SAT Pastpaper with Solutions

Even then my only friends were made of paper and ink. At school I had learned to read and writelong before the other children. Where my school Line friends saw notches of ink on incomprehensible5 pages, I saw light, streets, and people. Words and the mystery of their hidden science fascinated me, and I saw in them akey with which I could unlock aboundless world,a safe haven from that home, those streets, and those troubled days in which even I10 could sense that only a limited fortune awaited me. My father didn’t like to see books in the house.There was something about them—apart from the letters he could not decipher—that offended him.He used to tell me that as soon as I was ten he would15 send me off to work and that I’d better get rid of allmy scatterbrained ideas if I didn’t want to end up aloser,a nobody. I used to hide my books under the mattress and wait for him to go out or fall asleep so that I could read. Once he caught me reading at night20 and flew into a rage. He tore the book from my hands and flung it out of the window.“If I catch you wasting electricity again, reading all this nonsense, you’ll be sorry.”My father was not a miser and, despite the25 hardships we suffered, whenever he could he gave me a few coins so that I could buy myself some treats like the other children. He was convinced that I spentthem on licorice sticks, sunflower seeds, or sweets, but I would keep them in a coffee tin under the bed,30 and when I’d collected four or five reales I’d secretly rush out to buy myself a book.My favorite place in the whole city was theSempere & Sons bookshop on Calle Santa Ana. It smelled of old paper and dust and it was my35 sanctuary, my refuge. The bookseller would let me sit on a chair in a corner and read any book I liked tomy heart’s content. He hardly ever allowed me to pay for the books he placed in my hands, but when hewasn’tlooking I’d leave the coins I’d managed to40 collect on the counter before I left. It was only small change—if I’d had to buy a book with that pittance, I would probably have been able to afford only abooklet of cigarette papers. When it was time for me to leave, I would do so dragging my feet,a weight on45 my soul. If it had been up to me, I would have stayed there forever.One Christmas Sempere gave me the best gift I have ever received. It was an old volume, read and experienced to the full.50 “Great Expectations, by Charles Dickens,” I read on the cover.I was aware that Sempere knew a few authors who frequented his establishment and, judging by the care with which he handled the volume, I thought55 perhaps this Mr. Dickens was one of them. “A friend of yours?”“A lifelong friend. And from now on, he’s your friend too.” That afternoon I took my new friend home,60 hidden under my clothes so that my father wouldn’t see it. It was a rainy winter, with days as gray as lead, and I read Great Expectations about nine times,partly because I had no other book at hand, partlybecause I did not think there could be a better one in65 the whole world and I was beginning to suspect that Mr. Dickens had written it just for me. Soon I was convinced that I didn’t want to do anything else in life but learn to do what Mr. Dickens had done.

Even then my only friends were made of paper and ink. At school I had learned to read and writelong before the other children. Where my school Line friends saw notches of ink on incomprehensible5 pages, I saw light, streets, and people. Words and the mystery of their hidden science fascinated me, and I saw in them akey with which I could unlock aboundless world,a safe haven from that home, those streets, and those troubled days in which even I10 could sense that only a limited fortune awaited me. My father didn’t like to see books in the house.There was something about them—apart from the letters he could not decipher—that offended him.He used to tell me that as soon as I was ten he would15 send me off to work and that I’d better get rid of allmy scatterbrained ideas if I didn’t want to end up aloser,a nobody. I used to hide my books under the mattress and wait for him to go out or fall asleep so that I could read. Once he caught me reading at night20 and flew into a rage. He tore the book from my hands and flung it out of the window.“If I catch you wasting electricity again, reading all this nonsense, you’ll be sorry.”My father was not a miser and, despite the25 hardships we suffered, whenever he could he gave me a few coins so that I could buy myself some treats like the other children. He was convinced that I spentthem on licorice sticks, sunflower seeds, or sweets, but I would keep them in a coffee tin under the bed,30 and when I’d collected four or five reales I’d secretly rush out to buy myself a book.My favorite place in the whole city was theSempere & Sons bookshop on Calle Santa Ana. It smelled of old paper and dust and it was my35 sanctuary, my refuge. The bookseller would let me sit on a chair in a corner and read any book I liked tomy heart’s content. He hardly ever allowed me to pay for the books he placed in my hands, but when hewasn’tlooking I’d leave the coins I’d managed to40 collect on the counter before I left. It was only small change—if I’d had to buy a book with that pittance, I would probably have been able to afford only abooklet of cigarette papers. When it was time for me to leave, I would do so dragging my feet,a weight on45 my soul. If it had been up to me, I would have stayed there forever.One Christmas Sempere gave me the best gift I have ever received. It was an old volume, read and experienced to the full.50 “Great Expectations, by Charles Dickens,” I read on the cover.I was aware that Sempere knew a few authors who frequented his establishment and, judging by the care with which he handled the volume, I thought55 perhaps this Mr. Dickens was one of them. “A friend of yours?”“A lifelong friend. And from now on, he’s your friend too.” That afternoon I took my new friend home,60 hidden under my clothes so that my father wouldn’t see it. It was a rainy winter, with days as gray as lead, and I read Great Expectations about nine times,partly because I had no other book at hand, partlybecause I did not think there could be a better one in65 the whole world and I was beginning to suspect that Mr. Dickens had written it just for me. Soon I was convinced that I didn’t want to do anything else in life but learn to do what Mr. Dickens had done.

Even then my only friends were made of paper and ink. At school I had learned to read and writelong before the other children. Where my school Line friends saw notches of ink on incomprehensible5 pages, I saw light, streets, and people. Words and the mystery of their hidden science fascinated me, and I saw in them akey with which I could unlock aboundless world,a safe haven from that home, those streets, and those troubled days in which even I10 could sense that only a limited fortune awaited me. My father didn’t like to see books in the house.There was something about them—apart from the letters he could not decipher—that offended him.He used to tell me that as soon as I was ten he would15 send me off to work and that I’d better get rid of allmy scatterbrained ideas if I didn’t want to end up aloser,a nobody. I used to hide my books under the mattress and wait for him to go out or fall asleep so that I could read. Once he caught me reading at night20 and flew into a rage. He tore the book from my hands and flung it out of the window.“If I catch you wasting electricity again, reading all this nonsense, you’ll be sorry.”My father was not a miser and, despite the25 hardships we suffered, whenever he could he gave me a few coins so that I could buy myself some treats like the other children. He was convinced that I spentthem on licorice sticks, sunflower seeds, or sweets, but I would keep them in a coffee tin under the bed,30 and when I’d collected four or five reales I’d secretly rush out to buy myself a book.My favorite place in the whole city was theSempere & Sons bookshop on Calle Santa Ana. It smelled of old paper and dust and it was my35 sanctuary, my refuge. The bookseller would let me sit on a chair in a corner and read any book I liked tomy heart’s content. He hardly ever allowed me to pay for the books he placed in my hands, but when hewasn’tlooking I’d leave the coins I’d managed to40 collect on the counter before I left. It was only small change—if I’d had to buy a book with that pittance, I would probably have been able to afford only abooklet of cigarette papers. When it was time for me to leave, I would do so dragging my feet,a weight on45 my soul. If it had been up to me, I would have stayed there forever.One Christmas Sempere gave me the best gift I have ever received. It was an old volume, read and experienced to the full.50 “Great Expectations, by Charles Dickens,” I read on the cover.I was aware that Sempere knew a few authors who frequented his establishment and, judging by the care with which he handled the volume, I thought55 perhaps this Mr. Dickens was one of them. “A friend of yours?”“A lifelong friend. And from now on, he’s your friend too.” That afternoon I took my new friend home,60 hidden under my clothes so that my father wouldn’t see it. It was a rainy winter, with days as gray as lead, and I read Great Expectations about nine times,partly because I had no other book at hand, partlybecause I did not think there could be a better one in65 the whole world and I was beginning to suspect that Mr. Dickens had written it just for me. Soon I was convinced that I didn’t want to do anything else in life but learn to do what Mr. Dickens had done.

Even then my only friends were made of paper and ink. At school I had learned to read and writelong before the other children. Where my school Line friends saw notches of ink on incomprehensible5 pages, I saw light, streets, and people. Words and the mystery of their hidden science fascinated me, and I saw in them akey with which I could unlock aboundless world,a safe haven from that home, those streets, and those troubled days in which even I10 could sense that only a limited fortune awaited me. My father didn’t like to see books in the house.There was something about them—apart from the letters he could not decipher—that offended him.He used to tell me that as soon as I was ten he would15 send me off to work and that I’d better get rid of allmy scatterbrained ideas if I didn’t want to end up aloser,a nobody. I used to hide my books under the mattress and wait for him to go out or fall asleep so that I could read. Once he caught me reading at night20 and flew into a rage. He tore the book from my hands and flung it out of the window.“If I catch you wasting electricity again, reading all this nonsense, you’ll be sorry.”My father was not a miser and, despite the25 hardships we suffered, whenever he could he gave me a few coins so that I could buy myself some treats like the other children. He was convinced that I spentthem on licorice sticks, sunflower seeds, or sweets, but I would keep them in a coffee tin under the bed,30 and when I’d collected four or five reales I’d secretly rush out to buy myself a book.My favorite place in the whole city was theSempere & Sons bookshop on Calle Santa Ana. It smelled of old paper and dust and it was my35 sanctuary, my refuge. The bookseller would let me sit on a chair in a corner and read any book I liked tomy heart’s content. He hardly ever allowed me to pay for the books he placed in my hands, but when hewasn’tlooking I’d leave the coins I’d managed to40 collect on the counter before I left. It was only small change—if I’d had to buy a book with that pittance, I would probably have been able to afford only abooklet of cigarette papers. When it was time for me to leave, I would do so dragging my feet,a weight on45 my soul. If it had been up to me, I would have stayed there forever.One Christmas Sempere gave me the best gift I have ever received. It was an old volume, read and experienced to the full.50 “Great Expectations, by Charles Dickens,” I read on the cover.I was aware that Sempere knew a few authors who frequented his establishment and, judging by the care with which he handled the volume, I thought55 perhaps this Mr. Dickens was one of them. “A friend of yours?”“A lifelong friend. And from now on, he’s your friend too.” That afternoon I took my new friend home,60 hidden under my clothes so that my father wouldn’t see it. It was a rainy winter, with days as gray as lead, and I read Great Expectations about nine times,partly because I had no other book at hand, partlybecause I did not think there could be a better one in65 the whole world and I was beginning to suspect that Mr. Dickens had written it just for me. Soon I was convinced that I didn’t want to do anything else in life but learn to do what Mr. Dickens had done.

Even then my only friends were made of paper and ink. At school I had learned to read and writelong before the other children. Where my school Line friends saw notches of ink on incomprehensible5 pages, I saw light, streets, and people. Words and the mystery of their hidden science fascinated me, and I saw in them akey with which I could unlock aboundless world,a safe haven from that home, those streets, and those troubled days in which even I10 could sense that only a limited fortune awaited me. My father didn’t like to see books in the house.There was something about them—apart from the letters he could not decipher—that offended him.He used to tell me that as soon as I was ten he would15 send me off to work and that I’d better get rid of allmy scatterbrained ideas if I didn’t want to end up aloser,a nobody. I used to hide my books under the mattress and wait for him to go out or fall asleep so that I could read. Once he caught me reading at night20 and flew into a rage. He tore the book from my hands and flung it out of the window.“If I catch you wasting electricity again, reading all this nonsense, you’ll be sorry.”My father was not a miser and, despite the25 hardships we suffered, whenever he could he gave me a few coins so that I could buy myself some treats like the other children. He was convinced that I spentthem on licorice sticks, sunflower seeds, or sweets, but I would keep them in a coffee tin under the bed,30 and when I’d collected four or five reales I’d secretly rush out to buy myself a book.My favorite place in the whole city was theSempere & Sons bookshop on Calle Santa Ana. It smelled of old paper and dust and it was my35 sanctuary, my refuge. The bookseller would let me sit on a chair in a corner and read any book I liked tomy heart’s content. He hardly ever allowed me to pay for the books he placed in my hands, but when hewasn’tlooking I’d leave the coins I’d managed to40 collect on the counter before I left. It was only small change—if I’d had to buy a book with that pittance, I would probably have been able to afford only abooklet of cigarette papers. When it was time for me to leave, I would do so dragging my feet,a weight on45 my soul. If it had been up to me, I would have stayed there forever.One Christmas Sempere gave me the best gift I have ever received. It was an old volume, read and experienced to the full.50 “Great Expectations, by Charles Dickens,” I read on the cover.I was aware that Sempere knew a few authors who frequented his establishment and, judging by the care with which he handled the volume, I thought55 perhaps this Mr. Dickens was one of them. “A friend of yours?”“A lifelong friend. And from now on, he’s your friend too.” That afternoon I took my new friend home,60 hidden under my clothes so that my father wouldn’t see it. It was a rainy winter, with days as gray as lead, and I read Great Expectations about nine times,partly because I had no other book at hand, partlybecause I did not think there could be a better one in65 the whole world and I was beginning to suspect that Mr. Dickens had written it just for me. Soon I was convinced that I didn’t want to do anything else in life but learn to do what Mr. Dickens had done.

Even then my only friends were made of paper and ink. At school I had learned to read and writelong before the other children. Where my school Line friends saw notches of ink on incomprehensible5 pages, I saw light, streets, and people. Words and the mystery of their hidden science fascinated me, and I saw in them akey with which I could unlock aboundless world,a safe haven from that home, those streets, and those troubled days in which even I10 could sense that only a limited fortune awaited me. My father didn’t like to see books in the house.There was something about them—apart from the letters he could not decipher—that offended him.He used to tell me that as soon as I was ten he would15 send me off to work and that I’d better get rid of allmy scatterbrained ideas if I didn’t want to end up aloser,a nobody. I used to hide my books under the mattress and wait for him to go out or fall asleep so that I could read. Once he caught me reading at night20 and flew into a rage. He tore the book from my hands and flung it out of the window.“If I catch you wasting electricity again, reading all this nonsense, you’ll be sorry.”My father was not a miser and, despite the25 hardships we suffered, whenever he could he gave me a few coins so that I could buy myself some treats like the other children. He was convinced that I spentthem on licorice sticks, sunflower seeds, or sweets, but I would keep them in a coffee tin under the bed,30 and when I’d collected four or five reales I’d secretly rush out to buy myself a book.My favorite place in the whole city was theSempere & Sons bookshop on Calle Santa Ana. It smelled of old paper and dust and it was my35 sanctuary, my refuge. The bookseller would let me sit on a chair in a corner and read any book I liked tomy heart’s content. He hardly ever allowed me to pay for the books he placed in my hands, but when hewasn’tlooking I’d leave the coins I’d managed to40 collect on the counter before I left. It was only small change—if I’d had to buy a book with that pittance, I would probably have been able to afford only abooklet of cigarette papers. When it was time for me to leave, I would do so dragging my feet,a weight on45 my soul. If it had been up to me, I would have stayed there forever.One Christmas Sempere gave me the best gift I have ever received. It was an old volume, read and experienced to the full.50 “Great Expectations, by Charles Dickens,” I read on the cover.I was aware that Sempere knew a few authors who frequented his establishment and, judging by the care with which he handled the volume, I thought55 perhaps this Mr. Dickens was one of them. “A friend of yours?”“A lifelong friend. And from now on, he’s your friend too.” That afternoon I took my new friend home,60 hidden under my clothes so that my father wouldn’t see it. It was a rainy winter, with days as gray as lead, and I read Great Expectations about nine times,partly because I had no other book at hand, partlybecause I did not think there could be a better one in65 the whole world and I was beginning to suspect that Mr. Dickens had written it just for me. Soon I was convinced that I didn’t want to do anything else in life but learn to do what Mr. Dickens had done.

Even then my only friends were made of paper and ink. At school I had learned to read and writelong before the other children. Where my school Line friends saw notches of ink on incomprehensible5 pages, I saw light, streets, and people. Words and the mystery of their hidden science fascinated me, and I saw in them akey with which I could unlock aboundless world,a safe haven from that home, those streets, and those troubled days in which even I10 could sense that only a limited fortune awaited me. My father didn’t like to see books in the house.There was something about them—apart from the letters he could not decipher—that offended him.He used to tell me that as soon as I was ten he would15 send me off to work and that I’d better get rid of allmy scatterbrained ideas if I didn’t want to end up aloser,a nobody. I used to hide my books under the mattress and wait for him to go out or fall asleep so that I could read. Once he caught me reading at night20 and flew into a rage. He tore the book from my hands and flung it out of the window.“If I catch you wasting electricity again, reading all this nonsense, you’ll be sorry.”My father was not a miser and, despite the25 hardships we suffered, whenever he could he gave me a few coins so that I could buy myself some treats like the other children. He was convinced that I spentthem on licorice sticks, sunflower seeds, or sweets, but I would keep them in a coffee tin under the bed,30 and when I’d collected four or five reales I’d secretly rush out to buy myself a book.My favorite place in the whole city was theSempere & Sons bookshop on Calle Santa Ana. It smelled of old paper and dust and it was my35 sanctuary, my refuge. The bookseller would let me sit on a chair in a corner and read any book I liked tomy heart’s content. He hardly ever allowed me to pay for the books he placed in my hands, but when hewasn’tlooking I’d leave the coins I’d managed to40 collect on the counter before I left. It was only small change—if I’d had to buy a book with that pittance, I would probably have been able to afford only abooklet of cigarette papers. When it was time for me to leave, I would do so dragging my feet,a weight on45 my soul. If it had been up to me, I would have stayed there forever.One Christmas Sempere gave me the best gift I have ever received. It was an old volume, read and experienced to the full.50 “Great Expectations, by Charles Dickens,” I read on the cover.I was aware that Sempere knew a few authors who frequented his establishment and, judging by the care with which he handled the volume, I thought55 perhaps this Mr. Dickens was one of them. “A friend of yours?”“A lifelong friend. And from now on, he’s your friend too.” That afternoon I took my new friend home,60 hidden under my clothes so that my father wouldn’t see it. It was a rainy winter, with days as gray as lead, and I read Great Expectations about nine times,partly because I had no other book at hand, partlybecause I did not think there could be a better one in65 the whole world and I was beginning to suspect that Mr. Dickens had written it just for me. Soon I was convinced that I didn’t want to do anything else in life but learn to do what Mr. Dickens had done.

