Thehouseai’s Weblog

Entries tagged as ‘Technology’

Purell Lovers Rejoice! – new devices for germaphobes, Part Two

March 29, 2008 · 1 Comment

And for more info, here’s part of an article on the above, and germs. Having not yet survived a very nasty upper respiratory infection, including laryngitis, bronchitis and sinusitis, and two rounds of antibiotics (and you know what that means – carton after carton of yogurt!), that’s still hanging around, I begin to think maybe, just maybe, there’s something to this:

Germs Never Sleep

Published November 5, 2006

“Georgia-Pacific, the paper goods company, began receiving field reports about mysterious collections of used paper towels near bathroom exits. Further investigation found bathroom users were carrying towels to the door to cover the knob and then discarding them on the floor (because the trash cans were far away).

In the summer the company introduced Safe-T-Gard, a combination dispenser of doorknob-size tissues and a trash receptacle to be mounted on the wall next to doors.

Consumer fear of unclean environments has developed significantly over the

last five years, said Bill Sleeper, the general manager of Georgia-Pacific’s commercial tissue and towel category. “All of the issues of nosocomial infections in hospitals, the risk of bird flu, the cruise ship outbreaks, there’s just more and more awareness of health issues,” he said.

But some of the resulting behavior makes no sense, Mr. Sleeper said. The company’s studies have found bathroom users covering their fingers in toilet paper before flushing and using more tissue to open stall doors, even though there is almost no health reason to do so, because their next stop is the sink to wash their hands with soap and water.

Another company, Fulkerson, in Cumming, Ga., is attacking doorknobs differently. Its SanitGrasp, introduced in May at the National Restaurant Association convention in Chicago, replaces traditional pull handles with a large U-shape device, which allows a door to be opened with a forearm.

At the grass roots, antigerm innovation is furious:

• Sandra Barbor, 60, of Sandwich, Ill., was always bothered by having to grasp the handles of shopping carts, and when her husband was found to have myelodysplastic syndrome, which compromised his immune system, she was driven to invent the Sani-Shopping Cover, a $3.49 strip of protective vinyl that adheres to cart handles. Ms. Barbor, a retired marketer, has sold about 1,000 covers online.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/fashion/05germ.html?ei=5090&en=c8f73842ec60ebaa&ex=1320382800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1162850830-X3R2iibY7xvq4GbRP9RK7g

Page 2 of the article:

“• Hotel guests, concerned that bedspreads are not washed as frequently as sheets, have taken to whisking them off the bed on arrival and throwing them, bottom side up, into a corner. Marriott hotels responded last year with a bedding concept called Revive. Comforters are encased in white cotton covers, which are washed with the bedsheets. [more on this one later]

City Year New York

A portable personal subway strap.

• On the Internet frequent travelers caution about the dirtiness of hotel television remotes (suggestions include carrying a plastic bag to sheathe these button-covered germ magnets) and room coffee mugs. (Maids, the discussion-board wisdom goes, do not replace them with properly washed ones but use the towels they used to clean the toilet to swab dirty cups.)

FREQUENTERS of such message boards insist their fears are reasonable.

One of them, Julie Zagars, 34, a consultant to the food and beverage industry, said by phone, “I am a frequent traveler, and I simply don’t have time to get sick.”

When Ms. Zagars boards planes, she first slips around her neck the Air Supply Ionic Personal Air Purifier, which the company promises will repel allergens and viruses. Next she wipes the armrests, headrest and tray table with Clorox Disinfecting Wipes, and finally she pulls out her own cotton travel blanket.

Some antigerm sentiment could be stemming from the increasing pressure not to miss days at work, said Allison Janse, an author of “The Germ Freak’s Guide to Outwitting Colds and Flu: Guerrilla Tactics to Keep Yourself Healthy at Home, at Work and in the World.”

The task of transmuting fear into cheer is left to marketers. Probably the first wave of modern germ consciousness began in 1997, with the consumer introduction of Purell, the hand-sanitizing gel (around since 1988 for the medical profession). Pfizer, its maker, has updated the product as the new wave of germ-fighting gadgets arrives. The company has introduced a multicolor line of the sanitizer, Purell-2-Go, which comes in small bottles with rubber rings to attach to backpacks, lunchboxes and key chains. “We tried to make it fun,” said Erica Johnson, a Pfizer spokeswoman.

A children’s book by Elizabeth Verdick published this year by Free Spirit titled “Germs Are Not for Sharing” has illustrations of children playing together without touching. “When germs get on your hands,” the text reads, “they can spread to other people. When you hold hands or play games or give each other high fives.”

“I kind of doubt kids will stop giving each other high fives,” said Dr. Michael Bell, the associate director for infection control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While Dr. Bell recommends teaching children about hygiene, washing one’s hands after using the bathroom and making sure to clean kitchen surfaces carefully is as much as most people need do, he said.

There is no hard scientific evidence that any of the air filters, nose sprays or personal sterile headrest covers for travelers help prevent infections.

But facts are not standing in the way of the antigerm marketplace, where style is becoming increasingly important. In 2001, Hydro-Photon of Blue Hill, Me., introduced SteriPEN, a portable but somewhat clunky ultraviolet device to disinfect drinking water for adventure travelers. The device is being used not only by back-country campers but also by urban Americans wanting to take extra precautions.

They want to carry the pen in their pockets, said Ed Volkwein, the company president. He expects to have a sleeker line of $130 SteriPENs, colored silver and black, in stores by Christmas.

Big-city living is a minefield for the germ-conscious. Emily Beck, the inventor of City Mitts, nonslip antibacterial gloves that commuters can wear to grasp subway handholds, has developed a prototype of a product to keep potentially infectious strangers even farther at bay.

The Excuse Me flag is a little yellow banner mounted on a lightweight pole, which is attached to one’s waist so it swings back and forth in front of the wearer during walking. Any other pedestrian who walks too close will be slapped in the face by the pole or the yellow flag, which reads “Excuse Me.”

“It generates a cubic yard of free walking space between you and a sneezer,” Ms Beck, a former New Yorker, said from her home in Delaware. “It makes it so you don’t have to touch anybody or talk to anybody in New York.” “

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/fashion/05germ.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5090&en=c8f73842ec60ebaa&ex=1320382800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1162850830-X3R2iibY7xvq4GbRP9RK7g

From Crave.cnet.com (all of the following):

Dec 11 2007

Organic hand sanitizer for crazy parents

Attention, parents of school-age children. Are you worried about a growing Purell addiction? CleanWell has the hand sanitizer for you.

The San Francisco-based company has come out with an alcohol-free, all-natural hand sanitizer. I got some samples at the ThinkGreen conference last week and my hands have been free of epidemic-causing bacteria ever since.

Need a sanitizing spritz?

(Credit: Michael Kanellos/CNET News.com)

The company claims it kills Listeria monocytogenes, Candida (we can make it together) albicans, Streptococcus pygenes, and Salmonella enterica. You can’t spray it on chicken, but the salmonella killing would be great for kitchen sanitizing. Spray CleanWell on your hands and it kills over 99 percent of these germs in 15 seconds, according to the company.

The active ingredient is called Ingenium. It’s not from the Periodic Table of the Elements. Instead, it’s a mix of essential oils that kill germs in concert. The product literature is great. It shows a kid hugging a deer. Most people would think: “cute.” To moms, that deer is just a rat with horns.

The 1-ounce spray bottle pictured here costs $7.99 and is good for 225 sprays. (That’s a lot of deer hugging.) The company also sells wipes and other products.

Posted in: Green tech

Sep 24 2007

Another way to keep food squeaky clean

(Credit: Tersano)

It’s already shaping up to be a banner day for the germaphobes here at Crave. Just after posting an item about the latest OCD vacuum cleaner, we came across another gadget to sanitize our food as well.

The “Lotus Sanitizing System” uses “super-oxygen” infused water to pulverize bacteria and other unsavory elements from pretty much whatever will fit in its “multi-purpose sanitizing bowl,” according to Shiny Shiny. (You can watch a video of it in action here.)

Granted, it’s not the first food sanitizer on the market–there are even gadgets out there designed to make meat squeaky clean. But at $170, it’s far cheaper than other models we’ve seen. Besides, when it comes to ingestion (and digestion), the true germaphobe never skimps.

Posted in: Science, Home

Jul 17 2007

How to have a public bathroom at home

(Credit: Amazon)

Talk about the world turned upside-down. The last thing we thought we’d ever see is people clamoring to make their bathrooms more like public loos, but that’s apparently what’s happening in our increasingly fixture-fixated consumer market.

We knew the trend had become mainstream (no pun, honest) after witnessing the overwhelming popularity of Dyson’s “Airblade” hand-drying machine. But that product is aimed at the business market–we think. The “EZ Touchless Infrared Sensor Faucet,” however, is clearly destined for the household at $50, according to GadgetGrid.

And why not? It’s at the perfect intersection with yet another hot trend, products targeted at the germaphobe community.

Posted in: Home

Jul 11 2007

Ultimate germaphobe gadget 2.0

(Credit: Hammacher Schlemmer)

Some months ago–on Jan. 1, as a matter of fact–we reported what we then thought was the “ultimate germaphobe gadget,” perhaps our way of ushering in a bacteria-free 2007. Barely halfway through the year, however, that item appears to have already been eclipsed.

Not only does the “Wide Coverage Germ-Eliminating Wand” claim to eradicate “99 percent of bacteria, viruses, mold, and dust mites,” but it can do so in broader areas with a 6-inch ultraviolet lightbulb. All the germaphobic head of the household needs to do is hold the wand 3 inches over a suspect surface for 20 seconds, according to Hammacher Schlemmer, and it can be programmed in 5- or 60-minute intervals.

We haven’t heard from him lately, but we’re certain that the “OCD Action Figure” will be pleased.

Posted in: Lifestyle

Jul 2 2007

Your iPhone is disgusting

Photo of Apple iPhone with iSkin revo case.

Dropping your iPhone in the toilet might actually be an improvement.

(Credit: iSkin)

iSkin’s latest antibacterial case made for Apple’s iPhone reminds us that a product’s coolness is no defense against deadly bacteria. In fact, studies have shown that cell phones happen to be one of the filthiest objects imaginable–dirtier than a toilet seat, computer keyboard, or the bottom of a shoe. There’s just something magical about the combination of spittle and your text-crazy hands that make mobile phones a germ’s best friend. The antibacterial iSkin Revo case for the iPhone is due out this month with a price of $39. Until then, think twice before passing your iPhone around at a party.

Posted in: Phones, Science, Music

Mar 1 2007

Air purifier zaps germs at 400 degrees

(Credit: Appliancist)

A USB air purifier is fine when you’re on the road, but at home you need something more powerful for a fully sterilized bubble. That’s when you might want to consider the “Airfree Platinum 2000.”

Its name may sound like something out of RoboCop, but the purifier claims to eliminate 99.99 percent of all germs. The secret weapon is a ceramic core that reaches 400 degrees, a temperature where no micro-organism can build their germ villages, according to Appliancist. (Airfree claims that it functions at these levels without burning down the house. Glad they mentioned that.)

We’ve seen–and tried–our share of miracle air cleaners, so forgive us for withholding judgment on Airfree’s claims. But even if it doesn’t pan out, you can always turn it into a futuristic Trojan helmet.

Posted in: Home, Lifestyle

Feb 26 2007

USB purifier claims to clear the air

(Credit: Fareastgizmos)

It’s been a banner week for germaphobes. Just the other day we pointed to a device that purifies water with UV rays, and now we get word of a product that filters out airborne germs from the air within its immediate vicinity.

The “Ionic USB Air Purifier,” according to Fareastgizmos, “discharges negative ions to absorb second-hand smoke, odors, clean airborne dust, and eliminate bacteria, germs, viruses.” The device circulates air silently without a fan and needs no filters. All you need, apparently, is faith.

Posted in: Lifestyle, Peripherals, Science

Feb 23 2007

UV lamp zaps bacteria from water

(Credit: Broadband Media)

Good news, fellow germaphobes. We’ve seen all manner of gadgets that sterilize surfaces but none that address what we ingest. Until now.

The “SteriPEN UV Light Water Purifier” treats H2O with a germicidal lamp, supposedly rendering it bacteria-free with no chemical aftertaste and “99.99 percent safe to drink,” according to Mobile Magazine. With our luck, we’ll probably be among the remaining 0.01 percent.

Posted in: Lifestyle, Science

Jan 1 2007

The ultimate germaphobe gadget

(Credit: Hammacher Schlemmer)

‘Tis the season to get sick, and Crave wants to do its part to help keep you healthy. We could list various types of bacteria-resistant and washable equipment on the market, but we’ve learned of another gadget that claims to detect and zap germs even before touching a piece of potentially infected hardware.

Hammacher Schlemmer says its “Handheld Germ-Eliminating Light” can “eliminate 99.99% of E-Coli, staphylococcus, salmonella, and germs that cause the flu and the common cold.” The miracle gadget supposedly works with the same type of ultraviolet light and nanotechnology used to sterilize surgical instruments in hospitals.

If you’re considering one of these as a belated holiday gift, we suggest personalizing it with an OCD action figure to show how much you really care.

Posted in: Lifestyle, Science

Dec 25 2006

A keyboard to fend off the rugrats

(Credit: Unotron)

The timing for this is perfect, as parents all over the world face the prospect of sticky-fingered kids running amok on sugar highs from an oversupply of holiday treats.

The mere thought of grubby little mitts everywhere is enough incentive for some of us to leave Christmas dinner early just so we can order one of Unotron’s wired or unwired washable keyboards, which SCI FI Tech says “can be sprayed over and over with disinfectants, submersed in cleaning fluid, rinsed under a faucet and then blow-dried.” It’s an ideal alternative for kids playing on the computer while the Legos are in the dishwasher.

http://crave.cnet.com/8300-1_105-1-0.html?keyword=germs

So, using all of the above – will it keep you safe and healthy and free from the nasty germs around this season? That’s the $64,000 question, isn’t it?

Categories: Colds · Germs · Health · Tech · Technology
Tagged: , , , ,

Desktops need not be boring

March 23, 2008 · 1 Comment

I collected a few items for desktops/cubicle living to while away the hours. Most of these came from ThinkGeek.com. Most were in stock when I put this together, but I’m sure if it’s out of stock, a little googling can find one, if you REALLY have to have it. So have fun, lighten up your life, and think happy….


Bel Occhio by Pablo
by Pablo

The Bel Occhio by Pablo is an outstanding multi-positional and dimmable Halogen spotlight that looks like it’s from another galaxy, particularly when illuminated in a darkened room. The direction of the beam of light from the cylinder is adjusted by repositioning the outer globe on the base. Pablo, founded in 1993 by Venezuelan – born Pablo Pardo, designs and manufactures innovative lighting and home accessories characterized by uncompromising devotion to simplicity and utility.

Compare at $450.00 Our Price: $360.00

Item# as Selected: 20683, Price as Selected: $360.00

http://www.lumens.com/lumens/product.asp?s_id=0&pf_id=PAAAIAGANNNFBKCP

Stonehenge on your desk

August 11th, 2007 Posted by Brown Baron

Published in Misc. Gadgets

Do you have a plain looking desk? Want to dress it up? How about putting Stonehenge on your desk? This do it yourself Stonehenge kit is guaranteed to make your desktop the envy of your officemates. The largest stone is 1.5″ tall, which means the whole set will fit in nicely with all the other junk on your desk. The set comes with 16 stone replicas, a puzzle map/base, and 1 Mini Book.

Desktop Stonehenge

You know you want one.

http://www.gadgetchamp.com/2007/08/11/desktop-stonehenge/

Mini Megaliths

In the year 10,000 BC, aliens from Uranus landed on Earth. They didn’t find anyone cool to talk to, so they just added graffiti to the countryside and left. That graffiti is Stonehenge. Since that time, druids and scientists have tried to provide meaning to the awe inspiring stones, but have never riddled out the true message. We have. How? We can’t tell you. What does Stonehenge really say? That, we can tell you. It says… “WTF?” in Uranean.

This kit will help you spread the joys of an extraterrestrial WTF? to your home or office. The largest stone is about 1.5″ tall, so that the entire structure can neatly surround your coffee mug. But how will I know which stones go where?, you ask. Simple, we reply with a smile, there is a puzzle/map/Stonehenge base which is included. All the stones are numbered, so it’s real easy to assemble properly. You also get a little book with tons of information on what scientists think Stonehenge was all about – but know you’ll know the truth.

The Set includes: 16 stone replicas, puzzle map/base, and 1 Mini Book. Perfect for Spinal Tap dioramas, too.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/cubegoodies/8eed/

In This Office, You’re The Boss

Two new sets: Corporate Zombies and IT Department!

Finally, the drudgery of corporate life has been captured in a play set for adults! Bob, Joe, Ted, and Ann spend eight hours a day, five days a week, at tiny desks in tiny cubicles in a giant room packed with countless similar cubicles in a giant building filled with countless similar rooms.

Bob, Ted, Ann, and Joe each come with one 2-3/4″ posable plastic figure and all the necessary plastic parts to build a classic corporate cube: four walls, desk, chair, file cabinet, in/out box, phone, and computer. Comes with a sticker sheet of decor for your cube, complete with graphs, charts, screens for the computer and pithy office posters. Also includes a job title sticker sheet so you can create a convoluted and meaningless position for your employee (how about Level C Systems Associate? Or Senior Accounting Coordinator?). Each additional set comes with the figures noted, plus character specific accessories.

image

Choose Between 10 Different Sets! (see additional images for visuals). Build your own corporate labryinth one cube at a time!

The Cubes

  • Bob – Comes with Bob (employee #021871138), generic cubicle playset and accessories, and stickers.

image

  • Ted – Comes with Ted (employee #000272319), generic cubicle playset and accessories, and stickers.

image

  • Ann – Comes with Ann (employee #004967751), generic cubicle playset and accessories, and stickers.

image

  • Joe – Comes with Joe (employee #003992461), generic cubicle playset and accessories, and stickers.

image

  • IT Department – Comes with Tim, cubicle, server, captain’s chair, stickers, and more IT accessories.

image

  • Corporate Zombies – Comes with four zombies and accessories. Glow in the dark!

image

  • Expansion Set – Comes with four additional figures (Jim, Jan, Sue, & Dan) each with unique accessories.

image

  • Copy Center – Comes with Art, the copy center playset, and playset specific accessories.

image

  • Delivery Man – Comes with Sam, a hand truck, and a special delivery package.

image

  • Sensitivity Trainer – Comes with Eve, easel, and “sensitive” visual aids.

image

image

http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/cubegoodies/722a/

USB Webcam Rocket Launcher

Price: $59.99

Awesome-osity:

Shoot while you Chat

Where would we be without Instant Messaging? It lets us stay in contact and chat with friends all over the world (especially delightful during work hours). But sometimes the urge to reach out a shoot someone is unbearable. And that’s where the USB MSN Missile Launcher comes in. Don’t be content with sharing images, jokes, and assorted links with your friends – it’s time to share missiles!

You’ll have your USB MSN Missile Launcher set up within minutes and that’s when the fun begins. For you see, as you chat you and your buddies can control each other’s launcher. And since each USB MSN Missile Launcher has an integrated webcam (which can be used as just a webcam if you haven’t any buddies), you’ll know exactly when you are aimed at your buddy’s head. Then fire away! The only downside is that your buddy can do the same to you! The upside is, you can always retaliate by turning your buddy’s USM MSN Missile Launcher to face the door of his office and peg his boss in the gut when he/she comes to lecture your buddy about using IM for non-work-related matters. Ah the joys of progress . . . and revenge.

USB MSN Missile Launcher

  • Includes: USB MSN Missile Launcher, 3 Foam Darts, Target, Software, Instructions
  • Features:
    • Aim and fire at targets using the built-in webcam and MSN Messenger.
    • Take control over your buddy’s missile launcher and shoot them!
    • Missile Launcher can pan left and right and tilt up and down.
    • Sound effects (from your computer) when you launch your buddy’s missiles.
    • Can also be used as just a webcam.
  • USB Cord Length: 3 feet
  • Range: 15 feet
  • Software Compatibility: Windows XP/2000/Vista

http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/cubegoodies/a1c2/

Rollerscape – Roller Coaster Construction

Price: $29.99

Customer Action Shot!

The Cubicoaster

A Finely Engineered Desktop Rollercoaster Construction Set!

If at some point in your life you never dreamt of designing roller coasters, then you must be an acrophobe. If you are an acrophobe, then we have the perfect toy for you. If you aren’t an acrophobe, and don’t currently design roller coasters for cash, then we also have the perfect toy for you. Rollerscape – The Marble Rollercoaster! Simply design and build your desktop roller coaster using the included construction pieces, snap on the tracks wherever you like, and then begin the testing phase by taking one of the included marbles for a joy ride. Did the marble make it through without the Fall Of Death (FOD)? If so, you need to make your design more challenging. Try and include some loops and steep drops for impact. The sky is the limit! And so long as your marbles aren’t acrophobes you can safely enjoy their ride.

Your choice of advanced or advanced sets (that is, you have no choice). The advanced set has 194 pieces and is compatible with any other Rollerscape set you might have laying around. The image on this page features a piece that is approximately 22 inches tall.

image

http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/cubegoodies/6a7c/

Japanese Star Wars Lightsaber Desk Lamp

Price: $19.99

Please Select… Luke Skywalker $19.99 Darth Vader $19.99

May the Force be… with your Stapler

At the ThinkGeek office we mainly prefer to practice the dark side of the force. Hey… don’t judge. The dark side has a lot of advantages. It’s easy to pull-off since you just have to get angry and give-in to your base instincts like revenge and jealousy. We find it handy for offensive attacks during overly-long office meetings. Plus the costumes are just way cooler. However there are some amongst us who prefer the light side of course. Those weak individuals are hard to spot… except Yoda does seem to hang out in those lower employee’s offices quite a bit.

Fortunately we’ve devised a genius way to determine office force alliances for sure. Each employee places one of these nifty glowing Lightsaber Desk Lamps next to their red stapler… those paying allegiance to the powerful dark side can choose the red Vader lamp. While weaklings on their moral high-horses can sport the green Luke lamp. Of course they’re always some employees who have to be obnoxious and swing both ways by placing one of each lightsaber lamp color on their desk. But those nameless employees often find that their mouse has been replaced with Wookie dung while they were busy hitting on Princess Leia.

Product Features

  • Mini Glowing Desk Lamps look like Star Wars Lightsabers
  • Choose from the Red Darth Vader saber, or the Green Luke Skywalker saber
  • Imported from Japan
  • Officially Licensed Star Wars Collectable
  • Requires 2 AAA batteries (not included)
  • Each Lightsaber Stands 16″ High

http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/cubegoodies/97b9/

Hydrodynamic Building Set

Price: $89.99

Awesome-osity:

Let the Water Flow!

Water is everywhere. It covers 71% of the Earth’s surface and composes about 112% of the human body. Gaining control over water would be an awesome super power, but for now we are stuck with using science to master water. Good thing someone invented this Hydrodynamic Building Set. It makes science fun again. But this kit isn’t a simple connect the dots – you have to do some thinking! Why? Read on!

The instruction manual shows you how the girders connect, how to build the various tanks, and some rendered images of completed projects – but not step-by-step. Your entire model gets built up from the bottom of the carrying case, which acts as the water reservoir and also has a special footing to be the structure’s foundation. Level by level, you build your support frame and add your tanks. Then connect all the tubes, add in the valves, and turn on the electric pump. If you’ve done it right, you’ll have an awesome construction everyone will marvel at (a little food coloring helps). Fail and you’re all wet – quite probably literally.

And Kids: Build something with this kit for a Science Fair Project and you are guaranteed to win (this guarantee not guaranteed)!

http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/cubegoodies/91e4/

Screaming Monkey Slingshot

Price: $6.99

Customer Action Shot!

Deadly from this distance.

Super Simian to the Rescue!

Legend tells of a hero not born unto this world, but destined to change forever the course of human existence. A hero so grand that all past legends will turn to dust in the wake of his greatness. This is not that hero. This is, however, the next best thing: a monkey with a cape and a mask. Because nothing says power like a cape and a mask.

This monkey has a secret – there are pockets in the monkey’s hands. Slip your fingers in, pull back his hind legs, and his arms will stretch to a crazy length with the magic of rubber! You can just feel the potential energy coursing through the monkey’s imaginary veins. Let fly and you will be treated to a wondrous sight. The monkey will scream with delight when jolted. So, if the launch is hard enough, you’ll get a scream of power in mid air; or if the landing is hard, you’ll get a scream of protest as gravity does its work. Or, you fling like a master, you’ll get a double-dose of monkey justice (i.e. noise).

http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/warfare/8f00/

Marshmallow Assault Rifle

List Price: $39.99

You Save: 62.5%

Our Price: $14.99

Mallow in the Hull!!!

Listen up, maggots. There’s a war going on out there, and it’s a war we plan to win. That’s why we’re outfitting our soldiers (i.e. you) with the confectionery weapon to end all confectionery weapons. This is some serious sugary firepower, so you better listen and listen good. Now, get your Marshmallow Assault Rifle in your hands, you gum-chewing cow patties, and check out the features with us.

First, you’ll notice two different barrels. The bottom barrel shoots mini marshmallows and should be used for cover and strafing fire. It is your main weapon – learn to love it. The magazine holds up to 12 mini marshmallows and is very easy to reload quickly. The top barrel will hold one regular sized marshmallow at a time. It is your grenade launcher, and you’ll know when you need it. With the Marshmallow Assault Rifle, a lotta luck, and some good soldiering you might just survive to fight another day. Oh, and if you get hungry out there in the field, you can just eat your extra ammo.

Dimensions: approx. 18.75″ long. Power blast the big marshmallow 20 feet away while rapid firing the mini marshmallows at closer targets.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/warfare/9bcb/

LED Jellyfish Mood Lamp

Price: $49.99

Customer Action Shot!

Pimp my Jellyfish Tank, coming to MTV this fall.

Dancing Desktop Jellies

Blackbeard was just about the most ruthless pirate ever. His management style was unique, to say the least. If one of his crew misbehaved, he would drop them in a large tank full of jellyfish and delight as the jewels he kept at the bottom of the tank reflected different colors into the ballet of agony that played out before him. According to the infamous pirate’s diaries, it really calmed his nerves, too. Wow. Well, while we don’t recommend all that for your office, there is something we can take from this story: colorful jellyfish are relaxing.

This desktop tank holds three jellyfish which “swim” around the tank (thanks to a gently contrived current). In the top of the tank are 6 bright LEDs, which let you set the mood. You can either have them blend softly from one color to the next, or stop on your favorite color. Either way, the jellies are happy to frolic in their kaleidoscopic, quiet menace. And if one of your subordinates ever acts up, just remind him or her about the Blackbeard story…and let them know there’s room in your jellyfish tank for a hand or two. Sometimes threats are all you need. Arrrgh.

Note: If you are having any troubles getting your jellies to swim about properly, remember to add just a few drops of liquid dish soap to the water as per the instructions. It’s the part that makes the magic happen. Thanks!

LED Jellyfish Mood Lamp

  • Lifelike jellyfish movement
  • 6 bright LEDs – cycle through colors or select your favorite one
  • Includes: Tank, 3 Jellyfish, Power cord (110V), and Instructions
  • Dimensions: 7″ x 10″ x 4.5″ (with 3″ long jellyfish)

http://www.thinkgeek.com/homeoffice/lights/9a8c/

Desktop Carnivorous Plant Set

Price: $22.99

Customer Action Shot!

The office is now gnat free!

Little Desktop Of Horrors…

Here at ThinkGeek, we truly understand you have needs. Especially at work where minutes often last hours and hours become days. You need to be entertained, you don’t want your neurons to prematurely atrophy. You crave stimulation. You crave a Carnivorous desktop plant set. Perfect for the casual office worker who delights in watching insects slowly meet their makers as they are painfully digested by an engaging variety of meat-sucking flora. Nothing quite like it.

