So what happens if the aliens land? Here, on Earth. I'm not talking about detecting a radio signal or a laser flash from hundreds of light-years away. I'm speaking of visitors who actually set their boots on the ground. What do we do? It may surprise you to learn that there's precious little preparation for such an eventuality.
A new poll of American scientists, conducted by the Pew Research Center, suggests that a large majority of them (82 percent) regard population growth as a major challenge. The poll results are not surprising; what is remarkable is that given the levels of scientific concern about humanity's impact on the planet, more scientists are not talking publicly about population.
In light of the great Blizzard of 2015 that wasn't, we might look at how accurate are weather forecasts and especially long-term forecasts.
If this is how we react when women dare to replace men in movies, what chance do real women stand in actual science and technology positions?
As we are pouring billions into the war on terror, we should be putting millions into studying how we can build positive social relations between members of our Muslim communities and those in non-Muslim communities.
The surest route to success in scientific research is to foster a robust environment of scientific investigation and engage the finest minds in that pursuit.
The fact is that modesty, or even self-effacement, can be more effective than bragging in creating a good first impression. Most of us know this from being on the receiving end, yet we still err on the side of self-aggrandizement. But why do we get it wrong so much of the time? Here's where some new research may be illuminating.
The basic idea behind this flight was to launch a rocket into an active aurora and then deploy multiple sensors in mid-flight to do something that's never been done before.
The overwhelming scientific consensus exceeds the percentage of scientists, 88%, who think humans are mostly responsible for climate change. However, the public appears far more suspicious of scientific claims about GMO safety than they do about the consensus on global warming.
We've done it before. In 1980, the world wiped the devastating disease smallpox off the face of the earth -- making it the only human disease eradicated in history. So what does it take to destroy another human disease again?
Unless you are Rip van Winkle, you are well aware that the footballs in the game in New England were underinflated. There is talk that the weather is to blame. If you run the numbers, here's what the equation looks like.
In another few months the Large Hadron Collider will be powered up to explore its maximum energy range. Many physicists fervently hope we will see definite signs of "new physics," especially a phenomenon called "supersymmetry."
Tamarisk was introduced to the Western U.S. from Eurasia in the late 1800s, and over the next 50 years it was widely planted as a fast-growing, drought-resistant ornamental and riverbank stabilizer.
Now scientists have new information about the level of detail in the songs that bowhead whales sing to one another when they are migrating into the Beaufort Sea each spring.
Governments no longer have a monopoly on space exploration. In two or three decades we will have entrepreneurs taking us on private spaceflights to the Moon. That is what has become possible.
Biomechanists use all pertinent information to determine injury mechanisms, such as in the event of a car accident. Utilizing previous clinical research, the expected recovery time -- and thus, medical expense estimates -- can be determined.
Railroading people inappropriately into psychiatric hospitals is a slippery slope that can lead to grave violation of human rights and a distortion of our most precious constitutional protections.
How do you mark the instant when human impacts so changed the planet that the signs will remain embedded in Earth's rock record for time immemorial? That is essentially the question that three important new scientific studies tackled this month.