Even then my only friends were made of paper and ink. At school I had learned to read and writelong before the other children. Where my school Line friends saw notches of ink on incomprehensible5 pages, I saw light, streets, and people. Words and the mystery of their hidden science fascinated me, and I saw in them akey with which I could unlock aboundless world,a safe haven from that home, those streets, and those troubled days in which even I10 could sense that only a limited fortune awaited me. My father didn’t like to see books in the house.There was something about them—apart from the letters he could not decipher—that offended him.He used to tell me that as soon as I was ten he would15 send me off to work and that I’d better get rid of allmy scatterbrained ideas if I didn’t want to end up aloser,a nobody. I used to hide my books under the mattress and wait for him to go out or fall asleep so that I could read. Once he caught me reading at night20 and flew into a rage. He tore the book from my hands and flung it out of the window.“If I catch you wasting electricity again, reading all this nonsense, you’ll be sorry.”My father was not a miser and, despite the25 hardships we suffered, whenever he could he gave me a few coins so that I could buy myself some treats like the other children. He was convinced that I spentthem on licorice sticks, sunflower seeds, or sweets, but I would keep them in a coffee tin under the bed,30 and when I’d collected four or five reales I’d secretly rush out to buy myself a book.My favorite place in the whole city was theSempere & Sons bookshop on Calle Santa Ana. It smelled of old paper and dust and it was my35 sanctuary, my refuge. The bookseller would let me sit on a chair in a corner and read any book I liked tomy heart’s content. He hardly ever allowed me to pay for the books he placed in my hands, but when hewasn’tlooking I’d leave the coins I’d managed to40 collect on the counter before I left. It was only small change—if I’d had to buy a book with that pittance, I would probably have been able to afford only abooklet of cigarette papers. When it was time for me to leave, I would do so dragging my feet,a weight on45 my soul. If it had been up to me, I would have stayed there forever.One Christmas Sempere gave me the best gift I have ever received. It was an old volume, read and experienced to the full.50 “Great Expectations, by Charles Dickens,” I read on the cover.I was aware that Sempere knew a few authors who frequented his establishment and, judging by the care with which he handled the volume, I thought55 perhaps this Mr. Dickens was one of them. “A friend of yours?”“A lifelong friend. And from now on, he’s your friend too.” That afternoon I took my new friend home,60 hidden under my clothes so that my father wouldn’t see it. It was a rainy winter, with days as gray as lead, and I read Great Expectations about nine times,partly because I had no other book at hand, partlybecause I did not think there could be a better one in65 the whole world and I was beginning to suspect that Mr. Dickens had written it just for me. Soon I was convinced that I didn’t want to do anything else in life but learn to do what Mr. Dickens had done.

Even then my only friends were made of paper and ink. At school I had learned to read and writelong before the other children. Where my school Line friends saw notches of ink on incomprehensible5 pages, I saw light, streets, and people. Words and the mystery of their hidden science fascinated me, and I saw in them akey with which I could unlock aboundless world,a safe haven from that home, those streets, and those troubled days in which even I10 could sense that only a limited fortune awaited me. My father didn’t like to see books in the house.There was something about them—apart from the letters he could not decipher—that offended him.He used to tell me that as soon as I was ten he would15 send me off to work and that I’d better get rid of allmy scatterbrained ideas if I didn’t want to end up aloser,a nobody. I used to hide my books under the mattress and wait for him to go out or fall asleep so that I could read. Once he caught me reading at night20 and flew into a rage. He tore the book from my hands and flung it out of the window.“If I catch you wasting electricity again, reading all this nonsense, you’ll be sorry.”My father was not a miser and, despite the25 hardships we suffered, whenever he could he gave me a few coins so that I could buy myself some treats like the other children. He was convinced that I spentthem on licorice sticks, sunflower seeds, or sweets, but I would keep them in a coffee tin under the bed,30 and when I’d collected four or five reales I’d secretly rush out to buy myself a book.My favorite place in the whole city was theSempere & Sons bookshop on Calle Santa Ana. It smelled of old paper and dust and it was my35 sanctuary, my refuge. The bookseller would let me sit on a chair in a corner and read any book I liked tomy heart’s content. He hardly ever allowed me to pay for the books he placed in my hands, but when hewasn’tlooking I’d leave the coins I’d managed to40 collect on the counter before I left. It was only small change—if I’d had to buy a book with that pittance, I would probably have been able to afford only abooklet of cigarette papers. When it was time for me to leave, I would do so dragging my feet,a weight on45 my soul. If it had been up to me, I would have stayed there forever.One Christmas Sempere gave me the best gift I have ever received. It was an old volume, read and experienced to the full.50 “Great Expectations, by Charles Dickens,” I read on the cover.I was aware that Sempere knew a few authors who frequented his establishment and, judging by the care with which he handled the volume, I thought55 perhaps this Mr. Dickens was one of them. “A friend of yours?”“A lifelong friend. And from now on, he’s your friend too.” That afternoon I took my new friend home,60 hidden under my clothes so that my father wouldn’t see it. It was a rainy winter, with days as gray as lead, and I read Great Expectations about nine times,partly because I had no other book at hand, partlybecause I did not think there could be a better one in65 the whole world and I was beginning to suspect that Mr. Dickens had written it just for me. Soon I was convinced that I didn’t want to do anything else in life but learn to do what Mr. Dickens had done.

The question of what to do with nullresults—when researchers fail to see an effect thatshould be detectable—has long been hotly debatedamong those conducting medical trials, where theresults can have a big impact on lives and corporatebottom lines. More recently, the debate has spread tothe social and behavioral sciences, which also havethe potential to sway public and social policy.There were little hard data, however, on how often orwhy null results were squelched. “Yes, it’s true thatnull results are not as exciting,” political scientistGary King of Harvard University says. “But I suspectanother reason they are rarely published is that thereare many, many ways to produce null results bymessing up. So they are much harder to interpret.”In a recent study, Stanford political economistNeil Malhotra and two of his graduate studentsexamined every study since 2002 that was funded bya competitive grants program called TESS(Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences).TESS allows scientists to order up Internet-basedsurveys of a representative sample of US adults to testa particular hypothesis (for example, whether voterstend to favor legislators who boast of 

bringing federaldollars to their districts over those who tout a focuson policy matters).Malhotra’s team tracked down working papersfrom most of the experiments that weren’t published,and for the rest asked grantees what had happened totheir results. In their e-mailed responses, somescientists cited deeper problems with a study or morepressing matters—but many also believed thejournals just wouldn’t be interested. “Theunfortunate reality of the publishing world [is] thatnull effects do not tell a clear story,” said onescientist. Said another, “Never published, definitelydisappointed to not see any major effects.”Their answers suggest to Malhotra that rescuingfindings from the file drawer will require a shift inexpectations. “What needs to change is theculture—the author’s belief about what will happen ifthe research is written up,” he says.Not unexpectedly, the statistical strength of thefindings made a huge difference in whether theywere ever published. Overall, 42% of the experiments produced statistically significant results. Of those,62% were ultimately published, compared with 21%of the null results. However, the Stanford team wassurprised that researchers didn’t even write up65% of the experiments that yielded a null finding.Scientists not involved in the study praise its“clever” design. “It’s a very important paper” that“starts to put numbers on things we want tounderstand,” says economist Edward Miguel of theUniversity of California, Berkeley.He and others note that the bias against nullstudies can waste time and money when researchersdevise new studies replicating strategies alreadyfound to be ineffective. Worse, if researchers publishsignificant results from similar experiments in thefuture, they could look stronger than they shouldbecause the earlier null studies are ignored. Evenmore troubling to Malhotra was the fact that twoscientists whose initial studies “didn’t work out”went on to publish results based on a smaller sample.“The non-TESS version of the same study, in whichwe used a student sample, did yield fruit,” noted oneinvestigator.A registry for data generated by all experimentswould address these problems, the authors argue.They say it should also include a “preanalysis” plan,that is, a detailed description of what the scientisthopes to achieve and how the data will be analyzed.Such plans would help deter researchers fromtweaking their analyses after the data are collected in search of more publishable results.

The question of what to do with nullresults—when researchers fail to see an effect thatshould be detectable—has long been hotly debatedamong those conducting medical trials, where theresults can have a big impact on lives and corporatebottom lines. More recently, the debate has spread tothe social and behavioral sciences, which also havethe potential to sway public and social policy.There were little hard data, however, on how often orwhy null results were squelched. “Yes, it’s true thatnull results are not as exciting,” political scientistGary King of Harvard University says. “But I suspectanother reason they are rarely published is that thereare many, many ways to produce null results bymessing up. So they are much harder to interpret.”In a recent study, Stanford political economistNeil Malhotra and two of his graduate studentsexamined every study since 2002 that was funded bya competitive grants program called TESS(Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences).TESS allows scientists to order up Internet-basedsurveys of a representative sample of US adults to testa particular hypothesis (for example, whether voterstend to favor legislators who boast of 

bringing federaldollars to their districts over those who tout a focuson policy matters).Malhotra’s team tracked down working papersfrom most of the experiments that weren’t published,and for the rest asked grantees what had happened totheir results. In their e-mailed responses, somescientists cited deeper problems with a study or morepressing matters—but many also believed thejournals just wouldn’t be interested. “Theunfortunate reality of the publishing world [is] thatnull effects do not tell a clear story,” said onescientist. Said another, “Never published, definitelydisappointed to not see any major effects.”Their answers suggest to Malhotra that rescuingfindings from the file drawer will require a shift inexpectations. “What needs to change is theculture—the author’s belief about what will happen ifthe research is written up,” he says.Not unexpectedly, the statistical strength of thefindings made a huge difference in whether theywere ever published. Overall, 42% of the experiments produced statistically significant results. Of those,62% were ultimately published, compared with 21%of the null results. However, the Stanford team wassurprised that researchers didn’t even write up65% of the experiments that yielded a null finding.Scientists not involved in the study praise its“clever” design. “It’s a very important paper” that“starts to put numbers on things we want tounderstand,” says economist Edward Miguel of theUniversity of California, Berkeley.He and others note that the bias against nullstudies can waste time and money when researchersdevise new studies replicating strategies alreadyfound to be ineffective. Worse, if researchers publishsignificant results from similar experiments in thefuture, they could look stronger than they shouldbecause the earlier null studies are ignored. Evenmore troubling to Malhotra was the fact that twoscientists whose initial studies “didn’t work out”went on to publish results based on a smaller sample.“The non-TESS version of the same study, in whichwe used a student sample, did yield fruit,” noted oneinvestigator.A registry for data generated by all experimentswould address these problems, the authors argue.They say it should also include a “preanalysis” plan,that is, a detailed description of what the scientisthopes to achieve and how the data will be analyzed.Such plans would help deter researchers fromtweaking their analyses after the data are collected in search of more publishable results.

The question of what to do with nullresults—when researchers fail to see an effect thatshould be detectable—has long been hotly debatedamong those conducting medical trials, where theresults can have a big impact on lives and corporatebottom lines. More recently, the debate has spread tothe social and behavioral sciences, which also havethe potential to sway public and social policy.There were little hard data, however, on how often orwhy null results were squelched. “Yes, it’s true thatnull results are not as exciting,” political scientistGary King of Harvard University says. “But I suspectanother reason they are rarely published is that thereare many, many ways to produce null results bymessing up. So they are much harder to interpret.”In a recent study, Stanford political economistNeil Malhotra and two of his graduate studentsexamined every study since 2002 that was funded bya competitive grants program called TESS(Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences).TESS allows scientists to order up Internet-basedsurveys of a representative sample of US adults to testa particular hypothesis (for example, whether voterstend to favor legislators who boast of 

bringing federaldollars to their districts over those who tout a focuson policy matters).Malhotra’s team tracked down working papersfrom most of the experiments that weren’t published,and for the rest asked grantees what had happened totheir results. In their e-mailed responses, somescientists cited deeper problems with a study or morepressing matters—but many also believed thejournals just wouldn’t be interested. “Theunfortunate reality of the publishing world [is] thatnull effects do not tell a clear story,” said onescientist. Said another, “Never published, definitelydisappointed to not see any major effects.”Their answers suggest to Malhotra that rescuingfindings from the file drawer will require a shift inexpectations. “What needs to change is theculture—the author’s belief about what will happen ifthe research is written up,” he says.Not unexpectedly, the statistical strength of thefindings made a huge difference in whether theywere ever published. Overall, 42% of the experiments produced statistically significant results. Of those,62% were ultimately published, compared with 21%of the null results. However, the Stanford team wassurprised that researchers didn’t even write up65% of the experiments that yielded a null finding.Scientists not involved in the study praise its“clever” design. “It’s a very important paper” that“starts to put numbers on things we want tounderstand,” says economist Edward Miguel of theUniversity of California, Berkeley.He and others note that the bias against nullstudies can waste time and money when researchersdevise new studies replicating strategies alreadyfound to be ineffective. Worse, if researchers publishsignificant results from similar experiments in thefuture, they could look stronger than they shouldbecause the earlier null studies are ignored. Evenmore troubling to Malhotra was the fact that twoscientists whose initial studies “didn’t work out”went on to publish results based on a smaller sample.“The non-TESS version of the same study, in whichwe used a student sample, did yield fruit,” noted oneinvestigator.A registry for data generated by all experimentswould address these problems, the authors argue.They say it should also include a “preanalysis” plan,that is, a detailed description of what the scientisthopes to achieve and how the data will be analyzed.Such plans would help deter researchers fromtweaking their analyses after the data are collected in search of more publishable results.

The question of what to do with nullresults—when researchers fail to see an effect thatshould be detectable—has long been hotly debatedamong those conducting medical trials, where theresults can have a big impact on lives and corporatebottom lines. More recently, the debate has spread tothe social and behavioral sciences, which also havethe potential to sway public and social policy.There were little hard data, however, on how often orwhy null results were squelched. “Yes, it’s true thatnull results are not as exciting,” political scientistGary King of Harvard University says. “But I suspectanother reason they are rarely published is that thereare many, many ways to produce null results bymessing up. So they are much harder to interpret.”In a recent study, Stanford political economistNeil Malhotra and two of his graduate studentsexamined every study since 2002 that was funded bya competitive grants program called TESS(Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences).TESS allows scientists to order up Internet-basedsurveys of a representative sample of US adults to testa particular hypothesis (for example, whether voterstend to favor legislators who boast of 

bringing federaldollars to their districts over those who tout a focuson policy matters).Malhotra’s team tracked down working papersfrom most of the experiments that weren’t published,and for the rest asked grantees what had happened totheir results. In their e-mailed responses, somescientists cited deeper problems with a study or morepressing matters—but many also believed thejournals just wouldn’t be interested. “Theunfortunate reality of the publishing world [is] thatnull effects do not tell a clear story,” said onescientist. Said another, “Never published, definitelydisappointed to not see any major effects.”Their answers suggest to Malhotra that rescuingfindings from the file drawer will require a shift inexpectations. “What needs to change is theculture—the author’s belief about what will happen ifthe research is written up,” he says.Not unexpectedly, the statistical strength of thefindings made a huge difference in whether theywere ever published. Overall, 42% of the experiments produced statistically significant results. Of those,62% were ultimately published, compared with 21%of the null results. However, the Stanford team wassurprised that researchers didn’t even write up65% of the experiments that yielded a null finding.Scientists not involved in the study praise its“clever” design. “It’s a very important paper” that“starts to put numbers on things we want tounderstand,” says economist Edward Miguel of theUniversity of California, Berkeley.He and others note that the bias against nullstudies can waste time and money when researchersdevise new studies replicating strategies alreadyfound to be ineffective. Worse, if researchers publishsignificant results from similar experiments in thefuture, they could look stronger than they shouldbecause the earlier null studies are ignored. Evenmore troubling to Malhotra was the fact that twoscientists whose initial studies “didn’t work out”went on to publish results based on a smaller sample.“The non-TESS version of the same study, in whichwe used a student sample, did yield fruit,” noted oneinvestigator.A registry for data generated by all experimentswould address these problems, the authors argue.They say it should also include a “preanalysis” plan,that is, a detailed description of what the scientisthopes to achieve and how the data will be analyzed.Such plans would help deter researchers fromtweaking their analyses after the data are collected in search of more publishable results.

The question of what to do with nullresults—when researchers fail to see an effect thatshould be detectable—has long been hotly debatedamong those conducting medical trials, where theresults can have a big impact on lives and corporatebottom lines. More recently, the debate has spread tothe social and behavioral sciences, which also havethe potential to sway public and social policy.There were little hard data, however, on how often orwhy null results were squelched. “Yes, it’s true thatnull results are not as exciting,” political scientistGary King of Harvard University says. “But I suspectanother reason they are rarely published is that thereare many, many ways to produce null results bymessing up. So they are much harder to interpret.”In a recent study, Stanford political economistNeil Malhotra and two of his graduate studentsexamined every study since 2002 that was funded bya competitive grants program called TESS(Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences).TESS allows scientists to order up Internet-basedsurveys of a representative sample of US adults to testa particular hypothesis (for example, whether voterstend to favor legislators who boast of 

bringing federaldollars to their districts over those who tout a focuson policy matters).Malhotra’s team tracked down working papersfrom most of the experiments that weren’t published,and for the rest asked grantees what had happened totheir results. In their e-mailed responses, somescientists cited deeper problems with a study or morepressing matters—but many also believed thejournals just wouldn’t be interested. “Theunfortunate reality of the publishing world [is] thatnull effects do not tell a clear story,” said onescientist. Said another, “Never published, definitelydisappointed to not see any major effects.”Their answers suggest to Malhotra that rescuingfindings from the file drawer will require a shift inexpectations. “What needs to change is theculture—the author’s belief about what will happen ifthe research is written up,” he says.Not unexpectedly, the statistical strength of thefindings made a huge difference in whether theywere ever published. Overall, 42% of the experiments produced statistically significant results. Of those,62% were ultimately published, compared with 21%of the null results. However, the Stanford team wassurprised that researchers didn’t even write up65% of the experiments that yielded a null finding.Scientists not involved in the study praise its“clever” design. “It’s a very important paper” that“starts to put numbers on things we want tounderstand,” says economist Edward Miguel of theUniversity of California, Berkeley.He and others note that the bias against nullstudies can waste time and money when researchersdevise new studies replicating strategies alreadyfound to be ineffective. Worse, if researchers publishsignificant results from similar experiments in thefuture, they could look stronger than they shouldbecause the earlier null studies are ignored. Evenmore troubling to Malhotra was the fact that twoscientists whose initial studies “didn’t work out”went on to publish results based on a smaller sample.“The non-TESS version of the same study, in whichwe used a student sample, did yield fruit,” noted oneinvestigator.A registry for data generated by all experimentswould address these problems, the authors argue.They say it should also include a “preanalysis” plan,that is, a detailed description of what the scientisthopes to achieve and how the data will be analyzed.Such plans would help deter researchers fromtweaking their analyses after the data are collected in search of more publishable results.

