Summer science student blogging at Duke

Just like they did it last year, Howard Hughes program at Duke is hosting student blogs in their summer program. Check out what the students are writing on their blogs, starting at homepages of the undergraduate students and high school students and going through the blogrolls on the right-hand sidebars.

Today’s carnivals

The latest edition of Medicine 2.0 Carnival is up on ScienceRoll
Carnival of the Godless #96 is up on Sean the Blogonaut
Friday Ark #200 is up on Modulator
Next Berry Go Round will be hosted by me here, so send me your entries by July 27th.

ClockQuotes

A week is a long time in politics.
– Harold Wilson

Make your own HMS ‘Beagle’ ship

From the The Beagle Project Blog:

Vedran Vucic on Open Access

A couple of weeks ago, Vedran Vucic gave a talk about Open Access at the law school at the Belgrade University. For those of you who can read Serbian, here is the newspaper report. Glad to see PLoS mentioned…

Blogrolling for today

Palaeoentomology & Insect Evolution


More Grumbine Science


Buttered Waffles


The Evolving Mind


Moose Droppings


On The Media–Cavewoman Style

Global Warming, Media and Politics

Robert Grumbine has a series of posts with thoughts about climate change and what a non-expert can do to get properly informed:
Climate is a messy business:

Climate certainly is a messy business. One of the things that makes it interesting to those of us who work on it is precisely that. Wherever you look, you find something that affects climate, regardless of whether you look at permafrost, sea ice, forests, farms, rivers, factories, sunspots, volcanoes, dust, glaciers, …
So certainly we have a complicated science and certainly few people are going to understand enough of it to argue the finer points. This is true within the science as well, as few who study volcanoes and their climate effects are going to be able to argue the finer points about the role of sea ice in climate, or vice versa.
What does an honest and interested person do then? Two things as I see it. First, not all the science involved is difficult. For those parts of the science, learn the science. Anybody who can get through normal life, cook a recipe, balance a checkbook, etc., can understand the basics. One source is Jan Schloerer’s summary at http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs.scq.basics.html Jan was not a climate scientist, but, as I said, you don’t need to be one to understand the basics. One thing he did do (see his acknowledgements, for instance) is check with people who were to ensure that he’d gotten the science right (or at least correct given the limits of writing a general audience description). I’ll come back to basics in a minute.
Second, for things that aren’t elementary, start looking to expert opinion. No different than if your car is acting up and you can’t figure out why, or you’ve got something like a cold but it isn’t going away like one should. You go find an auto mechanic or doctor and use their expertise. If your concern is, instead, about climate, then find some climate scientists. While there aren’t that many (even counting worldwide) they do exist. And it’s not that hard to find their professional understanding. You’ll see it more directly in journals like Science and Nature than Scientific American or Discover. But both can be gotten fairly easily, and both include summaries of the science which are written for laymen.

Science not politics:

Many people have vested interests relating to climate change and thoughts about what, if anything, to do about it. That does produce politics, in that groups of people with interests act politically.
But the science is the science, and respects no party, no nation, no religion, etc.
This does make for the problem that groups with interests other than explaining and discussing the best science also establish web sites, write editorials, produce shows, etc. to propagandize their views, distorting and lying about the science along the way. So if you’re interested in the science, you have to work harder to find it than in something which doesn’t scare people. You also have to work harder to disentangle the parts of an article that are science from those which are opinion, wishful thinking, and such.
One thing which I think is helpful in deciding about sources is to, first, hold your nose about their political viewpoints. This can be hard when the politics are greatly different from yours, but bear with it. As you read through, look for scientific claims, or claims which the author thinks are scientific. As you find them, go hit the literature on the topic and see if the author has represented the point correctly. It may sound like a lot of work, but in practice, most web sites which are more concerned about their politics than the science display this fairly quickly by lies and distortions, and some are at an extremely basic level. Basic enough that you can check the truth of it by looking at a textbook from 30 years ago (before the topic was getting nearly as much press, but well after the scientific basics were understood). If not an outright lie, very often what you’ll see is a quote selected from a scientific article and removed from its context. Once you find the context, you see that the original author’s intent was quite different than the bit quoted.