So what’s our recommendation? Grab a set and grow your own collection of feared and famous carnivorous plants. This deluxe set has seeds from over ten varieties of carnivorous plants! Watch these fascinating plants grow into bug-eating monsters and delight in creating your own authentic bog with the included peat planting mix, blue Swamp Rocks, three Bog Buddies and full color decals. This rare and unusual collection of carnivorous plants will flourish for years in this specially designed terrarium with proper care…

    Each Complete Kit Includes:

  • Growing Dome
  • Planting Mixture
  • Carnivorous Seed Pack:
    • Venus Fly Trap
    • Yellow Trumpet
    • Hooded Pitcher Plant
    • Purple Pitcher Plant
    • Pale Trumpet
    • Temperate Sundew Plants
    • Cobra Lilies
  • 3 Photo Decals
  • 3 Bog Buddies
  • Swamp Rocks
  • Instructions and Information Manual

NOTE: Unlike Insta-Pets(TM)like Sea Monkeys or Triops, your carnivorous plant set will take several weeks to get started. But have patience friends, the blood-curdling plant-on-insect action will be worth the wait! We guarantee it or pay us double!

http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/science/76c9/

USB R/C Mini Car w/Garage

Price: $29.99

Make a left at the stapler…

Every morning you do the same thing. You get up, brush your teeth (hopefully), get dressed, and drive to work. You sit looking at the same cars and the same tired faces also participating in the great morning commute. You get to work and sit at your desk, a new day of the same old sh…stuff. Wouldn’t you just love, for once, to drive during the week and not hit traffic? Well, now you can – right on your own desk – with the USB R/C Mini Car w/Garage.

Just plug the garage into your USB port, load up the software, and give the car about 10 minutes to charge (inside its garage). Once it’s done, open the garage door and drive the car out using your keyboard’s arrow keys. And if that pesky coffee mug gets in the way again, hit the space bar to honk your horn. But really, there isn’t any traffic on your desk, so you should enjoy a wonderfully relaxing drive. Take a right at the coffee mug, then a left at the stapler, and cruise on to Funsville (population: you).

USB R/C Mini Car w/Garage

  • Garage Dimensions: 5″ x 3″ x 3″
  • Car Dimensions: 3.5″ x 1.75″ x 1.5″
  • Includes: Car, Garage/Charger, Software (Windows only), Instructions, and Sticker Sheet

http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/rc/966d/

Palmsize R/C Helicopter

Price: $29.99 – $49.99

Save $9.99 on Two Copters
Choose “Red/Silver 2-Pack” from the drop-down to buy two Copters (one of each channel) and fly with a friend.

Choice: Please Select… Silver (Chan 2) $29.99 Red (Chan 1) $29.99 Red/Silver 2-Pack $49.99

Customer Action Shot!

Its a lifestyle thing

Tiny Copter Attack!

We just can’t seem to get enough of tiny R/C helicopters. They’re taking the ThinkGeek office by storm… swarming and amusing the office dogs. Buzzing delightfully as we procrastinate on our TPS reports. Even the robotic monkeys are impressed at the tiny size and amazing technology. These mini copters can take off from your hand and circle your desk as your co-workers gape in amazement. Full control allows you to hover and turn left or right as your copter moves slowly forward. Two different channels let you to fly with a friend. But practice-up on your aviation skills if you hope to challenge the expert pilots at ThinkGeek.

Important Note
You will have to practice your flying before you can do as well as we do in the video. Keep the following in mind: You can adjust the forward speed of the copter by twisting the tail slightly right or left before flight (see the instructions). Right turns are wider than left turns due to the dynamics of the rotor. Luckily for you the Palmsize R/C Helicopter is forgiving on crashes.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/rc/934c/

Smart Mass Thinking Putty

Price: $9.99

Choice: Please Select… Solar Blue $9.99 Atomic Bronze $9.99 Oil Slick $9.99 Dark Matter $9.99 Atmosphere $9.99 Alien Ooze $9.99 Martian Sea $9.99 Twilight $9.99 Sunburst $9.99

Customer Action Shot!

not exactly the smartest idea.

The Thinking Persons Putty

The Ultimate Stress Reduction office toy is here. Of course you remember playing with putty as a kid. Welp, this ain’t your kids putty. Adult sized, and as feature-rich as your favorite Operating System, the Smart Mass putty from ThinkGeek makes living life fun all over again. Like to fidget while sitting in front of the monitor? Enjoy being the envy of all those who surround you? Trying to make an impression on that new coder down the hall? Smart Mass putty will help…

But ThinkGeek, What Will My Smart Mass Really Do ??

  • It Bounces!
  • It Stretches, Contorts & Squishes !
  • It lifts comics! (as any self-respecting putty would)
  • It Shears & Tears ! (learn how!)
  • It Even Shatters !!! (learn why!)
  • It Drips From Ceilings (learn how!)

But ThinkGeek, Can I Achieve World Domination With My Smart Mass?

  • Yes. Of course. All ThinkGeek products may be used to help you achieve World Domination.

Our Smart Mass putty is just too much fun. Find out for yourselves how magically enticing and addictive playing with putty really is. As you find more and more ways to get creative with your putty, you’ll, well, find more ways to get creative with everything! It’s simply that stimulating!

Your choice of either:

  • Sunburst (new!) – A Hypercolor! Heat sensitive putty. Jumpstart your day with some sunshine! Vibrant orange shifts into an awakening yellow with the touch of your hands or warmth from your coffee mug. Starts out Orange.
  • Twilight (new!) – A Hypercolor! Heat sensitive putty. Just as an evening sky melts into the dark of night, this putty’s deep purple color disappears with a touch to reveal a fluorescent blue complexion.
  • Martian Sea – A color shifter that swirls deep clay reds and orange with a yellow to green sheen depending on the light.
  • Dark Matter – A swirling mass of matte black. Your very own personal, warpable, black hole. Has magnetic properties: pull out a thin strand of dark matter and hold it near a magnet!
  • Solar Blue – A very soothing and energetic, vibrant blue. Intoxicating. Cosmically rapturous…
  • Oil Slick – A color shifter, Oil slick will look different in different lighting. From golds and yellow to pinks and emerald greens all swirling intelligently…
  • Atomic Bronze – Lustrous comes to mind. Atomic bronze sparkles and commands attention. Your very own precious metal. Looks similar to Martian Sea, but has a much more metallic sheen to it.
  • Atmosphere – Another color shifter. Atmosphere will morph into Cerulean highlights and features rich deep purples. A veritable alien, breathing, living atmosphere…
  • Alien Ooze (glows!) – Military grade phosphors power this extremely powerful glowing mass. Charges in light or through UV sources. Amazingly bright when glowing. Ghost like when not performing…

Each tin arrives with an adult sized one fifth of a pound of Smart Mass putty. Wow. The putty is non-toxic and doesn’t leave any gooey residue! Get tins for everybody in the office and at home lest you may find yours missing…

Note: – Your Smart Mass may seem like it has a mind of its own occasionally. That’s because it does. And when not being used, your Smart Mass putty prefers to live in its comfortable tin where it can best plot World Domination Schemes.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/cubegoodies/5ac8/

Nabaztag Wifi Smart Rabbit

Price: $179.99

Customer Action Shot!

Sultry

This bunny likes to nibble on WiFi

Nabaztag/tag with built-in microphone now available…

So you are probably wondering if a rabbit can really be “smart”? Well this bunny can teach you tai chi, read your e-mail, report the weather or stock market, pull RSS feeds and tell you the time. We’d say that’s pretty smart – but he’s also got personality. Nabaztag can move his ears, play music, talk and whistle, and his body can show off hundreds of colors and special patterns of light. Sometimes he will even have his own random things to say, as long as you can put up with his moods!

Okay, so Nabaztag is smart and has personality – but what about interpersonal skills? Can he relate well to you and other rabbits? Well, Nabaztag can marry another rabbit – that’s right – copying the other rabbit’s movements, sounds and lights. Move your Nabaztag’s ears and its spouse’s will too. And as far as friendship, Nabaztag can let you know when you have a new e-mail, read you today’s headlines or give you his opinion of the previous week. But be careful because he is uncompromising – if he thinks that he didn’t receive enough messages he might be unhappy.

And that’s just the beginning, because the world of Nabaztag is expanding all the time. Before long this brainy bunny will be able to receive traffic updates, alert you when you have SMS messages, tell you if your train is running late and broadcast ‘Nabcasts’ from fellow subscribers. The possibilities are truly endless.

  • Nabaztag is easily configured and customized through a Web browser
  • Free and subscription services available [see list]
  • Receives messages sent from the web or via e-mail
  • Can optionally receive delayed messages (use as a reminder)
  • Ears move, body lights up, talks, plays music and more
  • Works with Wi-fi (802.11 b or g)
  • Dimensions: 9″ x 5.3″ x 5.3″ (23cm x 13.5cm x 13.5cm) with ears
  • Includes: Nabaztag, power adapter, quickstart manual
  • Now available! Nabaztag/tag – featuring a built-in microphone so you can talk to Nabaztag [details]

http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/japanfan/8301/

Mini Pet Cactus

Price: $1.99 – $8.99

Customer Action Shot!

They love me.

Pocket Plant

Virtual pets are fun, but sometimes they can be a virtual pain in the virtual backside. You have to virtually feed them and virtually play with them. And yes, they virtually love you, but it’s just not the same as real love. But one has to admit, most virtual pets are easy to carry around, whereas most real pets either won’t fit in your pocket (like a dog) or wouldn’t survive in your pocket (like a trout). We have the solution: the Mini Pet Cactus.

The Mini Pet Cactus will love you unconditionally. All you have to do it is water it once a month for about a minute (instructions on packaging). Each cactus comes with a strap to attach to your jacket, cell phone, etc., so you can take it with you everywhere. Nothing says fun like talking to your cactus in a public place – until security asks you to leave, that is. Want to display your new pet at home or in the office? Try the Mini Pet Cactus Stand (sold separately). It has an adhesive back to attach to a wall, your monitor, your forehead, etc. The Mini Pet Cactus is waiting to be adopted…by you!

Dimensions: Pet Cactus: 1.75″ tall; Stand Height: 4.5″

http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/japanfan/84b2/

AntWorks – Space Age Ant Habitat

Price: $29.99

Choice: Please Select… Blue Gel w/LEDs $29.99 Red Gel w/LED $29.99

Customer Action Shot!

clawing out of the earth from mile-deep catacombs!

A Space-Age Habitat For Antkind

Fascinating creatures ants. Sure you hate to see them in your socks or making a B-line for that pizza crust crumb you forgot to sweep up at the local LAN party. But let’s give credit where credit is due. Ants are amazing. Ants can lift up to 20x their body weight! They have two stomachs and three eyes! They also have uncanny communication skills and amazing abilities to work together to achieve a common goal.

This miraculous gel, derived from a NASA Space experiment, serves as both habitat and nutrition for your ants – allowing you to watch in awe as they turn a brick of aqua-blue gel into a fascinating colony of tunnels. Never before have you been so capable of watching these awesome creatures at work.

Consider Ants a pest? Think again. As Sun Tzu stated, ‘Know Thy Enemy’. And what better way to know them then in this totally enclosed space age aquarium. Ants are perhaps the most populous creatures on the face of planet earth, with at least ten thousand species and countless trillions of individual ants. Bring them indoors today with Antworks!

  • AntWorks is based on a 2003 NASA Space Shuttle experiment to study animal life in space and test how ants successfully tunnel in microgravity.
  • The AntWorks Gel (Non Toxic) is complete with nutrients to promote healthy growth in the new colony.
  • Watch ants live, work and tunnel in the nutritious and non-toxic gel as they create series upon series of intricate tunnels.
  • The included LED illuminator acts as your Antworks base and when plugged in will shine four bright blue LEDs up through your turquoise gel. The ultimate nightlight is upon us! (120v).
  • Easy to care for – Ants need NO food or water.
  • Case is 6.5″x 5.5″x 1.25″
  • Choose between Red (for evil minion ants) and blue (for space marine ants) gels.

Each ‘Antworks’ Includes:

  • Case and gel
  • Magnifying glass
  • Four blue LEDs embedded in base.
  • Ant catching/tunnel starting tool
  • Instruction booklet with interesting facts about ants.
  • ANTS ARE NOT INCLUDED! However, there is a form included where you can order some ants for delivery via mail. But why bother? Just set out some potato chips in the kitchen and voila! Instant ant colony!

Sanity not included when you choose to knowingly bring Ants into your home. However, observing them in a natural habitat should bring you closer to nature than playing Doom 3.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/science/6fd6/

The Amazing Desktop Dinosaur Plant

Price: $7.99

Customer Action Shot!

continuing the eternal struggle of robot vs dinosaur (plant)

A Pre-historic Evergreen That Just Won’t Die

This one-of-a-kind plant has lived on the Earth for over 290 million years and has the ability to “come back to life” (much like the undead) over and over again for hundreds of years! Simply place this seemingly dead ball of foliage in water and within hours it transforms into a vibrant green blood-sucking evergreen. Ok, we are kidding about the blood-sucking part. It’s still amazing though! It’s also great for lazy folks since you can forget to water your Dinosaur plant whenever you want! It will simply dry up and hibernate for up to fifty years and will spring to life every time it is given water.

Some Interesting Tidbits about your Dinosaur Plant:

  • During the Carboniferous period these plants used to grow over 120 feet tall (bigger than a T-rex)
  • When dry it curls up into a tight ball so that the wind can easily roll it to a new location or cubicle, hopefully closer to moisture.
  • Retains 3% of its water when it is dehydrated.
  • Grows to be about 4″
  • Enjoys life so much it survived the Ice AgeKit includes:
  • Live Dinosaur Plant
  • Bag of genuine Volcanic Lava Rock
  • Display Bowl
  • http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/science/8039/

    Atomic Food Containers

    Price: $8.99

    Eat and Glow

    Do people bully you in the workplace and steal your lunch? Are you tired of losing your food in the communal fridge? Do you forget often how long stuff has been in said fridge? Are you a cool dude(tte)? If your answer to all these questions is 17, have we got a set of food containers for you! Each one is as special as you are (and possibly as radioactive!)

    You’ll get three containers of different size (400ml, 600ml, and 1000ml) which each nestle into each other for easy storage. Also, each top has a dial so you can set the date you put the container into the cold wasteland of your office fridge. That way, you will know how old the hairy pasta is, and won’t have to guess. Each dial also has a special setting called “vent” which opens up a little vent to vent ventable gasses (just like our underpants, but that’s a story for another time). Buy them now and safeguard your lunch for years to come.

    Each container is microwave and dishwasher safe.

    http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/science/9468/

    Rock Climbing Light

    Cool Wall Climbing Light

    Designed to resemble a rock climbing man (apparently) the design of this light appeals to us as we can imagine a host of them placed in random patterns on a wall with great effect.

    Constructed from polished zinc and coming complete with two meters of cable (but without a bulb (!)), this rather funky and somewhat geeky light is sure to add a great ‘designer’ ambience to any room and at diminutive cost.

    The Wall Climbing Light retails at £19.99 /$40

    http://nexus404.com/Blog/2007/04/27/cool-wall-climbing-light/

    1.3 Megapixel USB Digital Microscope

    Price: $349.99

    Zoom in on stuff – up to 200X

    Higher resolution microscope produces fantastic images!

    This 1.3 Megapixel Digital Microscope allows you to capture some higher resolution images and video and display them on your PC using a simple USB connection. View specimens collected around the house, backyard, your desk, or the fridge. Look at the micro-printing on a dollar bill or examine the traces on your motherboard. This microscope provides you an easy way to zoom in on a wide variety of objects to satisfy your curiosity of the world around you. Ever wondered what lint looks like or the mold growing on your week-old bagels? Now you can find out.

    Simple plug and play operation with included software that allows you to magnify objects and view them on your PC up to 200X and take snapshots and time-lapse movies. You can also manipulate images with drawing and painting tools. The microscope is detachable from the stand to allow you to get closer to large objects.

    • Handheld digital microscope with stand
    • Great for industrial inspection, science education, forensics, printing, textile, printed circuit board (PCB) inspection, jewelers, hobbyists, tinkerers, crime scene investigation, medical, serial number identification, quality control, parts assembly
    • Resolution: 1280 x 1024 (1.3M)
    • Magnification: 10 ~ 50X, 200X Continuous Optical zoom
    • Built-in LEDs for illumination (8 LEDs)
    • LED on/off controlled by software
    • Interface: USB 2.0
    • Frame rate: up to 30fps
    • Dimension: 10cm (h) x 3.2cm (dia)
    • Weight: 0.2 lb (90g)
    • Includes: Microscope, Microscope stand, DinoCapture Software (Windows 98SE/ME/2000/XP, Vista, Mac OS9, OSX)
    • One year warranty
    • Model AM-411T
    • If you encounter a software error during install, please download the latest software here

    http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/9955/

    Mandylion Password Manager

    Price: $49.99

    Single w/ Cradle $49.99

    Military-grade password protection!

    Unfortunately, we all have to deal with modern life’s little cyber-burden, the password. Some of us do so by simply re-using an old password when the system asks you to change it. Other times we use the same password but just add the month at the end. Some people even resort to keeping their passwords written on yellow stickey notes or in their wallet. None of these options, however, is very effective for protecting your valuable data. Instead, we would like to present a superior solution brought to you compliments of the US Military.

    The Mandylion Password Manager is a secure, convenient and cost-effective device built specifically for generating and protecting your passwords. Tested and matured for 3 years in real warfare environments, it is now available for commercial use. Built as a small keyring device, it can securely manage up to 50 logins, safe combinations, security codes, etc. that can be individually generated to meet the composition requirements of any login policy. Passwords can be any length up to 14 characters or namespaces. It can create passwords based on your settings for various criteria (such as length, alpha-numeric, special characters, etc.) and prompt you to change your passwords at preset time intervals (90 days, 1 year, etc.) Also, all data is stored in permanent memory, so it is unaffected by battery life or loss of power. Tamper-resistant features have been employed both inside and out, making the device a superior choice to storing passwords on your PDA, PC or worse, writing them down.

    Using the device is very easy. There are 5 buttons used for navigation and data entry. The device is activated by entering a unique button sequence that is user-defined. Totally self-contained and air-gapped from any system, passwords are viewed on the token’s LCD display which has a limited viewing angle to prevent shoulder surfing. There are also user-defined lockout settings, including a self-destruct feature for high risk scenarios. The device will also indicate failed activation attempts (with a “Tampered” message displayed upon successful activation.) Included Policy Master software makes describing the login policy (length, expiration, composition) for each login record and configuring the token a snap. The token does the rest.

    This little unit has been designed to meet U.S. Military standards for secure creation and management of passwords (use authorized under Army Regulation 25-2 IA.) This device helps creates a strong security policy for your work environment (so naturally you can brag to the boss about it) and provides cost savings in the form of reduced help desk support and password changing downtime. When used for personal password management the personal password manager eliminates having to remember all those annoying passwords and usernames.

    Has these great features.

    • Manages up to 50 login records simultaneously
    • Generates cryptographically strong passwords
    • Complies with all DoD, Govt. & Industry Password Security Policies
    • Multiple tamper-resistant features and lockout alarms
    • Manages Root and Group passwords
    • Cradle connection via USB
    • Kit containing: token, a configuration cradle, Policy Master Configuration Software (Windows only)
    • Device and software not Mac compatible (sorry)
    • Dimensions: Approx. 2.5″ x 1.5″ x .375″ (65mm x 45mm x 10mm)
    • Takes a CR2032 battery (replaceable)
    • One-year warranty

    http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/security/91a2/

    Glow Brick

    Price: $29.99

    Please Select… Blue $29.99 Green $29.99

    A light bulb with a special glow!

    Yep – it’s a glow-in-the-dark light bulb trapped inside a solid acrylic brick. The Glow Brick recharges from energy in natural sunlight during the day and glows at night. Not only that, it is actually made with a real light bulb! That’s right.

    The glow-in-the-dark* pigment is trapped inside a real light bulb (just like the ones you have at home). Then the light bulb is encased in a solid block of Acrylic resin. The mysterious optical effect is caused by light diffracting in the tiny space between the glass of the light bulb and the resin – this space forms when the resin shrinks by a tiny amount during the production process. The polished surface gives a jewel like quality to the object. In a darkened room, or at night, the Glow Brick comes to life with a tranquil and subtle glow emanating from the pigment inside the light bulb. Size is 3.3″ x 3.3″ x 5″

    *The technical term for the glow-in-the-dark is “photoluminescence” this is a process in which energy absorbed by a substance is released relatively slowly in the form of light.

    http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/lights/9b60/

    And not necessarily in any way a desktop device, but simply a must-have one:

    MySky GPS Star Tracker

    Price: $399.99

    Twinkle, twinkle, little star. I finally figured out what you are.

    Only once in a blue moon* throughout the history of consumer tech comes a product so nifty you are convinced it cannot be real. Then you quickly glance over to your calendar and realize it’s not April 1st. “Damn!” you think to yourself, while reaching for your wallet and mumbling under your breath “Curse you ThinkGeek, curse you!” Packed with the latest in gadgetry including built-in GPS, LCD screen, magnetic north sensors, electronic accelerometers, & complex circuitry,the MySky is far from vaporwear. It’s a hi-tech virtual tour guide to your starry skies. Point, shoot, get smarter.

    But ThinkGeek, What Does the MySky Really Do?
    Glad you asked. Take the MySky out of its package, plug in some batteries, go outside, preferably at night although even when you can’t see them, the stars are still there during the day. Now let the MySky figure out its location and time via GPS. There are three different basic modes to using the night sky – Identify, Find, & Guided Tour. In ‘Identify’ Mode, the default, you will be presented with a real time LCD view of the night sky, complete with constellations. Simply point it to the object of choice in the real sky, and shoot. It will identify! You can also take a ‘Guided Tour’ of the best objects available to you at the moment based on your location, date & time. Finally, if you want to locate a specific object (planet, comet, galaxy, etc.) – you can navigate through the menus, select the item and your MySky will point out its location in the real sky.

      Specifications:

    • Sights – Illuminated red sights to easily point to objects
    • Object Database – Database of over 30,000 celestial objects (planets, stars, nebulae, galaxies & more)
    • LCD – 480 x 234 pixel full color display
    • Audio – 500+ Audio/Multi-media presentations by NPR Stardate personality, Sandy Wood. Including interesting science facts, mythology, folklore, and astrophotography.
    • Earphones – Comfortable high-fidelity ear buds included for audio
    • Storage – 256 Megabyte SD card (included)
    • GPS – 12 channel GPS receiver
    • Orientation – Magnetic north sensors
    • Positioning – Electronic accelerometers to determine tilt/pointing
    • Night Vision – Optional mode to display screen entirely in red to protect your night vision.
    • Compatibility – Can optionally control any Meade computerized telescope.
    • Upgradeable – Software upgradeable from meade.com
    • Power save features – Advanced power saving features to extend battery life
    • Batteries – 4 AA batteries required (not included)
    • Battery Life – Up to 6 hours (normal use)
    • Instructions – Includes onboard video instructions that are optional for first time use. Also includes a printed instruction manual and quickstart guide along with a CDROM that includes Planetarium software (Windows 98/XP).
    • Dimensions – Approximately 9″ x 2.5″ x 7″
    • Death Ray Mode – Unlock this mode and you may optionally target planets for annihilation..**

    * We probably should have said ‘Blue Giant’ here. Oh well.
    ** Sorry, this feature is being re-constructed. Don’t blame us, blame the rebel alliance.

    http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/956a/

    Sun and Moon Jars

    Price: $34.99

    Choice: Please Select… Sun Jar $34.99 Moon Jar $34.99

    Customer Action Shot!

    Much easier to move around than the real sun

    Jam jars store jam, these jars store sunshine!

    Captured inside the Sun and Moon Jars are a highly efficient solar cell, a rechargeable battery and low energy LED lamps. When the jar is placed in direct sunlight the solar cell creates an electrical current that charges the battery over a few hours. This energy is then used at night to power the three LED lamps inside the jar.

    The light is diffused by the frosted jar and give the appearance of sunlight emitting from the sun or a cool moon glow (warm colored LED lights are used to give a more natural and warm light). You may have noticed that there is no switch on the Sun Jar – in fact there are no visible controls at all – but there is a clever light sensor inside that automatically activates the LEDs when it gets dark or the lights are turned out! (There is an override switch inside the lid to turn off the light at night and conserve battery life.)

    Mason jars are not only beautiful but by their very nature they are water tight – so the Sun Jar can happily be left outside in any weather conditions. A perfect garden light or night light for a child’s bedroom. The Sun Jar needs DIRECT sunshine to work! Leave the Sun Jar outside or in a sunny window in direct sunlight for several hours to charge, (electric light indoors is not bright enough!). The Sun and Moon Jars use a standard AA rechargeable battery, which is replaceable.

    http://www.thinkgeek.com/homeoffice/lights/994a/

    So, happy desktop/cubicle living, as well as a few fun things for the home (office!)

    Categories: Bio-tech · Fun · Internet · Office · Tech · Technology
    Tagged: , , , ,

    City of the Future – three views

    March 14, 2008 · Leave a Comment

    CITY OF THE FUTURE: A Design and Engineering Challenge

    Inspired by Cities of the Underworld

    In January, The History Channel, with sponsors Infiniti and IBM, challenged architects and designers nationwide to compete in City of the Future competitions in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Atlanta.

    The competition was fierce with 8 teams in each city vying for the $10,000 Grand Prize and City of the Future title. Teams only had one week to envision what their city might look like in 100 years, a mere 3 hours to construct their models, and just 15 minutes to present their vision to a panel of five esteemed judges. Now it’s your turn! We want you to decide who will walk away with an additional $5,000 and the title of National Champion by casting a vote for your favorite City of the Future.

    By casting your vote, you will automatically be entered to win a Home Theater set up, complete with 50-inch flat screen TV and Sony Blu-Ray player.

    Voting ends Monday, April 28th and don’t forget to tune-in to the season finale of Cities of the Underworld on May 5th at 9PM EST to find out who wins!

    http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=mini_home&mini_id=55712

    Here is the regional winner for Washington, D.C.:

    Beyer Blinder Belle Architects & Planners, LLP

    Capital FORTway: Protecting Our History, Sustaining Our Future

    February 2108: The Majority Exocratic party today announced that their goal for making Washington, D.C. the nation’s first entirely self-sufficient and environmentally sustainable city has been realized. The collaborative practice of Beyer Blinder Belle helped create the Capital FORTway (Future Oriented Renewable Technologies) Commission in 2008. Modeled on the city’s historic fort network, the new totemic FORT towers have reengaged the city’s original defense structures, acting as hubs for transportation and the generation and distribution of resources, now feeding the city’s entire population. The FORTway is just one component of a larger planning initiative that includes adding downtown residential density, converting L’Enfant’s diagonal avenues to green space, sustaining cultural and historic resources, restoring natural tidal flows, and adding a new rapid transit network. In addition, a transformed and expanded National Mall connects the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers.

    Expert’s Corner: Commentary by Richard Meier

    “Recalling the walls, towers, and other fortifications that once protected our cities, this master plan for Washington DC imagines a series of 29 towers that would encircle the city’s borders. Inside the ring, the historic L’Enfant plan, which forms the core of the city, would be kept to a modest height. Outside the towers, the extreme portions of the city and the suburbs would increase in scale, further setting off the city’s historic center. The towers would be multi-functional structures, emphasizing public spaces for the community to gather and incorporating new public transit centers, and implementing far-reaching sustainable strategy with ecological amenities like rainwater harvesting and hydroponic farming. Lasers, anchored to each tower, would serve the city’s defenses, when needed. A vast network of infrastructure would tie these towers together and ensure they worked as a coherent system.”

    http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=57914&display_order=1&mini_id=55712

    And here is the winner for Atlanta:

    EDAW/Praxis 3/BNIM/Metcalf and Eddy

    THE CITY IN THE FOREST

    Even during the second driest year on record, rainfall in Atlanta produced 75 billion gallons of water. The city maintains over 1,900 miles of pipes to collect, combine with wastewater, treat and pipe storm water downstream. Climate change, growth, and sprawling impervious surfaces continue to degrade this outmoded, costly system.

    2008 marks “The Dawn of the Restorative Era” by overturning the infrastructure logic of the past. In the City of the Future, stormwater resurfaces to flow naturally across the land. Freed from use, existing underground systems act as aquifiers, preserving scarce water for long term use.

    This simple shift underground, in turn, transforms the landscape above. The rigidity of the urban grid yields to swaths of green and waterscapes. Settlements cluster along ridges and water catchments, participating in a sustainable, living system. Corridors of open spaces spread to link communities in an organic form and fully reclaim The City in the Forest.