The question of what to do with nullresults—when researchers fail to see an effect thatshould be detectable—has long been hotly debatedamong those conducting medical trials, where theresults can have a big impact on lives and corporatebottom lines. More recently, the debate has spread tothe social and behavioral sciences, which also havethe potential to sway public and social policy.There were little hard data, however, on how often orwhy null results were squelched. “Yes, it’s true thatnull results are not as exciting,” political scientistGary King of Harvard University says. “But I suspectanother reason they are rarely published is that thereare many, many ways to produce null results bymessing up. So they are much harder to interpret.”In a recent study, Stanford political economistNeil Malhotra and two of his graduate studentsexamined every study since 2002 that was funded bya competitive grants program called TESS(Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences).TESS allows scientists to order up Internet-basedsurveys of a representative sample of US adults to testa particular hypothesis (for example, whether voterstend to favor legislators who boast of 

bringing federaldollars to their districts over those who tout a focuson policy matters).Malhotra’s team tracked down working papersfrom most of the experiments that weren’t published,and for the rest asked grantees what had happened totheir results. In their e-mailed responses, somescientists cited deeper problems with a study or morepressing matters—but many also believed thejournals just wouldn’t be interested. “Theunfortunate reality of the publishing world [is] thatnull effects do not tell a clear story,” said onescientist. Said another, “Never published, definitelydisappointed to not see any major effects.”Their answers suggest to Malhotra that rescuingfindings from the file drawer will require a shift inexpectations. “What needs to change is theculture—the author’s belief about what will happen ifthe research is written up,” he says.Not unexpectedly, the statistical strength of thefindings made a huge difference in whether theywere ever published. Overall, 42% of the experiments produced statistically significant results. Of those,62% were ultimately published, compared with 21%of the null results. However, the Stanford team wassurprised that researchers didn’t even write up65% of the experiments that yielded a null finding.Scientists not involved in the study praise its“clever” design. “It’s a very important paper” that“starts to put numbers on things we want tounderstand,” says economist Edward Miguel of theUniversity of California, Berkeley.He and others note that the bias against nullstudies can waste time and money when researchersdevise new studies replicating strategies alreadyfound to be ineffective. Worse, if researchers publishsignificant results from similar experiments in thefuture, they could look stronger than they shouldbecause the earlier null studies are ignored. Evenmore troubling to Malhotra was the fact that twoscientists whose initial studies “didn’t work out”went on to publish results based on a smaller sample.“The non-TESS version of the same study, in whichwe used a student sample, did yield fruit,” noted oneinvestigator.A registry for data generated by all experimentswould address these problems, the authors argue.They say it should also include a “preanalysis” plan,that is, a detailed description of what the scientisthopes to achieve and how the data will be analyzed.Such plans would help deter researchers fromtweaking their analyses after the data are collected in search of more publishable results.

The question of what to do with nullresults—when researchers fail to see an effect thatshould be detectable—has long been hotly debatedamong those conducting medical trials, where theresults can have a big impact on lives and corporatebottom lines. More recently, the debate has spread tothe social and behavioral sciences, which also havethe potential to sway public and social policy.There were little hard data, however, on how often orwhy null results were squelched. “Yes, it’s true thatnull results are not as exciting,” political scientistGary King of Harvard University says. “But I suspectanother reason they are rarely published is that thereare many, many ways to produce null results bymessing up. So they are much harder to interpret.”In a recent study, Stanford political economistNeil Malhotra and two of his graduate studentsexamined every study since 2002 that was funded bya competitive grants program called TESS(Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences).TESS allows scientists to order up Internet-basedsurveys of a representative sample of US adults to testa particular hypothesis (for example, whether voterstend to favor legislators who boast of 

bringing federaldollars to their districts over those who tout a focuson policy matters).Malhotra’s team tracked down working papersfrom most of the experiments that weren’t published,and for the rest asked grantees what had happened totheir results. In their e-mailed responses, somescientists cited deeper problems with a study or morepressing matters—but many also believed thejournals just wouldn’t be interested. “Theunfortunate reality of the publishing world [is] thatnull effects do not tell a clear story,” said onescientist. Said another, “Never published, definitelydisappointed to not see any major effects.”Their answers suggest to Malhotra that rescuingfindings from the file drawer will require a shift inexpectations. “What needs to change is theculture—the author’s belief about what will happen ifthe research is written up,” he says.Not unexpectedly, the statistical strength of thefindings made a huge difference in whether theywere ever published. Overall, 42% of the experiments produced statistically significant results. Of those,62% were ultimately published, compared with 21%of the null results. However, the Stanford team wassurprised that researchers didn’t even write up65% of the experiments that yielded a null finding.Scientists not involved in the study praise its“clever” design. “It’s a very important paper” that“starts to put numbers on things we want tounderstand,” says economist Edward Miguel of theUniversity of California, Berkeley.He and others note that the bias against nullstudies can waste time and money when researchersdevise new studies replicating strategies alreadyfound to be ineffective. Worse, if researchers publishsignificant results from similar experiments in thefuture, they could look stronger than they shouldbecause the earlier null studies are ignored. Evenmore troubling to Malhotra was the fact that twoscientists whose initial studies “didn’t work out”went on to publish results based on a smaller sample.“The non-TESS version of the same study, in whichwe used a student sample, did yield fruit,” noted oneinvestigator.A registry for data generated by all experimentswould address these problems, the authors argue.They say it should also include a “preanalysis” plan,that is, a detailed description of what the scientisthopes to achieve and how the data will be analyzed.Such plans would help deter researchers fromtweaking their analyses after the data are collected in search of more publishable results.

The question of what to do with nullresults—when researchers fail to see an effect thatshould be detectable—has long been hotly debatedamong those conducting medical trials, where theresults can have a big impact on lives and corporatebottom lines. More recently, the debate has spread tothe social and behavioral sciences, which also havethe potential to sway public and social policy.There were little hard data, however, on how often orwhy null results were squelched. “Yes, it’s true thatnull results are not as exciting,” political scientistGary King of Harvard University says. “But I suspectanother reason they are rarely published is that thereare many, many ways to produce null results bymessing up. So they are much harder to interpret.”In a recent study, Stanford political economistNeil Malhotra and two of his graduate studentsexamined every study since 2002 that was funded bya competitive grants program called TESS(Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences).TESS allows scientists to order up Internet-basedsurveys of a representative sample of US adults to testa particular hypothesis (for example, whether voterstend to favor legislators who boast of 

bringing federaldollars to their districts over those who tout a focuson policy matters).Malhotra’s team tracked down working papersfrom most of the experiments that weren’t published,and for the rest asked grantees what had happened totheir results. In their e-mailed responses, somescientists cited deeper problems with a study or morepressing matters—but many also believed thejournals just wouldn’t be interested. “Theunfortunate reality of the publishing world [is] thatnull effects do not tell a clear story,” said onescientist. Said another, “Never published, definitelydisappointed to not see any major effects.”Their answers suggest to Malhotra that rescuingfindings from the file drawer will require a shift inexpectations. “What needs to change is theculture—the author’s belief about what will happen ifthe research is written up,” he says.Not unexpectedly, the statistical strength of thefindings made a huge difference in whether theywere ever published. Overall, 42% of the experiments produced statistically significant results. Of those,62% were ultimately published, compared with 21%of the null results. However, the Stanford team wassurprised that researchers didn’t even write up65% of the experiments that yielded a null finding.Scientists not involved in the study praise its“clever” design. “It’s a very important paper” that“starts to put numbers on things we want tounderstand,” says economist Edward Miguel of theUniversity of California, Berkeley.He and others note that the bias against nullstudies can waste time and money when researchersdevise new studies replicating strategies alreadyfound to be ineffective. Worse, if researchers publishsignificant results from similar experiments in thefuture, they could look stronger than they shouldbecause the earlier null studies are ignored. Evenmore troubling to Malhotra was the fact that twoscientists whose initial studies “didn’t work out”went on to publish results based on a smaller sample.“The non-TESS version of the same study, in whichwe used a student sample, did yield fruit,” noted oneinvestigator.A registry for data generated by all experimentswould address these problems, the authors argue.They say it should also include a “preanalysis” plan,that is, a detailed description of what the scientisthopes to achieve and how the data will be analyzed.Such plans would help deter researchers fromtweaking their analyses after the data are collected in search of more publishable results.

The question of what to do with nullresults—when researchers fail to see an effect thatshould be detectable—has long been hotly debatedamong those conducting medical trials, where theresults can have a big impact on lives and corporatebottom lines. More recently, the debate has spread tothe social and behavioral sciences, which also havethe potential to sway public and social policy.There were little hard data, however, on how often orwhy null results were squelched. “Yes, it’s true thatnull results are not as exciting,” political scientistGary King of Harvard University says. “But I suspectanother reason they are rarely published is that thereare many, many ways to produce null results bymessing up. So they are much harder to interpret.”In a recent study, Stanford political economistNeil Malhotra and two of his graduate studentsexamined every study since 2002 that was funded bya competitive grants program called TESS(Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences).TESS allows scientists to order up Internet-basedsurveys of a representative sample of US adults to testa particular hypothesis (for example, whether voterstend to favor legislators who boast of 

bringing federaldollars to their districts over those who tout a focuson policy matters).Malhotra’s team tracked down working papersfrom most of the experiments that weren’t published,and for the rest asked grantees what had happened totheir results. In their e-mailed responses, somescientists cited deeper problems with a study or morepressing matters—but many also believed thejournals just wouldn’t be interested. “Theunfortunate reality of the publishing world [is] thatnull effects do not tell a clear story,” said onescientist. Said another, “Never published, definitelydisappointed to not see any major effects.”Their answers suggest to Malhotra that rescuingfindings from the file drawer will require a shift inexpectations. “What needs to change is theculture—the author’s belief about what will happen ifthe research is written up,” he says.Not unexpectedly, the statistical strength of thefindings made a huge difference in whether theywere ever published. Overall, 42% of the experiments produced statistically significant results. Of those,62% were ultimately published, compared with 21%of the null results. However, the Stanford team wassurprised that researchers didn’t even write up65% of the experiments that yielded a null finding.Scientists not involved in the study praise its“clever” design. “It’s a very important paper” that“starts to put numbers on things we want tounderstand,” says economist Edward Miguel of theUniversity of California, Berkeley.He and others note that the bias against nullstudies can waste time and money when researchersdevise new studies replicating strategies alreadyfound to be ineffective. Worse, if researchers publishsignificant results from similar experiments in thefuture, they could look stronger than they shouldbecause the earlier null studies are ignored. Evenmore troubling to Malhotra was the fact that twoscientists whose initial studies “didn’t work out”went on to publish results based on a smaller sample.“The non-TESS version of the same study, in whichwe used a student sample, did yield fruit,” noted oneinvestigator.A registry for data generated by all experimentswould address these problems, the authors argue.They say it should also include a “preanalysis” plan,that is, a detailed description of what the scientisthopes to achieve and how the data will be analyzed.Such plans would help deter researchers fromtweaking their analyses after the data are collected in search of more publishable results.

The question of what to do with nullresults—when researchers fail to see an effect thatshould be detectable—has long been hotly debatedamong those conducting medical trials, where theresults can have a big impact on lives and corporatebottom lines. More recently, the debate has spread tothe social and behavioral sciences, which also havethe potential to sway public and social policy.There were little hard data, however, on how often orwhy null results were squelched. “Yes, it’s true thatnull results are not as exciting,” political scientistGary King of Harvard University says. “But I suspectanother reason they are rarely published is that thereare many, many ways to produce null results bymessing up. So they are much harder to interpret.”In a recent study, Stanford political economistNeil Malhotra and two of his graduate studentsexamined every study since 2002 that was funded bya competitive grants program called TESS(Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences).TESS allows scientists to order up Internet-basedsurveys of a representative sample of US adults to testa particular hypothesis (for example, whether voterstend to favor legislators who boast of 

bringing federaldollars to their districts over those who tout a focuson policy matters).Malhotra’s team tracked down working papersfrom most of the experiments that weren’t published,and for the rest asked grantees what had happened totheir results. In their e-mailed responses, somescientists cited deeper problems with a study or morepressing matters—but many also believed thejournals just wouldn’t be interested. “Theunfortunate reality of the publishing world [is] thatnull effects do not tell a clear story,” said onescientist. Said another, “Never published, definitelydisappointed to not see any major effects.”Their answers suggest to Malhotra that rescuingfindings from the file drawer will require a shift inexpectations. “What needs to change is theculture—the author’s belief about what will happen ifthe research is written up,” he says.Not unexpectedly, the statistical strength of thefindings made a huge difference in whether theywere ever published. Overall, 42% of the experiments produced statistically significant results. Of those,62% were ultimately published, compared with 21%of the null results. However, the Stanford team wassurprised that researchers didn’t even write up65% of the experiments that yielded a null finding.Scientists not involved in the study praise its“clever” design. “It’s a very important paper” that“starts to put numbers on things we want tounderstand,” says economist Edward Miguel of theUniversity of California, Berkeley.He and others note that the bias against nullstudies can waste time and money when researchersdevise new studies replicating strategies alreadyfound to be ineffective. Worse, if researchers publishsignificant results from similar experiments in thefuture, they could look stronger than they shouldbecause the earlier null studies are ignored. Evenmore troubling to Malhotra was the fact that twoscientists whose initial studies “didn’t work out”went on to publish results based on a smaller sample.“The non-TESS version of the same study, in whichwe used a student sample, did yield fruit,” noted oneinvestigator.A registry for data generated by all experimentswould address these problems, the authors argue.They say it should also include a “preanalysis” plan,that is, a detailed description of what the scientisthopes to achieve and how the data will be analyzed.Such plans would help deter researchers fromtweaking their analyses after the data are collected in search of more publishable results.

The question of what to do with nullresults—when researchers fail to see an effect thatshould be detectable—has long been hotly debatedamong those conducting medical trials, where theresults can have a big impact on lives and corporatebottom lines. More recently, the debate has spread tothe social and behavioral sciences, which also havethe potential to sway public and social policy.There were little hard data, however, on how often orwhy null results were squelched. “Yes, it’s true thatnull results are not as exciting,” political scientistGary King of Harvard University says. “But I suspectanother reason they are rarely published is that thereare many, many ways to produce null results bymessing up. So they are much harder to interpret.”In a recent study, Stanford political economistNeil Malhotra and two of his graduate studentsexamined every study since 2002 that was funded bya competitive grants program called TESS(Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences).TESS allows scientists to order up Internet-basedsurveys of a representative sample of US adults to testa particular hypothesis (for example, whether voterstend to favor legislators who boast of 

bringing federaldollars to their districts over those who tout a focuson policy matters).Malhotra’s team tracked down working papersfrom most of the experiments that weren’t published,and for the rest asked grantees what had happened totheir results. In their e-mailed responses, somescientists cited deeper problems with a study or morepressing matters—but many also believed thejournals just wouldn’t be interested. “Theunfortunate reality of the publishing world [is] thatnull effects do not tell a clear story,” said onescientist. Said another, “Never published, definitelydisappointed to not see any major effects.”Their answers suggest to Malhotra that rescuingfindings from the file drawer will require a shift inexpectations. “What needs to change is theculture—the author’s belief about what will happen ifthe research is written up,” he says.Not unexpectedly, the statistical strength of thefindings made a huge difference in whether theywere ever published. Overall, 42% of the experiments produced statistically significant results. Of those,62% were ultimately published, compared with 21%of the null results. However, the Stanford team wassurprised that researchers didn’t even write up65% of the experiments that yielded a null finding.Scientists not involved in the study praise its“clever” design. “It’s a very important paper” that“starts to put numbers on things we want tounderstand,” says economist Edward Miguel of theUniversity of California, Berkeley.He and others note that the bias against nullstudies can waste time and money when researchersdevise new studies replicating strategies alreadyfound to be ineffective. Worse, if researchers publishsignificant results from similar experiments in thefuture, they could look stronger than they shouldbecause the earlier null studies are ignored. Evenmore troubling to Malhotra was the fact that twoscientists whose initial studies “didn’t work out”went on to publish results based on a smaller sample.“The non-TESS version of the same study, in whichwe used a student sample, did yield fruit,” noted oneinvestigator.A registry for data generated by all experimentswould address these problems, the authors argue.They say it should also include a “preanalysis” plan,that is, a detailed description of what the scientisthopes to achieve and how the data will be analyzed.Such plans would help deter researchers fromtweaking their analyses after the data are collected in search of more publishable results.

Inflexible old salt becomes a softy in thenanoworld, stretching like taffy to more than twiceits length, researchers report. The findings may leadto new approaches for making nanowires that couldend up in solar cells or electronic circuits. The workalso suggests that these ultra-tiny salt wires mayalready exist in sea spray and large underground saltdeposits.“We think nanowires are special and go to greatlengths to make them,” says study coauthorNathan Moore of Sandia National Laboratories inAlbuquerque. “Maybe they are more common thanwe think.”Metals such as gold or lead, in which bondingangles are loosey-goosey, can stretch out attemperatures well below their melting points.But scientists don’t expect this superplasticity in arigid, crystalline material like salt, Moore says.This unusual behavior highlights that differentforces rule the nanoworld, says theoretical physicistKrzysztof Kempa of Boston College. “Forget aboutgravity. It plays no role,” he says. Surface tension andelectrostatic forces are much more important at thisscale.Moore and his colleagues discovered salt’sstretchiness accidently. They were investigating howwater sticks to a surface such as salt and created asuper-dry salt sample for testing. After cleaving achunk of salt about the size of a sugar cube with arazor, the scientists guided a microscope that detectsforces toward the surface. When the tip was far awaythere was no measured force, but within about sevennanometers a very strong attraction rapidlydeveloped between the diamond tip of themicroscope and the salt. The salt actually stretchedout to glom on to the microscope tip. Using anelectron microscope to see what was happening, theresearchers observed the nanowires.The initial attraction between the tip and saltmight be due to electrostatic forces, perhaps good oldvan der Waals interactions,1 the researchers speculate. Several mechanisms might lead to theelasticity, including the excessive surface tensionfound in the nanoworld (the same tension that allowsa water strider to skim the surface of a pond).The surface tension is so strong that as themicroscope pulls away from the salt, the saltstretches, Kempa says. “The inside has no choice butto rearrange the atoms, rather than break,” he says.This bizarre behavior is actually mirrored in themacroworld, the researchers say. Huge undergrounddeposits of salt can bend like plastic, but water isbelieved to play a role at these scales. Perhaps saltynanowires are present in these deposits as well.“Sodium chloride2 is everywhere—in the air, inour bodies,” Moore says. “This may change our viewof things, of what’s happening at the nanoscale.”The work also suggests new techniques formaking nanowires, which are often created throughnano-imprinting techniques, Kempa says. “Weinvoke the intuition of the macroworld,” he says.“Maybe instead of stamping [nanowires] we shouldbe nano-pulling them.”