Climate confusion:

Agreed about the media thing. It’s one of the things which irritates the scientists who are trying to communicate accurate, careful, correct information. People hear wild claims in the media, and then when we discuss what we really know and how well, we don’t get believed (since we’re not as extreme as the media reports, it’s no story). (‘we’ by the way doesn’t exactly include me. I haven’t talked to the media for a long time, and it wasn’t about this. Still, I do know folks who get quoted.)
One thing for you to do, with the 27,000 on either side of you, is to start looking at what they’re scientists of. It turns out that the 27k saying that climate is changing and part of the reason is human activity are climate scientists, while the 27k disagreeing are doctors, chemists, nuclear physicists, … But do the checking yourself. There’s a petition, for instance, with over 17,000 signers, but very few of them are in climate sciences (but check me on that). If your mechanic says your car needs a new belt, as do the several other mechanics you take the car to, while a bunch of doctors you know say that it doesn’t, do you get the belt or not? I get the belt. Being knowledgeable (about something) isn’t sufficient; you have to be knowledgeable about the thing at hand.

Journals – the dinosaurs of scientific communication

Bjoern Brembs:

Today’s system of scientific journals started as a way to effectively use a scarce resource, printed paper. Soon thereafter, the publishers realized there were big bucks to be made and increased the number of journals to today’s approx. 24,000. Today, there is no technical reason any more why you couldn’t have all the 2.5 million papers science puts out every year in a single database.
——–snip——–
Precurser to this publishing reform was access reform: scientific papers are the result of publicly funded research and should be publicly accessible. This reform appears now to be well underway and will probably conclude in 2-3 years. Both reform movements have their base in the more general open science movement. The goal of this reform movement is to have full public access not only to the published papers, but also to the raw data, ideas and reagents for sharing among scientists. There are still plenty of problems which have to be worked out before open science can become a reality, if it is even feasible. One of the more easy to solve problems (one that is shared with publishing reform) is that of how to attribute credit. If we all publish in the same database and share ideas online, how can two scientists competing for the same position or grant be assessed objectively?
——–snip——–
Different universities/employers will focus on different aspects of a researcher and value some of his/her contributions more than others. I don’t think there can be too many measures to capture the complexity of scientific output. I’d like to see an aggregating service, maybe based on services like OpenID, where a flexible portfolio can be organized such that employers can easily search for the traits they are looking for and find or compare the people who maximize their efforts on these traits.
——–snip——–
I think most researchers would gladly pay for a service which has a track record of picking the most interesting, groundbreaking and well-done papers from the 2.5 million every year. Today’s professional editors would be a great pool from which such services could recruit employees.

My picks from ScienceDaily

Distribution Of Creatures Great And Small Can Be Predicted Mathematically:

In studying how animals change size as they evolve, biologists have unearthed several interesting patterns. For instance, most species are small, but the largest members of a taxonomic group — such as the great white shark, the Komodo dragon, or the African elephant — are often thousands or millions of times bigger than the typical species. Now for the first time two SFI researchers explain these patterns within an elegant statistical framework.

Bees Go ‘Off-color’ When They Are Sickly:

Bumble-bees go ‘off colour’ and can’t remember which flowers have the most nectar when they are feeling under the weather, a new study from the University of Leicester reveals.

Tips On How To Build A Better Home For Biological Parts:

Researchers at the Virginia Bioinformatics Institute (VBI) at Virginia Tech have compiled a series of guidelines that should help researchers in their efforts to design, develop and manage next-generation databases of biological parts. The stakes are high: the concept of biological parts is essential if methods developed in other fields of engineering are to be applied to biology. If successful, this approach will result in significant productivity gains for the biotechnology industry.

New Model Explains Why We Overestimate Our Future Choices:

When people make choices for future consumption, they select a wider variety than when they plan to immediately consume the products. A new study examines the reasons behind this diversification of choices.

Paradoxical Relationship Discovered Between Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever And Its Carrier Mosquitoes:

A study by researchers in Thailand, Japan, and the UK has shown a negative correlation between dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF) and the density of the Aedes mosquitoes that transmit the virus. The study explains how current efforts to reduce the mosquitoes may actually increase the incidence of the potentially fatal viral disease.

Leatherback Turtles’ Newly Discovered Migration Route May Be Roadmap To Salvation:

With a name like “Leatherback Turtle” you might think the sea turtles could stand up to just about anything the ocean can throw at them, and for more than a hundred million years, they have. But tough, long-lived critters though they are, the population of leatherbacks in the eastern Pacific Ocean has plummeted by over 90 percent in the last 20 years.

Electronic Publication and the Narrowing of Science and Scholarship. Really?

