Frank Ling: I have to admit that when I was in high school and college, I did not take history courses for fun. There were some fun facts involved, however I saw those courses as mostly reading and preparing for tests. But I do love history and I enjoying reading the biographies of scientists to understand what they went through, how they struggled, and some of their eccentricities. I think those types of stories are inspiring.

Have you ever tried to interview Dr. Steven Hawking. I am sure his story would be an inspiration for all your listeners.

Charles Lee: We haven't had Steven Hawking on the program... yet.  But, we'll definitely try to interview him one day.  His story would indeed be inspirational.  In fact, I think the BBC made a television docudrama about his life a while ago.

Frank Ling: I think I sent in a request for an interview with Hawking once. I didn't hear back but then again, I wonder if anyone would believe us. I mean, can't anyone with a computer make a speech synthesizer? :)

...jump to the Q & A about the show, about neuroscience, or about energy and fuel issues

About neuroscience….

Q: What makes some people left-handed and others right-handed? Is it true that left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people, and if they are, why would that be?

Charles Lee: Actually, I'm not sure if anyone really knows what causes left-handedness, although there must certainly be a genetic determinant.  As for the thalamus, it is an underappreciated structure in the human brain.  All sensory information, except for smell, passes through the thalamus before reaching the neocortex.  From there, most textbooks suggest that all subsequent sensory computations just take place in the cortex.  My research focusses on the neglected role of the thalamus in the higher level processing of sensory information.  So, to put it simply, without the thalamus, you would not be able to see, hear, feel, or taste.

Has any research been done to discover why humans do not use their entire brains in everyday life?  Is the potential of the unused portions of the human brain known? 

Charles Lee: You might have heard the saying that you only use 10% of your brain.   But this is largely incorrect.  It is true that many parts of the brain are specialized for certain types of tasks, e.g. motor movement, vision, hearing, etc.  So in that sense, a specific task might be engaging only a small fraction of the neural resources of the brain.  But, your entire brain is always constantly active and dealing with all of its many problems constantly. 

I didn't know that most of the brain was constantly active - thanks for the information! 

So far, what roles of the thalamus, if any, have been discovered that contribute to higher-level processing of sensory information beyond simply "relaying" inputs to the neocortex?

Charles Lee: Well, I recently published a journal article demonstrating that the thalamic inputs to the higher cortical areas is physiologically similar to the thalamic projections to first order cortical areas.  The lab has also previously demonstrated that the cortex sends strong information-bearing projections to higher thalamic areas.  When we put all of this evidence together, it suggests that there is a route for information transfer from lower cortical areas to higher cortical areas via the thalamus.  Now, this does not exclude information processing via direct cortical connections.  However, it does suggest that the thalamus also plays an important role in higher order sensory processing.

Are you doing any work on synaesthesia? Do you have any insights into the causes or the mechanisms behind it?

Charles Lee: Well, I don't personally work on synaesthesia, but I don't think that anyone actually knows what causes it.  One possibility that has been suggested is that there is some cross-wiring in the cortex between regions responsible for the different sensory modalities.  For examples, extra connections between visual and auditory cortices may result in an auditory-visual synaesthete.  These connections are normally eliminated during normal development, but in synaesthetic individuals they may remain.  This may be due to either genetic or experience-dependent processes.  Interestingly, this same process of connectional refinement during development may also allow younger individuals to recover from brain injury better tan older individuals, whose connections are more solidified.

What causes sensory processing disorder? Does SPD have any relation to synaesthesia?

Charles Lee: Well, SPD seems to be one of those psychiatric diagnoses that is a little unclear.  There also seems to be some controversy surrounding its relation to other diagnoses, such as ADHD.  So, given that the actual disorder seems to be ill-defined, it's probably not surprising that the actual cause is also unknown.  I'll speculate that since sensory information seems to be processed normally in SPD individuals, then the deficit must lie with the higher sensory and emotive centers.  So, brain structures such as the amygdala, insular cortex, and prefrontal cortex, would likely be affected in these individuals.  However, this is again just speculation.

I've heard about "savantes", who are musical geniuses. How is it possible that these individuals, being so gifted in one area, are otherwise "disabled"?  How do their brains work? 

Charles Lee: The brain is structured normally to favor the general over the particular.  The connections in the brain are such that they can be readily adapted, and are useful for producing general categorizations of the world.  So, we are good at knowing generally what a “house” is, rather than remembering every “house” that we've ever seen.  This is advantageous, since knowing general rules is probably more useful to surviving in a constantly changing environment.  However, in savants, the connections of their brain are such that they seem to favor the particular at the expense of the general.  The idea that the structure of the connections in their brain are more dedicated to certain tasks may take away from their ability to generalize, thus leading to their superlative specialized abilities, but their general lack of ability in all other areas.

