Feedback is New Scientist’s popular sideways look at the latest science and technology news. You can submit items you believe may amuse readers to Feedback by emailing feedback@newscientist.com
Toy trouble
Feedback may be well into middle age, verging on dotage, but we aren’t ashamed to admit that we enjoy playing with Lego, to the point of having a special cabinet in our home office in which to house our more prized sets. So, we were naturally intrigued to learn of a set, released on 1 March, called “The Evolution of STEM” (science, technology, engineering and mathematics).
The build is a cornucopia of STEM-related objects: a DNA double helix, a space shuttle, an apple tree with Isaac Newton stood nervously beneath it and more. They all erupt out of the pages of an open book, accompanied by minifigures of chemist Marie Skłodowska-Curie and agricultural scientist George Washington Carver.
It’s a bit chaotic-looking, but there is a deeper problem, highlighted in a Reddit thread flagged to us by news editor Jacob Aron, and noted by at least one reviewer. It’s quite simple: the DNA is the wrong way around. Many biological chemicals can be either left or right-handed, and in Earthly life, DNA is always right-handed – but Lego’s DNA molecule is left-handed.
Feedback was going to suggest this was Lego subtly arguing that, despite what the experts say, we should go ahead and construct a mirror organism in which key molecules have the opposite handedness to existing life – even if it might kill us all. But then we saw that Jay’s Brick Blog had already made that remark in their review.
So instead, we call on the world’s palaeontologists to find something wrong with the metre-long T. rex skeleton kit Lego released on 15 March. We need to stop ourselves buying it.
Joined-up thinking?
With a certain weary inevitability, many big energy companies have rolled back their commitments to renewable energy, preferring to chase the immediate profits from fossil fuels.
In late February, BP announced it was boosting its investments in oil and gas by about 20 per cent, while cutting renewables funding by more than $5 billion. This was, it said, about maximising returns for shareholders. Alas, the firm’s net income was a mere $8.9 billion in 2024. Oh, how their hands were tied.
On the day this announcement was made, the story was presented on the UK’s BBC News homepage – next to one headlined “Half of homes need heat pump by 2040, government told”. Feedback briefly joined some dots in our addled mind, before reminding ourselves that it’s fine: the people in suits know what they’re doing.
After all, BP isn’t alone. A few weeks earlier, Shell released its full 2024 results, which noted that it had cut its capital spending on renewables from $2.3 billion to $2.1 billion. Last year, it abandoned its 2035 emissions target. Likewise, in December, Exxon set out a plan to boost its oil and gas output by 18 per cent by 2030.
To paraphrase Futurama‘s Philip J. Fry: Feedback is shocked. Shocked! Well, not that shocked.
The whole saga leads us to wonder if “corporate strategy” might be an oxymoron on a par with “military intelligence”. In the early 2000s, BP rebranded itself from “British Petroleum” to “Beyond Petroleum”, to signal its intention to embrace renewables. Then it abandoned the whole thing after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill cost it a lot of money, bringing its focus back to fossil fuels. Fast-forward to 2020, and the company announced a raft of new renewables targets – many of which it is now slinking away from with this recent drop in funding.
If Feedback were this indecisive, we would, er, struggle to decide how to wrap this up, um.
Crunch the numbers
Reporter Michael Le Page draws our attention to The Journal of Geek Studies. Despite its (somewhat) formal-sounding name, it isn’t peer-reviewed, but it will publish “any original contribution that combines an academic topic with something geeky”.
Hence the paper that Michael found, published on 8 March, titled: “Is a bone a viable weapon when combating a Rancor? Estimating the bite force of an intergalactic mega-predator“.
For readers unfamiliar with what a Rancor is, it’s the great big reptile-like monster in the basement of Jabba the Hutt’s palace in Return of the Jedi, which Luke Skywalker fights off. Another Rancor appeared in the 2021 series The Book of Boba Fett, but the less said about that the better.
Authors Thomas Clements and Stephan Lautenschlager seek to understand one key moment from Return of the Jedi. To avoid being eaten, Luke picks up a long bone and lodges it vertically in the Rancor’s mouth, locking its jaw open. However, Luke’s reprieve is only temporary, as the Rancor bites down so hard it snaps the bone in two.
Is this feasible? The pair simulate the muscles and bones of the Rancor’s jaw and estimate it could bite with a force of around 44,000 newtons – “more than capable of vertically snapping a large long bone”. Reassuringly, “no living vertebrate’s bite force comes close to the Rancor”, with great white sharks and saltwater crocodiles topping out around 16,000 to 18,000 newtons.
During our journalistic career, Feedback has repeatedly been told by editors to write stories that lead to practical advice, or “news you can use”. Well, here it is. Readers: every time you venture into crocodile territory, carry a femur or two with you, just in case.
Got a story for Feedback?
You can send stories to Feedback by email at feedback@newscientist.com. Please include your home address. This week’s and past Feedbacks can be seen on our website.