Electronic Publication and the Narrowing of Science and Scholarship by James A. Evans, ironically behind the paywall, has got a lot of people scratching their heads – it sounds so counter-intuitive, as well as opposite from other pieces of similar research.
There is a good discussion on FriendFeed and another one here.
A commentary at the Chronicle of Higher Education is here, also ironically behind the paywall.
Here is the press release and here is the abstract:

Online journals promise to serve more information to more dispersed audiences and are more efficiently searched and recalled. But because they are used differently than print–scientists and scholars tend to search electronically and follow hyperlinks rather than browse or peruse–electronically available journals may portend an ironic change for science. Using a database of 34 million articles, their citations (1945 to 2005), and online availability (1998 to 2005), I show that as more journal issues came online, the articles referenced tended to be more recent, fewer journals and articles were cited, and more of those citations were to fewer journals and articles. The forced browsing of print archives may have stretched scientists and scholars to anchor findings deeply into past and present scholarship. Searching online is more efficient and following hyperlinks quickly puts researchers in touch with prevailing opinion, but this may accelerate consensus and narrow the range of findings and ideas built upon.

For now, let’s see what others say:
Peter Suber:

* It’s hard to say much based on a newspaper summary and a press release. But at first glance, Evans’ results conflict with the many studies showing that OA articles are cited significantly more often than non-OA articles. These studies differ from one another on how to explain the correlation between OA and increased citation counts, but they agree on the correlation. However, there may be ways to reconcile the two sets of results. For example, authors may cite fewer articles when they have more to choose from, but they may still cite OA articles relatively more often than TA articles. Or the average number of citations per article may decline with the growth of the total number of articles accessible to authors, but OA articles might bring the average up, and TA articles might bring it down. Or the multiplication of ejournals may be narrowing the scope of the average paper, and therefore shortening the average reference list, but citations may be growing overall and the of citations of OA articles may be growing faster than the citations of TA articles. (On the other side, the Economist said that “the same effect applied whether or not a journal had to be paid for” –though without specifying exactly which effect.)
* Evans’ results also appear to conflict with a recent study by Arthur Eger, Database statistics applied to investigate the effects of electronic information services on publication of academic research – a comparative study covering Austria, Germany and Switzerland, GMS Medizin – Bibliothek – Information, June 26, 2008. Eger found that “a larger content offering coincides with a dramatic increase in Full Text Article requests, and an increase in Full Text Article requests, after about 2 years, coincides with increased article publication.” If Evans is right that “less is sampled”, then the two studies are definitely incompatible. But if look only at Evans’ conclusions about citations, the two studies may be compatible. Evans is saying that access to more literature reduces the number of different sources one cites, and Eger is saying that it increases (“dramatically” increases) the number of articles one requests or samples. Researchers may be viewing more articles but citing fewer. Are they using their enhanced access to browse neighboring topics? Are they exploring serendipitous discoveries, only some of which turn out to be citable? Does their wider reading help them zero in on citable research?

Brandon Keim asked (and commenters are answering):

What do you think, scientist and scholar Wired Science readers, especially those whose careers have spanned the jump from paper to screen? What have you gained — or lost — from the internet’s rise?

Philip Davis:

In other words, it is not the additional online access that this causing the change in citation behavior but the tools that accompany the online access — tools that allow readers to link to related articles, rank by relevance, times cited, etc. It is these tools that signal to the reader what is important and should be read. The result of these signals is to create herding behavior among scientists, or what Evans describes as consensus building.
A highly-efficient publication system can come with unanticipated consequences — the loss of serendipity. In an earlier blog post, we discuss how the Internet is changing reading behavior in general, reducing the depth of inquiry. In another blog, we discuss how signaling can help readers save time.

David Crotty:

Evans brings up a few possibilities to explain his data. First, that the better search capabilities online have led to a streamlining of the research process, that authors of papers are better able to eliminate unrelated material, that searching online rather than browsing print “facilitates avoidance of older and less relevant literature.” The online environment better enables consensus, “If online researchers can more easily find prevailing opinion, they are more likely to follow it, leading to more citations referencing fewer articles.” The danger here, as Evans points out, is that if consensus is so easily reached and so heavily reinforced, “Findings and ideas that do not become consensus quickly will be forgotten quickly.” And that’s worrisome-we need the outliers, the iconoclasts, those willing to challenge dogma. There’s also a great wealth in the past literature that may end up being ignored, forcing researchers to repeat experiments already done, to reinvent the wheel out of ignorance of papers more than a few years old. I know from experience on the book publishing side of things that getting people to read the classic literature of a field is difficult at best. The keenest scientific minds that I know are all well-versed in the histories of their fields, going back well into the 19th century in some fields. But for most of us, it’s hard to find the time to dig that deeply, and reading a review of a review of a review is easier and more efficient in the moment. But it’s less efficient in the big picture, as not knowing what’s already been proposed and examined can mean years of redundant work.