    Expert’s Corner: Commentary by Richard Meier

    “The tall towers of Atlanta rise from a canopy of trees. The plan for metro Atlanta builds on that condition and foresees a region repopulated with forests 100 years from now. More than simply green space, these forests serve as the environmental lungs of the city. They filter storm water, which is currently channeled underground, allowing it to percolate through the soil and become usable. They purify the air. They also help to keep the manmade portions of the city the buildings and infrastructure concentrated so that their impact on the environment is minimized. This inclusion will stimulate the vitality of these built areas. Over time, the designers believe the city’s street grid will recede, promoting circulation and resulting in an organic evolution.”
    http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=57918&display_order=1&sub_display_order=3&mini_id=55712

    And my personal favorite, and the one I voted for, as it is every SciFi lover’s dream city, San Francisco:

    IWAMOTOSCOTT ARCHITECTURE

    HYDRO-NET

    Symbiotic and multi-scalar, SF HYDRO-NET is an occupiable infrastructure that organizes critical flows of the city. HYDRO-NET provides an underground arterial traffic network for hydrogen-fueled hover-cars, while simultaneously collecting, storing and distributing water and power tapped from existing aquifer and geothermal sources beneath San Francisco. A new aquaculture zone with ponds of algae and forests of sinuous housing towers reoccupy Baylands inundated by rising sea levels. Hydrogen fuel is produced by the algae, and is stored and distributed within the nanotube wall structure of HYDRO-NET’s robotically-drilled tunnels. At key waterfront and neighborhood locales, HYDRO-NET emerges to form linkages between the terrestrial and subterranean worlds. Here new architectures bloom as opportunistic urban caves and outcroppings, fostering new social spaces and densified urban forms, fed by the resources and connectivity provided by HYDRO-NET. These locally responsive and distributed nodes and tendrils facilitate both the preservation and organic evolution of San Francisco.


    Expert’s Corner: Commentary by Richard Meier

    “The number of urban dwellers is expected to rise sharply in the future.
    Addressing this fact, this vision for the future of San Francisco proposes a new network of infrastructure below the surface of the city that will help the region maximize and distribute its resources. Called ‘Hydronet,’ the system will not only provide tunnels for a new generation of hover-cars, but also collection and distribution systems for water and power. The proposal identifies places where drinkable water might be harvested from both the sky and the earth, where heat might be extracted or dissipated deep in the strata below the city, and where new hydrogen based energy might be generated from algae fields. The city’s signature waterfront is repopulated with a series of eco-towers that animate the skyline and are linked to the network of infrastructure.”

    http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=57915&display_order=1&sub_display_order=2&mini_id=55712

    And from Inhabitat, comes more information:

    SAN FRANCISCO IN 2108? – The Hydro-Net Vision of the Future

    by Mahesh Basantani

    <!––>                           <!––>Crazy Futuristic San Francisco, A vision of San Francisco’s Future, Iwamoto Scott Architecture, San Francisco in 2108, a Hydro-Net City of the Future, History Channel City of the Future, Hydronet, Hydro Net, Hydro-Net, Iwamoto Scott Hydro-net, City of the Future, Algae Towers, Geothermal Steam Baths, Fog flowers, Fog catchers

    San Francisco is already one of the greenest cities in the US, but check out this wild new concept from IwamotoScott Architects to completely remake the city into an ecotopia by 2108.

    The design, which is as visually stunning as it is thought-provoking, recently won the History Channel’s City of the Future competition. It’s a full-scale urban system that combines the most innovative green technologies with San Francisco’s unique microclimate and geologic conditions, to produce a compelling vision for the future. Hydro-Net, as the project is known, will bring the lovely city-by-the-bay (which many Inhabitants call home) squarely into the 22nd Century with algae-harvesting towers, geothermal energy ‘mushrooms’, and fog catchers which distill fresh water from San Francisco’s infamous fog.

    ‘Crazy Futuristic San Francisco, A vision of San Francisco’s Future, Iwamoto Scott Architecture, San Francisco in 2108, a Hydro-Net City of the Future, History Channel City of the Future, Hydronet, Hydro Net, Hydro-Net, Iwamoto Scott Hydro-net, City of the Future, Algae Towers, Geothermal Steam Baths, Fog flowers, Fog catchers’

    Hydro-Net is perhaps the most remarkable, modern and futuristic concept ever envisioned for San Francisco – considering global warming and the hunt for alternative energy sources in the coming century. It is an extensive network of above ground and underground systems that fulfill infrastructural needs for the movement of people, water, hover-cars, and energy throughout the city.

    Crazy Futuristic San Francisco, A vision of San Francisco’s Future, Iwamoto Scott Architecture, San Francisco in 2108, a Hydro-Net City of the Future, History Channel City of the Future, Hydronet, Hydro Net, Hydro-Net, Iwamoto Scott Hydro-net, City of the Future, Algae Towers, Geothermal Steam Baths, Fog flowers, Fog catchers

    This network would connect water, power collection, and distribution systems across the city, forming one giant super-system that would resemble seaweed and chanterelle mushroom in its form. The aquifer and geothermal sources beneath San Francisco would be utilized as the source of water and power, while ponds and “forests” of algae would produce hydrogen.

    The walls of the network would consist of carbon nanotubes walls, which would store and distribute the hydrogen generated by algae. The hydrogen would in turn be used as fuel to run hover-cars in the underground tunnels. The network also includes fog catchers that harvest air moisture, ecotowers, and more. Sound crazy? Designers Lisa Iwamoto and Craig Scott, the partners of San Francisco-based design firm IwamotoScott, don’t think so, and frankly neither do we. The concept recently won the $10,000 grand prize for their entry in the City of the Future competition, organized by the History Channel.

    IwamotoScott Architecture

    Crazy Futuristic San Francisco, A vision of San Francisco’s Future, Iwamoto Scott Architecture, San Francisco in 2108, a Hydro-Net City of the Future, History Channel City of the Future, Hydronet, Hydro Net, Hydro-Net, Iwamoto Scott Hydro-net, City of the Future, Algae Towers, Geothermal Steam Baths, Fog flowers, Fog catchers

    Crazy Futuristic San Francisco, A vision of San Francisco’s Future, Iwamoto Scott Architecture, San Francisco in 2108, a Hydro-Net City of the Future, History Channel City of the Future, Hydronet, Hydro Net, Hydro-Net, Iwamoto Scott Hydro-net, City of the Future, Algae Towers, Geothermal Steam Baths, Fog flowers, Fog catchers

    Crazy Futuristic San Francisco, A vision of San Francisco’s Future, Iwamoto Scott Architecture, San Francisco in 2108, a Hydro-Net City of the Future, History Channel City of the Future, Hydronet, Hydro Net, Hydro-Net, Iwamoto Scott Hydro-net, City of the Future, Algae Towers, Geothermal Steam Baths, Fog flowers, Fog catchers

    Crazy Futuristic San Francisco, A vision of San Francisco’s Future, Iwamoto Scott Architecture, San Francisco in 2108, a Hydro-Net City of the Future, History Channel City of the Future, Hydronet, Hydro Net, Hydro-Net, Iwamoto Scott Hydro-net, City of the Future, Algae Towers, Geothermal Steam Baths, Fog flowers, Fog catchers

    Crazy Futuristic San Francisco, A vision of San Francisco’s Future, Iwamoto Scott Architecture, San Francisco in 2108, a Hydro-Net City of the Future, History Channel City of the Future, Hydronet, Hydro Net, Hydro-Net, Iwamoto Scott Hydro-net, City of the Future, Algae Towers, Geothermal Steam Baths, Fog flowers, Fog catchers

    Crazy Futuristic San Francisco, A vision of San Francisco’s Future, Iwamoto Scott Architecture, San Francisco in 2108, a Hydro-Net City of the Future, History Channel City of the Future, Hydronet, Hydro Net, Hydro-Net, Iwamoto Scott Hydro-net, City of the Future, Algae Towers, Geothermal Steam Baths, Fog flowers, Fog catchers

    Crazy Futuristic San Francisco, A vision of San Francisco’s Future, Iwamoto Scott Architecture, San Francisco in 2108, a Hydro-Net City of the Future, History Channel City of the Future, Hydronet, Hydro Net, Hydro-Net, Iwamoto Scott Hydro-net, City of the Future, Algae Towers, Geothermal Steam Baths, Fog flowers, Fog catchers

     http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/03/03/san-francisco-in-2108-the-hydro-net-vision-of-future/

    For more photos, see: http://www.flickr.com/photos/isar/sets/72157603824013896/

    So, which do YOU like….

    Categories: Architecture · Environment · Tech · Technology · future tech · future visionaries · renewable resources
    Tagged: , , , , , ,

    Purell Lovers Rejoice! – new devices for germaphobes

    March 1, 2008 · Leave a Comment

    If you’re like me, and carry small bottles of Purell in your car and purse, as well as at the bathroom and kitchen sink, because either you just hate germs, or like me, you have a compromised health system, there’s hope. Here’s Part One:

    raycop-anti-bacterial-vacuum.jpg

    “Nasty germs, look out. Here comes another weapon against you and your creepy bacterial and microscopic friends. It‘s the Raycop anti-bacterial vacuum, now available in the U.S. and shining its ultraviolet light on all things small and dangerous. Adding to the fun is a serious 360-beat-per-minute vibrator that can shake all those mites and varmints loose from those fibers to which they cling, freeing them up for some serious suckage. As soon as any of those vermin are exposed to the old ultraviol, it’s bye bye, bugs.

    Ultraviolet light as germ killer has been getting a lot of play lately, handy for taking down all kinds of things we don’t want around. Take a look at this list of favorite devices for germaphobes we compiled last week, and you’ll see many of the items gain their strength from the purple lights. Too bad this little hand-held Raycop costs $250, but then, what price total cleanliness?’

    http://dvice.com/archives/2008/02/raycop_handheld.php

    And there’s more from http://dvice.com/archives/2008/02/top_10_gadgets.php:

    “We are all so petrified of germs, we turn to the highest tech to get rid of them, every last one. But that’s not going to be easy. In sheer numbers, there are 20 times more creepy crawlies in your body than cells. Heck, there are 500 species of bacteria, weighing 3.3 pounds, living in your gut alone! But those 90 trillion microbes living in and on your body right now aren’t what should be worrying us. Many of them are vital to our survival, and we want to keep them around. However, sometimes malevolent invaders try to blend in with that helpful crowd of flora and fauna. Those villains are the ones we want to kill, so click Continue to discover the top 10 gadgets that’ll help us do just that.

    violight_travel_or_full.jpg

    10. VIOlight Toothbrush Sanitizer

    Rearrange the DNA of those puny microscopic pests camping out on your toothbrush with the ultraviolet light inside this $49 VIOlight in either travel or home versions. Once you’ve illuminated those germs for ten minutes with various wavelengths of UV light, you’ll have the cleanest toothbrush in town. Well, until you put it back into that potty mouth of yours.

    http://dvice.com/archives/2008/02/top_10_gadgets.php

    According to the VIOlight website:

    A single toothbrush can harbor millions of microorganisms, which translate into harmful bacteria — bacteria that thrive in the warm, moist environment of the average bathroom.

    VIOlight stops these microorganisms dead in their track. Independent studies prove that the patent-pending VIOlight system eliminates up to 99.9% of bacteria that thrive on your toothbrush. That’s millions of microscopic bugs that can cause flu, colds and other illnesses, zapped in minutes!

    “Even after being rinsed visibly clean, toothbrushes can remain contaminated with potentially pathogenic organisms.”
    — The Centers for Disease Control, January 2002 report
    As Easy as Brush, Store and Sanitize
    VIOlight uses a germicidal UV bulb — the same technology used in hospitals — to kill germs. Sanitization is activated with a simple push of a button. A blue-violet glow on top of the VIOlight lets you know the sanitizer is working. The entire process takes only 10 minutes. When finished, the bulb automatically shuts off and your toothbrush is fresh, clean, and protected for the next time you brush!”

    http://www.violight.com/about.html


    airclean_filter.jpg

    9. Just Plane Clean

    When you’re wedged into a flying tin can full of hacking, microbe-spewing meat puppets, you’re going to need some heavy air filtering. Snap the Plane Clean Filter onto that ventilation nozzle above your head, and its stale breeze will still smell rank, but at least there will be a few less funky pathogens in the air. We have our doubts about this one; it’ll cost ya $20 to be the guinea pig.

    http://dvice.com/archives/2008/02/top_10_gadgets.php

    According to Plane Clean Filter’s website:

    “Plane Clean Air
    has been tested in an FDA certified lab and is shown to remove 99.5% of all airborne bacteria, viruses and allergens from your airstream.

    So the next time you fly, make sure you travel the healthy way, by using
    Plane Clean Air

    Product Description

    The Plane Clean Air Filter is a compact device that can be attached to a passenger’s overhead gasper nozzle. Plane Clean Air houses an electrostatic charged filter media that is capable of removing viruses, bacteria and other particulate matter from an air stream. A thin air gasket is attached to the entrance port of the filter housing. Plane Clean Air is designed for attachment to most gasper configurations (Airbus and Boeing) using the adhesive on the air gasket.

    Plane Clean Air filter is installed by removing a release liner from the adhesive on the air gasket and mounting the device directly to the face of the gasper. Air flow velocity can be controlled by rotating the housing which in turn rotates the gasper. Once the desired air flow rate is achieved, the air stream can be directed onto the user’s face by turning the air exit nozzle.

    At the end of the flight, Plane Clean Air can be detached easily and placed in its storage case. The air gasket adhesive is formulated to hold the product securely but will not leave any adhesive residue on the gasper surface when removed. The adhesive and filter are designed to last for several flights. Replacement adhesive gaskets and filter media can be purchased when required.”

    http://www.planecleanair.com/index.html


    pumpsensor_dispenser.jpg

    8. Hands-Free Soap Dispenser

    Your bathroom can be touch-free, starting with this $40 SimpleHuman Sensor Soap Pump. Let’s hope it doesn’t require some fancy macarena-style hand motions to get the flow started. Fill it up with Purell for more antibacterial goodness; rinse, repeat.

    http://dvice.com/archives/2008/02/top_10_gadgets.php

    According to SimpleHuman Sensor Soap Pump’s website:

    “The sensor soap pump dispenses soap touch-free to help avoid cross-contamination. Simply place your hand under the sensor to dispense soap automatically. An optional LED light timer blinks for 20 seconds to indicate how long to lather for germ-free hands. Four volume settings allow the pump to dispense preset amounts of soap or lotion.

    Ideal for dispensing hand or dishwashing soap by a kitchen or bathroom sink. Also can be used to dispense hand lotion.

    materials

    • rustproof chrome-plated top cover
    • stainless steel backsplash
    • clear acrylic soap chamber

    capacity

    • 14 oz.
    built-in light timer

    Optional light timer blinks for 20 seconds for germ-free hands.

    continuous dispensing button

    Hold down the continuous dispensing button to manually dispense soap directly on items.

    built-in light timer

    Optional light timer blinks for 20 seconds for germ-free hands.

    easy to refill

    Large, easy to refill opening.

    four volume settings

    Allows you to dispense larger or smaller amounts of soap.

    touch-free operation

    Dispenses soap automatically through a touch-free sensor.

    battery-operated

    operates on 4 “AA” batteries
    (not included)”

    http://www.simplehuman.com/products/soap-pumps/sensor-soap-pump.html


    nanofibers_fashion.jpg

    7. Nanotech Dresses

    These two cotton dresses, created by fiber scientists and a student designer at Cornell University, have metallic nanofabers sewn in, giving them remarkable germ-fighting capabilities. Not a single microbe can survive on these garments, and they never need washing, either. Yeah, make me some socks out of this stuff — we’ll see if they never need washing or not. Too bad the material costs $10,000 per square yard.

    http://dvice.com/archives/2008/02/top_10_gadgets.php

    According to Cornell Online:

    “Fashion designers and fiber scientists at Cornell have taken “functional clothing” to a whole new level. They have designed a garment that can prevent colds and flu and never needs washing, and another that destroys harmful gases and protects the wearer from smog and air pollution.

    The two-toned gold dress and metallic denim jacket, featured at the April 21 Cornell Design League fashion show, contain cotton fabrics coated with nanoparticles that give them functional qualities never before seen in the fashion world.

    Designed by Olivia Ong ‘07 in the College of Human Ecology’s Department of Fiber Science and Apparel Design, the garments were infused with their unusual qualities by fiber science assistant professor Juan Hinestroza and his postdoctoral researcher Hong Dong. Apparel design assistant professor Van Dyke Lewis launched the collaboration by introducing Ong to Hinestroza several months ago.

    Nicole Grospe ‘07, left, and Andrea Clark ‘07 model clothing designed by Olivia Ong ‘07, at the Cornell Design League fashion show. The dress and jacket contain nanoparticles with antibacterial and air-purifying qualities.

    “We think this is one of the first times that nanotechnology has entered the fashion world,” Hinestroza said. He noted one drawback may be the garments’ price: one square yard of nano-treated cotton would cost about $10,000.

    Ong’s dress and jacket, part of her original fashion line called “Glitterati,” look innocently hip. But closer inspection — with a microscope, that is — shows an army of electrostatically charged nanoparticles creating a protective shield around the cotton fibers in the top part of the dress, and the sleeves, hood and pockets of the jacket.

    “It’s something really moving toward the future, and really advanced,” said Ong, who graduates in December and aspires to design school. “I thought this could potentially be what fashion is moving toward.”

    Dong explained that the fabrics were created by dipping them in solutions containing nanoparticles synthesized in Hinestroza’s lab. The resultant colors are not the product of dyes, but rather, reflections of manipulation of particle size or arrangement.

    The upper portion of the dress contains cotton coated with silver nanoparticles. Dong first created positively charged cotton fibers using ammonium- and epoxy-based reactions, inducing positive ionization. The silver particles, about 10-20 nanometers across (a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter) were synthesized in citric acid, which prevented nanoparticle agglomeration.

    Cotton fiber with palladium nanoparticle coating Hong Dong/Provided

    A scanning electron microscope image shows a cotton fiber with palladium nanoparticle coating.

    Assistant professor Juan Hinestroza and postdoctoral researcher Hong Dong, in their Martha Van Rensselaer Hall lab.

    Dipping the positively charged cotton into the negatively charged silver nanoparticle solution resulted in the particles clinging to the cotton fibers.

    Silver possesses natural antibacterial qualities that are strengthened at the nanoscale, thus giving Ong’s dress the ability to deactivate many harmful bacteria and viruses. The silver infusion also reduces the need to wash the garment, since it destroys bacteria, and the small size of the particles prevents soiling and stains.

    The denim jacket includes a hood, sleeves and pockets with soft, gray tweed cotton embedded with palladium nanoparticles, about 5-10 nanometers in length. To create the material, Dong placed negatively charged palladium crystals onto positively charged cotton fibers.

    Ong, though strictly a designer, was drawn especially to the science behind creating the anti-smog jacket.

    “I thought it would be cool if [wearers] could wipe their hands on their sleeves or pockets,” Ong said.

    Ong incorporated the resultant cotton fiber into a jacket with the ability to oxidize smog. Such properties would be useful for someone with allergies, or for protecting themselves from harmful gases in the contaminated air, such as in a crowded or polluted city.”

    http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May07/nanofibers.fashion.aj.html


    bugzapper.jpg

    6. Zapper Kills Bugs Dead

    You don’t actually want to put your hands anywhere near those grimy houseflies, do you? This $13 Electric Bug Zapper is like a lethal Taser for any insect, testament to the cruel fact that if you’re a bug, trespassing in someone’s house warrants the death penalty.

    http://dvice.com/archives/2008/02/top_10_gadgets.php

    According to Northline Express.com:

    “Here is a fast, easy, hygienic, and more effective way to eliminate those pesky flying insects. The Handheld Bug Zapper, similar to the shape of a badminton racket, is lightweight and with the push of two buttons emits a low level electrical current that halts mosquitoes, flies, gnats and other flying pests in their tracks.
    Environmentally safe, the zapper can be used indoors and outdoors. The zapper glows-in-the-dark, so when sitting around that campfire it is guaranteed not to get lost. Made of durable ABS plastic and measures almost 17″ long it will provide comfort from pests for anyone wanting to enjoy those summer evenings. And it’s fun to use!
    Caution: This is not a toy. Keep out of reach of children.
    Editors Note: This product works amazingly well both indoors and outdoors – we highly recommend it!”

    • Measures 16 3/4″ long by 7 1/2″ across
    • Weighs less than a pound
    • 2 Button Safety Design
    • Glow in the Dark
    • Safe for indoor or outdoor use
    • 2 AA batteries included
    • Weight: 1.00LB
    • Model: 40050GE “

    http://www.northlineexpress.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=5MB-40050GE&source=shopping&kw=5MB-40050GE


    toilet_nopaper.jpg

    5. Germ-Killing Surface

    You do realize that your hands are even more germ-infested than a toilet seat, right? Keeping that in mind, the loo will be many times cleaner than you when it’s someday equipped with a nano particle surface made of titanium dioxide. Aussie innovators in the Particles and Catalysts Research Group at the University of New South Wales created the substance that not only cleans itself, it repels water, too. Still in the developmental stage, expect the sparkling surface to be coming soon to a water closet near you.

    http://dvice.com/archives/2008/02/top_10_gadgets.php

    According to the Paul Tech Network Blog:

    “It’s a veritable god-send to all women with slob significant others. Accustomed to sitting in the filth left by their so-called loved ones, women had become listless – feeling trapped in an endless cycle of degradation, shame, and rage. Fear not, Aussies have come up with a way to lift women out of this filthy cycle. Toilet Rage – Be Gone!

    Researchers at the Particles and Catalysts Research Group, University of New South Wales, have come up with a nano particle surface that can autoclean itself. The surface is made of titanium dioxide, which has better oxidizing ability than chlorine bleach. It used to be only activated only when exposed to ultra violet light, but signs are there that they may be overcoming that obstacle. The surface is hydrophobic, so it repels water. So, the coated surface would kill germs and water would slide away. There is hope!”

    http://gopaultech.com/blog/2008/02/germ-killing-toilet-surface/


    Philips_Sonicare_FlexCare.jpg

    4. Philips Sonicare FlexCare Toothbrush

    Not only does this $100 Philips electric toothbrush sonically vibrate that plaque into oblivion, now the company has picked up on the ultraviolet bug-killing kick, too. Just pop those brush heads into the mini-tanning booth attached to the toothbrush’s base, and all those nasty squirmy worms are cooked up like a lobster in a boiling pot.

    http://dvice.com/archives/2008/02/top_10_gadgets.php

    From an earlier DVice article on it:

    Philips_Sonicare_FlexCare.jpg

    “As effective as Philips’ Sonicare electric toothbrushes may be, one thing I’ve always felt they lacked was radiation. Well, my dream has come true now that Philips has developed the FlexCare toothbrush, which includes a UV sanitizer built into the charger. After you’re done brushing, you remove the head from the brush and seal it in the chamber. One press of a button later and the sanitizer bathes the head with ultraviolet radiation, sterilizing the bristles and preventing any germ buildup. And possibly giving it a tan.

    The FlexCare has other upgrades, too: The head’s base is smaller to make it easier to clean, and there are multiple brushing modes, including one for sensitive mouths and another for massaging gums. The FlexCare is coming in August for $180. If you just bought one of Sonicare’s current brushes, you can still get in on the UV-radiation fun with a standalone sanitizer for $50. See a couple of pics of that after the jump.”

    sonicare-UV-Clean_1.jpg

    Sonicare-UV-Sanitizer_2.jpg

    http://dvice.com/archives/2007/06/sonicare_flexcare_toothbrush_r.php

    http://www.sonicare.com/default.asp


    lotus_sanitizer.jpg

    3. Lotus Sanitizing System

    This $150 magic bowl turns ordinary H2O into superoxygenated water that can clean everything in your house, neutralize odors, kill microbes and even rid foods of pesticides. Cure all known diseases? Well, they’re not going that far. Either dip whatever you want super-cleaned into the bowlful of cleansing water, or put that special water in a spray bottle to spread its goodness hither and yon. Sounds like snake oil. Does it work? Time magazine thought so.

    http://dvice.com/archives/2008/02/top_10_gadgets.php

    From the Tersano website:

    lotus Sanitizing System – How It Works

    The lotus® patent® technology infuses cold tap water with an extra oxygen atom, creating a natural sanitizer. By passing air through 4,500 volts of electricity, the lotus® system splits oxygen molecules into atoms and forces this extra atom to combine and form super-oxygen. The third oxygen atom becomes the sanitizing agent, a natural oxidant — which kills bacteria and viruses, and neutralizes pesticides.

    http://www.tersano.com/howitworks_lss.php

    How Do I Know It Works

    Built in sensors monitor and guarantee that the Oxyshield technology infusion process occurs in every cycle to safely create one of the most powerful, all-natural sanitizing agents in the world. The indicator on the unit will reach 100% once the water has been fully activated.

    1. Simply fill the spray bottle with cold tap water and place on the base unit. Select the appropriate button and start the process. In about two minutes the lotus water is ready to be used for up to 1 hour to clean. EPA registered to kill 99.99% of bacteria and viruses during the first 15 minutes. A count down timer on the unit tells you that it is time to reload and recharge.
    2. When using the bowl attachment we recommend that the produce is washed and rid of any dirt before sanitizing. Maximum bacteria and pesticide reduction may be achieved after 4 minutes but may take up to 8 minutes if the produce is highly saturated with contaminants. Once the lotus process shows 100% complete your produce is free of pesticide residues and bacteria making the produce taste better and last up to 4 times longer!

    View the test results that were run on the lotus Sanitizing System.

    Product Claims

    • EPA registered for produce and household surfaces
    • FDA and USDA approved process for food sanitation
    • UL ,CSA, GS, CE and CQC tested and approved
    • Kills 99.9 % of:
      • Escherichia coli (E. coli)
      • Salmonella choloeraesuis (Salmonella)
      • Staphylococcus aureus (Staph)
      • Listeria monocytogenes (Listeria)
      • Klebsiella pneumonia (K. Pneumonia)
    • Works 3000 times faster and 50% more powerful than chlorine bleach
    • Kills bacteria within seconds
    • Has no toxic residue or by-products
    • Scent-free, leaves no residual fragrance
    • Kills bacteria that cause food to decay, increasing shelf life up to 4 times!
    • Destroys up to 99% of pesticides
    • Improves the taste of foods or other edible products
    • Kills up to 99% of odor causing bacteria
    • Recognized by Time Magazine as one of the “Best Inventions”

    http://www.tersano.com/howdoiknowitworks_lss.php

    Healthy Home – Where Do I Use lotus?

    • Windows/Mirrors
    • Stain Remover on Carpets and Fabric
    • Kitchen Counters
    • Granite, Marble and Slate Counter Tops(porous)
    • Wood Surfaces
    • Dust mites
    • Floors
    • Sinks
    • Toilets
    • Shower and Bathtub
    • Appliances
    • Stainless Steel
    • Kills Mold and Mildew
    • Pet Dander/Odor, Stain Remover
    • Room/Closet Deodorizing
    • Smokers area
    • Cars/RV/Boat Interiors
    • Carpet and Upholstery Stain Remover
    • Toothbrushes
    • Baby toys
    • Baby Bottles/Pacifiers
    • Baby’s Highchair
    • Personal Grooming Tools
    • Sanitizes Fruits and Vegetables

    Replace all types of chemical cleaners!

    • Windex® Vinegar Multi Surface
    • Windex® Antibacterial
    • Oxi Clean® Carpet Stain Remover
    • Fantastik® Bleach
    • Clorox® Ultimate Care
    • Mr. Clean® Magic Eraser
    • Pine Sol® Fresh lemon Floor Cleaner
    • Lysol® All Purpose
    • Febreze® Anti-microbial deodorizer
    • Bissell® Pet Stain Remover
    • Urine Gone™ Stain and odor Eliminator
    • Febreze® Extra Strength deodorizer
    • Pledge® Stainless Steel
    • Pledge® Extra Moisturizing furniture polish
    • Tilex® Soap Scum
    • Tilex® Fresh Shower
    • Tilexv Mold and Mildew
    • Air Wick® with Baking Soda
    • Hoover® Spot and Stain Remover
    • Shout® Spot Remover

    Even replace all these types of “Green” products

    • Clean Veggie Spray
    • Carpet Stain Remover
    • Window Cleaner
    • Cleaning Lotion
    • Pet Stain & Odor
    • All Kitchen and Bath Cleaner
    • Clean Veggie Wash
    • Tub & Tile Cleaner
    • Liquid Bleach
    • Vinegar
    • Baking Soda
    • Lemon Juice
    • Extract Oils
    • Furniture Polish”

    http://www.tersano.com/healthyhome.php

    And Time Magazine’s Best Inventions of 2006:

    MEALS INVENTIONS

    Clean Machine
    “In the wake of the spinach scare, even the friendliest food can seem like a biological hazard, and scrubbing alone won’t necessarily wipe out pesticides or bacteria. The Lotus Sanitizing System turns ordinary tap water into superoxygenated water that kills microbes and removes toxins. The machine uses an electrical charge to infuse the tap water with ozone, which sounds scarier than it is–it just means the water carries a form of oxygen that acts as a natural sanitizer.
    Inventor: Tersano
    Availability Now; $200
    To learn more visit tersano.com

    http://www.time.com/time/2006/techguide/bestinventions/inventions/meals4.html


    halo_vacuum_cl.jpg

    2. Halo UVX Vacuum

    The $400 Halo UVX’s ultraviolet bug-killing light not only smites mites and the ever-present dust bunnies to which they cling, its makers say it can even kill viruses. If it can do that, those common household bacteria and common rug funk should be no match for this snarling, wheezing, purple-illuminated beast.

    http://dvice.com/archives/2008/02/top_10_gadgets.php

    According to Halo’s website:

    “What is the Halo™ UVX Ultraviolet Vacuum?

