Sovereign Wealth Matters

My friend Serena, who you may know as one of the co-founders of My Mom is a Fob and My Dad is a Fob, is currently trying to find a way out of Thailand, something which protests at Bangkok’s two airports has made much more difficult. I wish Serena and her family the best of luck and a safe trip back.

While a lot of press attention is dedicated to the direct why’s of the protests (demands that the current Prime Minister step down because of his ties to a previously deposed Prime Minister, his brother), less attention is paid to the role that Singaporean sovereign wealth fund Temasek Holdings played in the whole ordeal.

The Former Prime Minister made the mistake of selling his large 50% stake in Thai telecommunications company Shin corporation to Temasek, despite:

• being accused of insider trading only a short while before
• violating a law banning turning over majority control of telecommunications companies by foreign companies
• making the sale without paying any capital gains taxes

The result of these accusations were widespread riots, the Prime Minister dissolving Parliament, and, eventually, him being removed by a military coup.

And so, what have we learned here? Sovereign Wealth Funds are not just mere curiosities whereby oil-rich (Dubai, Mubadala, Norway, etc.) and Asian countries (China, Singapore) buy up HUGE stakes in companies private equity style (some of the research I did on these funds back in January put their total global size at about ~$3 trillion). They have serious political consequences, as the world is only beginning to discover:

• Sovereign wealth funds, for a time, were considered to be potential saviors of the financial markets as they were injecting billions of dollars into the big Wall Street banks, keeping them afloat for just a bit longer
• China’s acquisition of a huge stake in Private Equity firm Blackstone raised a lot of eyebrows in Congress over China’s potential exposure to America’s top business and military secrets.
• A Middle Eastern sovereign wealth fund raised a great furor in Europe when they attempted to buy up EADS, large military contractor and manufacturer of the Airbus planes
• Mubadala backed the spinoff of AMD’s manufacturing assets into the new Foundry Company in a move which may alter the balance between AMD, Intel, and NVIDIA and dramatically change the semiconductor space

Yes, we’re in the midst of a global recession right now, but think – what better time for a sovereign wealth fund to buy up companies then when the prices are low and when governments are least likely to raise a fuss about someone willing to inject capital into their struggling businesses?

(Image Source) (Image Source)

Shadow Sculpture

Over on Xhibiting, I just made a post about something I saw on an excursion through San Francisco’s lovely Golden Gate Park last Sunday:

One exhibition, by Bay Area artist Jin Feng,  in particular, caught my eye (images from Jin’s website):

They may appear, at first glance, to be merely a set of ink sketches, but they are actually flat wire sculptures.

Intrigued? Check out more pictures (with better resolution than what my Blackberry camera can muster) at: http://www.xhibitr.com/xhibiting/2008/11/shadow-sculpture/

Loving you is like a disease

I had an interesting exchange with a high school friend of mine about the difference between "love" (in the sense of romance) and "just friendship". In her extreme geekiness (come on, don’t act surprised, she and I did quiz bowl in high school after all!), she used a chemistry analogy about chemical bonds to try to describe the difference!

To misappropriate another scientific example, my "philosophy of love" sees love as a living reaction much like your immune system.

Your immune system is good at fighting off infection, because it responds pretty non-specifically to a wide range of general indicators of infection (like LPS or double-stranded RNA). That non-specific, general response is, in my mind, friendship: not super-strong (I don’t think most people think of their friends with the same intensity that they do their lover or crush), not super-specific (people oftentimes have many friends, but only a handful of loves), but doesn’t "click" with every thing under the sun (there are some people who, no matter how nice, you’ll just never be good friends with).

But your immune system only truly gets fired up when you have a combination of those general, non-specific/friendship-like reactions in addition to a specific response to a specific disease. In biology, that something is an antigen, but in my analogy for love it’s that extra something in romance which takes it beyond "just friends". And what it is can vary — just as your immune system can get fired up for all sorts of germs, your "romantic side" can get fired up by multiple people.

So, what happens when the love in a relationship dies? Well, some examples of “love” are nothing more than brief love affairs/crushes — those burn out quickly much as a quick infection would quickly spike an immune response, like the swelling that happens right after you get a cut. These die down pretty rapidly. Other relationship/immune responses take longer to fizzle — and those would be the harder-to-fight germs which cause illnesses that require your immune system to be working hard, non-stop for a long period of time.