Martin Fenner:

The greater availability of research papers in recent years thanks to electronic publication (and open access) should broaden and not narrow the papers that we read and ultimately cite in our own publications. But looking at my own behavior when reading papers or writing a publication, and thinking about many discussions we had on related topics, these findings make perfect sense.
Today’s technology allows us to make the distribution of scientific papers in electronic form very efficient, and thanks to this technology we have new business models (author-pays) and an ever-increasing number of journals. Access to research articles is now easier, cheaper and for a broader audience than in ever was before. This is of course a wonderful development, but unfortunately creates a new problem: information overflow and how to filter out the relevant information.
Twenty years ago the typical researcher would use the personal or institutional journal subscription to regularly follow the important papers in his field. Index Medicus and Current Contents were used to find additional articles, but they were cumbersome to use. Today few researchers regularly read printed journals. Most papers are found by searches of online databases and by subscriptions of tables of content by email or RSS. There are many clever tools to facilitate this, but most people probably are overwhelmed by the information and stick to some very specific research interests and high-profile journals.

Thomas Lemberger:

In any case, the study highlights two complementary strategies in information retrieval: finding relevant papers by targeted searches versus staying informed on a broad range of topics by systematic browsing. In our Google-driven era, we may have the tendency to forget the importance of good old-fashioned ‘table-of-content-skimming’ to stimulated cross-disciplinary thinking, widen our horizon and cultivate scientific curiosity.
Perhaps it is a specificity of printed media to provide “poor indexing” and therefore enforce broad exposure to unrelated areas of research. On the other hand, some web technologies already help to browse through vast amounts of online publications (for example an RSS aggregator helps me to generate a daily literature survey; this can be further combined, for example here at Frienfeed, with other community-centered feeds; other aggregators highlight information by automatic clustering: Postgenomic and Scintilla). However, these tools remain imperfect and, in our reflection on the future of scientific publishing, we will need to find the right balance between the two strategies above and think of how the increasing efficiency of searching engines can be complemented by means providing continuous exposure to diversity.

Bill Hooker does the most detailed analysis of the paper so far (so click and read the whole thing, graphs and all):

What this suggests to me is that the driving force in Evans’ suggested “narrow[ing of] the range of findings and ideas built upon” is not online access per se but in fact commercial access, with its attendant question of who can afford to read what. Evans’ own data indicate that if the online access in question is free of charge, the apparent narrowing effect is significantly reduced or even reversed. Moreover, the commercially available corpus is and has always been much larger than the freely available body of knowledge (for instance, DOAJ currently lists around 3500 journals, approximately 10-15% of the total number of scholarly journals). This indicates that if all of the online access that went into Evans’ model had been free all along, the anti-narrowing effect of Open Access would be considerably amplified.
In fact, the comparison between print and online access is barely even possible when considering Open Access information. The same considerations of cost — who can afford to read what — apply to commercial print and online publications, but free online information has essentially no print ancestor or equivalent. Few if any scholarly journals were ever free in print, so there’s a huge difference between conversion from commercial print to commercial online on the one hand, and from commercial print to Open Access on the other.
Indeed, I would suggest that if the entire body of scholarly literature were Openly available, so that every researcher could read everything they could find and programmers were free to build search algorithms over a comprehensive database to help the researchers do that finding, then in fact the opposite effect would obtain. Perhaps it’s true that the more commercial online access you have, the less widely a researcher’s literature search net is cast, but as I mentioned above I see no reason to attribute that more to the mode of access than to its cost.

Perhaps with greater accessibility, people have quit citing old papers which they used to cite just because everyone always cites those papers without even reading them. Those who have the least access, tend to cite very old stuff, textbooks, popsci articles, e.g., these guys. Those who have good access can both browse and search and find what is truly relevant to their work. They cite only stuff that they have actually read and found useful. Perhaps people are just getting more honest.