Inflexible old salt becomes a softy in thenanoworld, stretching like taffy to more than twiceits length, researchers report. The findings may leadto new approaches for making nanowires that couldend up in solar cells or electronic circuits. The workalso suggests that these ultra-tiny salt wires mayalready exist in sea spray and large underground saltdeposits.“We think nanowires are special and go to greatlengths to make them,” says study coauthorNathan Moore of Sandia National Laboratories inAlbuquerque. “Maybe they are more common thanwe think.”Metals such as gold or lead, in which bondingangles are loosey-goosey, can stretch out attemperatures well below their melting points.But scientists don’t expect this superplasticity in arigid, crystalline material like salt, Moore says.This unusual behavior highlights that differentforces rule the nanoworld, says theoretical physicistKrzysztof Kempa of Boston College. “Forget aboutgravity. It plays no role,” he says. Surface tension andelectrostatic forces are much more important at thisscale.Moore and his colleagues discovered salt’sstretchiness accidently. They were investigating howwater sticks to a surface such as salt and created asuper-dry salt sample for testing. After cleaving achunk of salt about the size of a sugar cube with arazor, the scientists guided a microscope that detectsforces toward the surface. When the tip was far awaythere was no measured force, but within about sevennanometers a very strong attraction rapidlydeveloped between the diamond tip of themicroscope and the salt. The salt actually stretchedout to glom on to the microscope tip. Using anelectron microscope to see what was happening, theresearchers observed the nanowires.The initial attraction between the tip and saltmight be due to electrostatic forces, perhaps good oldvan der Waals interactions,1 the researchers speculate. Several mechanisms might lead to theelasticity, including the excessive surface tensionfound in the nanoworld (the same tension that allowsa water strider to skim the surface of a pond).The surface tension is so strong that as themicroscope pulls away from the salt, the saltstretches, Kempa says. “The inside has no choice butto rearrange the atoms, rather than break,” he says.This bizarre behavior is actually mirrored in themacroworld, the researchers say. Huge undergrounddeposits of salt can bend like plastic, but water isbelieved to play a role at these scales. Perhaps saltynanowires are present in these deposits as well.“Sodium chloride2 is everywhere—in the air, inour bodies,” Moore says. “This may change our viewof things, of what’s happening at the nanoscale.”The work also suggests new techniques formaking nanowires, which are often created throughnano-imprinting techniques, Kempa says. “Weinvoke the intuition of the macroworld,” he says.“Maybe instead of stamping [nanowires] we shouldbe nano-pulling them.”

Inflexible old salt becomes a softy in thenanoworld, stretching like taffy to more than twiceits length, researchers report. The findings may leadto new approaches for making nanowires that couldend up in solar cells or electronic circuits. The workalso suggests that these ultra-tiny salt wires mayalready exist in sea spray and large underground saltdeposits.“We think nanowires are special and go to greatlengths to make them,” says study coauthorNathan Moore of Sandia National Laboratories inAlbuquerque. “Maybe they are more common thanwe think.”Metals such as gold or lead, in which bondingangles are loosey-goosey, can stretch out attemperatures well below their melting points.But scientists don’t expect this superplasticity in arigid, crystalline material like salt, Moore says.This unusual behavior highlights that differentforces rule the nanoworld, says theoretical physicistKrzysztof Kempa of Boston College. “Forget aboutgravity. It plays no role,” he says. Surface tension andelectrostatic forces are much more important at thisscale.Moore and his colleagues discovered salt’sstretchiness accidently. They were investigating howwater sticks to a surface such as salt and created asuper-dry salt sample for testing. After cleaving achunk of salt about the size of a sugar cube with arazor, the scientists guided a microscope that detectsforces toward the surface. When the tip was far awaythere was no measured force, but within about sevennanometers a very strong attraction rapidlydeveloped between the diamond tip of themicroscope and the salt. The salt actually stretchedout to glom on to the microscope tip. Using anelectron microscope to see what was happening, theresearchers observed the nanowires.The initial attraction between the tip and saltmight be due to electrostatic forces, perhaps good oldvan der Waals interactions,1 the researchers speculate. Several mechanisms might lead to theelasticity, including the excessive surface tensionfound in the nanoworld (the same tension that allowsa water strider to skim the surface of a pond).The surface tension is so strong that as themicroscope pulls away from the salt, the saltstretches, Kempa says. “The inside has no choice butto rearrange the atoms, rather than break,” he says.This bizarre behavior is actually mirrored in themacroworld, the researchers say. Huge undergrounddeposits of salt can bend like plastic, but water isbelieved to play a role at these scales. Perhaps saltynanowires are present in these deposits as well.“Sodium chloride2 is everywhere—in the air, inour bodies,” Moore says. “This may change our viewof things, of what’s happening at the nanoscale.”The work also suggests new techniques formaking nanowires, which are often created throughnano-imprinting techniques, Kempa says. “Weinvoke the intuition of the macroworld,” he says.“Maybe instead of stamping [nanowires] we shouldbe nano-pulling them.”

Inflexible old salt becomes a softy in thenanoworld, stretching like taffy to more than twiceits length, researchers report. The findings may leadto new approaches for making nanowires that couldend up in solar cells or electronic circuits. The workalso suggests that these ultra-tiny salt wires mayalready exist in sea spray and large underground saltdeposits.“We think nanowires are special and go to greatlengths to make them,” says study coauthorNathan Moore of Sandia National Laboratories inAlbuquerque. “Maybe they are more common thanwe think.”Metals such as gold or lead, in which bondingangles are loosey-goosey, can stretch out attemperatures well below their melting points.But scientists don’t expect this superplasticity in arigid, crystalline material like salt, Moore says.This unusual behavior highlights that differentforces rule the nanoworld, says theoretical physicistKrzysztof Kempa of Boston College. “Forget aboutgravity. It plays no role,” he says. Surface tension andelectrostatic forces are much more important at thisscale.Moore and his colleagues discovered salt’sstretchiness accidently. They were investigating howwater sticks to a surface such as salt and created asuper-dry salt sample for testing. After cleaving achunk of salt about the size of a sugar cube with arazor, the scientists guided a microscope that detectsforces toward the surface. When the tip was far awaythere was no measured force, but within about sevennanometers a very strong attraction rapidlydeveloped between the diamond tip of themicroscope and the salt. The salt actually stretchedout to glom on to the microscope tip. Using anelectron microscope to see what was happening, theresearchers observed the nanowires.The initial attraction between the tip and saltmight be due to electrostatic forces, perhaps good oldvan der Waals interactions,1 the researchers speculate. Several mechanisms might lead to theelasticity, including the excessive surface tensionfound in the nanoworld (the same tension that allowsa water strider to skim the surface of a pond).The surface tension is so strong that as themicroscope pulls away from the salt, the saltstretches, Kempa says. “The inside has no choice butto rearrange the atoms, rather than break,” he says.This bizarre behavior is actually mirrored in themacroworld, the researchers say. Huge undergrounddeposits of salt can bend like plastic, but water isbelieved to play a role at these scales. Perhaps saltynanowires are present in these deposits as well.“Sodium chloride2 is everywhere—in the air, inour bodies,” Moore says. “This may change our viewof things, of what’s happening at the nanoscale.”The work also suggests new techniques formaking nanowires, which are often created throughnano-imprinting techniques, Kempa says. “Weinvoke the intuition of the macroworld,” he says.“Maybe instead of stamping [nanowires] we shouldbe nano-pulling them.”

Inflexible old salt becomes a softy in thenanoworld, stretching like taffy to more than twiceits length, researchers report. The findings may leadto new approaches for making nanowires that couldend up in solar cells or electronic circuits. The workalso suggests that these ultra-tiny salt wires mayalready exist in sea spray and large underground saltdeposits.“We think nanowires are special and go to greatlengths to make them,” says study coauthorNathan Moore of Sandia National Laboratories inAlbuquerque. “Maybe they are more common thanwe think.”Metals such as gold or lead, in which bondingangles are loosey-goosey, can stretch out attemperatures well below their melting points.But scientists don’t expect this superplasticity in arigid, crystalline material like salt, Moore says.This unusual behavior highlights that differentforces rule the nanoworld, says theoretical physicistKrzysztof Kempa of Boston College. “Forget aboutgravity. It plays no role,” he says. Surface tension andelectrostatic forces are much more important at thisscale.Moore and his colleagues discovered salt’sstretchiness accidently. They were investigating howwater sticks to a surface such as salt and created asuper-dry salt sample for testing. After cleaving achunk of salt about the size of a sugar cube with arazor, the scientists guided a microscope that detectsforces toward the surface. When the tip was far awaythere was no measured force, but within about sevennanometers a very strong attraction rapidlydeveloped between the diamond tip of themicroscope and the salt. The salt actually stretchedout to glom on to the microscope tip. Using anelectron microscope to see what was happening, theresearchers observed the nanowires.The initial attraction between the tip and saltmight be due to electrostatic forces, perhaps good oldvan der Waals interactions,1 the researchers speculate. Several mechanisms might lead to theelasticity, including the excessive surface tensionfound in the nanoworld (the same tension that allowsa water strider to skim the surface of a pond).The surface tension is so strong that as themicroscope pulls away from the salt, the saltstretches, Kempa says. “The inside has no choice butto rearrange the atoms, rather than break,” he says.This bizarre behavior is actually mirrored in themacroworld, the researchers say. Huge undergrounddeposits of salt can bend like plastic, but water isbelieved to play a role at these scales. Perhaps saltynanowires are present in these deposits as well.“Sodium chloride2 is everywhere—in the air, inour bodies,” Moore says. “This may change our viewof things, of what’s happening at the nanoscale.”The work also suggests new techniques formaking nanowires, which are often created throughnano-imprinting techniques, Kempa says. “Weinvoke the intuition of the macroworld,” he says.“Maybe instead of stamping [nanowires] we shouldbe nano-pulling them.”

Inflexible old salt becomes a softy in thenanoworld, stretching like taffy to more than twiceits length, researchers report. The findings may leadto new approaches for making nanowires that couldend up in solar cells or electronic circuits. The workalso suggests that these ultra-tiny salt wires mayalready exist in sea spray and large underground saltdeposits.“We think nanowires are special and go to greatlengths to make them,” says study coauthorNathan Moore of Sandia National Laboratories inAlbuquerque. “Maybe they are more common thanwe think.”Metals such as gold or lead, in which bondingangles are loosey-goosey, can stretch out attemperatures well below their melting points.But scientists don’t expect this superplasticity in arigid, crystalline material like salt, Moore says.This unusual behavior highlights that differentforces rule the nanoworld, says theoretical physicistKrzysztof Kempa of Boston College. “Forget aboutgravity. It plays no role,” he says. Surface tension andelectrostatic forces are much more important at thisscale.Moore and his colleagues discovered salt’sstretchiness accidently. They were investigating howwater sticks to a surface such as salt and created asuper-dry salt sample for testing. After cleaving achunk of salt about the size of a sugar cube with arazor, the scientists guided a microscope that detectsforces toward the surface. When the tip was far awaythere was no measured force, but within about sevennanometers a very strong attraction rapidlydeveloped between the diamond tip of themicroscope and the salt. The salt actually stretchedout to glom on to the microscope tip. Using anelectron microscope to see what was happening, theresearchers observed the nanowires.The initial attraction between the tip and saltmight be due to electrostatic forces, perhaps good oldvan der Waals interactions,1 the researchers speculate. Several mechanisms might lead to theelasticity, including the excessive surface tensionfound in the nanoworld (the same tension that allowsa water strider to skim the surface of a pond).The surface tension is so strong that as themicroscope pulls away from the salt, the saltstretches, Kempa says. “The inside has no choice butto rearrange the atoms, rather than break,” he says.This bizarre behavior is actually mirrored in themacroworld, the researchers say. Huge undergrounddeposits of salt can bend like plastic, but water isbelieved to play a role at these scales. Perhaps saltynanowires are present in these deposits as well.“Sodium chloride2 is everywhere—in the air, inour bodies,” Moore says. “This may change our viewof things, of what’s happening at the nanoscale.”The work also suggests new techniques formaking nanowires, which are often created throughnano-imprinting techniques, Kempa says. “Weinvoke the intuition of the macroworld,” he says.“Maybe instead of stamping [nanowires] we shouldbe nano-pulling them.”

Inflexible old salt becomes a softy in thenanoworld, stretching like taffy to more than twiceits length, researchers report. The findings may leadto new approaches for making nanowires that couldend up in solar cells or electronic circuits. The workalso suggests that these ultra-tiny salt wires mayalready exist in sea spray and large underground saltdeposits.“We think nanowires are special and go to greatlengths to make them,” says study coauthorNathan Moore of Sandia National Laboratories inAlbuquerque. “Maybe they are more common thanwe think.”Metals such as gold or lead, in which bondingangles are loosey-goosey, can stretch out attemperatures well below their melting points.But scientists don’t expect this superplasticity in arigid, crystalline material like salt, Moore says.This unusual behavior highlights that differentforces rule the nanoworld, says theoretical physicistKrzysztof Kempa of Boston College. “Forget aboutgravity. It plays no role,” he says. Surface tension andelectrostatic forces are much more important at thisscale.Moore and his colleagues discovered salt’sstretchiness accidently. They were investigating howwater sticks to a surface such as salt and created asuper-dry salt sample for testing. After cleaving achunk of salt about the size of a sugar cube with arazor, the scientists guided a microscope that detectsforces toward the surface. When the tip was far awaythere was no measured force, but within about sevennanometers a very strong attraction rapidlydeveloped between the diamond tip of themicroscope and the salt. The salt actually stretchedout to glom on to the microscope tip. Using anelectron microscope to see what was happening, theresearchers observed the nanowires.The initial attraction between the tip and saltmight be due to electrostatic forces, perhaps good oldvan der Waals interactions,1 the researchers speculate. Several mechanisms might lead to theelasticity, including the excessive surface tensionfound in the nanoworld (the same tension that allowsa water strider to skim the surface of a pond).The surface tension is so strong that as themicroscope pulls away from the salt, the saltstretches, Kempa says. “The inside has no choice butto rearrange the atoms, rather than break,” he says.This bizarre behavior is actually mirrored in themacroworld, the researchers say. Huge undergrounddeposits of salt can bend like plastic, but water isbelieved to play a role at these scales. Perhaps saltynanowires are present in these deposits as well.“Sodium chloride2 is everywhere—in the air, inour bodies,” Moore says. “This may change our viewof things, of what’s happening at the nanoscale.”The work also suggests new techniques formaking nanowires, which are often created throughnano-imprinting techniques, Kempa says. “Weinvoke the intuition of the macroworld,” he says.“Maybe instead of stamping [nanowires] we shouldbe nano-pulling them.”

Inflexible old salt becomes a softy in thenanoworld, stretching like taffy to more than twiceits length, researchers report. The findings may leadto new approaches for making nanowires that couldend up in solar cells or electronic circuits. The workalso suggests that these ultra-tiny salt wires mayalready exist in sea spray and large underground saltdeposits.“We think nanowires are special and go to greatlengths to make them,” says study coauthorNathan Moore of Sandia National Laboratories inAlbuquerque. “Maybe they are more common thanwe think.”Metals such as gold or lead, in which bondingangles are loosey-goosey, can stretch out attemperatures well below their melting points.But scientists don’t expect this superplasticity in arigid, crystalline material like salt, Moore says.This unusual behavior highlights that differentforces rule the nanoworld, says theoretical physicistKrzysztof Kempa of Boston College. “Forget aboutgravity. It plays no role,” he says. Surface tension andelectrostatic forces are much more important at thisscale.Moore and his colleagues discovered salt’sstretchiness accidently. They were investigating howwater sticks to a surface such as salt and created asuper-dry salt sample for testing. After cleaving achunk of salt about the size of a sugar cube with arazor, the scientists guided a microscope that detectsforces toward the surface. When the tip was far awaythere was no measured force, but within about sevennanometers a very strong attraction rapidlydeveloped between the diamond tip of themicroscope and the salt. The salt actually stretchedout to glom on to the microscope tip. Using anelectron microscope to see what was happening, theresearchers observed the nanowires.The initial attraction between the tip and saltmight be due to electrostatic forces, perhaps good oldvan der Waals interactions,1 the researchers speculate. Several mechanisms might lead to theelasticity, including the excessive surface tensionfound in the nanoworld (the same tension that allowsa water strider to skim the surface of a pond).The surface tension is so strong that as themicroscope pulls away from the salt, the saltstretches, Kempa says. “The inside has no choice butto rearrange the atoms, rather than break,” he says.This bizarre behavior is actually mirrored in themacroworld, the researchers say. Huge undergrounddeposits of salt can bend like plastic, but water isbelieved to play a role at these scales. Perhaps saltynanowires are present in these deposits as well.“Sodium chloride2 is everywhere—in the air, inour bodies,” Moore says. “This may change our viewof things, of what’s happening at the nanoscale.”The work also suggests new techniques formaking nanowires, which are often created throughnano-imprinting techniques, Kempa says. “Weinvoke the intuition of the macroworld,” he says.“Maybe instead of stamping [nanowires] we shouldbe nano-pulling them.”

