I've recently come upon this amazing list of 100 Incredible Lectures from the World's Top Scientists, compiled by Sarah Russel over at BestCollegesOnline.com. Some of them are part of the TED series of lectures (which has just announced their 2010 program of speakers, which sadly appears to include no physicists this year). Several of these available lectures are ones that I've already watched, and the ones I haven't seen are ones I definitely want to pencil into my schedule.

What's your favorite of the lectures, or is there a good science lecture that you know is available online which hasn't been included in this list?

The saying goes that laughter is the best medicine, but I also think it can be one of the most effective teachers as well. I've often found that incorporating humor into my writing, or into the classroom (back when I was teaching), helps make things more memorable and, in the case of science, far less intimidating.

Three scientists are becoming known for their own brand of scientific comedy:

• Brian Malow - the self-proclaimed "Earth's Premiere Science Comedian"
• Norm Goldblatt - physicist who tells jokes as a side gig
• Tim Lee - biologist turned comedian, who uses entertaining PowerPoint presentations in his comedy

These three comedians all have segments available for free viewing on YouTube, and it's clear that they not only make science humorous, but they pass along meaningful information. For example, an audience leaving a Tim Lee performance might actually be able to remember how the process of nuclear fission occurs, because of a joke equating unstable uranium atoms to unstable Raiders fans.

And stand up comedy isn't the only place, of course, where science and comedy collide. One of the best comedies on television (especially now that Monk has left the air) is CBS's The Big Bang Theory, which received an Emmy nomination this year for Jim Parsons, the actor who plays the misanthropic string theorist Sheldon Cooper, Ph.D. (The win will come one of these days, I'm sure.) The thing that makes The Big Bang Theory work so well is that they aren't just making fun of scientists (although they do that, too) but they're genuinely making the quirkiness of science itself funny ... and they're doing so without insulting the integrity of that very same science.

This season, one sequence especially had me literally on the floor in tears laughing. In order to assist his friend, astrophysicist Rajesh Koothrappali (also with a Ph.D.), from being deported when his research fellowship ends, Cooper hires him to assist with some work in string theory that requires astrophysics expertise. Here's the funny part:

Their first work session involves a prolonged montage, complete with dramatic Mission: Impossible-style music, which involves cross-cuts of the two of them staring at a dry-erase board from different angles, contemplating string theory equations.

(If you haven't seen the episode, it may not sound funny, but I have independent confirmation. A friend of mine, who had just begun watching the show but has no real background in science other than knowing lots of geeks, independently mentioned this as the scene that hooked her onto the show. If you still don't believe me, the clip is available legally from the official website, at least at the time of this posting. Look for a clip entitled "Complete Focus" with an air date of 10/12/09.)

While this incorporation of humor and science can certainly have an impact on non-scientists by spreading scientific literacy, I think it's perhaps even more useful as a lesson for scientists themselves. Scientists see worlds in formulas, charts, and equations, but to translate this information to the public at large requires taking these concepts and putting them into a context that the average person can understand. Unfortunately, many of our most brilliant scientists fail at this task. These comedians, however, do it brilliantly ... and there's a lesson for scientists out there about how to communicate their ideas with others.

Do you have another instance where humor has helped teach people about science? Drop a comment and share it with the rest of us.

Last year, I was able to read 50 books in a year, an achievement that I've tried to repeat this year. Though I'm cutting it a bit close, I think I'll come in just under the wire ... which, given that I wrote a book and we had a newborn baby in 2009, while still holding down a full time job and also writing for About.com Physics, is an incredibly good achievement.

One of the last books I'm reading this year is The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind, the story of a teenage boy in Malawi who builds a windmill for his village entirely out of spare parts. I'm over halfway through the book and the windmill hasn't even been started yet ... but there's good reason for that.

What is most compelling about the book - and what's taken up the bulk of the story so far - is the setting of the scene. The book gives an exceptional look into life in Malawi, which is a harsh and became even harsher when a series of famines struck the country. William's family was limited to only one small meal a day because of the famine, and ultimately he had to quit going to school because they did not have money to pay the necessary fees.

There's also a strong science versus superstition vibe early on, as William describes the supernatural mysticism that seems to dominate his country. (He relates one shocking event, supposedly witnessed by his own grandfather, where a witch doctor brought a man who died of a snakebite back from the dead, while an entire forest full of cobras stand mesmerized around them.)

The story looks as if it's shaping up to be the tale about how scientific innovation and persistence can bring accomplishment out of even the most hopeless of situations. I think this is such an excellent book because it can be appreciated on so many levels. For those who don't think much of science, but care deeply about charity and the wellbeing of others, this is an excellent example of how the two are linked. For those who love science, this book helps reaffirm the necessary role it plays in our lives, by lifting us out of ignorance and poverty, and shows that doing so can contribute to the world instead of detract from it. It opens a worthwhile dialogue between science and compassion, which is lost in many of the books that I've had the pleasure to read for this site.

The book is an excellent case in support of South African cosmologist Neil Turok's mission to find the next Einstein out of Africa. Turok's goal is based on the idea that that the problems in Africa can only truly be solved by Africans, and can also only be solved if they become educated enough to build up their own infrastructure, scientific establishments, and standards of living. The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind demonstrates clearly that there is skill and determination among the people of Africa to achieve these things, they just need some help in hammering out the details.

I'll have to finish the book to see if it warrants a full review on this physics site, but I do enjoy it enough (even if the science appears to be limited mostly to the second half of the book) to recommend it as a great holiday gift for either yourself or someone else, so check it out.  You can also check out this interview with William Kamkwamba on The Daily Show with John Stewart, which is how I originally learned of the book.

What books have you read which clearly show the positive human effects of science? Have you found any science books that are also good for warm holiday reading?

And, of course, feel free to check out some of our other physics gift recommendations.

This time of year, there are always lots of retrospectives of the "year in review," and given that it's 2009 there are even some decade in reviews going on, but the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing (CASW) is doing them one better by doing a 50-year retrospective.

Why 50 years?

Because the CASW turns 50 in 2010, so the retrospective covers their entire span of operation. The focus isn't just on big science and technology stories, but specifically on big science research success stories. (The Large Hadron Collider didn't quite make the cut yet, unfortunately. Hopefully it will generate science worthy of notice in the 100-year retrospective.)

So the Challenger and Columbia disasters don't make the cut, but the discovery of cancer-causing genes (oncogenes) and creation of an invisibility cloak do.

The CASW list isn't finalized, though, and it's posted on their website in part to solicit commentary from scientists and science enthusiasts about which stories should be given more weight and which should be given less. What other stories do you think should be included and which should be removed?