And what about that special love that doesn’t die out? The kind that ends in a wedding ceremony and two kids and a picket fence? There are several ways to think about it from an immunological perspective, but I think the best description would be malaria. With certain strains of malaria, if you happen to survive the first couple of attacks, the disease forms a relationship with your body whereby you never get to fully get rid of it, and it periodically comes back (an anniversary of a first date? wedding date?) in full force.

Not exactly the most romantic analogy I’ve ever come up with (and probably not something to use on a first date), but I think it works pretty well.

Image credit (heart candy), Image Credit (birds), Image Credit (malaria)

Eco-sound

(cross posted from Xhibiting)

Eco-chic seems to be the newest thing in product design. These concept design Bonsai speakers from JVC from their Sound Garden collection carries on this trend (HT: Inhabitat).

Made from some type of eco-plastic (which hopefully is as eco-friendly as it sounds), these devices are stackable speakers (as shown below) which house a space where you can place a bonsai plant!

Each speaker module provides multidirectional sound and a subwoofer – so you don’t have to sacrifice sound quality for eco-chic.

No idea when or where these will be on sale, but I would imagine you’d have to pay a pretty penny for something that looks (and probably sounds) this good!

Reaching Out

1. My method of using no text on the vast majority of the slides really worked. It was especially useful as it meant I could stop anywhere in my slides if I was running out of time, and the littlest ones were not distracted by trying to read the words rather than listening to me.
2. Pictures of fluffy, pretty, cute, or “gross” animals were very, very popular. The number of “Awwwws” I got when showing pictures of cats was astounding. Equally, all the older ones wanted to see my pictures of the newborn mice (pretty gross with no hair!), and all ages enjoyed trying to figure out what the photo of e.coli was.
3. As soon as you ask a question, they all raise their hands to answer it. Not sure when this stops, but I know that by the time I was in high school the teachers had a hard time prying any answers out of the majority of us!  However, on Monday I was at a school where the eldest was 11, and they all wanted to contribute. So, ask them questions. I found there were two types: the question where I wanted to get an answer (such as “What traits make a good horse?” or “What do you think makes these two cats different?”) and the type where I just wanted them to feel included in the talk, and just wanted a show of hands (such as “How many of you have a cat?” or “Who has heard of diabetes?”).
4. Introduce some ethics, and show how scientists think very carefully before doing research. We talked about genes a lot, and how putting new genes in bugs like e.coli can help us, e.g. the human insulin gene into e.coli to help with diabetes. I told all the older kids that it wasn’t the tool that is a problem: a tool is neither good nor evil. It’s how that tool is used, and people need to make a fresh decision, and think about the benefits and downsides each time that tool is used. I said genetic modification is like a knife: it is neither good nor bad, and that scientists try very hard to make sure that it is used for the right reasons, and in a safe way.
5. Visually-arresting analogies: Even though DNA is a double-helix and not a spiral staircase, I found it a very useful analogy, especially for the younger ones.
6. My partnered teacher had prepared some slides to show the kids prior to my arrival. They dealt with Mr. Green Genes, the GFP-glowing cat. Some of the other teachers also talked to their kids about inheriting some of your traits from your mom, and some from your dad, and used thelabradoodle as a visual aid. This prepped them for my talk, which I think was really helpful.
7. Make your talk inclusive. It keeps their interest, I think. When I showed pictures of cats, I included one picture of my own cat, and told them a little about her. I often asked them questions about if they had pets, or scientists in the family, or liked the look of a picture, or knew what something was.