Inflexible old salt becomes a softy in thenanoworld, stretching like taffy to more than twiceits length, researchers report. The findings may leadto new approaches for making nanowires that couldend up in solar cells or electronic circuits. The workalso suggests that these ultra-tiny salt wires mayalready exist in sea spray and large underground saltdeposits.“We think nanowires are special and go to greatlengths to make them,” says study coauthorNathan Moore of Sandia National Laboratories inAlbuquerque. “Maybe they are more common thanwe think.”Metals such as gold or lead, in which bondingangles are loosey-goosey, can stretch out attemperatures well below their melting points.But scientists don’t expect this superplasticity in arigid, crystalline material like salt, Moore says.This unusual behavior highlights that differentforces rule the nanoworld, says theoretical physicistKrzysztof Kempa of Boston College. “Forget aboutgravity. It plays no role,” he says. Surface tension andelectrostatic forces are much more important at thisscale.Moore and his colleagues discovered salt’sstretchiness accidently. They were investigating howwater sticks to a surface such as salt and created asuper-dry salt sample for testing. After cleaving achunk of salt about the size of a sugar cube with arazor, the scientists guided a microscope that detectsforces toward the surface. When the tip was far awaythere was no measured force, but within about sevennanometers a very strong attraction rapidlydeveloped between the diamond tip of themicroscope and the salt. The salt actually stretchedout to glom on to the microscope tip. Using anelectron microscope to see what was happening, theresearchers observed the nanowires.The initial attraction between the tip and saltmight be due to electrostatic forces, perhaps good oldvan der Waals interactions,1 the researchers speculate. Several mechanisms might lead to theelasticity, including the excessive surface tensionfound in the nanoworld (the same tension that allowsa water strider to skim the surface of a pond).The surface tension is so strong that as themicroscope pulls away from the salt, the saltstretches, Kempa says. “The inside has no choice butto rearrange the atoms, rather than break,” he says.This bizarre behavior is actually mirrored in themacroworld, the researchers say. Huge undergrounddeposits of salt can bend like plastic, but water isbelieved to play a role at these scales. Perhaps saltynanowires are present in these deposits as well.“Sodium chloride2 is everywhere—in the air, inour bodies,” Moore says. “This may change our viewof things, of what’s happening at the nanoscale.”The work also suggests new techniques formaking nanowires, which are often created throughnano-imprinting techniques, Kempa says. “Weinvoke the intuition of the macroworld,” he says.“Maybe instead of stamping [nanowires] we shouldbe nano-pulling them.”

Inflexible old salt becomes a softy in thenanoworld, stretching like taffy to more than twiceits length, researchers report. The findings may leadto new approaches for making nanowires that couldend up in solar cells or electronic circuits. The workalso suggests that these ultra-tiny salt wires mayalready exist in sea spray and large underground saltdeposits.“We think nanowires are special and go to greatlengths to make them,” says study coauthorNathan Moore of Sandia National Laboratories inAlbuquerque. “Maybe they are more common thanwe think.”Metals such as gold or lead, in which bondingangles are loosey-goosey, can stretch out attemperatures well below their melting points.But scientists don’t expect this superplasticity in arigid, crystalline material like salt, Moore says.This unusual behavior highlights that differentforces rule the nanoworld, says theoretical physicistKrzysztof Kempa of Boston College. “Forget aboutgravity. It plays no role,” he says. Surface tension andelectrostatic forces are much more important at thisscale.Moore and his colleagues discovered salt’sstretchiness accidently. They were investigating howwater sticks to a surface such as salt and created asuper-dry salt sample for testing. After cleaving achunk of salt about the size of a sugar cube with arazor, the scientists guided a microscope that detectsforces toward the surface. When the tip was far awaythere was no measured force, but within about sevennanometers a very strong attraction rapidlydeveloped between the diamond tip of themicroscope and the salt. The salt actually stretchedout to glom on to the microscope tip. Using anelectron microscope to see what was happening, theresearchers observed the nanowires.The initial attraction between the tip and saltmight be due to electrostatic forces, perhaps good oldvan der Waals interactions,1 the researchers speculate. Several mechanisms might lead to theelasticity, including the excessive surface tensionfound in the nanoworld (the same tension that allowsa water strider to skim the surface of a pond).The surface tension is so strong that as themicroscope pulls away from the salt, the saltstretches, Kempa says. “The inside has no choice butto rearrange the atoms, rather than break,” he says.This bizarre behavior is actually mirrored in themacroworld, the researchers say. Huge undergrounddeposits of salt can bend like plastic, but water isbelieved to play a role at these scales. Perhaps saltynanowires are present in these deposits as well.“Sodium chloride2 is everywhere—in the air, inour bodies,” Moore says. “This may change our viewof things, of what’s happening at the nanoscale.”The work also suggests new techniques formaking nanowires, which are often created throughnano-imprinting techniques, Kempa says. “Weinvoke the intuition of the macroworld,” he says.“Maybe instead of stamping [nanowires] we shouldbe nano-pulling them.”

Passage 1Mr. Lincoln likens that bond of the FederalConstitution, joining Free and Slave States together,to a house divided against itself, and says that it iscontrary to the law of God, and cannot stand.When did he learn, and by what authority does heproclaim, that this Government is contrary to the lawof God and cannot stand? It has stood thus dividedinto Free and Slave States from its organization up tothis day. During that period we have increased fromfour millions to thirty millions of people; we haveextended our territory from the Mississippi to thePacific Ocean; we have acquired the Floridas andTexas, and other territory sufficient to double ourgeographical extent; we have increased in population,in wealth, and in power beyond any example onearth; we have risen from a weak and feeble power tobecome the terror and admiration of the civilizedworld; and all this has been done under aConstitution which Mr. Lincoln, in substance, says isin violation of the law of God; and under a Uniondivided into Free and Slave States, which Mr. Lincolnthinks, because of such division, cannot stand.Surely, Mr. Lincoln is a wiser man than those whoframed the Government....I now come back to the question, why cannot thisUnion exist forever, divided into Free and SlaveStates, as our fathers made it? It can thus exist if eachState will carry out the principles upon which ourinstitutions were founded; to wit, the right of eachState to do as it pleases, without meddling with itsneighbors. Just act upon that great principle, and thisUnion will not only live forever, but it will extendand expand until it covers the whole continent, andmakes this confederacy one grand, ocean-boundRepublic. We must bear in mind that we are yet ayoung nation, growing with a rapidity unequalled inthe history of the world, that our national increase isgreat, and that the emigration from the old world isincreasing, requiring us to expand and acquire newterritory from time to time, in order to give ourpeople land to live upon. If we live upon the principleof State rights and State sovereignty, each Stateregulating its own affairs and minding its ownbusiness, we can go on and extend indefinitely, justas fast and as far as we need the territory....Passage 2In complaining of what I said in my speech atSpringfield, in which he says I accepted mynomination for the Senatorship . . . he again quotesthat portion in which I said that “a house dividedagainst itself cannot stand.” Let me say a word inregard to that matter. He tries to persuade us thatthere must be a variety in the different institutions ofthe States of the Union; that that variety necessarilyproceeds from the variety of soil, climate, of the faceof the country, and the difference in the naturalfeatures of the States. I agree to all that. Have thesevery matters ever produced any difficulty among us?Not at all. Have we ever had any quarrel over the factthat they have laws in Louisiana designed to regulatethe commerce that springs from the production ofsugar? Or because we have a different class relative tothe production of flour in this State? Have theyproduced any differences? Not at all. They are thevery cements of this Union. They don’t make thehouse a “house divided against itself.” They are theprops that hold up the house and sustain the Union.But has it been so with this element of slavery?Have we not always had quarrels and difficulties overit? And when will we cease to have quarrels over it?Like causes produce like effects. It is worth while toobserve that we have generally had comparativepeace upon the slavery question, and that there hasbeen no cause for alarm until it was excited by theeffort to spread it into new territory. Whenever it hasbeen limited to its present bounds, and there hasbeen no effort to spread it, there has been peace. Allthe trouble and convulsion has proceeded fromefforts to spread it over more territory. It was thus atthe date of the Missouri Compromise. It was so againwith the annexation of Texas; so with the territoryacquired by the Mexican War; and it is so now.Whenever there has been an effort to spread it therehas been agitation and resistance. . . . Do you thinkthat the nature of man will be changed, that the samecauses that produced agitation at one time will nothave the same effect at another?

Passage 1Mr. Lincoln likens that bond of the FederalConstitution, joining Free and Slave States together,to a house divided against itself, and says that it iscontrary to the law of God, and cannot stand.When did he learn, and by what authority does heproclaim, that this Government is contrary to the lawof God and cannot stand? It has stood thus dividedinto Free and Slave States from its organization up tothis day. During that period we have increased fromfour millions to thirty millions of people; we haveextended our territory from the Mississippi to thePacific Ocean; we have acquired the Floridas andTexas, and other territory sufficient to double ourgeographical extent; we have increased in population,in wealth, and in power beyond any example onearth; we have risen from a weak and feeble power tobecome the terror and admiration of the civilizedworld; and all this has been done under aConstitution which Mr. Lincoln, in substance, says isin violation of the law of God; and under a Uniondivided into Free and Slave States, which Mr. Lincolnthinks, because of such division, cannot stand.Surely, Mr. Lincoln is a wiser man than those whoframed the Government....I now come back to the question, why cannot thisUnion exist forever, divided into Free and SlaveStates, as our fathers made it? It can thus exist if eachState will carry out the principles upon which ourinstitutions were founded; to wit, the right of eachState to do as it pleases, without meddling with itsneighbors. Just act upon that great principle, and thisUnion will not only live forever, but it will extendand expand until it covers the whole continent, andmakes this confederacy one grand, ocean-boundRepublic. We must bear in mind that we are yet ayoung nation, growing with a rapidity unequalled inthe history of the world, that our national increase isgreat, and that the emigration from the old world isincreasing, requiring us to expand and acquire newterritory from time to time, in order to give ourpeople land to live upon. If we live upon the principleof State rights and State sovereignty, each Stateregulating its own affairs and minding its ownbusiness, we can go on and extend indefinitely, justas fast and as far as we need the territory....Passage 2In complaining of what I said in my speech atSpringfield, in which he says I accepted mynomination for the Senatorship . . . he again quotesthat portion in which I said that “a house dividedagainst itself cannot stand.” Let me say a word inregard to that matter. He tries to persuade us thatthere must be a variety in the different institutions ofthe States of the Union; that that variety necessarilyproceeds from the variety of soil, climate, of the faceof the country, and the difference in the naturalfeatures of the States. I agree to all that. Have thesevery matters ever produced any difficulty among us?Not at all. Have we ever had any quarrel over the factthat they have laws in Louisiana designed to regulatethe commerce that springs from the production ofsugar? Or because we have a different class relative tothe production of flour in this State? Have theyproduced any differences? Not at all. They are thevery cements of this Union. They don’t make thehouse a “house divided against itself.” They are theprops that hold up the house and sustain the Union.But has it been so with this element of slavery?Have we not always had quarrels and difficulties overit? And when will we cease to have quarrels over it?Like causes produce like effects. It is worth while toobserve that we have generally had comparativepeace upon the slavery question, and that there hasbeen no cause for alarm until it was excited by theeffort to spread it into new territory. Whenever it hasbeen limited to its present bounds, and there hasbeen no effort to spread it, there has been peace. Allthe trouble and convulsion has proceeded fromefforts to spread it over more territory. It was thus atthe date of the Missouri Compromise. It was so againwith the annexation of Texas; so with the territoryacquired by the Mexican War; and it is so now.Whenever there has been an effort to spread it therehas been agitation and resistance. . . . Do you thinkthat the nature of man will be changed, that the samecauses that produced agitation at one time will nothave the same effect at another?

Passage 1Mr. Lincoln likens that bond of the FederalConstitution, joining Free and Slave States together,to a house divided against itself, and says that it iscontrary to the law of God, and cannot stand.When did he learn, and by what authority does heproclaim, that this Government is contrary to the lawof God and cannot stand? It has stood thus dividedinto Free and Slave States from its organization up tothis day. During that period we have increased fromfour millions to thirty millions of people; we haveextended our territory from the Mississippi to thePacific Ocean; we have acquired the Floridas andTexas, and other territory sufficient to double ourgeographical extent; we have increased in population,in wealth, and in power beyond any example onearth; we have risen from a weak and feeble power tobecome the terror and admiration of the civilizedworld; and all this has been done under aConstitution which Mr. Lincoln, in substance, says isin violation of the law of God; and under a Uniondivided into Free and Slave States, which Mr. Lincolnthinks, because of such division, cannot stand.Surely, Mr. Lincoln is a wiser man than those whoframed the Government....I now come back to the question, why cannot thisUnion exist forever, divided into Free and SlaveStates, as our fathers made it? It can thus exist if eachState will carry out the principles upon which ourinstitutions were founded; to wit, the right of eachState to do as it pleases, without meddling with itsneighbors. Just act upon that great principle, and thisUnion will not only live forever, but it will extendand expand until it covers the whole continent, andmakes this confederacy one grand, ocean-boundRepublic. We must bear in mind that we are yet ayoung nation, growing with a rapidity unequalled inthe history of the world, that our national increase isgreat, and that the emigration from the old world isincreasing, requiring us to expand and acquire newterritory from time to time, in order to give ourpeople land to live upon. If we live upon the principleof State rights and State sovereignty, each Stateregulating its own affairs and minding its ownbusiness, we can go on and extend indefinitely, justas fast and as far as we need the territory....Passage 2In complaining of what I said in my speech atSpringfield, in which he says I accepted mynomination for the Senatorship . . . he again quotesthat portion in which I said that “a house dividedagainst itself cannot stand.” Let me say a word inregard to that matter. He tries to persuade us thatthere must be a variety in the different institutions ofthe States of the Union; that that variety necessarilyproceeds from the variety of soil, climate, of the faceof the country, and the difference in the naturalfeatures of the States. I agree to all that. Have thesevery matters ever produced any difficulty among us?Not at all. Have we ever had any quarrel over the factthat they have laws in Louisiana designed to regulatethe commerce that springs from the production ofsugar? Or because we have a different class relative tothe production of flour in this State? Have theyproduced any differences? Not at all. They are thevery cements of this Union. They don’t make thehouse a “house divided against itself.” They are theprops that hold up the house and sustain the Union.But has it been so with this element of slavery?Have we not always had quarrels and difficulties overit? And when will we cease to have quarrels over it?Like causes produce like effects. It is worth while toobserve that we have generally had comparativepeace upon the slavery question, and that there hasbeen no cause for alarm until it was excited by theeffort to spread it into new territory. Whenever it hasbeen limited to its present bounds, and there hasbeen no effort to spread it, there has been peace. Allthe trouble and convulsion has proceeded fromefforts to spread it over more territory. It was thus atthe date of the Missouri Compromise. It was so againwith the annexation of Texas; so with the territoryacquired by the Mexican War; and it is so now.Whenever there has been an effort to spread it therehas been agitation and resistance. . . . Do you thinkthat the nature of man will be changed, that the samecauses that produced agitation at one time will nothave the same effect at another?

Passage 1Mr. Lincoln likens that bond of the FederalConstitution, joining Free and Slave States together,to a house divided against itself, and says that it iscontrary to the law of God, and cannot stand.When did he learn, and by what authority does heproclaim, that this Government is contrary to the lawof God and cannot stand? It has stood thus dividedinto Free and Slave States from its organization up tothis day. During that period we have increased fromfour millions to thirty millions of people; we haveextended our territory from the Mississippi to thePacific Ocean; we have acquired the Floridas andTexas, and other territory sufficient to double ourgeographical extent; we have increased in population,in wealth, and in power beyond any example onearth; we have risen from a weak and feeble power tobecome the terror and admiration of the civilizedworld; and all this has been done under aConstitution which Mr. Lincoln, in substance, says isin violation of the law of God; and under a Uniondivided into Free and Slave States, which Mr. Lincolnthinks, because of such division, cannot stand.Surely, Mr. Lincoln is a wiser man than those whoframed the Government....I now come back to the question, why cannot thisUnion exist forever, divided into Free and SlaveStates, as our fathers made it? It can thus exist if eachState will carry out the principles upon which ourinstitutions were founded; to wit, the right of eachState to do as it pleases, without meddling with itsneighbors. Just act upon that great principle, and thisUnion will not only live forever, but it will extendand expand until it covers the whole continent, andmakes this confederacy one grand, ocean-boundRepublic. We must bear in mind that we are yet ayoung nation, growing with a rapidity unequalled inthe history of the world, that our national increase isgreat, and that the emigration from the old world isincreasing, requiring us to expand and acquire newterritory from time to time, in order to give ourpeople land to live upon. If we live upon the principleof State rights and State sovereignty, each Stateregulating its own affairs and minding its ownbusiness, we can go on and extend indefinitely, justas fast and as far as we need the territory....Passage 2In complaining of what I said in my speech atSpringfield, in which he says I accepted mynomination for the Senatorship . . . he again quotesthat portion in which I said that “a house dividedagainst itself cannot stand.” Let me say a word inregard to that matter. He tries to persuade us thatthere must be a variety in the different institutions ofthe States of the Union; that that variety necessarilyproceeds from the variety of soil, climate, of the faceof the country, and the difference in the naturalfeatures of the States. I agree to all that. Have thesevery matters ever produced any difficulty among us?Not at all. Have we ever had any quarrel over the factthat they have laws in Louisiana designed to regulatethe commerce that springs from the production ofsugar? Or because we have a different class relative tothe production of flour in this State? Have theyproduced any differences? Not at all. They are thevery cements of this Union. They don’t make thehouse a “house divided against itself.” They are theprops that hold up the house and sustain the Union.But has it been so with this element of slavery?Have we not always had quarrels and difficulties overit? And when will we cease to have quarrels over it?Like causes produce like effects. It is worth while toobserve that we have generally had comparativepeace upon the slavery question, and that there hasbeen no cause for alarm until it was excited by theeffort to spread it into new territory. Whenever it hasbeen limited to its present bounds, and there hasbeen no effort to spread it, there has been peace. Allthe trouble and convulsion has proceeded fromefforts to spread it over more territory. It was thus atthe date of the Missouri Compromise. It was so againwith the annexation of Texas; so with the territoryacquired by the Mexican War; and it is so now.Whenever there has been an effort to spread it therehas been agitation and resistance. . . . Do you thinkthat the nature of man will be changed, that the samecauses that produced agitation at one time will nothave the same effect at another?

