Several prominent scientists announced the Encyclopedia of Life project today. If successful, the online encyclopedia will be the comprehensive source for information about each of Earth’s 1.8 million (and counting) known species. If it fails, the site will fade into oblivion as just another feel-good project - rich in resources, but lacking in real-world value.

The directors of the project seem to be making every attempt to avert failure. There are big names involved: E.O. Wilson as the Honorary Chair, Harvard and the Smithsonian, to name a few. There is funding from the MacArthur and Sloan Foundations. And with the announcement of the site comes a You Tube video (below), replete with snappy graphics and glimpses of the smoothly navigable menus characteristic of Web 2.0.

But amidst the fanfare lurk glaring pitfalls. Although some information may be accessible as early as 2008, the site is not expected to be complete for 10 years. The differences between the Encyclopedia of Life and Wikipedia (or “The Encyclopedia of Everything,” as many envision it) are unclear. And, irkingly, the emphasis will initially be on animals, plants and fungi, excluding microorganisms until a later date, and contradicting the “comprehensive guide to living things” idea.

Altogether, however, the encyclopedia is a noble idea that appears well-executed. As long as the scientists, the scientific communicators, the digital archivists, and the general public can cooperate, it just might be what we need to catalog our dying biosphere before it’s (gulp) just a sphere.

Video: You Tube + Web 2.0 + Polar Bears = The Encyclopedia of Life’s recipe for media success.

Scientists have found that the addition of artificial snot enhances the performance of electronic noses. Although they sound futuristic, electronic noses are used for many purposes, including monitoring for spoiled beverages at bottling plants, and detection of pollutants inside space craft. Nasal mucus (aka snot) enhances the sense of smell in our old-school, natural noses by dissolving and separating scent molecules for delivery to scent receptors. Using artificial polymers that mimic actual snot, the researchers were able to distinguish between scents that were previously difficult using the artificial nose, such as milk and cream. What’s next in the artificial body fluid field? Would artificial earwax enhance hearing with fake ears? Could artificial tears make robots, er, sadder? Maybe we should just stick with the snot for now.

Electronic Nose vs. Real Nose Dr. Julian Gardner sniffs out the competition: An electronic nose with artificial snot. A worthy rival, but nothing a few swift sneezes can’t handle.