• Put up a science website - The best learning happens outside of the classroom. Now, I don’t advocate scientists to turn their labs over to 8-year-olds, but I do think that giving students a resource to look at outside of class.
• Edit wiki’s - It’s astounding how many people use Google and/or Wikipedia to find information about science and medicine. This represents an incredible opportunity for the scientific community to properly inform the public — fail, and let vaccine fear-mongers, Creationists, global warming deniers, and their kind guide the public discussion.
• Put up online video - A few years ago, online videos were clunky and difficult to use. So you had an excuse back then to not put up videos on your website. Today? Different story. When YouTube is a household name, there is no excuse for people not to put up engaging demo videos — because people who don’t know what they’re talking about are.
• Use feeds - Twitter. Flickr. Del.icio.us. RSS. These are becoming increasingly more mainstream, especially among students, so scientists should learn to use them. Who knows, your picture of GFP-tagged Neurons may be what inspires the discoverer of the cure for Alzheimers?
• Interactive applications - Show the public what you’re researching in a way which actually speaks to them. No, don’t show them your NSF grant application, show them a Google Earth layer highlighting your research on Ancient Rome, the impact of global sea levels rising, or the beautiful nebula that you’re telescopes are pointing at. Present an applet which shows the beauty of a Lorentz attractor, or examples of simple machines in your household.

Super what?

I was listening to the new Christina Aguilera song, “Keeps Getting Better”, on a local radio station on my way to work. It’s a fairly upbeat song with a chorus which goes like this:

Some days I’m a super bitch  

Up to my old tricks 

But it won’t last forever

Next day I’m your super girl

Out to save the world

And it keeps gettin’ better

The local radio station, of course, can’t use the word “bitch” in a public broadcast and simply replaced it with a poorly edited “girl” (from three lines below).

A part of me, though, wonders what’s the point — even if the editing had been done better, it’s not like there is a single person out there who doesn’t realize what Aguilera is actually saying — it’s implied pretty strongly, not to mention all over the internet and probably on the CD as well. It’s like when in music videos, they blur out people using the middle finger — does anyone think that actually stops people from getting the message?

My wishlist for Obama

On November 4th, American voters made history by electing the country’s first African American president in a move which, I hope, marks the dawn of an era where racism and sexism can be thought of as “things of the past.”

Now, like countless others, I too have a (relatively) nonpartisan wish list for the Obama administration – many of which my Capitol Hill staffer friend Bill will tell me are hopelessly unfeasible regardless of how nonpartisan they may be, but darn it all, can’t I hope for change? Here are 6 things I hope will change:

• Greater globalization – This is probably the most partisan item on my wishlist, but it really shouldn’t be. Economists on both sides of the aisle have made this argument for years, but I’ll make it again – trade is good for the economy and helps to encourage diplomacy over war. Immigration is good for the economy and helps to introduce new ideas and perspectives into American society. Financial market integration is good fro the economy by expanding access for people and businesses to deep pools of capital. For an Obama administration to truly represent the hope, change, and tolerance, Obama must ignore the calls from members of his party seeking increased tariffs and trade restrictions, and members of the opposition party who seek to stop immigration and engagement with the global community.
• Going digital – It’s 2008. Yet, if you were to look at practically any US government website, you’d think it was 1994. This has to change – not just for the web-savvy, but because the US government is not taking advantage of available technology which can help voters stay informed about the laws and decisions which affect their lives. For starters, I want to see RSS feeds which give updates on legislation and treaties. I want to see the CBO, the BLS, and everyone else up upload their data in an interactive and easily-searchable format akin to Google Finance. I want to be able to see streaming video of every testimony and hearing. I want the CIA world factbook to be a searchable mashup of Google Maps and Wikipedia. I want to see a blog which helps to explain in plain terms what each bill under discussion means. And, yes, it will cost money and take time, but, frankly, this is something I feel the government is obligated to do for its people.
• Carbon tax – Global warming and the dependence of the US economy on oil are serious issues. Although both parties have pushed the idea of funding research on alternative energy, both sides have stopped just short of backing a solution which has achieved broad consensus among policy analysts and economists, stands the best chance of not only increasing private funding of research on green technology and carbon sequestration but also of reducing US carbon emissions in the short term (rather than just the long term): a tax on carbon emissions. When you have both Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich agreeing that action on global warming must be taken, I think the new administration has very few excuses left for why such a tax shouldn’t be passed.
• Changing the role of the FDA – The FDA is currently deplored by different groups for different things. Patients and doctors needing new treatments bemoan the FDA’s lack of speed. Bio/pharma companies have great difficulty getting new treatments to market quickly. Consumer advocacy groups fear the FDA is not stringent enough. Doctors are confused by the information that is available on a particular drug. To me, all of these problems stem from the FDA playing too much of a role in determining what “safe” and “effective” are, and too little a role in making sure that the information available to medical professionals is accurate, up-to-date, and meaningful. Why should the FDA do the incredibly vague and complex task of being the final arbiter of which treatments “make the cut”, when (a) they should not be making this decision (the correct balance of safety, efficacy, and cost should be a decision made between doctor and patient), (b) this role creates an antagonistic relationship with all the relevant stakeholders, and (c) they could provide a lot more value by regulating information, rather than the decision itself – an example of “smart” regulation rather than more regulation. I would like to see the FDA focus on two tasks: clinical trial design/management (making sure bio/pharma companies conduct and correctly interpret the right tests) and assisting medical professionals in interpreting and understanding the data that is available.
• Changing the structure of healthcare coverage – I’ve blogged before about what I think should happen, but the main thrust of this is – the partisan solutions for healthcare are absurd in their commitment to ideology rather than pragmatism. I see the two core problems of healthcare today as (a) a lack of coverage and (b) managed care hurting the relationship between patient and doctor. What I want to see the next administration do is actually address both issues rather than choose to address one concern over the other. I think this entails requiring all people to, one, pay for all health expenses out of pocket with tax-deductible savings accounts and, two, be required to purchase catastrophic insurance which kicks in after the health expenses exceed a certain amount.
• Reorganizing and redirecting the national security/intelligence agencies – I cannot believe that it takes multiple organizations with overlapping priorities and jurisdictions to handle US intelligence operations. I will admit I am unaware of all the intricacies involved, but even if the four groups did completely separate things, I see no reason why they shouldn’t all be part of one larger organization which can coordinate resources so as to avoid waste and interdepartmental conflicts. Furthermore, I believe the US agencies are obsessed with “traditional” threats – physical threats such as bombs, terrorists, and military invasions. I think this is misguided, and that significant effort must be directed towards “non-traditional threats” such as pandemic diseases (the Spanish Flu of 1918 killed more people than all of World War II and was very similar to today’s Bird Flu), cyberattack (the Chinese government is suspected to command a cyber-army which has been suspected to have already infiltrated many US systems), and climate change (what kind of national security are you going to have if stronger hurricanes destroy, for good this time, the Gulf Coast’s energy producing capability?).