Thanks for the information about savants!  I had heard that one suggestion was that one side of their brain was "on", while the other side was "off."  Your explanation, which involved generalizing versus focusing on the particular, seems to have some similarities with the above idea.  However, is the idea that the two "sides" of the brain are different, a valid concept?  Is it true that one "side" is focused on mathematics, and the other "side" on language, as I have heard? 

Charles Lee: Some cognitive functions, such as language, do appear to be sequestered on one side of the brain and not the other.  This was some of the initial work done by Roger Sperry's group at Caltech back in the 60s, for which he won the Nobel Prize.  They studied split brain patients, who had their corpus callosum (the fibers connecting both hemispheres) cut to stop epileptic seizures.  When they tested these patients, they found that presenting stimuli to one side of the body versus the other could result in different behavioral outputs.  For example, the patient could verbally respond to images on the right side of his body (the left cortex), but not to images on the left side of his body (the right cortex).  However, if you game him material objects to touch, he could use his tactile senses to tell you what object he saw, regardless of which side of the body the images were presented.  This led to the idea that the left hemisphere is more responsible for things like language and logical processing.

Some individuals who seem more math or language-oriented argue that the corresponding side of their brain is more active than the other.  Is this possible? 

Charles Lee: I suppose it is possible that activity increases in one particular hemisphere of the brain in people who are more mathematically or linguistically inclined.  And, in the back of my mind, I can recall a few imaging studies that have suggested that this is the case.  However, one could also argue that those individuals who have exceptional abilities might be accessing both hemispheres more readily.  Unfortunately, I don't know if there is a definitive answer here.

I find myself to be more language-oriented, and thus the argument of my using more of one side of my brain than the other frequently arises.  Is there a way to "strengthen" the other side of the brain to either equalize the two sides or induce the less-dominant side to become dominant?  

Charles Lee: Well, it is certainly possible to train yourself to use different abilities.  Obviously, the more activities that you become involved in that require the use of different abilities will result in plastic changes to your brain.  But, the extent to which you can change hemispheric dominance is probably more limited.  Obviously, if you are right handed, you can learn how to write with your left hand, but you may never be as facile or ambidextrous.  Again, much of this is genetically determined.  Much of it is determined by early environment.  In fact, it is believed that much of the initial development of the connections in the brain occurs up until the age of seven.  After that, the changes are more gradual, but can still be refined somewhat. 

Your profile says you are particularly interested in the mechanisms of sensory processing in the brain, so perhaps you would be able to answer a question recently posed by a musically-inclined (or rather, obsessed) friend of mine: what is it about the human brain that makes us perceive certain combinations of sounds as "music?" Adding in a question of my own, do scientists currently know what makes a person "tone deaf?"

Charles Lee: Well, you might be interested in one of our recent interviews with Prof. Daniel Levitin, who wrote a book on this subject, called This is Your Brain on Music.  Here's a link to the interview.  One definition for "music," that Prof. Levitin proposes is "organized sound."   The whole field of music theory tries to define what makes pleasing or interesting sounds.   In western music, for example, the interval relationship of frequencies, such as period doubling (the octave) or the perfect fifth, tend to produce the most pleasing sound combinations.  In addition, other elements, such as timbre, beat, rhythm, all contribute in highly non-linear ways to producing interesting pieces of music.  Several areas of the brain are involved in processing this sound information, auditory regions (for sensation), limbic areas (for emotion), and memory-related areas. These all contribute to our perception of a unified musical gestalt.  However, as is pointed out by Prof. Levitin, since processing in these areas varies for different individuals, musical tastes vary considerably.  There are few if any musical pieces that are universally agreed upon as great, just as there is no universal formula for creating great music.  Similarly, the inability to recognize certain sound sequences, or being "tone deaf," is equally unknown.  Certainly, there is some genetic basis for musical aptitude, but as with other abilities, environmental exposure perhaps plays as great a role in shaping our musical abilities.

...jump to Q & A about the show, about neuroscience, or about energy and fuel issues

About energy and fuel …

Q: Over the last decade or so, automobiles and factories have increased in number, and the environment is deteriorating. Many environmental issues have risen recently. So what has modern chemistry got to say to the problems of the modern day world? Have any efficient, alternative fuels been discovered? Have scientific techniques been discovered to combat global warming?