    The Halo™ UVX Ultraviolet Vacuum is the first in a line of the world’s only germ-killing vacuums. That means that the Halo™ UVX not only vacuums the dirt from your floor, but it is the only chemical-free floor-care solution that can kill dust mites, germs, viruses like MRSA and bacteria living in your carpet and home. These are all allergens that can lead to allergies and asthma.

    Can you use attachments with the Halo™ UVX Ultraviolet Vacuum?

    The Halo UVX, does not include attachments. The most concentrated sources of dust mites and other such allergens are in the home’s carpet and mattresses. We wanted our initial solution to concentrate solely on this problem. If you are interested in attachments, please see our Halo UV-ST.

    How much does the Halo™ UVX Ultraviolet Vacuum weigh?

    Approximately 15 pounds.

    Where can I purchase a Halo™ UVX Ultraviolet Vacuum?

    While many online and brick-and-mortar retailers have the Halo™ UVX Ultraviolet Vacuum, we suggest you click on our “Buy Now” link to purchase it.

    Do any replacement bags come with the Halo™ UVX Ultraviolet Vacuum?

    Yes. A replacement pack of five Halo UVX bags come with the product. Additional replacement bags can be purchased through our website.

    How do I know it works?

    See our Science and Technology section.

    What do I do if I need to replace my ultraviolet bulb? Where can I take my Halo™ UVX Ultraviolet Vacuum for repairs?

    Our ultraviolet bulb has been tested so extensively that we are confident it will never need to be replaced. Due to this, the bulb is covered under a lifetime warranty. The Halo UVX is covered under a one year warranty as well. However, if there are any problems, we suggest first taking a look at your Owner’s Safety and Operation Manual to troubleshoot your problem. If you are still having difficulties, please call our Customer Service line at 1-866-638-HALO (4256) and a member of our team will be happy to help you.

    Will it fade or burn my carpet?

    When used appropriately (as outlined in the Owners Safety and Operation Manual), the Halo™ UVX Ultraviolet Vacuum will not fade or damage carpets, rugs, floors, mattresses or other surfaces.

    How long does the UV-C bulb last?

    The UV-C bulb is estimated to last 8,000 hours and we anticipate that it would never need to be replaced. Due to this, the bulb is covered under a lifetime warranty.

    Why does the Halo™ UVX Ultraviolet Vacuum use a bag when “bagless” is so popular right now?

    Our goal was to design a vacuum that exposed the family to the least amount of allergens. Bagless vacuums expose the user to the vacuumed allergens when emptying the bagless canister.

    Does this vacuum have any belts that need to be replaced?

    The Halo UVX Ultraviolet Vacuum was designed for convenience, ease-of-use and ultimately, exceptional performance. With this in mind, the Halo UVX employs gears, not belts, to power to brush bar, so there are no belts that can break or to change.

    Does this vacuum have any belts that need to be replaced?

    The Halo UVX Ultraviolet Vacuum was designed for convenience, ease-of-use and ultimately, exceptional performance. With this in mind, the Halo UVX employs gears, not belts, to power to brush bar, so there are no belts that can break or to change.

    Does the Halo™ UVX Ultraviolet Vacuum have “True HEPA” filtration?

    Yes. The Halo™ UVX Ultraviolet Vacuum uses a premium cloth bag, then the air is also filtered through an odor removing carbon filter before the air exits the units via a True HEPA filter. The air exiting our unit is cleaner than the typical air found in homes.

    Will the bulb area get hot during operation?

    No. The UVX’s patent-pending bulb chamber has been designed to pull the UV-C light bulb heat away from the bulb chamber.

    What is the Halo™ 30 Day Risk Free Trial Period?

    The Halo™ 30 Day Risk Free Trial allows you to purchase and try the product in the comfort of your own home to see if it’s right for you. Vacuum your carpets, kill the allergens in your home, try it out. If for any reason you are not completely satisfied, just call our Customer Service at 866-638-HALO (4256) and we’ll pick up the vacuum and refund your money, no questions asked.

    Why is this revolutionary vacuum so reasonably priced?

    The first ultraviolet vacuum from Halo™ is designed to be as affordable as possible. At Halo™, we realize that many people suffer from allergies or asthma, or are seeking ways in which to have a cleaner home that provides a healthier environment for their families. It is our mission to create innovative products that make families healthier

    How does the Halo UVX compare to it’s competitors regarding pick-up?

    Halo outperforms best selling traditional vacuums in regards to pick up of debris according to an ASTM test method for evaluating dirt removal effectiveness. In addition to testing, our vacuums also employ an energy-efficient design that delivers more power with less energy consumption. We achieve this with two strategically placed motors: one to generate powerful suction and one to drive the brush bar. The benefit of the dual motor design is that when using the brush bar, performance is never compromised.”

    http://www.gethalo.com/faqs/2

    AND from CNET Asia – Crave Blog comes:

    Step aside Roomba, here comes Ultraviolet

    Juniper Foo | Jan 03, 2008

    “Not the Ultraviolet of the Milla Jovovich movie fame, but this killing machine sucks just as much. Thanks to the UV-C technology that’s onboard, its ultraviolet light is said to instantly vaporize dust mites, bacteria, viruses, mold, flea eggs and other unseen creepy-crawlies lurking in the carpet and flooring.
    As the first such vacuum to use UV-C light in addition to suction capability, the US$499 Halo Ultraviolet Vacuum leaves others eating its dust trail. And being a pet owner, this one gets my thumbs up for zapping those invisible house guests sans chemicals. Now all that’s needed is for the Halo Ultraviolet Vacuum to do the dirty work sans cords and human help just like the Roomba, and this one gets my money.”

    http://asia.cnet.com/crave/2008/01/03/step-aside-roomba-here-comes-ultraviolet/


    samsung_silvercarecw.jpg

    1. Samsung SilverCare Washer

    Using nanotech to release molecules of silver into your wash water, Samsung says this washer kills 99.9% of “tested bacteria” (whatever that is), even when using cold water and no bleach. Consumer Reports says the $1400 washer’s SilverCare setting actually made some stinky t-shirts smell a whole lot better than those washed the normal way, but it took an extra 6 to 24 minutes per load to release those magical bug-killing silver nanoparticles.

    http://dvice.com/archives/2008/02/top_10_gadgets.php

    Samsung says:

    SilverCare™ technology

    An advanced energy-saving technology with superb microbe killing capabilities. The sanitization process this provides without the use of hot water saves up to 92% of the energy used in traditional hot water processes. It is also is gentler on clothes which makes for longer use of your clothes and all things considered a fast payback on your investment.

    know exactly what cycle you’re in

    SAMSUNG’s easy to use display panel with its green display indicators let you know what’s going on at all times.

    safety – always a factor

    The child lock indicator reminds you when you are operating the child lock function. This ensures that children do not interfere with the operation of the machine.”

    http://www.samsung.com/us/consumer/detail/detail.do?group=homeappliances&type=washersdryers&subtype=washers&model_cd=WF317AAG/XAA

    And if that’s not enough:

    Jetpack look-a-like kills foot odor and germs in one shot

    shoedryer444.jpg

    “The germaphobe community in Japan brings us yet another oddball gadget to put our minds at ease called the CH-3800 Shoes Dryer. Although the CH-3800 will quickly and efficiently remove the damp sidewalk sweat from your shoes, the device’s ozone anti-bacterial function is what takes it into geek-out territory.

    Assuming you don’t mind constantly fielding questions regarding why you have a jet pack in your home attached to your shoes, at just 9,800 yen ($89.55) the CH-3800 Shoes Dryer is a relative bargain.”

    http://dvice.com/archives/2007/11/jetpack_lookalike_kills_foot_o.php

    AND:

    Germ Killing Light Gun destroys bad germs

    By Joe

    “This looks more like a Star Trek toy or a weird cellphone, but in fact it’s a nano-technology germ killing weapon.
    This device uses UV-C light to destroy 99.99% of the germs. Simply point the device to a spot and it will destroy all germs like E-Coli, staphylococcus, salmonella, flu, …
    This device is not only perfect for people suffering Germaphobes (obsessive cleaning), it might come in handy for young children, to ensure minimal germ exposure.
    This flip-weapon is available for $79.95 at Hammacher.”

    http://www.gadgetcool.com/tags/germ/

    AND:

    CulinaryPrep – kitchen countertop germ busting gadget

    culinaryprep-germbusting-gadgets.JPG

    “For a mere $400 USD you can have a peace of mind when it comes to your food safety. The germ busting gadget, CulinaryPrep kills bacteria and food born pathogens from poultry, meat, fish, and produce, including E.coli, listeria and salmonella. Applying the Grovac patented process, CulinaryPrep eliminates bacteria up to 99.5%, removes free radicals often associated with cancer from your food and reduces fat, sodium and salt levels. The results were proven by several independent studies, conducted by Kansas State University, LSU, Whitbeck and Warren Analytical Laboratories. As an added bonus, the CulinaryPrep will marinate your food while enhancing flavor and texture. This kitchen countertop germ busting gadget will be a great gift for Christmas.”

    http://www.appliancist.com/small_appliances/culinaryprep-kitchen-counter-top-germ-busting-gadget.html

    And MY personal favorite:

    HYSO Doorknob Germ Killer

    germhyso.jpgAfter imagining he was inside a woman’s restroom—something we’ve all done at one time or…sorry, where were we?—Simon Sassoon devised a gadget that automatically kills germs on public doorknobs. Want to see what two years and $250,000 worth of investment money gets you? That’s it on the right.

    Every fifteen minutes, this $60 device sprays a mist of “hospital-grade disinfectant” onto the knob, killing whatever post-urination/defecation residue got transferred to the knob after being handled by hundreds of people.

    Those in the hygiene brigade can reel off dozens of reasons all strangers are potential enemies: virulent flu seasons, packed airplanes with stale air, buses where no one covers a mouth when sneezing. But social critics detect an element of hysteria in the germaphobia of Americans and suggest that at its root is a fear of a dangerous, out-of-control world.

    http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/hyso-doorknob-germ-killer-212800.php

    So relax, companies are thinking of you…

    WordPress.com Tags: , , , ,

    Categories: Cleaning · Colds · Germs · Sanitation · Science · Tech · Technology
    Tagged: , , , , ,

    A Cool $25 Million to "Cool" the Earth?

    February 20, 2008 · Leave a Comment

    Okay, so I’m a Richard Branson fan – ever since I watched his reality show, and how he lived life and viewed business. I have been impressed with his abilty to see the big picture, to think big, not small, and to dream. Sometimes he crashes and burns, but he gets right back up and starts all over again…

    Virgin Earth Challenge

    February 10, 2007 at 1:26 pm

    Branson and Gore have created the “Virgin Earth Challenge” based on the X-Prize worth $25 million to create a way to solve the greenhouse gas problem.

    Flanked by climate campaigners former US Vice President Al Gore and British ex-diplomat Crispin Tickell, Branson said he hoped the prize would spur innovative and creative thought to save mankind from self-destruction.

    The prize will initially only be open for five years, with ideas assesbransongore_wideweb__470×3400.jpgsed by a panel of judges including Branson, Gore and Tickell as well as US climate scientist James Hansen, Briton James Lovelock and Australian environmentalist Tim Flannery.

    The winner will have to come up with a way of removing one billion tonnes of carbon gases a year from the atmosphere for 10 years, with $5 million of the prize being paid at the start and the remaining $20 million at the end.

    The Ansari X-Prize showed what is possible. It enabled Virgin SpaceShip One and space travel for everybody (atleast those who could afford!). This will hopefully create something similar.

    The prize denotes the best things about business. The drive, the incentives, the entrepreneurship, the targets, innovation and the ability to solve the greatest problems facing man.

    Branson sometime back announced that he would invest almost $3 billion of his profits from the transportation business into companies like Virgin Fuels which can solve the earth’s problems and make money too.

    BBC provides a graphic to show the present options in carbon capture.

    Carbon capture options

    1. CO2 pumped into disused coal fields displaces methane which can be used as fuel
    2. CO2 can be pumped into and stored safely in saline aquifers
    3. CO2 pumped into oil fields helps maintain pressure, making extraction easier http://worldisgreen.com/2007/02/10/virgin-earth-challenge/

    image

    $25 Million Offered In Climate Challenge

    Tycoon Hopes to Spur Milestone Research

    By Kevin Sullivan, Washington Post Foreign Service
    Saturday, February 10, 2007;

    “British billionaire entrepreneur Richard Branson, with former vice president Al Gore at his side, offered a $25 million prize Friday to anyone who can come up with a way to blunt global climate change by removing at least a billion tons of carbon dioxide a year from the Earth’s atmosphere.

    Branson, saying that the “survival of our species” is imperiled by current environmental trends, said the prize was similar to cash inducements that led to some of history’s most notable achievements in navigation, exploration and industry. A competition launched in the 17th century, he said, resulted in the creation of a method to accurately estimate longitude.

    Britain's Richard Branson has enlisted Al Gore as a judge in contest to find a way to take carbon dioxide out of the air.

    Britain’s Richard Branson has enlisted Al Gore as a judge in contest to find a way to take carbon dioxide out of the air. (By Bruno Vincent — Getty Images)

    “I believe in our resourcefulness and in our capacity to invent solutions to the problems we have ourselves created,” said Branson, who has pledged to invest $3 billion in profits from his transportation companies, including Virgin Atlantic Airlines and Virgin Trains, to fighting global warming.

    “We are now facing a planetary emergency,” said Gore, whose documentary film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” has helped him become one of the world’s leading voices on climate change issues.

    The former vice president will serve as a judge in the contest, known as the Virgin Earth Challenge. He said he hoped the contest would spur scientific innovation without distracting from more practical steps people can take to battle global warming, from using energy-efficient light bulbs to pressuring politicians to confront “the crisis of our time.”

    “It’s a challenge to the moral imagination of humankind,” Gore said at a packed news conference, which several noted climate scientists and authors attended. Others provided videotaped endorsements or appeared by live video link.

    Gore and Branson said that although scientists are working on technologies to capture carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases at power plants and other industrial sources, no one has developed a strategy to remove gases already released into the atmosphere. Those gases are contributing to a dramatic increase in global temperatures that could have catastrophic results in the coming decades, they said.

    The winner of the contest must devise a plan to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere without creating adverse effects. The first $5 million would be paid upfront, and the remainder of the money would be paid only after the program had worked successfully for 10 years.

    “We’re nowhere” on technologies to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, Gore said. But he said he hoped innovators might be spurred not simply by the cash prize but also by a passion for working on what he called “a moral issue.”

    Other judges in the competition are James E. Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies; British environmentalists and authors James Lovelock and Crispin Tickell; and Australian conservationist and author Tim Flannery.

    Gore, Branson and the other panelists referred repeatedly to a study released last week by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made up of hundreds of scientists from 113 countries, that concluded that human activity is warming the planet at a potentially disastrous and irreversible rate.

    Gore dismissed critics who say the potential effects of climate change have been exaggerated. He said the overwhelming scientific evidence is that “the planet has a fever.” He likened the situation to parents told by a doctor that their child needs medical care; those parents shouldn’t listen to “some science fiction expert who tells you it isn’t real — you listen to the doctor.”

    Gore said he believed public interest in climate change was growing in the United States. But asked whether he thought Americans were ready for a presidential campaign in which global warming was the central issue, he said, “We’re not there, yet.”

    Branson and Gore said they hoped to ask the governments of the United States, Britain and other countries to add to the prize money, or even match the $25 million pledged by Branson. “I don’t have much influence with this administration,” Gore joked.

    Gore, who barely lost the 2000 presidential election to President Bush, has experienced a resurgence in popularity among many Democrats and is still viewed as a potential dark horse candidate in 2008. On Friday, he said he would not categorically rule out another run for public office, but he said he “can’t foresee” any circumstances that would lead him to enter the race.

    “I’m involved in a different kind of campaign,” Gore said.

    Details on the $25 million competition can be found at http://www.virginearth.com

    Special Report

    Read complete Post coverage on the science and politics surrounding the threat of human-induced climate change.

    IN THE GREENHOUSE: Follow the Post series on the science behind confronting a changing climate.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020900693.html

    Now here’s the scoop on the “prize”:

    image

    The Virgin Earth Challenge is a prize of $25m for whoever can demonstrate to the judges’ satisfaction a commercially viable design which results in the removal of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases so as to contribute materially to the stability of Earth’s climate.

    To encourage a viable technology which will result in the net removal of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases each year for at least ten years without countervailing harmful effects.

    Today, Sir Richard Branson and Al Gore announced the setting up of a new Global science and technology prize – The Virgin Earth Challenge – in the belief that history has shown that prizes of this nature encourage technological advancements for the good of mankind. The Virgin Earth Challenge will award $25 million to the individual or group who are able to demonstrate a commercially viable design which will result in the net removal of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases each year for at least ten years without countervailing harmful effects. This removal must have long term effects and contribute materially to the stability of the Earth’s climate.

    Sir Richard also announced that he would be joined in the adjudication of the Prize by a panel of five judges – all world authorities in their respective fields: Al Gore, Sir Crispin Tickell, Tim Flannery, Jim Hansen and James Lovelock. The panel of judges will be assisted in their deliberations by The Climate Group and Special Advisor to The Virgin Earth Prize Judges, Steve Howard (see Editors notes for biographies).

    The timing of the announcement of the Virgin Earth Challenge was particularly apt given the recent findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes, which last week announced that temperatures on earth could increase by as much as 6.4C by the end of this Century.

    The report, the most comprehensive to date from a UN Agency detailed the catastrophe results which even seemingly small temperature raises could have on our planet: at + 2.4C coral reefs around the world would become extinct; + 3.4C would result in the rain forests becoming deserts; an increase of + 4.4C would result in the ice caps melting and severe heat waves across the globe displacing millions; the IPCC further predicted that sea levels could rise by 5 metres if temperatures reached + 5.4C which would result in ten of millions of climate refugees.

    For the first time ever a 6.4C raise was mentioned within UN predictions. If this were to occur it would result in most of life on our planet being exterminated.

    Sir Richard Branson commented: “We all now know that something radical has got to be done to turn back the tide of global warming. By launching the $25 million Virgin Earth Challenge, the largest ever science and technology prize to be offered in history, we want to encourage scientists and individuals from around the world to come up with a way of removing lethal carbon dioxide from the earth’s atmosphere. By competing for this prize they will follow in the footsteps of many of history’s greatest inventors and innovators. But in this case potentially save the planet. It is our hope and belief that the winner of The Virgin Earth Challenge will help to reverse the collision course our beautiful world is currently on. They will not only make history but preserve history for many, many generations to come.

    However, it is important to remember that there is a real possibility that no one will win this prize. Governments, and their people, must continue to use every effort to radically reduce CO2 emissions. “

    The Virgin Earth Challenge will initially be open for five years; the judges will meet annually to determine whether a design has been submitted during the previous year that in their view should win the prize and, if so, they may award the prize without waiting for the five year period to elapse. If no winner has been selected at the end of five years, the judges may decide to roll the prize forward for a further period on the same.

    Al Gore commented at today’s Press Conference: “Carbon dioxide levels already are far above anything measured in the prior 650,000 year record, and just last week in Paris scientists gave us their strongest warning yet of the consequences of inaction. So the dangers are clear. But the opportunities, if we take action now, are innumerable, and Sir Richard’s initiative to stimulate exploration of this new approach to the climate crisis is important and welcome.”

    James Lovelock continued: “To escape the consequences of global heating we need far more than Kyoto, far more than renewable energy and sustainable development. What we need is a near miracle to undo the harm that we have done. Sir Richard Branson’s hugely generous prize could sow the seeds for a miraculous invention that would let us make a sustainable retreat to that lush and comfortable world we once knew. We have all spent far too long sleepwalking towards extinction.”

    Sir Crispin Tickell: “We need a significant, lasting and harmless reduction in the volume of green house gases in the atmosphere. To this technology can make an important contribution. This Prize is a marvellous encouragement to all who have bright and practical ideas on how best to tackle one of the major problems of our time.”

    Dr James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies: “I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change … no longer than a decade, at the most. This is why I am supporting the Virgin Earth Challenge as a judge – we must explore all means, both known and unknown, to help alleviate this crisis.”

    Tim Flannery, author of The Weather Makers, gave a stark warning on the cost of inaction: “If we continue as we are, humanity will so pollute our atmosphere this century that we will create another world, the likes of which has not been seen for 50 million years. And we will destroy human civilisation in the process.”

    Sir Richard Branson concluded: “We would also like to call on governments and members of the international community to join us in The Virgin Earth Challenge by matching or adding to the prize pot available to encourage the greatest number of entrants of those who could come up with a solution which could save our planet. If the greatest minds in the world today compete, as I’m sure they will, for The Virgin Earth Challenge, I believe that a solution to the C02 problem could hopefully be found – a solution that could save our planet – not only for our children but for all the children yet to come.”

    The creation of the Virgin Earth Prize is one of a number of initiatives including investment in renewable energy research, development and production as part of Virgin Group’s “Gaia Capitalism” project and 3 billion dollar Clinton Initiative pledge of September 2006.

    Editor’s Notes:

    Sir Richard Branson comments on the use of Prizes to fuel innovation: “History has shown that Technology Prizes have been invaluable in encouraging technological advancements and innovation in many, many areas of science and industry. From the very first recorded prize offered by the British government in 1714, offering three financial incentives to the inventor who developed a device capable of measuring longitude within a given degree of accuracy. The Prize, which has been immortalised in the book Longitude, was won by John Harrison, a self-educated clock maker. Harrison was awarded £20,000 in 1773 for devising an accurate and durable chronometer.

    But prizes were not just the domain of the British; in the 18th Century the French also used Prizes as an incentive to fuel innovation. In 1775 a 100,000 franc prize was offered to the individual who could produce an artificial form of alkali – the wining of this prize was to form the basis of the French chemical industry. Today, vacuum packed food in our fridges and cupboards is nothing remarkable, but it may surprise some to know that it was actually a Prize offered by Napoleon in 1810 which led to Nicolas Appert coming up with a method of vacuum packing cooked food in glass bottles – it took him 15 years of experiments but in the end won him 12,000 francs!

    It wasn’t long before newspapers and private sector companies became involved in setting up Prizes to encourage development in many areas. The American automobile industry was encouraged to grow through inducements to win prizes by competing in races set up by newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune in the late 19 th Century. Aviation and the development of long distance flying were greatly encouraged by similar prizes to those offered in America for the fledgling automobile industry. The Daily Mail prize for example, for the first flight across the Channel, was won byLouis Bleriot in 1909; and ten years later, Alcock and Brown won the Mail prize for crossing the Atlantic. Lindebergh was competing for a prize when he flew in the Spirit of St Louis, non-stop from New York to Paris in 1927. The Spitfire was the result of the Schneider trophy, which was a series of prizes for technological development.

    The most recent technological Prize was awarded in the area of space travel, and is one that I have come to know very well – the Ansari X Prize – a $10 million dollar Prize set up by Peter Diamandis and funded by the Ansari family. The Ansari X Prize was won in 2004 by Paul Allen, Burt Rutan and Scaled Composites when they successfully flew SpaceShipOne to space and back twice within two weeks. The technological feat of SpaceShipOne resulted in the Virgin Group licensing that technology to build five space ships and two White Knight carrier crafts and has given birth to a commercially viable space tourism industry for the future. Using the latest technology in hybrid rocket motors and next generation turbo fan engines SS2 and WK2 will be environmentally benign.”

    Now for the Judges:

    Once you know Richard you understand why his company is called Virgin (and recognised as such throughout the world in numerous sectors). He is a pioneer of many famous world-wide business ventures – including Virgin Music Group and Virgin Atlantic (with a multitude of first-time achievements to boot); he is also the founder of a company that has been the saviour of Britain’s two most run-down rail-franchises as well as putting its considerable financial and personnel weight behind several worldwide charities facing some of the toughest challenges ever today. This incredibly revolutionary approach to life has also led to his involvement in many epic and famous world record-breaking sea, air and land ventures. In 2004 his dream of opening the world’s first ever commercial Space Tourism business was realised with the launch of Virgin Galactic. Richard Branson is a committed crusader and ambassador of crucial and urgent social as well as environmental issues – a fantastic proof of this was him being awarded a knighthood in the Queen’s Millennium New Year’s honours list for “Services to Entrepreneurship”.

    Is known throughout the world as the Former Vice President of the USA. He is also (amongst others) Co-Founder of Generation Investment Management – a company committed to the new approach to Sustainable Investing. He is also an active and respected member of the Board of Directors for both Apple and Google. He is the author of “An Inconvenient Truth” – a best selling book and documentary about the history of the world. During the past 30 years he has been the leading advocate for confronting the threat of global warming.

    An independent scientist for more than forty years as well as an Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green College, University of Oxford. He was elected to the Royal Society in 1974 and was made a Companion of Honour by Queen Elizabeth II in 2003. In addition, he has received ten international awards for his work as an environmentalist; these included the Blue Planet Prize, Volvo Prize and Wollaston Medal from the Geological Society in London.
    James Lovelock’s most notable scientific work is the Gaia theory, now generally accepted under the name Earth System Science, and the discovery in l972 of the CFCs in the atmosphere and their subsequent global monitoring. He is the inventor of the electron capture detector (ECD), which first alerted us to the ubiquitous distribution of pesticides and PCBs. He has throughout his career as an environmental scientist supported nuclear energy as a preferred supplier of electricity. He is the author of five books and over 200 scientific papers.

    Is an internationally acclaimed scientist, explorer, conservationist and author lauded by David Attenborough and Redmond O’Hanlon respectively as one of the world’s greatest explorers and having “… discovered more new species than Charles Darwin.” He is also Recipient of Centenary of Federation medal for his service to science and in 2002 became the first environmentalist to deliver the Australia Day address to the nation. His voice is familiar world-wide through radio and is also well-known to Documentary Channel viewers as writer/presenter on numerous ground-breaking series of the past 10 years. Tim was recently honoured as Australian Humanist of the Year as well as Australian of the Year.

    Professor in Columbia University Earth Institute and also Heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in NYC. In addition, Dr Hansen’s research has contributed to incredible identification of the properties of clouds of Venus as sulfuric acid. He has worked on understanding the human impact on global climate for nearly 40 years and is universally famous for bringing world-wide awareness of the global warming issue in 1980’s.

    Sir Crispin Tickell is the Director of the Policy Foresight Programme at the James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization at Oxford University. He is associated with other British universities as well as universities in the United States. His main interests are in the field of the environment and international affairs.
    His interests as well as his unparalleled achievements in business, charities, climate and the Earth say all there is to say about this man and his imperative role in our ecological Earth group challenge.

    Virgin Earth Challenge Guidelines

    1. Purpose and overview
    The purpose of the Virgin Earth Challenge is to encourage the development of commercially viable new technology, processes and methods to remove anthropogenic greenhouse gases from the atmosphere to improve the stability of the Earth’s climate.

    Entrants must submit a commercially viable design (the “Design”) to achieve the net removal of significant volumes of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases each year for at least 10 years without countervailing harmful effects (the “Removal Target”). The removal achieved by the Design must have long term benefits (measured over say 1,000 years) and must contribute materially to the stability of the Earth’s climate.

    The prize fund will be awarded to (or shared amongst) any entrants whose Design (in the opinion of the judges) achieves or appears capable of achieving the Removal Target and other criteria set out in paragraph 7 and which in the opinion of the judges makes an outstanding contribution by way of innovation in the fields of engineering or the other physical technologies or in the application of the physical sciences, which is or will be for the benefit of the Earth’s climate.

    Virgin invites all interested individuals or teams to complete an Entry Form to register to participate in the Virgin Earth Challenge. There’s an entry form HERE.

    2. Guidelines and Participation Agreement

    These Guidelines (and the Participation Agreement (see below)) form the basis of the rules that will govern the Virgin Earth Challenge. However, the Virgin Earth Challenge will be subject to more detailed rules, terms and conditions. The full rules, terms and conditions will be adopted within 60 days following the official launch of the Virgin Earth Challenge on 9 February 2007. Such full rules, terms and conditions will constitute a Participation Agreement to be signed by all registered entrants who wish to compete in the Virgin Earth Challenge.