Passage 1Mr. Lincoln likens that bond of the FederalConstitution, joining Free and Slave States together,to a house divided against itself, and says that it iscontrary to the law of God, and cannot stand.When did he learn, and by what authority does heproclaim, that this Government is contrary to the lawof God and cannot stand? It has stood thus dividedinto Free and Slave States from its organization up tothis day. During that period we have increased fromfour millions to thirty millions of people; we haveextended our territory from the Mississippi to thePacific Ocean; we have acquired the Floridas andTexas, and other territory sufficient to double ourgeographical extent; we have increased in population,in wealth, and in power beyond any example onearth; we have risen from a weak and feeble power tobecome the terror and admiration of the civilizedworld; and all this has been done under aConstitution which Mr. Lincoln, in substance, says isin violation of the law of God; and under a Uniondivided into Free and Slave States, which Mr. Lincolnthinks, because of such division, cannot stand.Surely, Mr. Lincoln is a wiser man than those whoframed the Government....I now come back to the question, why cannot thisUnion exist forever, divided into Free and SlaveStates, as our fathers made it? It can thus exist if eachState will carry out the principles upon which ourinstitutions were founded; to wit, the right of eachState to do as it pleases, without meddling with itsneighbors. Just act upon that great principle, and thisUnion will not only live forever, but it will extendand expand until it covers the whole continent, andmakes this confederacy one grand, ocean-boundRepublic. We must bear in mind that we are yet ayoung nation, growing with a rapidity unequalled inthe history of the world, that our national increase isgreat, and that the emigration from the old world isincreasing, requiring us to expand and acquire newterritory from time to time, in order to give ourpeople land to live upon. If we live upon the principleof State rights and State sovereignty, each Stateregulating its own affairs and minding its ownbusiness, we can go on and extend indefinitely, justas fast and as far as we need the territory....Passage 2In complaining of what I said in my speech atSpringfield, in which he says I accepted mynomination for the Senatorship . . . he again quotesthat portion in which I said that “a house dividedagainst itself cannot stand.” Let me say a word inregard to that matter. He tries to persuade us thatthere must be a variety in the different institutions ofthe States of the Union; that that variety necessarilyproceeds from the variety of soil, climate, of the faceof the country, and the difference in the naturalfeatures of the States. I agree to all that. Have thesevery matters ever produced any difficulty among us?Not at all. Have we ever had any quarrel over the factthat they have laws in Louisiana designed to regulatethe commerce that springs from the production ofsugar? Or because we have a different class relative tothe production of flour in this State? Have theyproduced any differences? Not at all. They are thevery cements of this Union. They don’t make thehouse a “house divided against itself.” They are theprops that hold up the house and sustain the Union.But has it been so with this element of slavery?Have we not always had quarrels and difficulties overit? And when will we cease to have quarrels over it?Like causes produce like effects. It is worth while toobserve that we have generally had comparativepeace upon the slavery question, and that there hasbeen no cause for alarm until it was excited by theeffort to spread it into new territory. Whenever it hasbeen limited to its present bounds, and there hasbeen no effort to spread it, there has been peace. Allthe trouble and convulsion has proceeded fromefforts to spread it over more territory. It was thus atthe date of the Missouri Compromise. It was so againwith the annexation of Texas; so with the territoryacquired by the Mexican War; and it is so now.Whenever there has been an effort to spread it therehas been agitation and resistance. . . . Do you thinkthat the nature of man will be changed, that the samecauses that produced agitation at one time will nothave the same effect at another?

Passage 1Mr. Lincoln likens that bond of the FederalConstitution, joining Free and Slave States together,to a house divided against itself, and says that it iscontrary to the law of God, and cannot stand.When did he learn, and by what authority does heproclaim, that this Government is contrary to the lawof God and cannot stand? It has stood thus dividedinto Free and Slave States from its organization up tothis day. During that period we have increased fromfour millions to thirty millions of people; we haveextended our territory from the Mississippi to thePacific Ocean; we have acquired the Floridas andTexas, and other territory sufficient to double ourgeographical extent; we have increased in population,in wealth, and in power beyond any example onearth; we have risen from a weak and feeble power tobecome the terror and admiration of the civilizedworld; and all this has been done under aConstitution which Mr. Lincoln, in substance, says isin violation of the law of God; and under a Uniondivided into Free and Slave States, which Mr. Lincolnthinks, because of such division, cannot stand.Surely, Mr. Lincoln is a wiser man than those whoframed the Government....I now come back to the question, why cannot thisUnion exist forever, divided into Free and SlaveStates, as our fathers made it? It can thus exist if eachState will carry out the principles upon which ourinstitutions were founded; to wit, the right of eachState to do as it pleases, without meddling with itsneighbors. Just act upon that great principle, and thisUnion will not only live forever, but it will extendand expand until it covers the whole continent, andmakes this confederacy one grand, ocean-boundRepublic. We must bear in mind that we are yet ayoung nation, growing with a rapidity unequalled inthe history of the world, that our national increase isgreat, and that the emigration from the old world isincreasing, requiring us to expand and acquire newterritory from time to time, in order to give ourpeople land to live upon. If we live upon the principleof State rights and State sovereignty, each Stateregulating its own affairs and minding its ownbusiness, we can go on and extend indefinitely, justas fast and as far as we need the territory....Passage 2In complaining of what I said in my speech atSpringfield, in which he says I accepted mynomination for the Senatorship . . . he again quotesthat portion in which I said that “a house dividedagainst itself cannot stand.” Let me say a word inregard to that matter. He tries to persuade us thatthere must be a variety in the different institutions ofthe States of the Union; that that variety necessarilyproceeds from the variety of soil, climate, of the faceof the country, and the difference in the naturalfeatures of the States. I agree to all that. Have thesevery matters ever produced any difficulty among us?Not at all. Have we ever had any quarrel over the factthat they have laws in Louisiana designed to regulatethe commerce that springs from the production ofsugar? Or because we have a different class relative tothe production of flour in this State? Have theyproduced any differences? Not at all. They are thevery cements of this Union. They don’t make thehouse a “house divided against itself.” They are theprops that hold up the house and sustain the Union.But has it been so with this element of slavery?Have we not always had quarrels and difficulties overit? And when will we cease to have quarrels over it?Like causes produce like effects. It is worth while toobserve that we have generally had comparativepeace upon the slavery question, and that there hasbeen no cause for alarm until it was excited by theeffort to spread it into new territory. Whenever it hasbeen limited to its present bounds, and there hasbeen no effort to spread it, there has been peace. Allthe trouble and convulsion has proceeded fromefforts to spread it over more territory. It was thus atthe date of the Missouri Compromise. It was so againwith the annexation of Texas; so with the territoryacquired by the Mexican War; and it is so now.Whenever there has been an effort to spread it therehas been agitation and resistance. . . . Do you thinkthat the nature of man will be changed, that the samecauses that produced agitation at one time will nothave the same effect at another?

Passage 1Mr. Lincoln likens that bond of the FederalConstitution, joining Free and Slave States together,to a house divided against itself, and says that it iscontrary to the law of God, and cannot stand.When did he learn, and by what authority does heproclaim, that this Government is contrary to the lawof God and cannot stand? It has stood thus dividedinto Free and Slave States from its organization up tothis day. During that period we have increased fromfour millions to thirty millions of people; we haveextended our territory from the Mississippi to thePacific Ocean; we have acquired the Floridas andTexas, and other territory sufficient to double ourgeographical extent; we have increased in population,in wealth, and in power beyond any example onearth; we have risen from a weak and feeble power tobecome the terror and admiration of the civilizedworld; and all this has been done under aConstitution which Mr. Lincoln, in substance, says isin violation of the law of God; and under a Uniondivided into Free and Slave States, which Mr. Lincolnthinks, because of such division, cannot stand.Surely, Mr. Lincoln is a wiser man than those whoframed the Government....I now come back to the question, why cannot thisUnion exist forever, divided into Free and SlaveStates, as our fathers made it? It can thus exist if eachState will carry out the principles upon which ourinstitutions were founded; to wit, the right of eachState to do as it pleases, without meddling with itsneighbors. Just act upon that great principle, and thisUnion will not only live forever, but it will extendand expand until it covers the whole continent, andmakes this confederacy one grand, ocean-boundRepublic. We must bear in mind that we are yet ayoung nation, growing with a rapidity unequalled inthe history of the world, that our national increase isgreat, and that the emigration from the old world isincreasing, requiring us to expand and acquire newterritory from time to time, in order to give ourpeople land to live upon. If we live upon the principleof State rights and State sovereignty, each Stateregulating its own affairs and minding its ownbusiness, we can go on and extend indefinitely, justas fast and as far as we need the territory....Passage 2In complaining of what I said in my speech atSpringfield, in which he says I accepted mynomination for the Senatorship . . . he again quotesthat portion in which I said that “a house dividedagainst itself cannot stand.” Let me say a word inregard to that matter. He tries to persuade us thatthere must be a variety in the different institutions ofthe States of the Union; that that variety necessarilyproceeds from the variety of soil, climate, of the faceof the country, and the difference in the naturalfeatures of the States. I agree to all that. Have thesevery matters ever produced any difficulty among us?Not at all. Have we ever had any quarrel over the factthat they have laws in Louisiana designed to regulatethe commerce that springs from the production ofsugar? Or because we have a different class relative tothe production of flour in this State? Have theyproduced any differences? Not at all. They are thevery cements of this Union. They don’t make thehouse a “house divided against itself.” They are theprops that hold up the house and sustain the Union.But has it been so with this element of slavery?Have we not always had quarrels and difficulties overit? And when will we cease to have quarrels over it?Like causes produce like effects. It is worth while toobserve that we have generally had comparativepeace upon the slavery question, and that there hasbeen no cause for alarm until it was excited by theeffort to spread it into new territory. Whenever it hasbeen limited to its present bounds, and there hasbeen no effort to spread it, there has been peace. Allthe trouble and convulsion has proceeded fromefforts to spread it over more territory. It was thus atthe date of the Missouri Compromise. It was so againwith the annexation of Texas; so with the territoryacquired by the Mexican War; and it is so now.Whenever there has been an effort to spread it therehas been agitation and resistance. . . . Do you thinkthat the nature of man will be changed, that the samecauses that produced agitation at one time will nothave the same effect at another?

Passage 1Mr. Lincoln likens that bond of the FederalConstitution, joining Free and Slave States together,to a house divided against itself, and says that it iscontrary to the law of God, and cannot stand.When did he learn, and by what authority does heproclaim, that this Government is contrary to the lawof God and cannot stand? It has stood thus dividedinto Free and Slave States from its organization up tothis day. During that period we have increased fromfour millions to thirty millions of people; we haveextended our territory from the Mississippi to thePacific Ocean; we have acquired the Floridas andTexas, and other territory sufficient to double ourgeographical extent; we have increased in population,in wealth, and in power beyond any example onearth; we have risen from a weak and feeble power tobecome the terror and admiration of the civilizedworld; and all this has been done under aConstitution which Mr. Lincoln, in substance, says isin violation of the law of God; and under a Uniondivided into Free and Slave States, which Mr. Lincolnthinks, because of such division, cannot stand.Surely, Mr. Lincoln is a wiser man than those whoframed the Government....I now come back to the question, why cannot thisUnion exist forever, divided into Free and SlaveStates, as our fathers made it? It can thus exist if eachState will carry out the principles upon which ourinstitutions were founded; to wit, the right of eachState to do as it pleases, without meddling with itsneighbors. Just act upon that great principle, and thisUnion will not only live forever, but it will extendand expand until it covers the whole continent, andmakes this confederacy one grand, ocean-boundRepublic. We must bear in mind that we are yet ayoung nation, growing with a rapidity unequalled inthe history of the world, that our national increase isgreat, and that the emigration from the old world isincreasing, requiring us to expand and acquire newterritory from time to time, in order to give ourpeople land to live upon. If we live upon the principleof State rights and State sovereignty, each Stateregulating its own affairs and minding its ownbusiness, we can go on and extend indefinitely, justas fast and as far as we need the territory....Passage 2In complaining of what I said in my speech atSpringfield, in which he says I accepted mynomination for the Senatorship . . . he again quotesthat portion in which I said that “a house dividedagainst itself cannot stand.” Let me say a word inregard to that matter. He tries to persuade us thatthere must be a variety in the different institutions ofthe States of the Union; that that variety necessarilyproceeds from the variety of soil, climate, of the faceof the country, and the difference in the naturalfeatures of the States. I agree to all that. Have thesevery matters ever produced any difficulty among us?Not at all. Have we ever had any quarrel over the factthat they have laws in Louisiana designed to regulatethe commerce that springs from the production ofsugar? Or because we have a different class relative tothe production of flour in this State? Have theyproduced any differences? Not at all. They are thevery cements of this Union. They don’t make thehouse a “house divided against itself.” They are theprops that hold up the house and sustain the Union.But has it been so with this element of slavery?Have we not always had quarrels and difficulties overit? And when will we cease to have quarrels over it?Like causes produce like effects. It is worth while toobserve that we have generally had comparativepeace upon the slavery question, and that there hasbeen no cause for alarm until it was excited by theeffort to spread it into new territory. Whenever it hasbeen limited to its present bounds, and there hasbeen no effort to spread it, there has been peace. Allthe trouble and convulsion has proceeded fromefforts to spread it over more territory. It was thus atthe date of the Missouri Compromise. It was so againwith the annexation of Texas; so with the territoryacquired by the Mexican War; and it is so now.Whenever there has been an effort to spread it therehas been agitation and resistance. . . . Do you thinkthat the nature of man will be changed, that the samecauses that produced agitation at one time will nothave the same effect at another?

Passage 1Mr. Lincoln likens that bond of the FederalConstitution, joining Free and Slave States together,to a house divided against itself, and says that it iscontrary to the law of God, and cannot stand.When did he learn, and by what authority does heproclaim, that this Government is contrary to the lawof God and cannot stand? It has stood thus dividedinto Free and Slave States from its organization up tothis day. During that period we have increased fromfour millions to thirty millions of people; we haveextended our territory from the Mississippi to thePacific Ocean; we have acquired the Floridas andTexas, and other territory sufficient to double ourgeographical extent; we have increased in population,in wealth, and in power beyond any example onearth; we have risen from a weak and feeble power tobecome the terror and admiration of the civilizedworld; and all this has been done under aConstitution which Mr. Lincoln, in substance, says isin violation of the law of God; and under a Uniondivided into Free and Slave States, which Mr. Lincolnthinks, because of such division, cannot stand.Surely, Mr. Lincoln is a wiser man than those whoframed the Government....I now come back to the question, why cannot thisUnion exist forever, divided into Free and SlaveStates, as our fathers made it? It can thus exist if eachState will carry out the principles upon which ourinstitutions were founded; to wit, the right of eachState to do as it pleases, without meddling with itsneighbors. Just act upon that great principle, and thisUnion will not only live forever, but it will extendand expand until it covers the whole continent, andmakes this confederacy one grand, ocean-boundRepublic. We must bear in mind that we are yet ayoung nation, growing with a rapidity unequalled inthe history of the world, that our national increase isgreat, and that the emigration from the old world isincreasing, requiring us to expand and acquire newterritory from time to time, in order to give ourpeople land to live upon. If we live upon the principleof State rights and State sovereignty, each Stateregulating its own affairs and minding its ownbusiness, we can go on and extend indefinitely, justas fast and as far as we need the territory....Passage 2In complaining of what I said in my speech atSpringfield, in which he says I accepted mynomination for the Senatorship . . . he again quotesthat portion in which I said that “a house dividedagainst itself cannot stand.” Let me say a word inregard to that matter. He tries to persuade us thatthere must be a variety in the different institutions ofthe States of the Union; that that variety necessarilyproceeds from the variety of soil, climate, of the faceof the country, and the difference in the naturalfeatures of the States. I agree to all that. Have thesevery matters ever produced any difficulty among us?Not at all. Have we ever had any quarrel over the factthat they have laws in Louisiana designed to regulatethe commerce that springs from the production ofsugar? Or because we have a different class relative tothe production of flour in this State? Have theyproduced any differences? Not at all. They are thevery cements of this Union. They don’t make thehouse a “house divided against itself.” They are theprops that hold up the house and sustain the Union.But has it been so with this element of slavery?Have we not always had quarrels and difficulties overit? And when will we cease to have quarrels over it?Like causes produce like effects. It is worth while toobserve that we have generally had comparativepeace upon the slavery question, and that there hasbeen no cause for alarm until it was excited by theeffort to spread it into new territory. Whenever it hasbeen limited to its present bounds, and there hasbeen no effort to spread it, there has been peace. Allthe trouble and convulsion has proceeded fromefforts to spread it over more territory. It was thus atthe date of the Missouri Compromise. It was so againwith the annexation of Texas; so with the territoryacquired by the Mexican War; and it is so now.Whenever there has been an effort to spread it therehas been agitation and resistance. . . . Do you thinkthat the nature of man will be changed, that the samecauses that produced agitation at one time will nothave the same effect at another?

Passage 1Mr. Lincoln likens that bond of the FederalConstitution, joining Free and Slave States together,to a house divided against itself, and says that it iscontrary to the law of God, and cannot stand.When did he learn, and by what authority does heproclaim, that this Government is contrary to the lawof God and cannot stand? It has stood thus dividedinto Free and Slave States from its organization up tothis day. During that period we have increased fromfour millions to thirty millions of people; we haveextended our territory from the Mississippi to thePacific Ocean; we have acquired the Floridas andTexas, and other territory sufficient to double ourgeographical extent; we have increased in population,in wealth, and in power beyond any example onearth; we have risen from a weak and feeble power tobecome the terror and admiration of the civilizedworld; and all this has been done under aConstitution which Mr. Lincoln, in substance, says isin violation of the law of God; and under a Uniondivided into Free and Slave States, which Mr. Lincolnthinks, because of such division, cannot stand.Surely, Mr. Lincoln is a wiser man than those whoframed the Government....I now come back to the question, why cannot thisUnion exist forever, divided into Free and SlaveStates, as our fathers made it? It can thus exist if eachState will carry out the principles upon which ourinstitutions were founded; to wit, the right of eachState to do as it pleases, without meddling with itsneighbors. Just act upon that great principle, and thisUnion will not only live forever, but it will extendand expand until it covers the whole continent, andmakes this confederacy one grand, ocean-boundRepublic. We must bear in mind that we are yet ayoung nation, growing with a rapidity unequalled inthe history of the world, that our national increase isgreat, and that the emigration from the old world isincreasing, requiring us to expand and acquire newterritory from time to time, in order to give ourpeople land to live upon. If we live upon the principleof State rights and State sovereignty, each Stateregulating its own affairs and minding its ownbusiness, we can go on and extend indefinitely, justas fast and as far as we need the territory....Passage 2In complaining of what I said in my speech atSpringfield, in which he says I accepted mynomination for the Senatorship . . . he again quotesthat portion in which I said that “a house dividedagainst itself cannot stand.” Let me say a word inregard to that matter. He tries to persuade us thatthere must be a variety in the different institutions ofthe States of the Union; that that variety necessarilyproceeds from the variety of soil, climate, of the faceof the country, and the difference in the naturalfeatures of the States. I agree to all that. Have thesevery matters ever produced any difficulty among us?Not at all. Have we ever had any quarrel over the factthat they have laws in Louisiana designed to regulatethe commerce that springs from the production ofsugar? Or because we have a different class relative tothe production of flour in this State? Have theyproduced any differences? Not at all. They are thevery cements of this Union. They don’t make thehouse a “house divided against itself.” They are theprops that hold up the house and sustain the Union.But has it been so with this element of slavery?Have we not always had quarrels and difficulties overit? And when will we cease to have quarrels over it?Like causes produce like effects. It is worth while toobserve that we have generally had comparativepeace upon the slavery question, and that there hasbeen no cause for alarm until it was excited by theeffort to spread it into new territory. Whenever it hasbeen limited to its present bounds, and there hasbeen no effort to spread it, there has been peace. Allthe trouble and convulsion has proceeded fromefforts to spread it over more territory. It was thus atthe date of the Missouri Compromise. It was so againwith the annexation of Texas; so with the territoryacquired by the Mexican War; and it is so now.Whenever there has been an effort to spread it therehas been agitation and resistance. . . . Do you thinkthat the nature of man will be changed, that the samecauses that produced agitation at one time will nothave the same effect at another?