Dilbert on business projects

I always hate phase two – I much prefer actually staying in my lair.

(Source)

What happens when you don’t accept our $100 bid

Circuit City, Anthony and I reached out to you and countless other troubled firms with our bid of $100. We presented some of our awesome strategy to revitalize your core business. Yet you turned us down. And what happened? You’re now seeking bankruptcy protection.

Circuit City Stores Inc. filed for bankruptcy amid rising competition from Best Buy Co., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and online electronics retailers. The petition for Chapter 11 protection in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Richmond, Virginia, listed $3.4 billion in assets and $2.32 billion in liabilities, driving the shares down 56 percent before the New York Stock Exchange halted trading. The company said it is entering court protection owing Hewlett-Packard Co. $119 million and Samsung Electronics Co. $116 million.

One can only hope that the court recognizes the error of Circuit City’s ways and take us up on our offer…

Neutrophil attack

(Cross posted from Bench Press)

I was going to write a long essay about how web technologies have advanced to the point where science can be shared and discussed and shown in sophisticated ways through the web.

But, rather than bore you with those trivial details, why not just show you.

Before the Web: Read (Science 15 August 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5891, pp. 970 – 974) and its tiny paper figures and hope that you can visualize what’s going on.

After the Web: Read the paper online, Read a blog post on said paper (from science blog Mystery Rays from Outer Space). Watch this video of neutrophils (a type of white blood cell responsible for attacking infection, tagged Green) infiltrating a mouse ear that has just been injected with beads (tagged Blue) and Leishmania major (a bacteria, tagged Red).

4-dimensional image series from the ear pinna of a LYS-eGFP mouse in which blue fluorescent beads and L. major had been deposited adjacent to one another in the skin of the same ear. eGFP-expressing cells are shown in green, L. major-RFP is shown in red, and beads are shown in blue. Playback speed is 1200x. Scale bar, 200um

Comment on blog post and ask blog author question about how neutrophils are attracted to the beads. Get a response. Make my own blog post about the discovery. Reflect on the impact of the Web on science.