    3. Publicity

    3.1
    Virgin reserves the right to publish details of the entrants and/or winners of a cash award (“Winners”) and any Design(s) on the virgin.com website and in other promotional and publicity material as it considers appropriate, including (without limitation) for the purpose of promoting the Virgin group…

    4. How to enter the Virgin Earth Challenge

    4.1
    In order to register to enter the Virgin Earth Challenge, each entrant must submit a completed copy of the Entry Form (signed by all members of the team)…

    5. Submission of a Design

    5.1
    Only Designs received from registered entrants who have signed a Participation Agreement will be considered for entry into the Virgin Earth Challenge.

    5.2
    Entrants must submit each Design entry in writing by post or by hand…

    5.3
    The Virgin Earth Challenge is free to enter but each entrant shall bear the costs if any of researching, preparing and submitting his/her Design(s).

    5.4
    The number of Design entries per entrant is not limited.

    5.5
    The Design submission should be sufficiently detailed and clear to enable the judges to analyse properly and to form a view on all elements of the Design including the method and any possible side effects of exploitation of the Design.

    6. Entries

    6.1
    Entries will not be returned.

    6.2
    By entering, each entrant confirms that the submitted Design is original, is the entrant’s own work, is not in breach of any obligation of confidence, is not in violation of any applicable laws, does not infringe any other third party rights of whatever nature and that the entrant has all rights and permissions necessary to submit the Design to the Virgin Earth Challenge and to exploit (or grant rights to exploit) the Design anywhere in the World. Each entrant hereby indemnifies Virgin and the judges against any and all loss, damages or liability which they might incur by reason of any breach or alleged breach of this paragraph or these Guidelines.

    7. Criteria

    7.1
    Entries will be judged according to the following criteria:

    (a) ability of the Design to achieve the Removal Target;

    (b) technical viability;

    (c) commercial viability;

    (d) effectiveness and efficiency;

    (e) scalability;

    (f) harmful effects and/or other incidental consequences of the solution;

    (g) other contributions to the reduction in environmental greenhouse gases;

    (h) longevity of effects; and

    (i) any other criteria which the judges decide in their discretion are relevant.

    7.2
    Entrants may be required to provide further information to assist the judges in assessing the Design and each entrant agrees to fully co-operate with the judges. Information which is not in the public domain and is marked by the entrant as confidential shall be treated as confidential by Virgin and the judges.

    7.3
    Any cash awards (“Awards”) will be awarded at the discretion of the judges. The decision of the judges shall be final and no correspondence will be entered into.

    8. Judges

    8.1
    Judging of all submitted Designs will be conducted by a panel of judges comprising Sir Richard Branson, Sir Crispin Tickell, Al Gore, James Lovelock, Jim Hansen and Tim Flannery (provided that if any judge shall be unable to judge the entries, such judge(s) may be replaced by an alternate judge(s) selected by agreement of the remaining judges).

    8.2
    The judges reserve the right to take external advice and guidance from The Climate Group and/or such other experts as they consider appropriate.

    9. Challenge duration

    9.1
    The Virgin Earth Challenge will open on 9 February 2007 (the “Opening Date”).

    9.2
    The Virgin Earth Challenge shall be open for an initial period of 3 years from the Opening Date and the deadline for submissions shall be 8 February 2010 (the “Closing Date”).

    9.3
    Within 180 days after the Closing Date, the judges shall judge the entries submitted by the Closing Date.

    9.4
    If the judges consider that the criteria have been met and that one or more entries should win some or all of the prize pool, Awards will be awarded and the Winners will be announced by Virgin in accordance with these Guidelines.

    9.5
    If some or all of the prize pool has not been awarded following judging of the submissions, the Virgin Earth Challenge shall re-open for a further period and the “Closing Date” shall be extended accordingly to 8 February 2011. The judges shall repeat the judging process in accordance with paragraphs 9.3 and 9.4….

    10. The Award

    10.1
    The total prize pool is US$25million.

    10.2
    The judges may elect to award the entire prize pool funds to one Winner or to share the prize pool funds (as the judges think fit) between two or more Winners totalling US$25million in aggregate. The judges shall not be obliged to award all or any of the total prize pool funds if in the judges’ absolute discretion the criteria and Removal Target are not met.

    10.3
    The Winner(s) will receive 20% of his/her Award upon the judges’ decision to make the Award in respect of his/her Design (a “Winning Design”). The Winner(s) will receive the remaining 80% of his/her Award upon satisfactory achievement by his/her Design of the Removal Target for at least 10 consecutive years and provided all other criteria continue to be met at that time. (The intervening period between such payments shall be the “Post-Award Period”.) Accordingly, if there is a single Winner of the total prize pool fund that Winner would receive US$5 million upon the judges’ decision to make the Award and the remaining US$20 million following achievement of the Removal Target and other criteria for 10 years.

    11. Award Winner announcement

    11.1
    Winners will be notified in writing to the address given in the Entry Form as soon as possible and in any event as soon as reasonably possibly following the expiry of 180 days following the relevant Closing Date.

    12. Eligibility

    12.1
    The Virgin Earth Challenge is open to entrants resident in any nation anywhere on Earth, save for any nations the laws of which provide that entry in to the Virgin Earth Challenge is illegal. Designs may be submitted by any individual or individuals, independent team or teams or any team or teams working for a firm, company or other organisation of any nature.

    http://www.virginearth.com/

    So what’s up? What’s happening in response to the challenge? See these articles for a glimpse:

    2nd Australian International Green Build & Renewable
    Energy Exhibition and Conference

    Friday 1 June – Sunday 3 June, 2007, Australian Technology Park, Sydney

    International Green Build Renewable Energy Exhibition and Conference
    info@grex.com.au

    Conference – Topic Overview [one pertinent example]

    OCEAN NOURISHMENT – A Climate Change Solution
    John Ridley
    Executive Director ONC

    This Seminar will review – the need for carbon sequestration, The Ocean Nourishment technology, environmental and social benefits of Ocean Nourishment
    Professor Jones and his Ocean Nourishment team’s technology mimics the natural process of macro-nutrient upwelling from deep ocean sites . This upwelling occurs naturally in about 70 per cent of the world’s oceans, which means the Ocean Nourishment process is potentially far more reaching than any other solution yet proposed. The technology is therefore capable of removing significant amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere via photosynthesis and storing carbon in plant matter which falls to the ocean floor..
    The Ocean Nourishment team assembled to take part in Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Earth Challenge represents a “who’s who” of climate change, engineering, environmental and scientific expertise. The team aims to complete its submission to the Virgin Earth Challenge within the next year
    Key members of the Ocean Nourishment team (and their respective contributions) include:
    Professor Ian S F Jones (Champion)
    Ocean Nourishment Corporation (Commercialisation)
    Earth Ocean and Space (Inventors of Ocean Nourishment technology)
    Ocean Technology Group, University of Sydney
    Note: In response to intense media attention following the recent screening of the BBC2 documentary “Five Ways To Save The World”, Professor Ian S F Jones and Mr John Ridley provide more details on the Ocean Nourishment technology featured. A team led by Professor Jones will use this technology in its proposed entry in Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Earth Challenge. The Ocean Nourishment team welcomes enquiries from corporate sponsor organisations interested in becoming partners in the Challenge. The Challenge represents an opportunity to demonstrate leadership on the earth’s most challenging issue and to work in collaboration with leading thinkers on stabilisation of dangerous levels of climate change.

    http://www.grex.com.au/conferencetopic.shtml

    And from the Miami Independent Media Center :

    image

    GLOBAL WARMING SOULTION: Will it make it through the bureaucracy to the upper atmosphere?

    by Peter Graves-Goodman Apr. 13, 2007

    My friend Joe Fox, who is a molecular microbiologist, invented a modality to absorb CO2 in the atmosphere and reverse the global warming problem in days.

    He is submitting his plan to www.VirginEarth.com. The Virgin Earth Challenge (Richard Branson-Al Gore) is a prize of $25m for whoever can demonstrate to the judges’ satisfaction a commercially viable design which results in the removal of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases so as to contribute materially to the stability of Earth’s climate. The only problem is that it will be 3 years before they look at all the plans and judge who will receive the prize money.

    Global Warming Solut...
    greenhouse_warming.jpg, image/jpeg, 342×250

    Here is Joe Fox’s solution to the global warming process:

    Using a cloud seeding bacteria that eats CO2, it grows to a tremendous cloud in hours, then so full of carbon fibers inside unexcreted and heavily fattened, the bacteria will drop dead to the ground in about a day of gluttony eating CO2 to make carbon fibers inside itself unexcreted and releasing O2, like plants, taking the CO2 out of the atmosphere and dropping it to the ground, leaving a clean atmosphere behind, in about a day, since bacteria grows, like, well, bacteria, to a huge cloud in 2 to 4 hours.

    The gene to do these functions is already commercially available from cDNA suppliers like INVITROGEN, INCITE, GENOMICS, CELERA, and others extracted from plant cells that make bark by absorbing CO2 from the air, then making carbon fibers with it and releasing Oxygen. This is a well known safe gene you eat every day in salads or fruits, that plants have and that can be inserted into bacteria. Another gene to be inserted into the bacteria, chlorophyll, etc., would be used to allow bacteria to absorb UV and heat energy, to also cool the planet, and to power the bacteria to eat much more CO2, much faster with this energy.

    The bacteria I am proposing, is a perfectly safe, simple, readily available in the supermarket and even nutritious bacteria: Lactobacillus Acidophilus, (Yogurt), which is perfectly compatible with humans and animals, since it is a prehistoric bacteria, which all species have inside their guts, skin, and bodies. It has lived on this planet for billions of years, so everyone is compatible with it and all its nutritious effects.

    You can take a bath in yogurt and it would actually be good for your skin, as Acidophilus is a normal inhabitant of the skin and gut of humans, animals, fish and plans alike. And when our bacteria rains down dead from the sky, it would only look like yogurt/wood dust. The CO2 would have been FIXED into carbon fibers inside the bacteria (the carbon part) and Oxygen released to the atmosphere. And the bacteria will be short lived due to the fact that the carbon fibers would eventually kill the bacteria of too much carbon fiber, eliminating the bacteria after its job is done (one gene for many functions).

    This is the most elegant modality of removing tons and tons of CO2 in HOURS, (NOT DECADES) from the atmosphere, since bacteria grows in hours, not months or years like plants.

    I have proposed a test of my bacteria, using a clear 5 gallon water bottle tank filled with air and CO2 pumped into the tank and then spray some bacteria in the tank and watch as the CO2 gauge drop rapidly to zero.

    So, here is a Global Warming Solution. Will it make it through the bureaucracy to the upper atmosphere? http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2007/04/8108.php

    And from Scientific American:

    image

    Special Report: Inspired by Ancient Amazonians, a Plan to Convert Trash into Environmental Treasure

    New bill in U.S. Senate will advocate adoption of “agrichar” method that could lessen our dependence on fossil fuel and help avert global warming

    By Anne Casselman , May 15, 2007

    CHARCOAL like that created by ancient Amazonians or in a modern process called pyrolysis, could be used as a carbon-negative source of fuel and fertilizer.

    When Desmond Radlein heard about Richard Branson and Al Gore’s Virgin Earth Challenge, a contest in which the first person who can sequester one billion tons of carbon dioxide a year wins $25 million, he got out his pencil and began figuring whether or not his company was up to the task.

    Radlein is on the board of directors at Dynamotive Energy Systems, an energy solutions provider based in Vancouver, British Columbia, that is one of several companies pioneering the use of pyrolysis, a process in which biomass is burned at a high temperature in the absence of oxygen. The process yields both a charcoal by-product that can be used as a fertilizer, and bio-oil, which is a mix of oxygenated hydrocarbons that can be used to generate heat or electricity.

    Because the charcoal by-product, or “agrichar,” does not readily break down, it could sequester for thousands of years nearly all the carbon it contains, rather than releasing it into the atmosphere as the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. Along the way, it would boost agricultural productivity through its ability to retain nutrients and moisture.

    “I developed this rough back-of-the-envelope calculation of what it would require if one were to [attempt the Virgin Earth Challenge] with the agrichar concept,” Radlein explains. “One would need about 7,000 plants each processing 500 tons of biomass per day, which is a large number, but it’s not outside the bounds of possibility.” Such facilities would produce four parts bio-oil to one part carbon sequestered, so it would rake in money as well as carbon.

    An International Movement
    Radlein is not alone in his belief in this technology—last week in Terrigal, New South Wales, Australia, the newly formed International Agrichar Initiative held its first ever conference, which included 135 attendees from every corner of the globe. According to Debbie Reed, an environmental policy expert who organized the conference, keynote speaker Mike Mason of the carbon offset company Climate Care urged attendees to unify in an effort to apply for the Virgin Earth Challenge. He also encouraged them to submit their method to the United Nations’s Clean Development Mechanism program, which is designed to transfer clean technology from the developed to the developing world.

    Although no officials from the U.S. government attended the conference, there is a nascent stateside movement pushing for adoption of agrichar. “[Democratic Senator] Ken Salazar of Colorado is drafting a stand-alone bill on this, and he may also promote it as part of the Farm Bill,” notes Reed. The Farm Bill, whose terms are decided every year, determines what agricultural initiatives can be funded by the U.S. government. Inclusion in the Farm Bill would virtually guarantee subsidies for research and application of the agrichar process.

    A Technology with a (Potentially) Huge Upside
    In 2100, if pyrolysis met the entire projected demand for renewable fuels, the process would sequester enough carbon (9.5 billion tons a year) to offset current fossil fuel emissions, which stand at 5.4 billion tons a year, and then some. “Even if only a third of the bioenergy in 2100 uses pyrolysis, we still would make a huge splash with this technology,” remarks Johannes Lehmann, a soil biogeochemist at Cornell University and one of the organizers of the agrichar conference.

    There are other perks: Increasing production of bio-oil could decrease a country’s dependence on foreign oil. In the tropics, boosting soil productivity increases the number of growing seasons per year, which could help alleviate the pressure to deforest biodiversity hot spots. The new markets for agricultural crops, which would in effect become sources of fuel, could boost rural economies worldwide, just as the demand for ethanol has bolstered the price of corn.

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=5670236C-E7F2-99DF-3E2163B9FB144E40

    Critics have judged Branson harshly for his gas-guzzling airlines and space rockets:

    image

    Branson defends space trips at eco-prize launch

    By Steve Connor, Science Editor
    Saturday, 10 February 2007

    Sir Richard Branson yesterday defended his plans to offer £100,000 trips into space while at the same time setting up a £12.8m prize for scientists to devise a way of absorbing carbon dioxide released in the atmosphere.

    He was speaking at the launch of the Virgin Earth Challenge, which offers a $25m reward for the invention that most successfully removes significant quantities of carbon dioxide over a period of 10 years without harming the environment.

    Sir Richard was asked how he could justify such a prize when he owns an airline and has set up a separate space tourism company. “Let’s confront the airline question,” he said. “I have an airline. I can afford to ground that airline today. My family have got businesses in mobile phones and other businesses, but if we do ground that airline today, British Airways will just take up the space. So what we are doing is making sure we acquire the most carbon dioxide-friendly planes. We’re making sure that 100 per cent of profits we make from our transportation businesses are put back into things like the prize.”

    Virgin Galactic, his space-tourism company, will use hybrid rocket motors and turbo-fan engines that will be “almost” environmentally benign, he said, and the cost of a space ride could come down to the price of an economy-class ticket.

    Flanked by Al Gore, the former American vice president, he said he was offering the biggest scientific prize in history to stimulate interest in the technology of capturing and storing millions of tonnes of man-made carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas…. He said he had no idea whether the prize would ever be won but that unless we could devise a way of curbing carbon dioxide levels we faced a major extinction of life.

    “We will lose half of all species on Earth, including the polar bear and the walrus, we will lose the coral reefs, including the Great Barrier Reef, 100 million people will be displaced due to rising sea levels, farmlands will become deserts, rainforests wastelands,” Sir Richard said.

    Mr Gore said the prize should not deflect from other attempts at curbing emissions. “It should not be seen as a substitute for, or distraction from, the main aim, which is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide ,” Mr Gore said. “We are now facing a planetary emergency and things that would not have been considered in the past ought now to be considered.”

    Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, welcomed the initiative but warned that more should be done to encourage more environmentally friendly forms of travel. “Many of the ways of tackling climate change, such as energy efficiency and renewables, already exist, and it is essential that these are implemented as soon as possible. We cannot afford to wait for futuristic solutions which may never materialise,” Mr Juniper said.

    “Sir Richard must also look at his business activities and the contribution they make to climate change. The world will find it very difficult to tackle climate change if air travel continues to expand and space tourism is developed,” he added.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/branson-defends-space-trips-at-ecoprize-launch-435792.html

    Here is his response:

    PREACHING GREEN WITH THE ZEAL OF A CONVERT

    (FORTUNE Magazine)

    By Eugenia Levenson, March 16, 2007

    The Virgin king is set on saving the planet. Since the fall, Branson has pledged profits from his gas-guzzling airline businesses to alternative-fuels research and launched an eco-equivalent of the X Prize. His Virgin Earth Challenge, announced in February, offers a $25 million reward for a winning plan to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. (For other business responses, see our “Green Is Good” package.) On a recent visit to the UN to promote another worthy cause, blindness-prevention charity ORBIS, Branson spoke to FORTUNE’s Eugenia Levenson about his new crusade.

    Who or what turned you green?

    The Muppets!

    So you wanted to prove Kermit wrong–that it is easy to be green?

    Well, I read a lot of books, including Tim Flannery’s The Weather Makers and James Lovelock’s Gaia. I also met Al Gore, Ted Turner, and other people who were passionate about it. In the end, I realized the world has a serious problem, and if we carry on putting too much carbon and methane into the earth’s atmosphere, we’re going to snuff out the people and all the world’s species.

    Gore is a judge for the Virgin Earth Challenge. How did you meet the former U.S. veep?

    He came to my house a year and a half ago and said, “I want to spend two hours and try to convince you to tackle this problem.” By the end of those two hours, he’d got me thinking. A few months later I came up with the idea that since we had a dirty business in our airlines, if we put all our profits toward tackling global warming, it would be a good signal.

    But Virgin Atlantic planes are still flying and producing emissions. Why not quit a dirty business altogether?

    What we need to do is get our own house in order and reduce our carbon output. We’re experimenting with towing planes to and from runways rather than turning on engines before pushback, and we’re trying to buy lighter, more fuel-efficient planes. If we pull out, someone else will step in. Instead, we decided to reinvest all profits from our transportation businesses into trying to discover clean fuels.

    The Earth Challenge is initially open for three years. Have you had any entries yet?

    We’ve had over 15,000 submissions in the first month, so we’re wading through them at the moment. There’s one or two that the judges are [happy] about. They’re complicated but could be quite exciting.

    You now own two private islands in the British Virgin Islands, and you’ve said they’ll be carbon neutral. How does that work?

    We’ll have windmills for wind energy and solar [panels] for solar energy as well as for when the wind’s not blowing. We may have a little bit of wave power as well. No petrol on the islands is the plan. Hopefully we’ll get there.

    From the April 2, 2007 issue, Fortune

    http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/04/02/8403412/index.htm

    From the Virgin Blue:

    image

    Our Inflight Magazine

    image

    venturing into virgin territory

    From a student paper to one of the world’s ‘mega-brands’ and a foray into space, Sir Richard Branson has seen it all. And he’s still got time to save the world, writes Catherine McCormack.

    Richard Banson’s can-do attitude, sharp business acumen and grand spirit of adventure have paved his successes in life. From the fledgling record mail-order business run from the basement of the London flat he lived in as a 16-year-old, he has transformed Virgin into a global empire with 350 individual companies, 45,000 employees and an annual profit of around US$250 million (A$290 million).

    Now the 57-year-old billionaire ‘multipreneur’ can add passionate environmentalist to the list. And, possibly very soon, astronaut.

    In the past two years, Virgin has announced three new ventures: Virgin Fuels, a company dedicated to developing environmentally-sound fuel; the Virgin Earth Challenge, a US$25 million (A$29 million) prize for the individual or team who develops technology to remove large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; and Virgin Galactic, a space tourism operator that sends paying customers on a round-trip into outer space.

    That these companies and the causes they represent are groundbreaking shouldn’t come as any great surprise. In his 41-year career, Branson has launched everything from Virgin Blue to Virgin Brides, breaking every ‘rule’ of business along the way. He’s thrived on doing the unpredictable, and often achieved the unthinkable.

    Yet fame and money are no longer what drive Branson. They’re an incentive, sure, but the grand prize no more. The Englishman’s real passions are to challenge people’s perceptions and make a positive difference to the world, particularly when it comes to the causes he champions, such as world poverty, health and global warming.

    Heralding a move away from fossil fuels seems an odd choice for a man whose billion-dollar transport enterprises rely on the stuff. But Branson, who was once described as “capitalistic in business but socially communist”, isn’t at all afraid to put his money, or his business reputation, where his conscience is.

    “I’ve always said that I want to build the most respected brand in the world,” Branson said in an interview with Forbes magazine. “If we can send people into space in an environmentally friendly spacecraft that will help enhance our brand. [And] if we can invent an alternative fuel that tackles global warming and can one day be used in airplanes that will enhance our brand and tackle global warming – and enable me to sleep better at night.”

    It was former US Vice President and star of the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, who made Branson see how important he could be in global efforts to save the world.

    “I was sceptical [about global warming],” Branson said during an interview on US TV show Good Morning America. “But I’ve met a lot of scientists. I’ve read a lot of books. I’ve had Al Gore spend two hours at my home giving me his personal time to convince me and, sadly, I’m now convinced the world has a serious problem.”

    Shortly after the two men met, Branson announced, at a Global Initiative organised by former US President Bill Clinton in September 2006, that all of his profits from all of Virgin’s transport companies – including its five airlines – would be invested in developing clean energy sources that do not contribute to global warming. Profits are estimated to be US$3 billion (A$3.5 billion) over the next 10 years.

    “Richard’s commitment is groundbreaking not only because of the price tag – which is phenomenal – but also because of the statement that he is making: Clean energy is good for the world, and it’s good for business,” commented Clinton.

    Also in September, Branson launched Virgin Fuels, a company which will invest up to US$400 million (A$465 million) over a three-year period to develop earth-friendly biofuels. “It’s a commitment to try and find alternative fuels – for planes, for cars, for all forms of transport – and ultimately, obviously, to take on the oil companies,” he said.

    In February this year, the business mogul again teamed up with Gore to launch the Virgin Earth Challenge Prize, a US$25 million (A$29 million) bounty to the individual or team who come up with a commercially viable way to suck massive amounts of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Among the Challenge’s judges is acclaimed scientist, explorer, conservationist and the 2007 Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery.

    “Sir Richard Branson is the rare individual who captures and commands attention, and he has the guts to do something bold,” said Gore. “And a lot of people are going to follow his lead.”

    http://www.virginblue.com.au/products/voyeur/aug07/index.php?section=Venturing%20into%20Virgin%20territory

    And some news on Branson’s environmental investments:

    image

    Virgin’s Branson Invests in Cilion

    September 11, 2006

    Richard Branson invested more than $60 million into Cilion recently, a company that will make bioethanol from corn. Cilion raised a total of $160 million earlier this month.

    In total, Virgin Fuels, the subsidiary used for the investment, is investing $400 million in several biofuel companies, The Sunday Times reports (via Free Republic). Virgin Fuels is already working with UK’s government to make it economic for train companies to use biodiesel. Branson is understood to be considering other big investments in a range of other alternative-energy technologies, including wind power, hydro-electric and possibly even small nuclear stations.

    Cilion is expected to start work on the first of seven bioethanol plants within a few weeks.

    http://www.environmentalleader.com/2006/09/11/virgins-branson-invests-in-cilion/

    AND

    Branson Commits $3B to Renewable Energy

    September 21, 2006

    branson-commits-3b-68.jpgVirgin Group founder Richard Branson will spend three billion dollars in the next 10 years on a variety of projects to combat global warming and reduce dependence on fossil fuels. The announcement was made at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York, Yahoo News reports.

    Branson said Virgin Group will invest all future profits from its airline and train businesses into renewable energy initiatives within the company and in other investments in new biofuel research and other projects to tackle emissions related to global warming. Virgin currently estimates this commitment to be three billion dollars over the next 10 years.

    Virgin said the initiative would take the form of investment in new fuel technologies through an investment unit called Virgin Fuels, for which Branson’s group has pledged 400 million dollars in the next three years.

    The first investment is in Cilion, which was announced earlier this month.

    http://www.environmentalleader.com/2006/09/21/branson-commits-3b-to-renewable-energy/

    AND

    Branson: Airlines Can Cut CO2 Emissions 25% in 2 Years

    December 14, 2006

    Even though high fuel prices have cost the Virgin Group and Virgin Atlantic about a billion dollars a year in increased costs because of its trains and planes, Richard Branson prays that fuel prices remain high in order to stir people to take action to address global warming, Grist reports (via MSNBC).

    Branson said the airline industry can reduce its CO2 emissions by about 25 percent over the next two years. Branson said he has started towards that goal by towing planes to the runway with an electric tug instead of taxiing planes.

    Branson also said that he supports some type of a carbon tax for airlines. “Anything like that that cuts down greenhouse gases I support.”

    Earlier this week, Virgin Atlantic pulled out of the UK government’s carbon emission reduction scheme after the air passenger duty was doubled.

    Branson said that if there’s an adequate train service covering short-haul routes, people should be going by train, which produces about eight times less CO2 than planes.

    “I think it should be government mandated,” Branson said.

    In September, Branson announced that Virgin Group will spend three billion dollars in the next 10 years on a variety of projects to combat global warming and reduce dependence on fossil fuels. That announcement followed his investing more than $60 million into Cilion, a company that makes bioethanol from corn.

    http://www.environmentalleader.com/2006/12/14/branson-airlines-can-cut-co2-emissions-25-in-2-years/

    AND

    Virgin Group, NTR Form Virgin Bioverda

    January 17, 2007

    virgin-group-ntr-685.jpgRichard Branson’s Virgin Group and NTR have formed a joint venture company, VBV LLC (Virgin Bioverda), that will focus on U.S.-based ethanol. VBV’s first deal is an investment in two 100 million gallon corn to ethanol plants – Indiana Bioenergy in Indiana and Ethanol Grain Processors in Tennessee. The total capital investment in these projects will be in the region of $336 million.

    Construction of both plants is to be carried out by Fagen, Inc. and is expected to be completed in 2008. VBV says it is has already identified a number of additional projects for development in 2007/08, and the company intends to look for additional biofuel opportunities in both North America and Europe.

    “This is our second venture in the biofuel market in the U.S. since Virgin Fuels formed under the management of Shai Weiss,” said Richard Branson, Founder of Virgin Group.

    Richard Branson has pledged to invest up to $3 billion over the next 10 years to combat global warming. In September, Branson invested more than $60 million into, a company that will make bioethanol from corn. The new investments bring Virgin’s total financial commitment to the renewable energy sector to $150 million in the last twelve months.

    NTR’s recently announced corporate strategy is to invest up to $3 billion in renewable energy over the next five years.

    http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/01/17/virgin-group-ntr-form-virgin-bioverda/

    AND

    Virgin To Avoid Buying 4 Engine Planes For Environmental Reasons

    September 4, 2007

    virgin-to-avoid-3269.jpgRichard Branson says Virgin Atlantic will aim to avoid buying four-engined airplanes in future for both economic and environmental reasons, Reuters reports. Virgin Atlantic’s fleet of 38 planes all have four engines, and it has six four-engined Airbus A380 superjumbos on order.

    But in April the airline announced it was buying 15 of Boeing’s new fuel-efficient 787 Dreamliner jets with 2 engines.

    Virgin is developing biofuels for aircraft alongside Boeing and engine-maker GE Aviation and plans to test them next year.

    http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/09/04/virgin-to-avoid-buying-4-engine-planes-for-environmental-reasons/

    Related Stories
    Boeing and Virgin Announce Environmental Partnership
    Virgin Unveils Fuel-Saving Plan
    Virgin To Test 747 On Biofuel
    Branson: Airlines Can Cut CO2 Emissions 25% in 2 Years
    Virgin Launches New Green Fund

    image

    Welcome

    Virgin Green Fund has been established to invest in companies in the renewable energy and resource efficiency sectors in the US and Europe. We are a sector-focused, multi-stage investment firm investing primarily in expansion/growth capital opportunities with an allocation to earlier stage venture capital opportunities. We are committed to helping companies at an inflection point of substantial growth and/or disruptive innovation. Diversification is a cornerstone of our strategy, investing across stage, geography and technology in our core sectors

    image image

    Virgin Green Fund is uniquely positioned to access attractive investment opportunities, and help portfolio companies maximise value:

    • Our experienced investment team has a demonstrated track record in helping companies to build, shape and accelerate growth
    • Our strong business relationship network and strategic vision help us attract valuable partners to propel our portfolio companies towards value creation
    • Our deep insight on market evolution helps us form a unique position on the risk/return profile of investment opportunities across multiple stages
    • Our brand awareness and affiliation with Sir Richard Branson create unparalleled deal flow and recognition

    Investment Approach

    At Virgin Green Fund, we seek out opportunities to partner with superior management teams and established businesses seeking to raise expansion or growth capital. In addition, we evaluate disruptive technologies in our core sectors. Our portfolio companies match our investment charter.

    image image

    Our investments span across stage, geography and technology in renewable energy and resource efficiency sectors.