The Venus flytrap [Dionaea muscipula] needs toknow when an ideal meal is crawling across its leaves.Closing its trap requires a huge expense of energy,and reopening the trap can take several hours, soDionaea only wants to spring closed when it’s surethat the dawdling insect visiting its surface is largeenough to be worth its time. The large black hairs ontheir lobes allow the Venus flytraps to literally feeltheir prey, and they act as triggers that spring thetrap closed when the proper prey makes its wayacross the trap. If the insect touches just one hair, thetrap will not spring shut; but a large enough bug willlikely touch two hairs within about twenty seconds,and that signal springs the Venus flytrap into action.We can look at this system as analogous toshort-term memory. First, the flytrap encodes theinformation (forms the memory) that something (itdoesn’t know what) has touched one of its hairs.Then it stores this information for a number ofseconds (retains the memory) and finally retrievesthis information (recalls the memory) once a secondhair is touched. If a small ant takes a while to getfrom one hair to the next, the trap will have forgottenthe first touch by the time the ant brushes up againstthe next hair. In other words, it loses the storage ofthe information, doesn’t close, and the anthappily meanders on. How does the plant encodeand store the information from the unassumingbug’s encounter with the first hair? How does itremember the first touch in order to react upon thesecond?Scientists have been puzzled by these questionsever since John Burdon-Sanderson’s early report onthe physiology of the Venus flytrap in 1882. Acentury later, Dieter Hodick and Andreas Sievers atthe University of Bonn in Germany proposed thatthe flytrap stored information regarding how manyhairs have been touched in the electric charge of itsleaf. Their model is quite elegant in its simplicity.In their studies, they discovered that touching atrigger hair on the Venus flytrap causes an electricaction potential [a temporary reversal in theelectrical polarity of a cell membrane] thatinduces calcium channels to open in the trap (thiscoupling of action potentials and the opening ofcalcium channels is similar to the processes thatoccur during communication between humanneurons), thus causing a rapid increase in theconcentration of calcium ions.They proposed that the trap requires a relativelyhigh concentration of calcium in order to closeand that a single action potential from just onetrigger hair being touched does not reach this level.Therefore, a second hair needs to be stimulated topush the calcium concentration over this thresholdand spring the trap. The encoding of the informationrequires maintaining a high enough level of calciumso that a second increase (triggered by touching thesecond hair) pushes the total concentration ofcalcium over the threshold. As the calcium ionconcentrations dissipate over time, if the secondtouch and potential don’t happen quickly, the finalconcentration after the second trigger won’t be highenough to close the trap, and the memory is lost.Subsequent research supports this model.Alexander Volkov and his colleagues at OakwoodUniversity in Alabama first demonstrated that it isindeed electricity that causes the Venus flytrap toclose. To test the model they rigged up very fineelectrodes and applied an electrical current to theopen lobes of the trap. This made the trap closewithout any direct touch to its trigger hairs (whilethey didn’t measure calcium levels, the currentlikely led to increases). When they modified thisexperiment by altering the amount of electricalcurrent, Volkov could determine the exact electricalcharge needed for the trap to close. As long asfourteen microcoulombs—a tiny bit more than thestatic electricity generated by rubbing two balloonstogether—flowed between the two electrodes, thetrap closed. This could come as one large burst or asa series of smaller charges within twenty seconds. If ittook longer than twenty seconds to accumulate thetotal charge, the trap would remain open.

The Venus flytrap [Dionaea muscipula] needs toknow when an ideal meal is crawling across its leaves.Closing its trap requires a huge expense of energy,and reopening the trap can take several hours, soDionaea only wants to spring closed when it’s surethat the dawdling insect visiting its surface is largeenough to be worth its time. The large black hairs ontheir lobes allow the Venus flytraps to literally feeltheir prey, and they act as triggers that spring thetrap closed when the proper prey makes its wayacross the trap. If the insect touches just one hair, thetrap will not spring shut; but a large enough bug willlikely touch two hairs within about twenty seconds,and that signal springs the Venus flytrap into action.We can look at this system as analogous toshort-term memory. First, the flytrap encodes theinformation (forms the memory) that something (itdoesn’t know what) has touched one of its hairs.Then it stores this information for a number ofseconds (retains the memory) and finally retrievesthis information (recalls the memory) once a secondhair is touched. If a small ant takes a while to getfrom one hair to the next, the trap will have forgottenthe first touch by the time the ant brushes up againstthe next hair. In other words, it loses the storage ofthe information, doesn’t close, and the anthappily meanders on. How does the plant encodeand store the information from the unassumingbug’s encounter with the first hair? How does itremember the first touch in order to react upon thesecond?Scientists have been puzzled by these questionsever since John Burdon-Sanderson’s early report onthe physiology of the Venus flytrap in 1882. Acentury later, Dieter Hodick and Andreas Sievers atthe University of Bonn in Germany proposed thatthe flytrap stored information regarding how manyhairs have been touched in the electric charge of itsleaf. Their model is quite elegant in its simplicity.In their studies, they discovered that touching atrigger hair on the Venus flytrap causes an electricaction potential [a temporary reversal in theelectrical polarity of a cell membrane] thatinduces calcium channels to open in the trap (thiscoupling of action potentials and the opening ofcalcium channels is similar to the processes thatoccur during communication between humanneurons), thus causing a rapid increase in theconcentration of calcium ions.They proposed that the trap requires a relativelyhigh concentration of calcium in order to closeand that a single action potential from just onetrigger hair being touched does not reach this level.Therefore, a second hair needs to be stimulated topush the calcium concentration over this thresholdand spring the trap. The encoding of the informationrequires maintaining a high enough level of calciumso that a second increase (triggered by touching thesecond hair) pushes the total concentration ofcalcium over the threshold. As the calcium ionconcentrations dissipate over time, if the secondtouch and potential don’t happen quickly, the finalconcentration after the second trigger won’t be highenough to close the trap, and the memory is lost.Subsequent research supports this model.Alexander Volkov and his colleagues at OakwoodUniversity in Alabama first demonstrated that it isindeed electricity that causes the Venus flytrap toclose. To test the model they rigged up very fineelectrodes and applied an electrical current to theopen lobes of the trap. This made the trap closewithout any direct touch to its trigger hairs (whilethey didn’t measure calcium levels, the currentlikely led to increases). When they modified thisexperiment by altering the amount of electricalcurrent, Volkov could determine the exact electricalcharge needed for the trap to close. As long asfourteen microcoulombs—a tiny bit more than thestatic electricity generated by rubbing two balloonstogether—flowed between the two electrodes, thetrap closed. This could come as one large burst or asa series of smaller charges within twenty seconds. If ittook longer than twenty seconds to accumulate thetotal charge, the trap would remain open.

The Venus flytrap [Dionaea muscipula] needs toknow when an ideal meal is crawling across its leaves.Closing its trap requires a huge expense of energy,and reopening the trap can take several hours, soDionaea only wants to spring closed when it’s surethat the dawdling insect visiting its surface is largeenough to be worth its time. The large black hairs ontheir lobes allow the Venus flytraps to literally feeltheir prey, and they act as triggers that spring thetrap closed when the proper prey makes its wayacross the trap. If the insect touches just one hair, thetrap will not spring shut; but a large enough bug willlikely touch two hairs within about twenty seconds,and that signal springs the Venus flytrap into action.We can look at this system as analogous toshort-term memory. First, the flytrap encodes theinformation (forms the memory) that something (itdoesn’t know what) has touched one of its hairs.Then it stores this information for a number ofseconds (retains the memory) and finally retrievesthis information (recalls the memory) once a secondhair is touched. If a small ant takes a while to getfrom one hair to the next, the trap will have forgottenthe first touch by the time the ant brushes up againstthe next hair. In other words, it loses the storage ofthe information, doesn’t close, and the anthappily meanders on. How does the plant encodeand store the information from the unassumingbug’s encounter with the first hair? How does itremember the first touch in order to react upon thesecond?Scientists have been puzzled by these questionsever since John Burdon-Sanderson’s early report onthe physiology of the Venus flytrap in 1882. Acentury later, Dieter Hodick and Andreas Sievers atthe University of Bonn in Germany proposed thatthe flytrap stored information regarding how manyhairs have been touched in the electric charge of itsleaf. Their model is quite elegant in its simplicity.In their studies, they discovered that touching atrigger hair on the Venus flytrap causes an electricaction potential [a temporary reversal in theelectrical polarity of a cell membrane] thatinduces calcium channels to open in the trap (thiscoupling of action potentials and the opening ofcalcium channels is similar to the processes thatoccur during communication between humanneurons), thus causing a rapid increase in theconcentration of calcium ions.They proposed that the trap requires a relativelyhigh concentration of calcium in order to closeand that a single action potential from just onetrigger hair being touched does not reach this level.Therefore, a second hair needs to be stimulated topush the calcium concentration over this thresholdand spring the trap. The encoding of the informationrequires maintaining a high enough level of calciumso that a second increase (triggered by touching thesecond hair) pushes the total concentration ofcalcium over the threshold. As the calcium ionconcentrations dissipate over time, if the secondtouch and potential don’t happen quickly, the finalconcentration after the second trigger won’t be highenough to close the trap, and the memory is lost.Subsequent research supports this model.Alexander Volkov and his colleagues at OakwoodUniversity in Alabama first demonstrated that it isindeed electricity that causes the Venus flytrap toclose. To test the model they rigged up very fineelectrodes and applied an electrical current to theopen lobes of the trap. This made the trap closewithout any direct touch to its trigger hairs (whilethey didn’t measure calcium levels, the currentlikely led to increases). When they modified thisexperiment by altering the amount of electricalcurrent, Volkov could determine the exact electricalcharge needed for the trap to close. As long asfourteen microcoulombs—a tiny bit more than thestatic electricity generated by rubbing two balloonstogether—flowed between the two electrodes, thetrap closed. This could come as one large burst or asa series of smaller charges within twenty seconds. If ittook longer than twenty seconds to accumulate thetotal charge, the trap would remain open.

The Venus flytrap [Dionaea muscipula] needs toknow when an ideal meal is crawling across its leaves.Closing its trap requires a huge expense of energy,and reopening the trap can take several hours, soDionaea only wants to spring closed when it’s surethat the dawdling insect visiting its surface is largeenough to be worth its time. The large black hairs ontheir lobes allow the Venus flytraps to literally feeltheir prey, and they act as triggers that spring thetrap closed when the proper prey makes its wayacross the trap. If the insect touches just one hair, thetrap will not spring shut; but a large enough bug willlikely touch two hairs within about twenty seconds,and that signal springs the Venus flytrap into action.We can look at this system as analogous toshort-term memory. First, the flytrap encodes theinformation (forms the memory) that something (itdoesn’t know what) has touched one of its hairs.Then it stores this information for a number ofseconds (retains the memory) and finally retrievesthis information (recalls the memory) once a secondhair is touched. If a small ant takes a while to getfrom one hair to the next, the trap will have forgottenthe first touch by the time the ant brushes up againstthe next hair. In other words, it loses the storage ofthe information, doesn’t close, and the anthappily meanders on. How does the plant encodeand store the information from the unassumingbug’s encounter with the first hair? How does itremember the first touch in order to react upon thesecond?Scientists have been puzzled by these questionsever since John Burdon-Sanderson’s early report onthe physiology of the Venus flytrap in 1882. Acentury later, Dieter Hodick and Andreas Sievers atthe University of Bonn in Germany proposed thatthe flytrap stored information regarding how manyhairs have been touched in the electric charge of itsleaf. Their model is quite elegant in its simplicity.In their studies, they discovered that touching atrigger hair on the Venus flytrap causes an electricaction potential [a temporary reversal in theelectrical polarity of a cell membrane] thatinduces calcium channels to open in the trap (thiscoupling of action potentials and the opening ofcalcium channels is similar to the processes thatoccur during communication between humanneurons), thus causing a rapid increase in theconcentration of calcium ions.They proposed that the trap requires a relativelyhigh concentration of calcium in order to closeand that a single action potential from just onetrigger hair being touched does not reach this level.Therefore, a second hair needs to be stimulated topush the calcium concentration over this thresholdand spring the trap. The encoding of the informationrequires maintaining a high enough level of calciumso that a second increase (triggered by touching thesecond hair) pushes the total concentration ofcalcium over the threshold. As the calcium ionconcentrations dissipate over time, if the secondtouch and potential don’t happen quickly, the finalconcentration after the second trigger won’t be highenough to close the trap, and the memory is lost.Subsequent research supports this model.Alexander Volkov and his colleagues at OakwoodUniversity in Alabama first demonstrated that it isindeed electricity that causes the Venus flytrap toclose. To test the model they rigged up very fineelectrodes and applied an electrical current to theopen lobes of the trap. This made the trap closewithout any direct touch to its trigger hairs (whilethey didn’t measure calcium levels, the currentlikely led to increases). When they modified thisexperiment by altering the amount of electricalcurrent, Volkov could determine the exact electricalcharge needed for the trap to close. As long asfourteen microcoulombs—a tiny bit more than thestatic electricity generated by rubbing two balloonstogether—flowed between the two electrodes, thetrap closed. This could come as one large burst or asa series of smaller charges within twenty seconds. If ittook longer than twenty seconds to accumulate thetotal charge, the trap would remain open.

The Venus flytrap [Dionaea muscipula] needs toknow when an ideal meal is crawling across its leaves.Closing its trap requires a huge expense of energy,and reopening the trap can take several hours, soDionaea only wants to spring closed when it’s surethat the dawdling insect visiting its surface is largeenough to be worth its time. The large black hairs ontheir lobes allow the Venus flytraps to literally feeltheir prey, and they act as triggers that spring thetrap closed when the proper prey makes its wayacross the trap. If the insect touches just one hair, thetrap will not spring shut; but a large enough bug willlikely touch two hairs within about twenty seconds,and that signal springs the Venus flytrap into action.We can look at this system as analogous toshort-term memory. First, the flytrap encodes theinformation (forms the memory) that something (itdoesn’t know what) has touched one of its hairs.Then it stores this information for a number ofseconds (retains the memory) and finally retrievesthis information (recalls the memory) once a secondhair is touched. If a small ant takes a while to getfrom one hair to the next, the trap will have forgottenthe first touch by the time the ant brushes up againstthe next hair. In other words, it loses the storage ofthe information, doesn’t close, and the anthappily meanders on. How does the plant encodeand store the information from the unassumingbug’s encounter with the first hair? How does itremember the first touch in order to react upon thesecond?Scientists have been puzzled by these questionsever since John Burdon-Sanderson’s early report onthe physiology of the Venus flytrap in 1882. Acentury later, Dieter Hodick and Andreas Sievers atthe University of Bonn in Germany proposed thatthe flytrap stored information regarding how manyhairs have been touched in the electric charge of itsleaf. Their model is quite elegant in its simplicity.In their studies, they discovered that touching atrigger hair on the Venus flytrap causes an electricaction potential [a temporary reversal in theelectrical polarity of a cell membrane] thatinduces calcium channels to open in the trap (thiscoupling of action potentials and the opening ofcalcium channels is similar to the processes thatoccur during communication between humanneurons), thus causing a rapid increase in theconcentration of calcium ions.They proposed that the trap requires a relativelyhigh concentration of calcium in order to closeand that a single action potential from just onetrigger hair being touched does not reach this level.Therefore, a second hair needs to be stimulated topush the calcium concentration over this thresholdand spring the trap. The encoding of the informationrequires maintaining a high enough level of calciumso that a second increase (triggered by touching thesecond hair) pushes the total concentration ofcalcium over the threshold. As the calcium ionconcentrations dissipate over time, if the secondtouch and potential don’t happen quickly, the finalconcentration after the second trigger won’t be highenough to close the trap, and the memory is lost.Subsequent research supports this model.Alexander Volkov and his colleagues at OakwoodUniversity in Alabama first demonstrated that it isindeed electricity that causes the Venus flytrap toclose. To test the model they rigged up very fineelectrodes and applied an electrical current to theopen lobes of the trap. This made the trap closewithout any direct touch to its trigger hairs (whilethey didn’t measure calcium levels, the currentlikely led to increases). When they modified thisexperiment by altering the amount of electricalcurrent, Volkov could determine the exact electricalcharge needed for the trap to close. As long asfourteen microcoulombs—a tiny bit more than thestatic electricity generated by rubbing two balloonstogether—flowed between the two electrodes, thetrap closed. This could come as one large burst or asa series of smaller charges within twenty seconds. If ittook longer than twenty seconds to accumulate thetotal charge, the trap would remain open.