Frank Ling: The environmental challenges that we face today are enormous and ultimately require changes in our behavior. It's arguable that we already have the technology to lower the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are responsible for global warming. But to really get the technology out there, we need a combination of policy and markets (economists like to call it supply and demand!). Until now, we haven't been able to assign a "cost" to the environmental impact of - for example - the energy we use. Once we are able to do that (In Congress a number of legislation are being proposed to that through what they call "cap-and-trade"), then there will be an incentive for consumers for adopt better technologies for the environment. Because the price of what you buy will also reflect the environmental costs associated with it. Whether you like it or not, the cost of something is often an overwhelming factor in how one makes decisions on what they buy or technologies they adopt.

In terms of techniques for combating global warming, there are in fact many of them. In a landmark paper that came out in 2004, Dr. Socolow (from Princeton) mentions a number of technologies that could prevent our GHG emissions from rising.

Although my focus lately has been on low carbon technologies and policy, I often think about how certain innovations in chemistry could be applied towards addressing environmental problems. On the energy side, these include better materials for harnessing solar energy and making devices and processes more efficient. The light bulb is one of the success stories in efficiency. Until a few years ago, most household lamps used an incandescent light bulb which converted 5% of the energy into light and 95% into wasted heat. The transition to compact fluorescent light bulbs is already underway, which can convert 20 to 25% of the energy into light. This was of course a leap in innovation into a new set of materials and chemicals used.

There is an excellent issue (subscription might be required) of the journal from the Materials Research Society that discussed the various opportunities that chemistry has to play in materials for reducing CO2 emissions.

So, I've focused on energy as it is directly related to the green house gasses that underlie global warming, but much more is needed to address broader environmental questions like clean water and protecting biodiversity. All of these fall under the general terminal of clean tech or green technologies.

Dr. Ling, What are your views on the uses of nuclear energy? How does it stack up against other alternative sources of energy?

Frank Ling: That's a radioactive question!   Nuclear power is certainly very controversial and there is no clear cut answer. I am not a big fan of nuclear power, yet I believe it may be a necessary evil in combating global warming. It is arguably the least expensive way, as compared to alternative energy and efficiency, to install clean power over the next few decades. Many scientists now believe that nuclear power will be critical component in our energy future. In comparison to a coal plant, nuclear will help us meet the world's energy needs and address climate change at the same time. Nuclear technology is reasonably safe as there has been development for many decades. My concern is the people who are running the plants. In one recent instance, a guard at a nuclear power plant was caught sleeping. This raises worries of possible terrorist attacks. Also, how do you dispose and safeguard the waste, which could also used to create weapons.

Will solar and wind power be able (through the progression of technology) to "solve" the energy crisis by providing much of the needed energy in the future?

Frank Ling: I was one of those people who grew up thinking how cool technology is and how it was going to solve a lot of problems, including energy. It turns out that we all already have the capacity to power ourselves from wind and solar if we were to exact even a small fraction of what's available. For example, all the wind in South Dakota , if completely extracted, could power the entire US. But then there are issues of how do you bring all that power across the US without blowing up the grid, how many birds does that kill, etc. With solar, the Earth receives enough energy in 15 minutes to power all of civilization for one year. But capturing that energy is still very expensive compared to capturing wind. In principle, the price per unit of these technologies goes down by about 25% every time you double the production. Presumably, solar and wind will become cheap enough to compete with the conventional power plants. The question is when ? Is it 10 years or is it 20? That's the tough part of the problem. So I think solar and wind as well as geothermal, biomass, efficiency and even nuclear power will all play significant roles in the future.

I had heard previously that a combination of energy sources, rather than a single one, would probably be the "way of the future".  Thank you for providing details on this concept.  Considering the recent news about biofuels, which include less promising discoveries (such as how they may not be as environmentally-friendly as previously thought), will biofuels be improved through new technology, or will other energy sources be used instead?

Frank Ling: The question of biofuels is also radioactive. From what I understand, biofuels from corn may have some benefits but if you include the fact that forests and grasslands are converted to create more crops (CO2 is released in this process!), then the overall effect could be very negative. One controversial paper by Searchinger suggests that emissions associated with corn ethanol are twice the emissions of gasoline when land use is factored in. Biofuels would be much more, but not conclusively, better if we got it from cellulosic sources. That is, we convert the woody part of the plant (for that matter any plant) into ethanol. With bioengineering this could be promising for making biofuels environmentally viable. An enzyme could be developed to break down all this cellulosic material. It's still not clear how long it will take for this breakthrough to occur.

...jump to Q & A about the show, about neuroscience, or about energy and fuel issues