    We work alongside a number of leading investors on many of our investments.We partner with our portfolio companies as an active lead investor, leveraging our expertise and network, our experience in building great businesses, and our strong relationships with corporations, governments, academic institutions and NGOs.

    image image

    Our Investment Charter:

    • Invest in companies whose products and services reduce net greenhouse gas emissions and/or improve management of scarce resources, operate in environmentally and economically sustainable markets, and have a long-term positive impact on their communities and society more broadly
    • Conduct business with our partners in a way that is open, collaborative, based on trust and equitable

    image image

    http://www.virgin-fuels.net/

    http://www.virgingreenfund.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=35

    And for ye of little faith:

    VIRGIN ATLANTIC 747 TO TEST BIOFUEL IN EARLY 2008

    image


    US: October 16, 2007

    BOSTON – British billionaire Richard Branson said on Monday his Virgin Group hopes to produce clean biofuels by around the start of the next decade and early next year will test a jet plane on renewable fuel.

    Virgin hopes to provide clean fuel for buses, trains and cars within three or four years, Branson told a Mortgage Bankers Association meeting in Boston.

    In the meantime, Virgin will be conducting a test jet flight on renewable fuels. “Early next year we will fly one of our 747s without passengers with one of the fuels that we have developed,” Branson told the annual conference.

    Virgin is developing biofuels for aircraft in conjunction with Boeing Co and engine-maker GE Aviation, a unit of General Electric Co. Previously, Branson had said the company would test the fuel sometime next year and that some people had said it would be late in the year.

    Air New Zealand has said it plans to test a flight on a combination fuel of biofuel and kerosene in late 2008, but Virgin is trying to beat that airline by testing biofuels first.

    Branson pledged last year to spend all the profit over the next 10 years from his 51 percent stake in Virgin’s airline and rail businesses on fighting global warming.

    He also created Virgin Fuels, which is investing US$400 million over three years in renewable energy initiatives, as part of the pledge.

    Biofuels, at this point mostly ethanol and biodiesel, have witnessed explosive growth this year amid record oil prices and concern about global warming. They are believed to emit less greenhouse gases because they are made from plants like corn and soybeans that absorb carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas, when they grow.

    Cutting emissions of heat-trapping gases from transportation sources is more difficult than cutting them from stationary sources like power plants. Power stations can switch from coal, the heaviest greenhouse gas emitter, to cleaner burning natural gas.

    On Monday, Branson said jets may have problems using ethanol, the most common biofuel, which is made mainly from corn in the United States and sugar cane in Brazil.

    He said ethanol freezes at 15,000 feet (4,600 meters) and that butanol, a fuel similar to gasoline that can be made from biomass, may be a better alternative. It is also less corrosive than ethanol.

    Virgin Fuels has invested in a small number of US ethanol projects and hopes eventually to produce branded biofuels, the company’s managing partner said earlier this year.

    Separately, Branson said Virgin would name one of its Galactic crafts — planned for use in space tourism — after his friend Steve Fossett, the millionaire adventurer who disappeared in a small private plane in the US West early last month.

    Test flights of the Galactic crafts begin next year and passenger service is expected to begin in 2009.

    Story by Al Yoon

    image http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/44849/story.htm

    So, are you are believer yet?

    Categories: Science · future tech · globalization · renewable resources · sustainable development
    Tagged: , , , ,

    Odds and Ends – 2/4/08 (NASA, the Space Program and the Space Elevator)

    February 4, 2008 · Leave a Comment

    I’ve decided to intersperse my long posts on books, movies, SciFi, etc., with some “shorter” or “odd” ones – a place to put my “junk” so to speak.  So here goes the first one:

    On one of my book groups we’ve been discussing a post I found that showed the cost of building a space elevator vs. the Iraqi War.  The figure was 10% of the cost of the war.  What is a “space elevator you ask?  Here’s the basic concept:

    “To build “an elevator to the stars,” you start building from a location on the Earth’s equator … rising vertically until you reach “geosynchronous orbit” — some 22,300 miles out.  Then, you send payloads up and down this structure via “climber cars” — which would be electrically powered and, on their ascent, being also accelerated by the increasing centrifugal forces of rotation of the planet with increasing height, would ultimately achieve tangential velocities above 22,300 miles capable of launching payloads directly into orbit (below) ….  

    Or, as science fiction writer Robert Heinlein once remarked, “Once you’re in Earth orbit … you’re half way to anywhere!”

     

    Compared to current, highly primitive methods of getting off this planet – expendable rockets, the Space Shuttle, etc., which can cost up to $10,000 per pound of payload launched! – Arthur Clarke once calculated that one could send a fully grown man to geosynchronous orbit (and his “22 pounds of carry-on luggage …”) via such an elevator, for about “a dollars’ worth of electricity …” — a saving of ten thousand fold over current rocket-based propulsion systems (not counting the ~ $10 billion-dollar development costs …)!”  http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon5.htm; see also: http://seattlewebcrafters.com/nsecc/?q=node/view/115. (National Space Society’s Space Elevator Special Interest Chapter) 

    I thought it was a no-brainer, as some of the people on the group had expressed the idea that if we were ever going to make it into space, we needed to do it in “baby steps,”;  like in one of my favorite movies, “What about Bob?”  I use the term baby steps, as used in the movie, a lot – the character, Bill Murray, a patient of psychiatrist Richard Dreyfuss, was having some deep issues.  The movie focuses on what happened when the psychiatrist tries to go out of town on vacation, and Murray is left without his “crutch.”  But one of the tools the psych used was “baby steps.”  In order to overcome anything, you need to take small steps, not just leap over the hurdle.  It’s like “chunking,” as used in the reading process – taking words apart into “chunks” of sounds, and working on those, and then recombining them back into one word; or attacking what seems to be an insurmountable problem by breaking it down into manageable pieces.

    So, back to my space elevator.  Some one had suggested taking small steps in the space race, like building a space elevator rather than working on FTL (faster than light – superluminal) travel (versus our current theoretical STL or subluminal methods of space travel).  Which would cost the least, have the fastest results, and show the most promise in terms of getting people excited about space again?

    Many of us on the group think back to the early days of the space program – I was born the year Sputnik went up; a true child of the space age – and fondly recall the promise of those years and the enthusiasm of President Kennedy. 

    In his historic speech to a joint session of congress on May 25, 1961, to lay out his proposal to “preserve freedom and protect the American way of life.”

    “First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned explorations–explorations which are particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon–if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.” http://www.space.com/news/jfk_speech_040114.html

    Will the next president share that dream?  Or will it crumble under the weight of bureaucracy and lack of funding, and a cohesive, baby steps plan?  One look at NASA’s web site (http://www.nasa,gov) will disabuse you of that – they are working on small steps, not FTL.  Although they do have a few “public interest” projects, such as the latest one, beaming a Beatles’s song, “Across the Universe,” today, 2/4/08 at 7pm EST, to Polaris, reaching it in about 431 years.  Across the world, people are invited to play the song at the same time as NASA beams it out.  Response from the Beatles was enthusiastic: ”Amazing!  Well done, NASA!  Send my love to the aliens. All the best.” said Sir Paul McCartney, and Yoko Ono, John Lennon’s widow (who was the principle writer of the song) said: “I see that this is the beginning of the new age in which we will communicate with billions of planets across the universe.”   The song was beamed out to commemorate a number of anniversaries, including the 40th of the song’s recording, and the 50th anniversaries of NASA’s founding and the launch of the first satellite, Explorer I.

    And are we, as a people committed to what, as outlined below, is an important part of that vision for the future of America? 

    But back to the space elevator yet again.  In responses to the space elevator post, and my comment that it was a no brainer, several people replied that the public wouldn’t see it that way, that they didn’t care about space, or science even – some went so far as to predict the death of pure mathematics and any pure scientific research.  Pessimistic responses to my comment, from very educated, science minded people.  Are we all that ready to dismiss science and junk it?  IS that our priority?  We all have a list in our heads of those things we set our priorities on when it comes to government spending – education, military, welfare, health-care reform, social security, the environment, global warming, new energy sources, and space.  But many of these priorities, such as the environment and new energy sources, depend on science, mathematics and research.  I believe that most people fundamentally understand that, and are not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak, even if they put space low on the list of priorities.

    But think of it: would you rather spend $40-$50 billion dollars on something that could easily bring payloads to space without the cost of the space shuttles, and without presumably the danger, OR would you prefer to spend it on a futile war, another “Vietnam,” that would cost astronomical (pun intended) sums.  In a Washington Post article from 11/18/07: “A report released last week by the Democratic staff of Congress’s Joint Economic Committee put the war’s 2002-08 tab at $1.3 trillion.” The author also counts the “real” cost of the war: the dead (38,00 U.S. soldier), the number of bullets fired for every Iraqi insurgent killed (250,000 – a fairly poor accuracy rating – you’d never pass a law enforcement class with those numbers!), the fact that we still aren’t safe from terrorism and that “[t]he $1 trillion we’ve probably spent on the war could have funded the annual budget of the Department of Homeland Security 28 times over” and that ”governing Iraq has, so far, been a fruitless investment.According to 2006 figures, U.S. war spending came out to $3,749 per Iraqi — almost as much as the per capita income of Egypt. That staggering sum hasn’t bought a lot of leadership from Iraq, or much of a democratic model for its Arab neighbors.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111600865.html

    So, you can probably guess my stance on this issue – but when you break down, or “chunk” the war into baby steps or small figures that actually mean something to people, rather than a large amorphous sum of money – who really understands how much a trillion is worth?  In a New York Times Business article from 1/17/08,

    “The way to come to grips with $1.2 trillion is to forget about the number itself and think instead about what you could buy with the money. When you do that, a trillion stops sounding anything like millions or billions.

    The War has been estimated to cost around $1.2 trillion ($700 billion in direct military spending, the rest in related costs).  “In the days before the war almost five years ago, the Pentagon estimated that it would cost about $50 billion. Democratic staff members in Congress largely agreed. Lawrence Lindsey, a White House economic adviser, was a bit more realistic, predicting that the cost could go as high as $200 billion, but President Bush fired him in part for saying so.”

    So, what can you do with $1.2 trillion dollars?

    “For starters, $1.2 trillion would pay for an unprecedented public health campaign — a doubling of cancer research funding, treatment for every American whose diabetes or heart disease is now going unmanaged and a global immunization campaign to save millions of children’s lives.

    Combined, the cost of running those programs for a decade wouldn’t use up even half our money pot. So we could then turn to poverty and education, starting with universal preschool for every 3- and 4-year-old child across the country. The city of New Orleans could also receive a huge increase in reconstruction funds.”  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html

    or:

    Putting the Annual Cost of War in Perspective

    The above chart is the initial estimate of the cost of the war v. preschool costs.  But with the actual estimated figure so much higher, we could have done so much more.  So for all those nay-sayers who say that space is a waste of time, let me point out to you a page that shows what NASA and their space explorations have done to improve our daily lives: 

    “Breast biopsies – Mammographies are essential for the detection and treatment of breast cancer. As a result of technology developed through the Hubble Space Telescope program, biopsies can be performed with a needle instead of a scalpel.”

    “Lifeshears – This powerful hand-held rescue tool can quickly cut through cars or other enclosures to free persons involved in an accident or other dangerous situation. The tool, which was developed through the joint efforts of the Hi-Shear Technology Corporation, firefighters and NASA, uses the same power source used to separate solid rocket boosters from Space Shuttles.”

    “Linking the World’s Telephones – When friends and family call from other parts of the country or overseas, they sound as if they are right around the corner. The scope, clarity, and reliability of our long-distance telephone system is the result of communications satellite technology developed by NASA.”

    “Vital Signs for Critical Moments – The monitoring systems used in intensive care units and heart rehabilitation wards were developed from  the systems used to monitor astronauts during the first space missions in the early 1960s.”

    “Food Safety for Astronauts Sets the Standard – The Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture credit NASA with developing the comprehensive food safety system, referred to as Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) that the nation uses today.”

    “S.O.S. to Space Provides Global Rescue Capability – NASA’s research in developing and demonstrating pace-based beacon locators was used to create an international, satellite-based search and rescue system that has helped save almost 13,000 lives worldwide (as of January 2002).”

    “New “Fields” and Better Yields for Agriculture – NASA-sponsored researchers working on methods to grow plants in space have produced world-record crops on Earth.”

    “Big Functions in a Small Package – Micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) are extremely small devices and sensors (comparable to the size of a human hair ) … [that] measure changes in speed of small objects or activity levels of people or animals. … MEMS technology is used now in consumer products to trigger automobile airbags, regulate pacemakers and even keep washers and dryers balanced.”

    “Wildfire Management – Wildfires are a continual concern for communities in the western United States. NASA has worked with the U.S. Forest Service to develop a rapid-response capability for wildfires based on data broadcasts from NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites.”

    “NASA Develops Science Curricula with Educational Publisher – NASA and Pearson Education … develop new science curricula for 100 million elementary and middle school students. The new curricula will be designed to increase student interest in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and space exploration.”

    “Cleaner Cars – Space flight research is changing our understanding of how and why things burn … A hydrogen experiment on board Columbia’s final mission produced the weakest flames ever created—100 times weaker than a birthday candle. This research could lead to cleaner-burning cars in the future by helping scientists improve the burning of hydrogen and other fuels in engines and furnaces.”

    and perhaps, most valuable or all, as an inspiration:

    “Inspiration and Innovation—A NASA Story – At NASA, extraordinary goals inspire exceptional minds. As a boy in Pakistan, Dr. Rafat Ansari was first inspired to pursue scientific research when he saw astronauts walk on the moon. This inspiration eventually led Dr. Ansari to become a researcher at NASA, where his work with fluid physics has produced an unexpected and valuable medical care innovation.”

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/nasalife/index.html; http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/hits2_flash/index_noaccess.html (which can be also be accessed from the NASA Life link: go to the NASA Hits: Rewards from Space)

    Judging from the large interest in my blogs that deal with SciFi books for adults and teens, and those on the Singularity, cyberpunk, etc., v. the lesser interest on those ones that deal with more mundane subjects, and even the political ones, I don’t think the public (perhaps this is more of a slice of the “educated” public?) is that ready to dismiss science, space and dreams.

    Are you?

    Categories: NASA · Politics · Science · Space · Space Elevator · future tech
    Tagged: , , , , , ,

    Is 1984 just a little late, or is the Future here?

    January 24, 2008 · Leave a Comment

    In some research I was doing I came across this bit of rather astounding recent (1/17/08) news:

    Can Machines Issue Islamic Fatwas
    http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=7&id=11493

    “He [Dr. Anwas Fawzi] describes the device [Asharq Al-Awsat] as “a very large capacity computer on which all the information that is relevant to a given [historical] figure is uploaded; everything that has been mentioned in history books or chronicled documents that indicate his/her responses and attitudes towards all positions adopted in his/her life. Through a process that relies on AI, the computer then simulates responses based on the available data so that the answers are the expected response that the person in question would give if they were alive,”

    And a discussion of it at technovelgy (where science meets fiction – an interesting site):

    “Electronic Mufti’ May Issue Machine Fatwas: http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1415

    AND

    I read about this in SF all the time – a favorite tech device of writers lately, but was sort of shocked to see it on Dvice (SciFi Channel’s science/tech news) and through Technovelgy – has the future arrived? New song: “And she’ll have fun, fun, fun, ’til her Daddy takes the lenses away”…

    Here’s the Technovelgy article:
    Circuit Contact Lens, Presaged By Niven, Barnes and Vinge:
    http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1409

    Here’s the University of Washington original story:
    Contact lenses with circuits, lights a possible platform for superhuman
    vision
    :
    http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=39094

    Movie characters from the Terminator to the Bionic Womanuse bionic eyes to zoom in on far-off scenes, have useful facts pop into their field of view, or create virtual crosshairs. Off the screen, virtual displays have been proposed for more practical purposes — visual aids to help vision-impaired people, holographic driving control panels and even as a way to surf the Web on the go. The device to make this happen may be familiar. Engineers at the University of Washington have for the first time used manufacturing techniques at microscopic scales to combine a flexible, biologically safe contact lens with an imprinted electronic circuit and lights.“The UW engineers used microscopic scale manufacturing techniques to create a flexible, biologically safe contact lens with imprinted electronic circuits and lights. If used by human beings, a pair of contact lenses with circuits and lights would be the perfect display for augmented reality systems.
    (Contact lens with circuits close-up)

    ‘Looking through a completed lens, you would see what the display is generating superimposed on the world outside,’ said Babak Parviz, a UW assistant professor of electrical engineering. ‘This is a very small step toward that goal, but I think it’s extremely promising.’”

    Here’s the DVice article:
    Bionic vision contact lenses being developed :
    http://dvice.com/archives/2008/01/bionic_vision_c.php

    And for what’s out there now, check out this headset that is a VR set, with mini screen that mimics a real computer screen in front of your eyes – sort of an early lens prototype: http://www.vrealities.com/poma.html

    And 1984 may be late, but Big Brother is here! – see the following articles:

    Australasian Intelligent Speed Adaptation Initiative – Big Road Brother – A way to make cars slow down after a warning is given, and even stop them.
    http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1402

    “The technology uses GPS and a database that identifies speed limits on all roads and operates on three levels.

    Drivers get an audible warning they are over the limit at level one.

    At level two, the device cuts power to the engine to prevent the driver from speeding, but the system can be adjusted or overridden.

    At level three, the system cannot be switched off or adjusted and all speeding is cut.

    The device could be fitted to repeat speeding offenders, or to all vehicles.” Big Brother speed control to be trialled: http://au.news.yahoo.com/080108/2/15gt9.html

    And in a Terminator take – FBI Demands SkyNet, Uh, Server in the Sky: http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1405

    “The FBI supports Server in the Sky, an international database of biometric data accessible by law enforcement officials in countries allied in the ‘war on terror.’

    Although the database would be used to hunt criminals and terrorists, it would contain biometric information like iris scans, finger prints and facial images about ordinary citizens whose names have come up in criminal investigations. The FBI told the Guardian (a UK news organization):

    ‘Server in the Sky is an FBI initiative designed to foster the advanced search and exchange of biometric information on a global scale. While it is currently in the concept and design stages, once complete it will provide a technical forum for member nations to submit biometric search requests to other nations. It will maintain a core holding of the world’s ‘worst of the worst’ individuals. Any identifications of these people will be sent as a priority message to the requesting nation.’

    Although the FBI proposes to establish three categories of suspects, the lowest category includes ’subjects of terrorist investigations.’ Don’t forget that warrantless wiretapping projects target vast networks of innocent civilians as well as the few real suspects in an investigation.

    The FBI hopes to have a pilot project up and running by the middle of this year.”

    If your paranoiac streak is not fully satisfied by this story, see also:

    DNA Fingerprint Database for Worker’s Gattaca-Style Proposed: http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=640

    “Do we need a national DNA or fingerprint database for all American workers to address the immigration problem? New York’s Republican mayor Michael Bloomberg has gone on record advocating such a plan – a biometric identification system [http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Technology-Article.asp?ArtNum=12] that would be compulsory for all workers.”

    and in “Minority Report” style – “Precrime” Database For London Homicide Prevention Unit“: http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=843

    “Criminal profilers working for the London Metropolitan Police’s Homicide Prevention Unit are putting together a list of 100 future murderers.

    I believe I am reading these reports correctly; they are not simply keeping a list of, let’s say, murderers who have done their time in prison and are now at large. This pilot project seeks to identify people who will in the future commit serious crimes.”…

    “Instead they are using databases. It appears that the Unit is creating psychological profiles of likely offenders to predict patterns of behavior. Statements from former partners, information from mental health workers and details of past complaints are being combined to identify the 100 men most likely to commit murder in the near future.

    Once an individual has been identified, police would decide whether to begin arrest proceedings, or alert social services who could steer targeted individuals into ‘management programs.’”

    See “FBI wants instant access to British identity data“: http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrights/story/0,,2241005,00.html

    Tuesday January 15, 2008, The Guardian

    Iris eye recognition ID cards
    Each person’s iris is as individual as their fingerprint, but with 266 identifiable features is much more detailed. Photograph: Science Photo Library “Senior British police officials are talking to the FBI about an international database to hunt for major criminals and terrorists.

    The US-initiated programme, ‘Server in the Sky’, would take cooperation between the police forces way beyond the current faxing of fingerprints across the Atlantic. Allies in the ‘war against terror’ – the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand – have formed a working group, the International Information Consortium, to plan their strategy.

    Biometric measurements, irises or palm prints as well as fingerprints, and other personal information are likely to be exchanged across the network. One section will feature the world’s most wanted suspects. The database could hold details of millions of criminals and suspects.”

    Microchips To Be Implanted In UK Convicts: http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1403

    “RFID-based microchips will soon be used to tag prisoners, according to a Ministry of Justice official in the United Kingdom.

    (VeriChip RFID tag for human implantation) I’m assuming that they want to use something like the VeriChip, which is a very small Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag about the size of a large grain of rice. It can be injected directly into the body; a special coating on the glass case of the chip helps it to bond with living tissue and stay in place. A special RFID reader broadcasts a signal, and the antenna in the VeriChip draws power from the reader and sends its data. The VeriChip is a passive RFID tag: since it does not require a battery, it has a virtually unlimited life span.

    Officials want to use the technology to reduce overcrowding in prisons. The tagged prisoners would be released and then tracked.”

    And for some crazy ideas, check out these futuristic techs:

    Plasma-based propulsion is just one of OSU’s crazy projects for DARPA: http://dvice.com/archives/2008/01/plasmabased_pro.php

    Plasma-thrusters.jpg
    “The big brains at DARPA are at it again, this time teaming up with Oklahoma State University to develop unmanned aerial vehicles that will be small enough to fit into a soldier’s pocket. The heart of the project is the experimental propulsion system that has no moving parts and utilizes plasma thrusters. The need for such a tiny UAV comes after the realization that most of the unmanned reconnaissance vehicles used at the moment are poor indoors and in urban areas. OSU’s UAV would allow all soldiers to carry UAVs and see what they’re getting into before hand.”

    Sound cloak is boon for concert halls, submarines: http://dvice.com/archives/2008/01/sound_cloak_is.php

    sub_cloak.jpgWe’ve all heard the high school lesson about wave interference — like when sound waves hit an object, bending around it and crashing into each other to create a whole new pattern when they reach the other side. Now researches say that it might be possible to create a “cloak” for an object that would make the sound waves pass and emerge from the other side like they were never disturbed.Such a cloak is only theoretical at this point, but engineers at Duke University say they’ve come up with a “recipe” for an acoustic material that would make anything within disappear from sound waves, much like that invisibility cloak did for microwaves. Anyone designing a concert hall would love to have that recipe so they could negate the acoustic effect of structural components like beams. And if you could make it big enough, the cloak would even hide a submarine from sonar.”

    See also: Tecnovelgy’s ‘Inaudibility Cloak’ Is Theoretically Possible: http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1401

    and the press release from Duke University, Invisibility Cloaks’ Could Break Sound Barriers: http://www.pratt.duke.edu/news/?id=1193

    And for one I see truly cool applications on this one for mobile use in business, military or simply home environments:

    Mighty morphin’ shipping container transforms into house in 90 seconds flat: http://dvice.com/archives/2007/12/mighty_morphin.php

    illy-push-butto_front.jpg

    “It starts off as an ordinary shipping container, but throw a switch and ninety seconds later the Illy Push Button House has magically expanded into a five-room abode. Architect and designer Adam Kalkin created this jack-in-the-box-like dwelling, whose sections are unfolded by powerful hydraulic cylinders controlled by a computer in the kitchen section. The house is made out of recycled materials, and has a dining area in the center, surrounded by a bedroom, living room, library and kitchen.”

    So, is Big Brother just around the corner? And what do we want? Technology, with it’s “anything goes” attitude, or a check on it? When technology goes rampant, we see both the good AND the bad. I wouldn’t mind a folding house, or a device that would slow my car to prevent a ticket, but I’m not sure about some of the more military style things, like the tiny “airplane,” which although it has great safety uses, it also can be used for spying, both military and non-military, the latter being more troublesome – either private or governmental use has some definite legal ramifications. As does the invisibility cloak, shades of Harry Potter.

    So have some fun – I will write more about a few of these and the issues that surround the application of them later.

    Categories: Law · Religion · Sci Fi · Science · future tech · research · science fiction
    Tagged: , , , , , , ,

    To Clone or Not to Clone

    February 10, 2007 · Leave a Comment

    Below is a draft of my paper on cloning. It utilizes some of the material from an earlier paper, which I hope to post soon, but from a different angle: The first deals with parentage, the second, this one, with the legal question of cloning itself. I believe this may be a draft, as some of the outline formatting doesn’t seem to mesh, but it’s somewhat complete, although there are missing parts, which I hope to correct as soon as I find the disk.

    Unfortunately, I have not yet figured out how to copy the whole document with footnotes/endnotes in place, or paragraphs. So I tried to reformat the paragraphs, and included the endnotes, even though you can’t relate them to specific places in the document. If anyone wants the complete text, I can e-mail it to them. Hope you enjoy.

    To Clone or Not to Clone

    That is the Question of the of the President’s Council on Bioethics

    It is not for Man to set boundaries, or to define the limits of the soul. Once human beings were as children, needing simple tales and naïve visions of pure truth. But in recent generations the Great Creator has been letting us pick up His tools and unroll blueprints, like apprentices preparing to work on our own. For some reason, He’s permitted us to learn the fundamental rules of nature and start tinkering with His craft.

    I. Introduction

    Immortality, or Coronado’s endless quest for the fountain of youth – man has been obsessed with the idea of continuity for centuries. Countless writers, philosophers, theologians, scientists, and futurists have debated and discussed it. And in the twentieth century, that idea took a new form – human cloning, the ultimate immortality. As the idea spread, science-fiction writers took it up, and it became an accepted possibility. Headlines such as “Welcome to Clonetown U.S.A,” and “They’ve Cloned Hitler’s Nose – & the Damned Thing’s Sprouted a Moustache” continue to fuel speculation on human cloning. Over the past twenty years, a number of books have been written, delving into the question of human cloning, questioning its basic tenets, whether or not to ban it, and who or what is a clone. But there are no true legal guidelines on cloning. Nothing in our legal pantheon allows for this or contemplates it. Therefore, new rules must be drawn as the era of cloning humans draws near.

    Human cloning is a Pandora’s Box. A box of mystery, but also of possible evil, a chthonic process and nightmare to some, a “Brave New World” to others. But like Pandora discovered, once opened, it can prove to have consequences beyond imagining. Human cloning raises a host of issues, from property rights to estates, parental responsibility, human rights, and privacy rights. And like Pandora’s Box, once opened, these issues can not just be stuffed back inside and locked away. They are out in the open, resulting from humanity’s insatiable thirst for knowledge, and it is up to the human race to deal with the consequences.

    Although I believe that ultimately a ban on human cloning will not be successful, for in all human history, nothing with commercial viability has ever been successfully banned (prohibition, prostitution, drugs, child pornography), this paper will address the creation and work of the President’s Council on Bioethics and its precursor, the National Commission on Bioethical Standards. Cloning will have commercial viability. The amount of money spent on in-vitro fertilization, and the undeniable medical value of stem cell research shows that cloning and stem cells are a lucrative technology. However, in an attempt to simplify this paper, I will not directly address stem cell issues, as that is an entirely different, although related field, and extremely complex, with its own set of moral issues.

    Since cloning itself is in its infancy, the first step in the analysis must be a brief introduction to the basic techniques used, and the limits on cloning. Human cloning has not yet occurred, and there is no case or common law to draw on. Cloning is a difficult and inexact science, and the results are not always what are desired. Nevertheless, science marches on.