The Venus flytrap [Dionaea muscipula] needs toknow when an ideal meal is crawling across its leaves.Closing its trap requires a huge expense of energy,and reopening the trap can take several hours, soDionaea only wants to spring closed when it’s surethat the dawdling insect visiting its surface is largeenough to be worth its time. The large black hairs ontheir lobes allow the Venus flytraps to literally feeltheir prey, and they act as triggers that spring thetrap closed when the proper prey makes its wayacross the trap. If the insect touches just one hair, thetrap will not spring shut; but a large enough bug willlikely touch two hairs within about twenty seconds,and that signal springs the Venus flytrap into action.We can look at this system as analogous toshort-term memory. First, the flytrap encodes theinformation (forms the memory) that something (itdoesn’t know what) has touched one of its hairs.Then it stores this information for a number ofseconds (retains the memory) and finally retrievesthis information (recalls the memory) once a secondhair is touched. If a small ant takes a while to getfrom one hair to the next, the trap will have forgottenthe first touch by the time the ant brushes up againstthe next hair. In other words, it loses the storage ofthe information, doesn’t close, and the anthappily meanders on. How does the plant encodeand store the information from the unassumingbug’s encounter with the first hair? How does itremember the first touch in order to react upon thesecond?Scientists have been puzzled by these questionsever since John Burdon-Sanderson’s early report onthe physiology of the Venus flytrap in 1882. Acentury later, Dieter Hodick and Andreas Sievers atthe University of Bonn in Germany proposed thatthe flytrap stored information regarding how manyhairs have been touched in the electric charge of itsleaf. Their model is quite elegant in its simplicity.In their studies, they discovered that touching atrigger hair on the Venus flytrap causes an electricaction potential [a temporary reversal in theelectrical polarity of a cell membrane] thatinduces calcium channels to open in the trap (thiscoupling of action potentials and the opening ofcalcium channels is similar to the processes thatoccur during communication between humanneurons), thus causing a rapid increase in theconcentration of calcium ions.They proposed that the trap requires a relativelyhigh concentration of calcium in order to closeand that a single action potential from just onetrigger hair being touched does not reach this level.Therefore, a second hair needs to be stimulated topush the calcium concentration over this thresholdand spring the trap. The encoding of the informationrequires maintaining a high enough level of calciumso that a second increase (triggered by touching thesecond hair) pushes the total concentration ofcalcium over the threshold. As the calcium ionconcentrations dissipate over time, if the secondtouch and potential don’t happen quickly, the finalconcentration after the second trigger won’t be highenough to close the trap, and the memory is lost.Subsequent research supports this model.Alexander Volkov and his colleagues at OakwoodUniversity in Alabama first demonstrated that it isindeed electricity that causes the Venus flytrap toclose. To test the model they rigged up very fineelectrodes and applied an electrical current to theopen lobes of the trap. This made the trap closewithout any direct touch to its trigger hairs (whilethey didn’t measure calcium levels, the currentlikely led to increases). When they modified thisexperiment by altering the amount of electricalcurrent, Volkov could determine the exact electricalcharge needed for the trap to close. As long asfourteen microcoulombs—a tiny bit more than thestatic electricity generated by rubbing two balloonstogether—flowed between the two electrodes, thetrap closed. This could come as one large burst or asa series of smaller charges within twenty seconds. If ittook longer than twenty seconds to accumulate thetotal charge, the trap would remain open.

The Venus flytrap [Dionaea muscipula] needs toknow when an ideal meal is crawling across its leaves.Closing its trap requires a huge expense of energy,and reopening the trap can take several hours, soDionaea only wants to spring closed when it’s surethat the dawdling insect visiting its surface is largeenough to be worth its time. The large black hairs ontheir lobes allow the Venus flytraps to literally feeltheir prey, and they act as triggers that spring thetrap closed when the proper prey makes its wayacross the trap. If the insect touches just one hair, thetrap will not spring shut; but a large enough bug willlikely touch two hairs within about twenty seconds,and that signal springs the Venus flytrap into action.We can look at this system as analogous toshort-term memory. First, the flytrap encodes theinformation (forms the memory) that something (itdoesn’t know what) has touched one of its hairs.Then it stores this information for a number ofseconds (retains the memory) and finally retrievesthis information (recalls the memory) once a secondhair is touched. If a small ant takes a while to getfrom one hair to the next, the trap will have forgottenthe first touch by the time the ant brushes up againstthe next hair. In other words, it loses the storage ofthe information, doesn’t close, and the anthappily meanders on. How does the plant encodeand store the information from the unassumingbug’s encounter with the first hair? How does itremember the first touch in order to react upon thesecond?Scientists have been puzzled by these questionsever since John Burdon-Sanderson’s early report onthe physiology of the Venus flytrap in 1882. Acentury later, Dieter Hodick and Andreas Sievers atthe University of Bonn in Germany proposed thatthe flytrap stored information regarding how manyhairs have been touched in the electric charge of itsleaf. Their model is quite elegant in its simplicity.In their studies, they discovered that touching atrigger hair on the Venus flytrap causes an electricaction potential [a temporary reversal in theelectrical polarity of a cell membrane] thatinduces calcium channels to open in the trap (thiscoupling of action potentials and the opening ofcalcium channels is similar to the processes thatoccur during communication between humanneurons), thus causing a rapid increase in theconcentration of calcium ions.They proposed that the trap requires a relativelyhigh concentration of calcium in order to closeand that a single action potential from just onetrigger hair being touched does not reach this level.Therefore, a second hair needs to be stimulated topush the calcium concentration over this thresholdand spring the trap. The encoding of the informationrequires maintaining a high enough level of calciumso that a second increase (triggered by touching thesecond hair) pushes the total concentration ofcalcium over the threshold. As the calcium ionconcentrations dissipate over time, if the secondtouch and potential don’t happen quickly, the finalconcentration after the second trigger won’t be highenough to close the trap, and the memory is lost.Subsequent research supports this model.Alexander Volkov and his colleagues at OakwoodUniversity in Alabama first demonstrated that it isindeed electricity that causes the Venus flytrap toclose. To test the model they rigged up very fineelectrodes and applied an electrical current to theopen lobes of the trap. This made the trap closewithout any direct touch to its trigger hairs (whilethey didn’t measure calcium levels, the currentlikely led to increases). When they modified thisexperiment by altering the amount of electricalcurrent, Volkov could determine the exact electricalcharge needed for the trap to close. As long asfourteen microcoulombs—a tiny bit more than thestatic electricity generated by rubbing two balloonstogether—flowed between the two electrodes, thetrap closed. This could come as one large burst or asa series of smaller charges within twenty seconds. If ittook longer than twenty seconds to accumulate thetotal charge, the trap would remain open.

The Venus flytrap [Dionaea muscipula] needs toknow when an ideal meal is crawling across its leaves.Closing its trap requires a huge expense of energy,and reopening the trap can take several hours, soDionaea only wants to spring closed when it’s surethat the dawdling insect visiting its surface is largeenough to be worth its time. The large black hairs ontheir lobes allow the Venus flytraps to literally feeltheir prey, and they act as triggers that spring thetrap closed when the proper prey makes its wayacross the trap. If the insect touches just one hair, thetrap will not spring shut; but a large enough bug willlikely touch two hairs within about twenty seconds,and that signal springs the Venus flytrap into action.We can look at this system as analogous toshort-term memory. First, the flytrap encodes theinformation (forms the memory) that something (itdoesn’t know what) has touched one of its hairs.Then it stores this information for a number ofseconds (retains the memory) and finally retrievesthis information (recalls the memory) once a secondhair is touched. If a small ant takes a while to getfrom one hair to the next, the trap will have forgottenthe first touch by the time the ant brushes up againstthe next hair. In other words, it loses the storage ofthe information, doesn’t close, and the anthappily meanders on. How does the plant encodeand store the information from the unassumingbug’s encounter with the first hair? How does itremember the first touch in order to react upon thesecond?Scientists have been puzzled by these questionsever since John Burdon-Sanderson’s early report onthe physiology of the Venus flytrap in 1882. Acentury later, Dieter Hodick and Andreas Sievers atthe University of Bonn in Germany proposed thatthe flytrap stored information regarding how manyhairs have been touched in the electric charge of itsleaf. Their model is quite elegant in its simplicity.In their studies, they discovered that touching atrigger hair on the Venus flytrap causes an electricaction potential [a temporary reversal in theelectrical polarity of a cell membrane] thatinduces calcium channels to open in the trap (thiscoupling of action potentials and the opening ofcalcium channels is similar to the processes thatoccur during communication between humanneurons), thus causing a rapid increase in theconcentration of calcium ions.They proposed that the trap requires a relativelyhigh concentration of calcium in order to closeand that a single action potential from just onetrigger hair being touched does not reach this level.Therefore, a second hair needs to be stimulated topush the calcium concentration over this thresholdand spring the trap. The encoding of the informationrequires maintaining a high enough level of calciumso that a second increase (triggered by touching thesecond hair) pushes the total concentration ofcalcium over the threshold. As the calcium ionconcentrations dissipate over time, if the secondtouch and potential don’t happen quickly, the finalconcentration after the second trigger won’t be highenough to close the trap, and the memory is lost.Subsequent research supports this model.Alexander Volkov and his colleagues at OakwoodUniversity in Alabama first demonstrated that it isindeed electricity that causes the Venus flytrap toclose. To test the model they rigged up very fineelectrodes and applied an electrical current to theopen lobes of the trap. This made the trap closewithout any direct touch to its trigger hairs (whilethey didn’t measure calcium levels, the currentlikely led to increases). When they modified thisexperiment by altering the amount of electricalcurrent, Volkov could determine the exact electricalcharge needed for the trap to close. As long asfourteen microcoulombs—a tiny bit more than thestatic electricity generated by rubbing two balloonstogether—flowed between the two electrodes, thetrap closed. This could come as one large burst or asa series of smaller charges within twenty seconds. If ittook longer than twenty seconds to accumulate thetotal charge, the trap would remain open.

The Venus flytrap [Dionaea muscipula] needs toknow when an ideal meal is crawling across its leaves.Closing its trap requires a huge expense of energy,and reopening the trap can take several hours, soDionaea only wants to spring closed when it’s surethat the dawdling insect visiting its surface is largeenough to be worth its time. The large black hairs ontheir lobes allow the Venus flytraps to literally feeltheir prey, and they act as triggers that spring thetrap closed when the proper prey makes its wayacross the trap. If the insect touches just one hair, thetrap will not spring shut; but a large enough bug willlikely touch two hairs within about twenty seconds,and that signal springs the Venus flytrap into action.We can look at this system as analogous toshort-term memory. First, the flytrap encodes theinformation (forms the memory) that something (itdoesn’t know what) has touched one of its hairs.Then it stores this information for a number ofseconds (retains the memory) and finally retrievesthis information (recalls the memory) once a secondhair is touched. If a small ant takes a while to getfrom one hair to the next, the trap will have forgottenthe first touch by the time the ant brushes up againstthe next hair. In other words, it loses the storage ofthe information, doesn’t close, and the anthappily meanders on. How does the plant encodeand store the information from the unassumingbug’s encounter with the first hair? How does itremember the first touch in order to react upon thesecond?Scientists have been puzzled by these questionsever since John Burdon-Sanderson’s early report onthe physiology of the Venus flytrap in 1882. Acentury later, Dieter Hodick and Andreas Sievers atthe University of Bonn in Germany proposed thatthe flytrap stored information regarding how manyhairs have been touched in the electric charge of itsleaf. Their model is quite elegant in its simplicity.In their studies, they discovered that touching atrigger hair on the Venus flytrap causes an electricaction potential [a temporary reversal in theelectrical polarity of a cell membrane] thatinduces calcium channels to open in the trap (thiscoupling of action potentials and the opening ofcalcium channels is similar to the processes thatoccur during communication between humanneurons), thus causing a rapid increase in theconcentration of calcium ions.They proposed that the trap requires a relativelyhigh concentration of calcium in order to closeand that a single action potential from just onetrigger hair being touched does not reach this level.Therefore, a second hair needs to be stimulated topush the calcium concentration over this thresholdand spring the trap. The encoding of the informationrequires maintaining a high enough level of calciumso that a second increase (triggered by touching thesecond hair) pushes the total concentration ofcalcium over the threshold. As the calcium ionconcentrations dissipate over time, if the secondtouch and potential don’t happen quickly, the finalconcentration after the second trigger won’t be highenough to close the trap, and the memory is lost.Subsequent research supports this model.Alexander Volkov and his colleagues at OakwoodUniversity in Alabama first demonstrated that it isindeed electricity that causes the Venus flytrap toclose. To test the model they rigged up very fineelectrodes and applied an electrical current to theopen lobes of the trap. This made the trap closewithout any direct touch to its trigger hairs (whilethey didn’t measure calcium levels, the currentlikely led to increases). When they modified thisexperiment by altering the amount of electricalcurrent, Volkov could determine the exact electricalcharge needed for the trap to close. As long asfourteen microcoulombs—a tiny bit more than thestatic electricity generated by rubbing two balloonstogether—flowed between the two electrodes, thetrap closed. This could come as one large burst or asa series of smaller charges within twenty seconds. If ittook longer than twenty seconds to accumulate thetotal charge, the trap would remain open.

The Venus flytrap [Dionaea muscipula] needs toknow when an ideal meal is crawling across its leaves.Closing its trap requires a huge expense of energy,and reopening the trap can take several hours, soDionaea only wants to spring closed when it’s surethat the dawdling insect visiting its surface is largeenough to be worth its time. The large black hairs ontheir lobes allow the Venus flytraps to literally feeltheir prey, and they act as triggers that spring thetrap closed when the proper prey makes its wayacross the trap. If the insect touches just one hair, thetrap will not spring shut; but a large enough bug willlikely touch two hairs within about twenty seconds,and that signal springs the Venus flytrap into action.We can look at this system as analogous toshort-term memory. First, the flytrap encodes theinformation (forms the memory) that something (itdoesn’t know what) has touched one of its hairs.Then it stores this information for a number ofseconds (retains the memory) and finally retrievesthis information (recalls the memory) once a secondhair is touched. If a small ant takes a while to getfrom one hair to the next, the trap will have forgottenthe first touch by the time the ant brushes up againstthe next hair. In other words, it loses the storage ofthe information, doesn’t close, and the anthappily meanders on. How does the plant encodeand store the information from the unassumingbug’s encounter with the first hair? How does itremember the first touch in order to react upon thesecond?Scientists have been puzzled by these questionsever since John Burdon-Sanderson’s early report onthe physiology of the Venus flytrap in 1882. Acentury later, Dieter Hodick and Andreas Sievers atthe University of Bonn in Germany proposed thatthe flytrap stored information regarding how manyhairs have been touched in the electric charge of itsleaf. Their model is quite elegant in its simplicity.In their studies, they discovered that touching atrigger hair on the Venus flytrap causes an electricaction potential [a temporary reversal in theelectrical polarity of a cell membrane] thatinduces calcium channels to open in the trap (thiscoupling of action potentials and the opening ofcalcium channels is similar to the processes thatoccur during communication between humanneurons), thus causing a rapid increase in theconcentration of calcium ions.They proposed that the trap requires a relativelyhigh concentration of calcium in order to closeand that a single action potential from just onetrigger hair being touched does not reach this level.Therefore, a second hair needs to be stimulated topush the calcium concentration over this thresholdand spring the trap. The encoding of the informationrequires maintaining a high enough level of calciumso that a second increase (triggered by touching thesecond hair) pushes the total concentration ofcalcium over the threshold. As the calcium ionconcentrations dissipate over time, if the secondtouch and potential don’t happen quickly, the finalconcentration after the second trigger won’t be highenough to close the trap, and the memory is lost.Subsequent research supports this model.Alexander Volkov and his colleagues at OakwoodUniversity in Alabama first demonstrated that it isindeed electricity that causes the Venus flytrap toclose. To test the model they rigged up very fineelectrodes and applied an electrical current to theopen lobes of the trap. This made the trap closewithout any direct touch to its trigger hairs (whilethey didn’t measure calcium levels, the currentlikely led to increases). When they modified thisexperiment by altering the amount of electricalcurrent, Volkov could determine the exact electricalcharge needed for the trap to close. As long asfourteen microcoulombs—a tiny bit more than thestatic electricity generated by rubbing two balloonstogether—flowed between the two electrodes, thetrap closed. This could come as one large burst or asa series of smaller charges within twenty seconds. If ittook longer than twenty seconds to accumulate thetotal charge, the trap would remain open.

The Venus flytrap [Dionaea muscipula] needs toknow when an ideal meal is crawling across its leaves.Closing its trap requires a huge expense of energy,and reopening the trap can take several hours, soDionaea only wants to spring closed when it’s surethat the dawdling insect visiting its surface is largeenough to be worth its time. The large black hairs ontheir lobes allow the Venus flytraps to literally feeltheir prey, and they act as triggers that spring thetrap closed when the proper prey makes its wayacross the trap. If the insect touches just one hair, thetrap will not spring shut; but a large enough bug willlikely touch two hairs within about twenty seconds,and that signal springs the Venus flytrap into action.We can look at this system as analogous toshort-term memory. First, the flytrap encodes theinformation (forms the memory) that something (itdoesn’t know what) has touched one of its hairs.Then it stores this information for a number ofseconds (retains the memory) and finally retrievesthis information (recalls the memory) once a secondhair is touched. If a small ant takes a while to getfrom one hair to the next, the trap will have forgottenthe first touch by the time the ant brushes up againstthe next hair. In other words, it loses the storage ofthe information, doesn’t close, and the anthappily meanders on. How does the plant encodeand store the information from the unassumingbug’s encounter with the first hair? How does itremember the first touch in order to react upon thesecond?Scientists have been puzzled by these questionsever since John Burdon-Sanderson’s early report onthe physiology of the Venus flytrap in 1882. Acentury later, Dieter Hodick and Andreas Sievers atthe University of Bonn in Germany proposed thatthe flytrap stored information regarding how manyhairs have been touched in the electric charge of itsleaf. Their model is quite elegant in its simplicity.In their studies, they discovered that touching atrigger hair on the Venus flytrap causes an electricaction potential [a temporary reversal in theelectrical polarity of a cell membrane] thatinduces calcium channels to open in the trap (thiscoupling of action potentials and the opening ofcalcium channels is similar to the processes thatoccur during communication between humanneurons), thus causing a rapid increase in theconcentration of calcium ions.They proposed that the trap requires a relativelyhigh concentration of calcium in order to closeand that a single action potential from just onetrigger hair being touched does not reach this level.Therefore, a second hair needs to be stimulated topush the calcium concentration over this thresholdand spring the trap. The encoding of the informationrequires maintaining a high enough level of calciumso that a second increase (triggered by touching thesecond hair) pushes the total concentration ofcalcium over the threshold. As the calcium ionconcentrations dissipate over time, if the secondtouch and potential don’t happen quickly, the finalconcentration after the second trigger won’t be highenough to close the trap, and the memory is lost.Subsequent research supports this model.Alexander Volkov and his colleagues at OakwoodUniversity in Alabama first demonstrated that it isindeed electricity that causes the Venus flytrap toclose. To test the model they rigged up very fineelectrodes and applied an electrical current to theopen lobes of the trap. This made the trap closewithout any direct touch to its trigger hairs (whilethey didn’t measure calcium levels, the currentlikely led to increases). When they modified thisexperiment by altering the amount of electricalcurrent, Volkov could determine the exact electricalcharge needed for the trap to close. As long asfourteen microcoulombs—a tiny bit more than thestatic electricity generated by rubbing two balloonstogether—flowed between the two electrodes, thetrap closed. This could come as one large burst or asa series of smaller charges within twenty seconds. If ittook longer than twenty seconds to accumulate thetotal charge, the trap would remain open.