    II. Background

    A. Cloning around: a basic overview of techniques used in creating a clone.

    The type of cloning research that this paper focuses on is reproductive human cloning, not therapeutic human cloning, in which cells are cloned to treat various diseases such as Parkinson’s and diabetes. Clone is derived from the Greek word klon meaning “twig.” For many types of plants and trees you can simply break off a piece, plant it and it will grow. And so it is with cloning, in a simplistic way. There are many definitions of cloning, including various methods of creating twins, but for simplicity, the definition used hereafter will be “fusion or insertion of a diploid nucleus into an egg (oocyte)”. A basic tenet to remember is that any clone will NOT be an exact duplicate of its donor; not an identical twin, but instead a separate entity, but shaped by environment, cytoplasmic differences, and epigenetic (chance outcomes of random motion of molecules) differences or mutations.

    In cloning, the unfertilized ovum (oocyte), the largest cell in the human body, is modified. The oocyte nucleus is removed, and a donor nucleus is inserted into the ovum. Then an electrical pulse fuses the two, activating, or fertilizing, the oocyte. There are many variations on this technique, and until 1997, when Dolly the sheep was cloned, the question of using differentiated cells was insurmountable. Before Dolly, cloning was limited to cloning the early, undifferentiated cell, which can assume any cell characteristic. Differentiated cells are those that are past the initial embryonic stage and have already developed characteristics of the cell they are to become, a hair cell, a skin cell, etc, making them useless for cloning of a human.

    That problem has been solved, and differentiated cells can now be used, allowing cloning from an adult, not just an embryonic cell. Of course the process is still in its infancy, and the success rate is about 200 to 1. Cloning raises the question of shortened life span. So far, no cloned animals have been alive long enough to see if they will live out their full life-spans. Dolly was cloned from an adult sheep cell, and her telemeres (the pieces at the end of chromosomes that keep the genetic material from fraying like the ends of a rope) show the same age as the donor sheep’s. As a cell replicates, the telemeres shorten a bit each time. The older the animal, the more cells have replicated, and the shorter the telemeres. Despite these characteristics `of aging, Dolly developed into a full-grown adult sheep and was able to have a lamb the natural way, so thus far it has not been a problem in living a normal sheep’s life.

    Questions arise as to the success rate of clone attempts and the amount of genetic malfunctioning in the clone’s DNA. In the case of Dolly, 277 fusions of donor nucleuses and ovums were done, of which 29 developed into embryos, and those 29 embryos were introduced into 13 sheep, only one of which gave birth. Therefore, while the rate of successful fusion births is low, so far, with only one living example, the rate of genetic malformation in the case of Dolly was 0%, unless you take into account the shortened telemeres, which has yet to be proven a problem. By now, various other animals have been cloned besides Dolly, including mice, cows, goats, kittens, monkeys, and frogs.

    B. To clone or not to clone, that is the question: the future and possible uses of human cloning.

    The future of human cloning is still in doubt. Recent attempts to clone a kitten have been successful, but attempts to clone a millionaire’s beloved dog “Missy” have not been. But scientists believe it will happen, at least with dogs, and dozens of people have already deposited their pet’s genetic material with Texas millionaire John Sperling’s “Genetic Savings and Clone Bank” near Texas A&M University, where he funds research into animal cloning. The cloned kitten at Texas A&M differs from its genetic mother in coloring patterns, as coloring is not determined strictly by the lineup of genes, but of influences from the womb, again showing that the clone is not an identical twin, but has been influenced by the factors mentioned earlier

    Texas A&M researcher Duane Kraemer summed up cloning by stating: “This is a reproduction, not a resurrection.”Human cloning is just around the corner, but has not happened yet. Various proposals are before the governments of many nations proposing to ban human cloning, and many nations have already banned it, including Germany, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom. The United Nations is considering an international convention on the subject. In July of 2001, the Republican controlled House passed a bill banning human cloning for all purposes.

    The National Academy of Sciences, however, recommends a ban on reproductive cloning, but would allow therapeutic cloning. Currently there are two bills before the Senate, one to ban all human cloning, and another to allow therapeutic cloning. However, the bills have stalled in committee. USA Today has warned of two possible consequences of the current debate and failure to compromise: “Congress could pass an ‘overly broad ban that would choke off valuable medical research,’ or lawmakers could fail to pass any cloning legislation ‘at a time when the United States has dubious legal authority over rogue cloning labs.’” The legal future of human cloning is still in debate. But given the commercial potential, (Genetic Savings and Clone, et al), the incredible pull of the emotional need to recreate a beloved person, or the egomaniacal hope for immortality of a kind, combined with the simple fact that scientists are forever pushing the envelope, there is little doubt that human cloning will happen.

    As a society, we need to be prepared to accept a human clone into our midst, and have laws in place that will establish the clone’s rights and legal status, and will also establish who will bear responsibility for the clone.Whether a clone is a human being with a soul has been a matter of debate. However, a cloned cell is not synthetic, it is alive, and at least as far as current research suggests, would develop into a fetus the way all humans do. In Lee Silver’s remarkable book on cloning and the American family, he posits that cloned children will be “full-fledged human beings, indistinguishable in biological terms from all other members of the species. Thus, the notion of a soulless clone has no basis in reality.” The clone “will simply be a later-born identical twin – nothing more, nothing less…she will be a unique human being, with a completely unique consciousness and a unique set of memories that she will build from scratch.”

    Other issues surrounding the clone will be whether a clone is property or progeny, and if progeny, who will be its parents? The genetic donor (who’s own parents are the genetic parents of the clone), or the genetic parents themselves? And those issues change depending on the age of the donor, or if the donor is dead. And the legal status of the clone differs from whether it is a fetus (and thus either tissue, fetus, or some in between status), with the rights or lack thereof, or has matured into a child or adult, with rights. Discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of this paper, but makes for a fascinating discussion.III. AnalysisA. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission was established on October 20, 1999, by Executive Order No. 12975. It consisted of no more than 18 members, with appointments being made by the President. The members were to be knowledgeable nongovernmental experts and community representatives with the expertise to deal with bioethical issues. At least one member was to be selected from the areas of philosophy/theology, social/behavioral science, law, medicine/allied health professions, and biological research, and at least three members from the general public.

    It is interesting to note that the commission was comprised of nongovernmental people. Meetings of the Commission were to be held up to 12 times a year, and meetings of the subcommittee(s) were to be convened as necessary. A Federal Government official was to be present at all meetings, and the meetings were open to the public, with some exceptions. Its purpose was to “provide advice and make recommendations to the National Science and Technology Council, chaired by the President; other appropriate entities and the public, on bioethical issues arising from research on human biology and behavior, and the applications, including the clinical applications, of that research.”

    The basic function of the Commission was to oversee the appropriateness of governmental agencies and policies as they related to bioethical issues from research on human biology and the possible applications of that research. Its first priority was to protection of the rights and welfare of human research subjects and to oversee use of genetics information. The Commission used four criteria to establish priority for its activities:

    A. The public health or public policy urgency of the bioethical issue.
    B. The relation of the bioethical issue to the goals for Federal investment in science and technology.
    C. The absence of another body able to deliberate fruitfully on the bioethical issue.
    D. The extent of interest in the issue across the government.

    The Commission issued its final report on “Cloning Human Beings” on June, 1997. In its report, the Commission concluded that “at this time it is morally unacceptable for anyone in the public or private sector, whether in a research or clinical setting, to attempt to create a child using somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning.” They found that current scientific information indicates that the techniques used were not safe to use in humans at that point in time, and cited safety concerns for the fetus/child. They also found serious ethical concerns, which they felt required a widespread and careful public deliberation. The Commission supported a continuation of the moratorium put in place by President Clinton immediately following the news of the successful birth of Dolly on February 23, 1997 “on the use of federal funding in support of any attempt to create a child by somatic cell nuclear transfer.” They also requested voluntary compliance of behalf of researchers in non-federally funded programs with the intent of the moratorium, and called it an “irresponsible, unethical, and unprofessional act.”

    The Commission also recommended federal legislation to prohibit anyone from attempting to create a child through somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning, but recommended a sunset clause to ensure that Congress reviewed the issue after three to five years to decide whether the prohibition continued to be needed. It also recommended carefully written regulations to ensure that they not interfere with other areas of scientific research that were similar in nature, such as the cloning of human DNA sequences and cell lines for clinical purposes, and that the United States should cooperate with other nations to” enforce any common aspects of their respective policies on the cloning of human beings.” Because of the strong division between different ethical and religious perspectives on the moral issues that surrounded attempts to create a child using somatic cell nuclear transfer techniques, the Commission recommended that widespread and public debates be encouraged and that federal agencies should help educate the public on developments in the biomedical sciences. The Commission terminated on October 3, 2001, after several renewals of its sunset provision.

    B: The President’s Council on Bioethics

    Under the Bush Administration, the President’s Council on Bioethics was formed on November 28, 2001 by Executive Order 13237, with a similar structure and mission to that of the Commission. Its purpose was to “advise the President on bioethical issues related to advances in biomedical science and technology,” and make inquiries into the “human and moral significance of developments in biomedical and behavioral science and technology,” and explore the ethical questions, as well as provide a national public forum for discussion.The Council issued its report in July of 2002. It suggested that with the history of advances in cloning to date, the cloning of humans must be considered a “serious possibility.”

    According to its report, in November 2001, American researchers claimed to have produced the first cloned human embryos, though they reportedly reached only a six-cell stage before they stopped dividing and died. The executive summary put the debate succinctly: “the legislative debates over human cloning raise large questions about the relationship between science and society, especially about whether society can or should exercise ethical and prudential control over biomedical technology and the conduct of biomedical research. Rarely has such a seemingly small innovation raised such big questions.”

    I would take issue with the statement that human cloning is a “small innovation.” Human cloning has such incredible promise and potential problems, that I doubt anyone could realistically perceive it as “small.”

    The Council attempted to “consider human cloning (both for producing children and for biomedical research) within its larger human, technological, and ethical contexts, rather than to view it as an isolated technical development.” It concurred with the two previously published reports recommending bans on cloning, the NBAC report from 1997 and the NAS report from 2002. The Council found that cloning to produce children might allow infertile couples to have genetically-related children, permit couples at risk of conceiving a child with a genetic disease to avoid the disease, create a transplant donor for a particular patient, enable someone to keep a living connection with a dead or dying loved one, or even allow society to try and replicate individuals of great talent or beauty.

    But the Council found that such examples overemphasized freedom and desires, and paid insufficient attention to the well-being of the cloned child-to-be, and found that the arguments for cloning a child invalid The Council found that “cloning-to-produce-children would violate the principles of the ethics of human research, citing the Nuremberg Code of 1947, the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and the Belmont Report, published in 1978 by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. All three set out various codes: The Nuremberg Code focusing particularly on the voluntary consent of the research subject, the idea that experiments should be “conducted only with the aim of providing a concrete good for society that is unprocurable by other methods,” and the avoidance of physical or mental harm. The Helsinki Declaration stated much the same, adding informed consent and allowing research only when the research-subject population is itself likely to benefit from the results of the experiment, with the benefits outweighing the risks. The Belmont Report proposed three ethical principles to guide the treatment of human subjects involved in scientific research. First was respect for persons, which required acknowledgment of the autonomy and individual rights of the subjects; second was beneficence, in which scientific research “must not only refrain from harming those involved but must also be aimed at helping them, or others, in concrete and important ways;” and third, is justice, which looks at “just distribution of potential benefits and harms.” Safety, consent, and the rights of research subjects are given the highest priority.

    Given the high rates of mortality seen to date in the cloning of other mammals, the Council believed that “cloning-to-produce-children would be extremely unsafe, and that attempts to produce a cloned child would be highly unethical.” They go on to consider the larger questions of ethics and morality, such as freedom, equality, and human dignity. In looking at cloning for to produce children, the Council found that society should reflect on the meaning of having children, the nature of reproduction, the “importance of origins and genetic endowment for identity and sense of self;” and the relative importance of exercising greater control over the process of human reproduction.

    The Council identified five categories of concern regarding cloning-to-produce-children. The first were problems of identity and individuality. They felt that cloned children might experience serious problems of identity in that they will be genetically virtually identical to a human being who is living or has already lived and because expectations for them lives “may be shadowed by constant comparisons to the life of the ‘original.’” The second area of concern was regarding the manufacturing process which might create an attitude that these children are products rather than a “gift.” The third area of concern was the prospect of a new eugenics, which might serve the ends of eugenic enhancement, either through avoidance of certain genetic defects or by preserving some genetic traits with the possibility of genetically engineered enhancements. The fourth area was the possibility of troubled family relations due to the change in the traditional structure of the family, i.e. grandfather, father, son. In cloning, fathers can become “twin brothers” to their “sons”; mothers could give birth to their genetic twins; and grandparents would also be the “genetic parents” of their grandchildren. The last concern was for the effects on society, cloning children affects not only the participants themselves, but also the entire society and could “set a precedent for future nontherapeutic interventions into the human genetic endowment or novel forms of control by one generation over the next.

    In the absence of wisdom regarding these matters, prudence dictates caution and restraint.” The Council recognized the risks of using making moral assessments in public policy. They recognized the “special difficulty in formulating sound public policy in this area, given that the two ethically distinct matters – cloning-to-produce-children and cloning-for-biomedical-research-will be mutually affected or implicated in any attempts to legislate about either.

    Nevertheless, our ethical and policy analysis leads us to the conclusion that some deliberate public policy at the federal level is needed in the area of human cloning.”Seven possible policy options were considered, including professional self-regulation with no federal legislative action, a ban on cloning-to-produce-children, with silence on cloning-for-biomedical-research, a ban on cloning-to-produce-children, with regulation of the use of cloned embryos for biomedical research, governmental regulation, with no legislative prohibitions, a ban on all human cloning, whether to produce children or for biomedical research, a ban on cloning-to-produce-children, with a moratorium or temporary ban on cloning-for-biomedical-research, or a moratorium or temporary ban on all human cloning, whether to produce children or for biomedical research.

    The Council, having considered each option, recommended two possible policy alternatives, each supported by a portion of the Members. The majority recommendation, supported by ten of the seventeen members of the Council was for a ban on cloning-to-produce-children combined with a four-year moratorium on cloning-for-biomedical-research., with a call for federal review of current and projected practices of “human embryo research, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, genetic modification of human embryos and gametes, and related matters, with a view to recommending and shaping ethically sound policies for the entire field.” By permanently banning cloning-to-produce-children, the Council felt that it would give force to the strong ethical verdict against cloning-to-produce-children, unanimous in the Council (and in Congress) and which the Council found was widely supported by the American people.

    By calling for a moratorium, the Council wanted to provides time for further democratic deliberation because “a national discourse on this subject has not yet taken place in full.” It would also allow time for scientific evidence to be gathered that might give a better sense of “whether cloning-for-biomedical-research would work as promised, and whether other morally non-problematic approaches might be available. It would promote a fuller and better-informed public debate. And it would show respect for the deep moral concerns of the large number of Americans who have serious ethical objections to this research.”

    For some of the Council, they held that cloning-for-biomedical-research can never be ethically pursued, and they endorsed a moratorium “to enable us to continue to make our case in a democratic way.” Others supported the moratorium because it would “provide the time and incentive required to develop a system of national regulation that might come into use if, at the end of the four-year period, the moratorium were not reinstated or made permanent.” To the majority, in the absence of a moratorium, “few proponents of the research would have much incentive to institute an effective regulatory system.”The minority recommendation by seven members of the Council was a ban on cloning to produce children, with regulation of the use of cloned embryos for biomedical research. By permanently banning cloning to produce children, they agreed with the majority. They would approve cloning-for-biomedical-research and permit it to proceed without substantial delay. According to the council, the research shows great promise, and its “actual value can only be determined by allowing it to go forward now.”

    The minority, which supported cloning for biomedical purposes strongly endorsed the worthiness and importance of the research and believed it had enormous potential for medical therapies – a few of the members approved it unconditionally and with enthusiasm, but the rest approved it with moral concern. Among those who had moral concerns, they cited the “current lack of sufficient scientific evidence to sustain claims of the unique value of cloned embryos for the desired researches; the absence of proper regulatory institutions and mechanisms to enforce regulations,” which the members believed to be a prerequisite to allow the research to go forward; and they expressed an unwillingness to alienate large numbers of fellow citizens who oppose this research on moral grounds.

    Even the Council was not immune to political and social pressure.The minority would establish, “as a condition of proceeding, the necessary regulatory protections to avoid abuses and misuses of cloned embryos. These regulations might touch on the secure handling of embryos, licensing and prior review of research projects, the protection of egg donors, and the provision of equal access to benefits” They also believed that “mechanisms to regulate cloning-for-biomedical-research should be part of a larger regulatory program governing all research involving human embryos, and that the federal government should initiate a review of present and projected practices of human embryo research, with the aim of establishing reasonable policies on the matter.”

    C. The Clone Wars

    All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third it is accepted as being self-evident.

    There are many arguments on both sides of the cloning debate: who, how, when and where should cloning be allowed? The questions abound not just in the regulatory arena, but in larger circles as well. James Q. Wilson, Professor Emeritus at UCLA proposes that cloning be allowed only in married couples. He views it as a problem, not of creating an identical twin, but of creating a child without parents. He argues “that the structure of the family a child is born into is more important than the sexual process by which the child was produced.”Cloning can be viewed as simply another form of assisted reproduction like artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization. The important point to consider in protecting the child’s welfare is not how the child was created, but the family in which he or she was raised. Therefore, cloning should be limited to intact heterosexual families and restrictions should be placed on the sources of human eggs. With such restrictions in place, cloning is unlikely to become very common.

    This would fit into some of the concerns raised by both the Commission and the Council, but doesn’t address the other areas of importance in cloning, such as allowing cloning to reduce the risks associated with genetic defects, to clone a child to become a donor to an existing seriously ill child or adult. To me, these arguments are spurious and violate some of the basic concepts of the fundamental right to reproduce.Still others insist that cloning would potentially violate familial context.

    The United Church of Christ has entered the debate with its position. “Many observers believe that it is beneficial for children to have the genetic resources of two adults that are combined to form a genotype that is unique and yet tied genetically to both adults.” They go on to state that “the cloning of humans should not be attempted because it disrupts the ordering of a family’s natural and social affinity, distorts the family as a place of unconditional belonging, and violates the character of an unfolding and enfolding familial love.”

    This argument is ludicrous. A cloned child can still be as much a part of a family as a normally reproduced one. Look at the success of children who are from an in-vitro process, or the children of gay parents, or those who come from sperm donors, or surrogacy. What about adopted children? The question of who might be the parent might arise, but is the subject of a longer paper, which must address the issues of tissue rights, egg donors, in-vitro process, surrogacy, and gay parenting.

    A recent decision in the Family Court of New Castle County, Delaware, focused on a lesbian couple. One of the partners, Carol Chambers, (they had held a commitment ceremony to formalize their union), funded a portion of an IVF process that eventually ended in the pregnancy and birth of a son to Karen Chambers. The couple broke up in 1998, and Carol successfully petitioned the court for visitation rights. The biological mother Karen then sued Carol for child support. The Delaware court found that as she had contributed to the IVF process, her actions “constituted a symbolic act of procreation. Judge Darrow concluded that “[h]ad Karen and Carol not acted in tandem, David would never have been conceived”.

    Perhaps Judge Darrow has it right in determining parentage by who is responsible for bringing the child into the world. If an adult clones himself, then he or she is responsible. If parents clone their own child, then they should be held responsible. And if a lab clones a child, then the lab is responsible at least for the financial care of the child. Timothy Madigan, the editor of Free Inquiry, a humanist journal, stated “[h]uman clones would be unique and special persons with the same human rights and qualities that all other people possess. It is opponents of cloning who threaten to stigmatize clones as copies or monsters. Society will have to protect the equality of clones.”

    I believe that Madigan has it right: clones will eventually exist, and must be according the dignity and respect that all human should be given, as a clone will be human.John Robertson proposes a possible ban on cloning unless the parties requesting the cloning will also agree to rear the clone. He argues that it would prevent someone from creating clones for their use as subjects or workers, and the child’s welfare would predominate. He discusses the possibilities of bans on cloning yourself, or even cloning your parent, and rearing the child yourself. The primary concern for Robertson is the welfare of the cloned child and how well the family unit will adapt.

    This connects with Judge Darrow’s opinion, discussed earlier, in which parentage is decided on who agreed to bring the child/clone into the world.Robertson also discusses the need for consent of the adult clone (otherwise a battery), and consent of the cloned source’s genetic parents. Since there are reproductive implications for the genetic parents, he argues that their consent is necessary. And he raises the specter of clone veto power, whereby in giving the genetic parents the right to veto the cloning of their adult child; they deprive their child of the fundamental right to reproduce. In such cases, no custodial burdens should be placed on the genetic parents/ societal grandparents of the proposed clone.

    Robertson states that an important regulatory issue is “the need to clarify parental rights and duties in resulting offspring,” which will assist in minimizing potentially detrimental legal battles over child custody and visitation and help reduce any confusion over kinship. “Clarification and certainty can be achieved by legislative specification of those relations or by legislative or judicial recognition of the precloning agreements of the affected parties.” I agree with this position, in that there is a need to regulate not cloning, but the issues surrounding an existing clone.

    Robertson discusses the need for legislative intervention in cases where children or embryos are cloned, at least so that kinship and rearing relationships are clearly established. He believes however that clarification of familial roles is most needed when a third party donor is involved, and the laws should be similar to current sperm/egg donor arrangements. So, it is up to the legislative bodies and the courts to provide us with the necessary guidelines and rules that will protect the clone’s rights and determine its parentage. To not provide such rules would is like running around with a bag on your head muttering “if I can’t see the cliff, I won’t fall off it.”

    Just because you can’t see the occurrence of something (believing you have regulated it out of existence), does not obviate the possibility that the banned activity will happen anyway. Cloning will appear, and to not project that occurrence is the same as walking deliberately off that cliff. Theologians and sociologists can debate all they want about the merits and ethics of cloning, just as they did during the temperance movements of the 19th century up to and during prohibition. But surely society as a whole has learned by now that ignoring or banning a problem doesn’t just stop it in its tracks: that life goes on willy-nilly, and when life is given a way to emerge, it will. And cloning can provide so much more than just mere life. It has the potential to save lives, resurrect deceased loved ones, and provide new ways for childless couples to reproduce. That cloning might interfere with the natural selection process and the general evolution of the species is debatable, but moot: cloning will occur, the only question left is when, and how will we deal with it.

    IV.

    Conclusion

    Lives are like snowflakes – forming patterns we have seen before, as like one another as peas in a pod (and have you ever looked at peas in a pod? I mean really looked at them? There’s not a chance you’d mistake one for another, after a minute’s close inspection), but still unique.
    As stated before, human cloning will be a difficult area in which to enforce a ban, and an especially difficult area to formulate concrete policy. Any regulatory agency, such as Health and Human Services (no regulatory agency has been set up specifically for this area), given the oversight and enforcement of a ban on human cloning will be faced with a perhaps insurmountable task.

    Regulatory actions may be put in place, but can they be adequately enforced? How do you regulate and enforce something that could conceivably be done in any college, high school or even basement lab, such as methamphetamine production? The governmental agencies in charge of such regulation can try to enforce, but will never be 100% successful. Francis Fukuyama, in his book “Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution,” argues that the lack of 100% enforcement is not a valid reason not to regulate.

    But the examples used, such as Internet pornography, or nuclear proliferation, do not have the same consequences. Pornography will exist, nuclear weapons will exist, m\but the consequences of not being able to enforce regulations on the production of human beings has vastly greater consequences. What will the penalties be? And how will the government consider any actual resulting human clone?Although frozen embryos, IVF, and human clones seem far apart in the spectrum of reproductive technology, in reality they have similar arguments used for and against them, such as interference in the natural birth process, the questions of true “parentage” and familial ties, against the need and desire for humans to reproduce in any means possible, and the ability of human to create a family, whatever its origins. Once a human clone is brought to birth, another set of rules comes into play. It is up to both the legal community and the legislature to establish a set of precedential rules and regulations that will take all forms of a human clone into account – from a pre-embryo to a full adult clone.

    The recommendations by the Council lay the foundation for legislation and laws regarding parental determination of human clones. Although most nations aim to ban cloning, there is no one single approach to cloning from all nations and gaps will occur. And of course the potential for the black market economy exists. Someday, somewhere, a human clone will arrive and need the protection of our laws. What status will we accord it? Who will be responsible (the donor, the genetic parents, the person who “made” the clone)? The simple question of who is the parent of a clone has tremendous interpretation. Looking at legal precedent, following it through the various incantation of technological reproduction, the answer seems to lie in who is responsible for bringing the clone to being? Who made the decision to clone?The questions must be answered, most likely on a case-by-case determination in the beginning, depending on the genetic parentage of the clone, and who, if any, claims responsibility or shirks it.

    We need to start that forward thinking process now, for as Herbert Marshall McLuhan, a Canadian writer and education said, “We drive into the future using only our rear view mirror.” We cannot move forward by examining the past too closely. Laws must be drafted to protect the rights of those citizens yet to come, and must come from justice, fairness and equality.

    Cloning will be around as long as humans are, or at least until they come up with a newer and more advanced reproductive technique. The world changes and we must change with it. We cannot go through life with blinders on, repulsing all scientific advances. Think of the stir some of the earlier advances caused, like vaccines (which are still questioned today by certain groups), and how each new step along the way has been fraught with debate and controversy. The same is true with cloning.

    Right now, society is frightened by the very idea and its implications. As Machiavelli said, “there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things…partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it.” But most of those questionable ideas and concepts eventually proved to have value and were accepted. So it will be with cloning.

    If we have laws in place to deal with clones, then the advent might not be as frightening as many assume. People opposing cloning fear the rise of eugenics, and the interference it what many feel is a god-given ability, that to reproduce. But as the quote at the beginning of the paper suggests, perhaps God, by giving us the brains and thirst for ever expanding knowledge, may be allowing us to change the reproductive parameters in place, and add new methods to the “mix.” Much of the debate arises over the ethical implications and problems for the clones themselves. Laws in place could negate some of that concern, but it will take a generation or more to make the social and institutional changes necessary. Social order and institutions change slowly to accommodate what is actually happening in the world.

    Consider the recent calling of the cardinals to Rome to address the issue of child molestation, and the resignation of Cardinal Law in Boston just a few days ago, the first ever in America, and the opening of the possibility of the archdiocese of Boston filing for bankruptcy due to the costs associated with the sexual abuse scandals that have rocked the church (again a first). Such a thing could never have been conceived of a century ago. But it is happening, and the church is instituting policies to help prevent such things happened again. How successful they will be is still uncertain. “One thing we can say about man’s future with a great deal of confidence is that it will be more or less surprising.”

    But ends must meet needs, and we as a society must arise to accept the new order. Although laws to protect the clones will be a long time in coming, and no doubt will not happen until we are forced through the reality of a clone’s presence to promulgate the laws, eventually I foresee that as a society we will “adopt” the clones and their concerns and enfold them into our social structure. What choice will we have? A clone will be a living, sentient being, and should be entitled to the penumbra of rights guaranteed by our constitution, and entitled to a loving parent, as any child is.

    Perhaps Judge Learned Hand said it best:That community is already in the process of dissolution … where nonconformity with the accepted creed…is a mark of disaffection… Such fears as these are the solvent which can eat out the cement that binds the stones together…The mutual confidence upon which all else depends can be maintained only by an open mind and a brave reliance on free discussion. I do not say these will suffice…[but] we must not yield a foot upon demanding a fair field and an honest race.”

    The Commission and Council’s recommendations and desire for nationwide discourse on the subject is a noble and wise course of action. But it may take generations for the majority of society to find a tolerance for human cloning, but that does not negate the need for laws and regulations now, in the event that a human clone is born, even against regulations that might be put into effect. Such laws would encompass the whole gamut of human rights, but especially that of parenting. Once a clone is born it is human, but will society accept it as such? Should the clone become part of a new protected class under Title VII? These are the questions that must be answered now.

    Endnotes (numbering above lost in copying/pasting)
    1 Brin, David – Kiln People, Tor, 2002, pg. 89. This science fiction novel details the use of “clay” molds to imprint the psychic signature of the owner. Each clay clone is then sent out on its day’s work, depending on the quality of the mold. Green clays clean, while black clays do the technical work, and grays are everyday workers. After 24 hours, each clay comes back to download his day’s memories into the original. The novel is a “day in the life” of an original and three clays as they all stumble upon a mystery and is told through the eyes of each clay and its original as they race to solve the crime and reunite before the day is up.
    2 Figueroa, Michael, Weekly World News, December 18, 2001. The weekly tabloid “exposes” the sleepy town of Pecos, Texas, where the government has supposedly been secretly cloning humans since 1973. The author claims there are at least seven originals with up to 80 clones each.
    3 York, Vicki, Weekly World News, November 20, 2001. This time the tabloid alerts the world to the fact that tissue was taken from Hitler’s nose by his SS followers shortly after his suicide. The tissue has been handed down through generations of nazi-sympathizers, and in 1996, after the news of the cloning of Dolly the sheep, the scientists decided to resurrect Hitler through cloning. Unfortunately, according to the scientists, the only thing that has grown is his nose and moustache.
    4 Aldous Huxley’s utopian (or perhaps dystopian?) “Brave New World” envisioned a place where “Community, Identity, and Stability” ruled, and babies are born in laboratories. But like any utopian vision, it may not be as perfect as it seems. Is ignorance truly bliss? Brave New World was an existentialist commentary on the ultimate horrors of becoming too much alike, without independent thought. The hero, John Savage, struggles to come to terms with the idea of breaking the strict complacency and becoming a single sentient entity. Huxley was perhaps influenced by Frederich Nietzsche’s “Ubermensch” or overman: one who is neither master nor slave, but has released all bonds of conformity.
    5 Hamilton, Edith – Mythology. Pandora was the first woman on earth, created by Zeus from water and earth. Her name translated is “all gifted”. Pandora was sent to Prometheus as a punishment for his having stolen fire from the gods. She was sent with a box, and was told not to open it. Being “human”, her curiosity was piqued, and she opened the lid. Immediately, all the evils and illnesses contained therein escaped and spread across the earth. She tried to replace the lid quickly, but was unable to stem the tide. When all the evils had escaped, the only thing left in the bottom of the box was hope, which remains man’s saving grace. So it is with cloning – mankind’s interest and curiosity are aroused, and we cannot stop it.
    6 See Prohibition, the War on Drugs, the prostitution laws on the books in every state and county, and the rise in child pornography, particularly over the Internet, despite attempts by law-enforcement to eradicate it. Each of these prohibited activities was and is commercially viable and feeds on man’s various proclivities towards gratification and self-aggrandizement.
    7 In “The Big Gene Profit Machine”, author Tebo chronicles the rush to patent biotech discoveries, and the enormous value of those patents: “The real dollar value of those licensing rights amounts to billions over time,” Tebo, Margaret Graham, “The Big Gene Profit Machine,” ABA Journal April 2001, p.46. The religious groups have also weighed in on the argument: “But it’s not the case that the motives and the impetus behind this research is perfectly pristine and altruistic. This is biotechnology, it is a commercial enterprise as well with power and prestige and significant money to be made from it”, Sondra Wheeler, Professor of Christian Ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary, from an episode of the PBS program “Religion and Ethics Newsweekly”, April 12, 2002 entitled “Religious Views on Stem Cell Research.” See: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week448/perspectives.html. Michael Branigan, Executive Director of the Center for the Study of Ethics at La Roche College, in his Guest Article “An Opportunity for Preventative Ethics” asks why we are doing this. “This is the matter of motives. Researchers in this emerging field are no doubt motivated by the desire to alleviate the numerous disabilities and deaths incurred through tissue and organ degeneration. And their efforts are uniquely interdisciplinary, requiring the collaboration of experts in fields including biology, engineering, medicine, microscopic imaging, physics, chemistry, computer science, mathematics, and robotics. At the same time, the tissue engineering enterprise entails the partnership of science and business, and promises to be a multi-billion dollar industry. The potential for profit is enormous.” Pittsburgh Tissue Engineering Initiative Report, “Pittsburgh’s Powerhouses of Regenerative Medicine,” http://www.ptei.org/news/article_02.html.

    8 This may no longer be true. A recent news report on April 6, 2002 announced that fertility specialist Dr. Severino Antinori, who made headlines eight years ago by helping a 62 year old woman become pregnant and give birth, is reported to have claimed that a patient is pregnant with the world’s first cloned baby. Dr. Antinori has been developing a cloning program at his clinic in Rome, Italy, and reportedly made the announcement at a conference on genetic engineering in Abu Dhabi. Sources have been unable to confirm this report. CNN.com Health: “First Cloned Baby – Report,” http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/04/06/human.clone/index.html.In addition, the British scientists at the Roslin Institute, which cloned Dolly the sheep, have applied for a license to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the British government body that regulates embryo research to experiment on human embryos for medical purposes. Britain has the world’s most liberal policy on stem cell research and allows the creation of embryos as a source of stem cells — the primitive master cells that turn into other cell types, which could be used to find cures to a wide range of diseases, such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. CNN.com Health: “Dolly Team Turn to Human Embryos,” http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/04/11/britain.cloning.reut/index.html. Earlier, on November 26, 2001, scientists in the U.S., at a private research company called Advanced Cell Technology announced that they had cloned embryos by removing the DNA from human egg cells, took DNA from an adult human, which was then implanted into the egg cell and stimulated to grow into a six-cell embryo. Although this is a preliminary step only, British geneticist Dr. Patrick Dixon, “an authority on the ethics of human cloning, warned the breakthrough could open the door to producing full-scale human clones. ‘It is now only a matter of time before a clone human is born,’” Cnn.com Sci-Tech: U.S. Cloning Advance Shocks the World,” http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/science/11/26/human.cloning.reax1200/index.html
    9 Extensive research has failed to reveal any case law or common law that deals with a human clone. There are a number of good law review articles that deal with the ethical issues, but statutory law is still under debate. See Frey, Kelly L. “New Reproductive Technologies: The Legal Problem and a Solution” a comment in the Winter 1982 edition of the Tennessee Law Review, 49 Tenn L. Rev. 303 (1982) and Smith, Kevin H., “Déjà Vu All Over Again: What To Do When The Octogenarian Really Is Fertile And Other Legal Conundrums Which Will Result From The Cloning Of Human Beings,”77 Denv.U.L.Rev. 35 (1999).
    10 Barbara MacKinnon, ed., – Human Cloning: Science, Ethics and Public Policy, University of Illinois press, 2000, pg. 12.
    11 The word clone has come to mean an exact duplicate of something, such as a clone hard drive. Aldous Huxley, in “Brave New World” gives clone as different label. He describes bokanovskification chambers, where fertilized human eggs are exposed to a process that causes them to “bud,” creating several copies of the original; in essence, creating hundreds or thousands of identical “twins”
    12 In Senate Bill 790, “The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001,” the term `human cloning’ is defined as “human asexual reproduction, accomplished by introducing the nuclear material of a human somatic cell into a fertilized or unfertilized oocyte whose nucleus has been removed or inactivated to produce a living organism (at any stage of development) with a human or predominantly human genetic constitution.”
    13 Seidel, George E. Jr. – Cloning Mammals: Methods, Applications, and Characteristics of Cloned Animals, pg. 17. Contained in Barbara MacKinnon, ed, – Human Cloning: Science, Ethics and Public Policy, University of Illinois press, 2000;
    14 Id. at 17-18. “Even biologically, a clone [produced using certain cloning techniques] would not be identical to the ‘master copy.’ The clone’s cells, for example, would have energy-processing machinery (mitochondria) that come from the egg donor [who may] not [be the same person as the person who donated] the nucleus [of the cell, which contains the overwhelming majority of genetic material]. But most of the physical differences between originals and copies wouldn’t be detectable without a molecular biology lab. Smith, Kevin H., “Déjà Vu All Over Again: What To Do When The Octogenarian Really Is Fertile And Other Legal Conundrums Which Will Result From The Cloning Of Human Beings,” 77 Denv. U.L. Rev. 35 (1999), fn.13. citing Wray, Herbert et al., “The World After Cloning,” U.S. News & World Report, March 10, 1997 p.59. Id. at 53.
    15 Seidel, George E. Jr. – Cloning Mammals: Methods, Applications, and Characteristics of Cloned Animals, pg. 18. Contained in Barbara MacKinnon, ed, – Human Cloning: Science, Ethics and Public Policy, University of Illinois press, 2000
    16 Wilmut, I., Schnieke, A.E., McWhir, J., Kind, A.J. and Campbell, K.H.S., Viable Offspring Derived From Fetal and Adult Mammalian Cells, Nature 385 (1997), 810-13
    17 Id.
    18 Id.
    19 Seidel, supra, Note 13 at 24-30. See also, Catherine Verfaillie’s study from the University of Minnesota’s Stem Cell Institute, published in Nature, June 20, 2002, where they have proved that differentiated, or “multipotent adult progenitor” cells can grow into other types of cells, much the same as embryonic cells can now. This may make the ethical debates surrounding stem cell research and its fetal properties moot.
    20 Id.
    21 Shiels, Paul G., et al., “Analysis of telemere lengths in cloned sheep,” Nature 399, 316 – 317 (1999)
    22 Id.
    23 Telemeres play a role in the protection and stabilization of the chromosomes, and it is theorized, though not certain, that cell death might occur when the telemeres are critically shortened. Dolly is the flagship case of this theory, as she was the first animal cloned from an adult cell. She has shown signs of shortened telemeres, but it hasn’t evidenced itself in any health problems or premature aging yet. Shiels, Paul G., et al., “Analysis of telemere lengths in cloned sheep,” Nature 399, 316 – 317 (1999)
    24 Id.
    25 Silver, Lee, M., Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering and Cloning Will Transform the American Family, Avon Book, 1998, p. 120.
    26 Washington Post Live Online Health Talk segment titled: “Cloning Your Pet
    27 American Health Line February 15, 2002
    28 ABC’s 20/20, March 1, 2002
    29 ABC’s 20/20, March 1, 2002
    30 In a Washington Post Live Online Health Talk segment titled: “Cloning Your Pet,” host Abigail Trafford interviews Lou Hawthorne, CEO of Genetic Savings and Clone, Inc. Hawthorne explains that the mother cat was a calico, but the daughter CC is a tiger tabby domestic shorthair. “Calicos are a unique genetic oddity whose appearance cannot be cloned precisely.” In the Genetic Savings and Clone website, http://www.savingsandclone.com, an explanation is given for this difficulty. “Calicos are almost always female, which means they have two X-chromosomes (versus the male’s XY). One of these X chromosomes contains a gene for orange coat color and the other contains a gene for black coat color (white patches are specified by a different set of genes which are not relevant here). For reasons that are not fully understood, as the embryo develops, a phenomenon called “X-linked inactivation” occurs, in which one or the other X-chromosome in every cell in the Calico embryo becomes randomly inactivated. If the specific X-chromosome containing the gene for orange coat color becomes inactivated, that cell will go on to produce black coat color (assuming it becomes a coat follicle cell). The inverse is true if the X-chromosome containing the gene for black coat color becomes inactivated.Mosaicism” is the term for distribution of different cell types within a single organism. Mosaicism is three-dimensional, meaning that the inactivation of orange or black-producing genes occurs within cells throughout the calico’s body regardless of whether the cells have anything to do with production of the animal’s coat. Thus even the specific cumulus cell used to clone CC would have been inactivated for either orange or black coat color.If the nuclear transfer process were to reset the inactivated X-chromosome the way it resets the nuclear differentiation, then one might expect to see a calico clone with a calico coat. On the other hand, if nuclear transfer does not reset X-activation then one would expect to see a clone with a black coat if the donor cell used had an orange coat gene on the inactivated X-chromosome, and conversely one would expect a clone with an orange coat if the donor cell used had an black coat gene on the inactivated X-chromosome. The fact that CC has no orange in her coat is consistent both with the theory that nuclear transfer does not reset X-activation, and also that the cumulus cell used had an orange coat gene on the inactivated X-chromosome.”
    31 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/2020/kitty020215.html
    32 See note 8 supra
    33 On January 12, 1998, 19 European nations signed a ban on human cloning, http://www.ess.ucla.edu/huge/clonban.html. http://www.laurushealth.com/HealthNews/reuters/NewsStory0226200224.htm. See also, Fukuyama, Francis, Our Post Human Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, N.Y., 2002.
    34 On February 26, 2002, the United Nations began drafting an international treaty that would ban human cloning
    35 107th Congress, 1st Session, HR 2505, Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001, 7/31/01
    36 The National Academies of Science Report released on January 18, 2002 states that reproductive cloning is “dangerous for the woman, fetus, and newborn and is likely to fail.” The panel supported the conclusion of a previous National Academies’ report “Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine,” that recommends biomedical research using nuclear transplantation to produce stem cells be permitted. According to the report, “very few cloning attempts are successful. Many clones die in utero even at late stages or soon after birth — and those that survive frequently exhibit severe birth defects…Human reproductive cloning is likely to have similar negative outcomes. Because many eggs are needed for human reproductive cloning attempts, human experimentation could subject more women to adverse health effects — either from high levels of hormones used to stimulate egg production or because more women overall would be sought to donate eggs, which involves surgery with its own inherent risks, the panel noted… Moreover, the cloned offspring — who would face the greatest risks of abnormality and death — would not be in a position to offer consent. These circumstances provide additional reasons to exercise caution.” http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309076374?OpenDocument.
    37 S.790, 4/26/01 107th Congress, 1st session, To Amend Title 18, United States Code, to prohibit human cloning
    38 107th Congress, 2d Session, S. 1893, To Ban Human Cloning While Protecting Stem Cell Research, 1/24/02
    39 American Health Line January 24, 2002; quoting USA Today, Arlington, Va., Jan 23, 2002
    40 Id.
    41 See notes 26-30 supra
    42 The Very Rev. Kevin Michael Quirk, JCD, Judicial Vicar of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston states in answer to a student’s question on whether a human clone had a soul: “I would say that the animal cloning experiments, if they are proved to be actual cloning do seem to indicate that clone’s do have at least an animal soul. The soul is the principle of life and that which gives form to the material or physical body. Without a soul, decay and decomposition occur. This is precisely what happens at death when the soul leaves the body, decomposition begins to occur. So, if a thing is alive, it does have a soul.However, there is a vast difference between animal souls which are sentient and human souls which are rational/spiritual. Would a human clone possess a human soul? This is the profoundest and most troubling question in the area of cloning, leaving aside the question of why we should even think about cloning people. The possession of a human soul is necessary for human identity and each soul is created uniquely and specifically by God at the moment of conception. Thus, would cloning force God to create a unique human soul or would a merely animal soul be given to a clone, making it a non-human automaton? The answer, hopefully, will never be known.” http://www.dwc.org/questions/Morality/clonesoul2.htm
    43 Silver, Lee M., Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering and Cloning Will Transform the American Family, Avon Book, 1998
    44 Id. at 125
    45 Id. at 125
    46 President Bush and Secretary Tommy Thompson of Health and Human Services are spearheading a move to allow fetuses to be redefined as children for purposes of allowing federally funded childcare services prior to birth. Ryan, Joan, President attempts a pre-emptive strike on Roe v. Wade, Moscow-Pullman Daily News, October 27, 2002
    47 Executive Order 12975, October 3, 1995, Creation of The National Bioethics Advisory Commission Federal Register: October 5, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 193), Page 52063-52065
    48 Id.
    49 Executive Order 12975, October 3, 1995, Creation of The National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Report issued on Cloning Human Beings, June 1997. An additional report on Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research was issued in September 1999. The Commission recommending continuing federal funding for stem cell research using fetal cells from dead tissue, or from those not used in IVF, but would ban the use of federal funds for stem cell research using somatic cell transfer or those made solely through IVF for research purposes. It might prove to be difficult to prove in the case of IVF what the initial intentions were, and obviously ways to get around it are easily obtained.Charter of the Commission, October 20, 1999PurposeThe National Bioethics Advisory Commission will provide advice and make recommendations to the National Science and Technology Council, chaired by the President; other appropriate entities and the public, on bioethical issues arising from research on human biology and behavior, and the applications, including the clinical applications, of that research.AuthorityExecutive Order 12975, as amended. This Commission is governed by the provisions of theFederal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U. S.C. Appendix2), which sets forth standards for the formation of advisory committees, and implementing regulations (41C.F.R. 101.6.10).FunctionsThe National Bioethics Advisory Commission shall advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the National Science and Technology Council, chaired by the President; Federal agencies; and other appropriate entities, and also make available to the public the Commission’s advice and recommendations. The Commission’s purview includes the appropriateness of departmental, agency, or other governmental programs, policies, assignments, missions, guidelines, and regulations as they relate to bioethical issues arising from research on human biology and behavior, and applications, including the clinical applications, of that research. The Commission shall identify broad, overarching principles to govern the ethical conduct of research, citing individual projects only as illustrations for such principles. The Commission shall not be responsible for the review and approval of individual projects. As a first priority, the Commission will direct its attention to consideration of A. Protection of the rights and welfare of human research subjects; andB. Issues in the management and use of genetics information including but not limited to human gene patenting.In addition to responding to requests for advice and recommendations from the National science and Technology Council, the Commission also may accept suggestions for issues for consideration from both the Congress and the public. The Commission also may identify other bioethical issues for the purpose of providing advice and recommendations, subject to the approval of the National Science and Technology Council. The Commission shall consider four criteria –in establishing priority for its activities:A. The public health or public policy urgency of the bioethical issue.B. The relation of the bioethical issue to the goals for Federal investment in science and technology.C. The absence of another body able to deliberate fruitfully on the bioethical issue.D. The extent of interest in the issue across the government. (The Commission ordinarily will not deliberate on a bioethical issue of interest to just one department or agency.)StructureThe National Bioethics Advisory Commission shall consist of not more than 18 members including the Chairperson. Appointments shall be made by the President, who shall select from knowledgeable non-Government experts and community representatives with special qualifications and competence to deal effectively with bioethical issues. At least one member shall be selected from each of the following categories of primary expertise: (1) philosophy/theology; (ii) social/behavioral science; (iii) law; (iv) medicine/allied health professions; and (v) biological research. At least three members shall be selected from the general public, bringing to the Commission expertise other than that listed. The membership shall be approximately evenly balanced between scientists and non-scientists. Close attention will be given to equitable geographic distribution and to ethnic and gender representation. Members of the Commission will serve for terms of 2 years and may continue to serve after the expiration of their term until a successor is appointed. A member appointed to fill an unexpired term will be appointed to the remainder of such terms. The Chairperson shall be appointed by the President. The term of office for the Chairperson shall be two years, renewable by appropriate action of the President. If a vacancy occurs on the Commission, the President shall make an appointment to fulfill the term. Any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to expiration of the term for which his or her predecessor was appointed shall serve for the remainder of such term. Members may serve after the expiration of their terms until their successors have taken office.The heads of executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide the commission with such information as it may require for purposes of carrying out its functions.The Commission may conduct inquiries, hold hearings and establish subcommittees, as necessary. The Commission is authorized to solicit information form relevant human research subject groups. The Commission is authorized to conduct analyses and develop reports or other materials. In order to augment the expertise present on the Commission, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is also authorized to contract for the services of non-governmental consultants who may conduct analyses, prepare reports and background papers or prepare other materials for consideration by the Commission, as appropriate.In order to avoid duplication of effort, the Commission is encouraged to review the deliberations of other entities. The Commission may incorporate or otherwise use the results of the deliberations of other entities, as it deems appropriate. The Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall be notified upon establishment of each subcommittee, and shall be provided information on the name, membership (including chair), function, estimated duration of the subcommittee, and estimated frequency of meetings. To the extent permitted by law, the subject to the availability of appropriations, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) shall provide NBAC with such funds as may be necessary for the performance of its functions. Management and support services shall be provided by the DHHS.MeetingsMeetings of the Commission shall be held up to 12 times a year at the call of the Chairperson.Meetings of the subcommittee(s) shall be convened as necessary. A Federal Government official shall be present at all meetings.Meetings shall be open to the public except as determined otherwise by the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Advance notice of all meetings shall be given to the public.Meetings shall be conducted, and records of proceedings kept, as required by applicable laws and Federal regulations.CompensationMembers may be compensated at a rate not to exceed the maximum pay authorized by 5 U. S.C. 3109, plus per them and travel expenses as in accordance with standard government travel regulations.Annual Cost EstimateThe estimated annual cost for operating the National Bioethics Advisory Commission is $3,000,000.ReportsReports by the National Bioethics Advisory Commission on specific issues shall be submitted to the National Science and Technology Council, chaired by the President, and then to the appropriate committees of Congress, and other appropriate entities. The Commission may specifically identify the Federal department, agency or other entity to which particular recommendations are directed and request a response from the Federal department, agency or other entity within 180 days of publication of such recommendation. Executive summaries of each report of the Commission shall be published in the Federal Register or on the World Wide Web. Such summaries shall specifically list the department, agency, or other entity to which any recommendations are directed and the date by which such responses are expected.An annual report shall be submitted to the National Science and Technology Council and the appropriate committees of Congress. It shall contain, at a minimum, (1) the Commission’s function; (ii) a list of members and their business addresses; (iii) the dates and places of meetings; (iv) a summary of the Commission’s activities during the year; (v) a summary of the Commission’s recommendations made during the year; and (vi) a summary of responses made by departments, agencies, or other entities to the Commission’s recommendations during the year.General ProvisionsNotwithstanding the provisions of any other Executive Order, the functions of the President under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that are applicable to the Commission, except that of reporting annually to the Congress, shall be performed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in accordance with the guidelines and procedures established by the Administrator of General Services.Termination DateUnless renewed by Executive Order prior to its expiration, this National Bioethics AdvisoryCommission will terminate on October 3, 2001.Approved:OCT 20, 1999 /s/ Donna E. Shalala
    50 Id.
    51 Id.
    52 Id.
    53 National Bioethics Advisory Commission website, http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/nbac/pubs.html
    54 Id. At http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/nbac/pubs/cloning1/executive.htm
    55 Id.
    56 Id.
    57 Id.
    58 Id.
    59 Id.
    60 Executive Order 13237, November 28, 2001 Creation of The President’s Council on Bioethics
    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
    Section 1. Establishment. There is established the President’s Council on Bioethics (the “Council”).
    Section 2. Mission.
    a. The Council shall advise the President on bioethical issues that may emerge as a consequence of advances in biomedical science and technology. In connection with its advisory role, the mission of the Council includes the following functions:
    1. to undertake fundamental inquiry into the human and moral significance of developments in biomedical and behavioral science and technology; 2. to explore specific ethical and policy questions related to these developments; 3. to provide a forum for a national discussion of bioethical issues; 4. to facilitate a greater understanding of bioethical issues; and 5. to explore possibilities for useful international collaboration on bioethical issues.
    b. In support of its mission, the Council may study ethical issues connected with specific technological activities, such as embryo and stem cell research, assisted reproduction, cloning, uses of knowledge and techniques derived from human genetics or the neurosciences, and end of life issues. The Council may also study broader ethical and social issues not tied to a specific technology, such as questions regarding the protection of human subjects in research, the appropriate uses of biomedical technologies, the moral implications of biomedical technologies, and the consequences of limiting scientific research.
    c. The Council shall strive to develop a deep and comprehensive understanding of the issues that it considers. In pursuit of this goal, the Council shall be guided by the need to articulate fully the complex and often competing moral positions on any given issue, rather than by an overriding concern to find consensus. The Council may therefore choose to proceed by offering a variety of views on a particular issue, rather than attempt to reach a single consensus position.
    d. The Council shall not be responsible for the review and approval of specific projects or for devising and overseeing regulations for specific government agencies.
    e. In support of its mission, the Council may accept suggestions of issues for consideration from the heads of other Government agencies and other sources, as it deems appropriate.
    f. In establishing priorities for its activities, the Council shall consider the urgency and gravity of the particular issue; the need for policy guidance and public education on the particular issue; the connection of the bioethical issue to the goal of Federal advancement of science and technology; and the existence of another entity available to deliberate appropriately on the bioethical issue.
    Section 3. Membership.
    a. The Council shall be composed of not more than 18 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not officers or employees of the Federal Government. The Council shall include members drawn from the fields of science and medicine, law and government, philosophy and theology, and other areas of the humanities and social sciences.
    b. The President shall designate a member of the Council to serve as Chairperson.
    c. The term of office of a member shall be 2 years, and members shall be eligible for reappointment. Members may continue to serve after the expiration of their terms until the President appoints a successor. A member appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve only for the unexpired term of such vacancy.
    Section 4. Administration.
    a. Upon the request of the Chairperson, the heads of executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide the Council with information it needs for purposes of carrying out its functions. b. The Council may conduct inquiries, hold hearings, and establish subcommittees, as necessary.
    c. The Council is authorized to conduct analyses and develop reports or other materials.
    d. Members of the Council may be compensated to the extent permitted by Federal law for their work on the Council. Members may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in Government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707), to the extent funds are available.
    e. To the extent permitted by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Department of Health and Human Services shall provide the Council with administrative support and with such funds as may be necessary for the performance of the Council’s functions.
    f. The Council shall have a staff headed by an Executive Director, who shall be appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Chairperson. To the extent permitted by law, office space, analytical support, and additional staff support for the Council shall be provided by the Department of Health and Human Services or other executive branch departments and agencies as directed by the President.
    Section 5. General Provisions.
    a. Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), may apply to the Council, any functions of the President under that Act, except that of reporting to the Congress, shall be performed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in accordance with the guidelines that have been issued by the Administrator of General Services.
    b. The Council shall terminate 2 years from the date of this order unless extended by the President prior to that date.
    c. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and it is not intended to create any right, benefit, trust, or responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.
    George W. BushThe White House, November 28, 2001. Federal Register date: November 30, 2001.Federal Register page: 66 FR 59851.
    61 Id.
    62 Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry; The President’s Council on Bioethics, Washington, D.C., July 2002, www.bioethics.gov
    63 Id.
    64 Id.
    65 Id. Chapter Five, The Ethics of Cloning-to-Produce-Children
    66 Id.
    67 Id.
    68 Id.
    69 Id.
    70 Id.
    71 Id.
    72 Id.
    73 Id.
    74 Id.
    75 Id.
    76 Id.
    77 Id.
    78 Id. Chapter Seven, Public Policy Options
    79 Id. Chapter Eight, Policy Recommendations
    80 Id.
    81 Id.
    82 Id.
    83 Id.
    84 Id.
    85 Id.
    86 Id.
    87 Id.
    88 Id.
    89 Id.
    90 Madigan, Timothy J., A Clone Can Exists With Full Human Dignity, essay contained in The Ethics of Human Cloning, William Dudley, Ed., Greenhaven Press, 2001, p.39
    91 Wilson, James Q., Only Married Couples Should Be Allowed to Clone, essay contained in The Ethics of Human Cloning, William Dudley, Ed., Greenhaven Press, 2001, p.42
    92 Id.
    93 Id.
    94 United Church of Christ, Statement of the Committee on Genetics, Cleveland, reprinted in Cloe-Turner, Human Cloning p. 147-151
    95 Id.
    96 In Vitro Veritas, Cahill, Stephanie Francis, ABA Journal Report, 2/22/02 regarding the case of Chambers v. Chambers CN00-09493
    97 Chambers v. Chambers, Delaware Family Court No. CN00-09493
    98 Madigan, supra, Note 110 at 39
    99 Robertson, John A., When Cloning is Safe and Effective, essay contained in Human Cloning: Science, Ethics and Public Policy, ed. by Barbara MacKinnon, University of Illinois Press, 2000
    100 Id. at 138
    101 Id. at 141
    102 Id. at 142
    103 Id.
    104 The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, signed in 1997 by the 187 members of UNESCO, proscribed practices contrary to human dignity, such as cloning. The Council of Europe drafted a protocol, The Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine, on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings. Bonnickson, Andrea L., Crafting Human Cloning Policies, contained in MacKinnon, Barbara, ed. Human Cloning: Science, Ethics and Public Policy, University of Illinois Press, 200, p. 120-121. These declarations and protocols are only some of the legal hurdles to cloning.
    105 See U.S. Const., Amendments XVIII (1919) and the repeal in Amendment XXI (1933). It took 14 years, the rise of organized crime, and scores of revenue men and “G” men to realize that the sale and consumption of liquor could not be stopped.
    106 Gaiman, Neil, American Gods, William Morrow, 2001, pg. 252, a novel exploring an epic battle between the new American Gods of technology, prosperity, and consumption versus the older pantheon of gods from time immortal. Basically a contemporary essay on human frailty, told through the guise of a road journey of gods.
    107 Fukuyama, Francis, Our Post Human Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, N.Y., 2002, pg. 187-191.
    108 Davis, supra, Note 52 at 593. Dr. King, testifying for Junior Davis, defined a preembryo as an embryo up to 14 days after fertilization. After that time, the cell begins the process of differentiating into the various parts that make up an individual.
    109 Machiavelli, Niccolo, The Prince, p. 21
    110 Boulding, Kenneth E., Beyond Economics: Essays on Society, Religion, and Ethics, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1970
    111 Judge Learned Hand, Ladies Home Journal, May 1954

    Categories: Law · bioethics · cloning
    Tagged: , , ,