Periodic Table of Videos

Periodic Table of Videos on YouTube:

This channel has a video about each element on the periodic table.
With help from some clever chemists, I’ve done all 118, but I’m not stopping here.
Now I’m updating and improving all the videos with new stories, better samples and bigger experiments.
Please subscribe to follow my progress.
Or visit the main website at Periodic Table of Videos

Dr.Horrible – a sing-along blog

Everyone is posting these movies and e-mailing me the URL – so here it is (is there a way to enbed these?) for your enjoyment (btw, geeky me, Doogie Howser, M.D. was my favourite show when I was a kid)

Time Perception news

Carl Zimmer: How Your Brain Can Control Time:

For 40 years, psychologists thought that humans and animals kept time with a biological version of a stopwatch. Somewhere in the brain, a regular series of pulses was being generated. When the brain needed to time some event, a gate opened and the pulses moved into some kind of counting device.
One reason this clock model was so compelling: Psychologists could use it to explain how our perception of time changes. Think about how your feeling of time slows down as you see a car crash on the road ahead, how it speeds up when you’re wheeling around a dance floor in love. Psychologists argued that these experiences tweaked the pulse generator, speeding up the flow of pulses or slowing it down.
But the fact is that the biology of the brain just doesn’t work like the clocks we’re familiar with. Neurons can do a good job of producing a steady series of pulses. They don’t have what it takes to count pulses accurately for seconds or minutes or more. The mistakes we make in telling time also raise doubts about the clock models. If our brains really did work that way, we ought to do a better job of estimating long periods of time than short ones. Any individual pulse from the hypothetical clock would be a little bit slow or fast. Over a short time, the brain would accumulate just a few pulses, and so the error could be significant. The many pulses that pile up over long stretches of time should cancel their errors out. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. As we estimate longer stretches of time, the range of errors gets bigger as well.

Chris Chatham: Impulsivity Due to Distortions in Time: Hyperbolic Discounting and Logarithmic Time Perception:

New research from Wharton and the Carlson School shows that a methodologically-appealing measure of impulsivity – hyperbolic discounting rate – may actually reflect a systematic “skew” in the way people perceive time.
Previous work has shown that people tend to decreasingly discount the usefulness or appeal of a reward with increasing delays; that is, a reward provided now is more appealing than a reward provided 1 week or 1 month from now, but that change in appeal is nonlinear (hyperbolic) across time. In other words, people prefer to behave impatiently now, but prefer to act more and more patiently in the future – suggesting that this “hyperbolic discounting rate” might be related to impulsivity.

Vaughan: The future is nonlinear:

These are quite different concepts – for example, we know logically that waiting four weeks is exactly four times as long as waiting a week, but it might not feel exactly four times as bad.

Door To Door Atheists Bother Mormons

Silly, but funny to see how people react when treated to a dose of their own medicine:

“Australian filmmaker John Safran is so fed up with mormons ringing his doorbell early in the morning that he flies to Salt Lake City Utah and tries to convert Mormons to atheism. Needless to say, the locals were not pleased.”


[Hat-tip: Tanja]

ClockQuotes

More than print and ink, a newspaper is a collection of fierce individualists who somehow manage to perform the astounding daily miracle of merging their own personalities under the discipline of the deadline and retain the flavor of their own minds in print.
– Arthur Ochs Sulzberger

Science Blogging 2008: London

The conference website is up. Check out the program, attendees, etc.

Science Cafe: The History and Science of Paper

Tuesday July 22
6:30-8:30 p.m.

After a thousand years, it’s still a great technology! Follow the story from papyrus to nano-fibrils with Med Byrd, of the Department of Wood and Paper Science in the NCSU College of Natural Resources. Q&A after his talk. Tir Na Nog 218 South Blount Street, Raleigh, 833-7795

Blogrolling for today

JenDodd


It’s Alive!!


David Hone’s Archosaur Musings


Visualizing Evolution


Ruminations of An Aspiring Ecologist


BPR3 (new address)

Cool bloggy miscellanea

Scientific Collectivism 1: (Or How I Stopped Worrying and Loved Dissent):

I want to bring up a discussion about what I perceive is a dangerous trend in neuroscience (this may be applicable to other areas of science as well), and that is what I will term “scientific collectivism.” I am going to split this into two separate posts because it is so long. This first post is the weaker arguments, and what I see are the less interesting aspects of scientific collectivism-however, they deserve a discussion.

What will you be? and the related Friday Poll: Tinker, Tailor, Biologist, Researcher. So, how do you call yourself when you are introduced to a stranger?
A little muddled (especially in not making sufficient distinction between peer-reviewed Journals and pop-science magazines), but an interesting look from the outisde in: The High Cost Of Science:

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you are interested in science and you want to learn more about it. Maybe you’re tired of creation vs evolution debates and you want to do the research yourself, or maybe you just want to become a more informed citizen. Whatever your reasons, you have a few options but none of them are all that appealing.

Online Alarm Clock which, once set, does not need to be online in order to ring on time. Does it work on an iPhone?
Fair Use Rights:

Intellectual property, copyright, creative commons, copyleft, open access… These are all terms high on the science and other agenda these days. For example, public-funded scientists the world over are calling for research results to be available free to them and their peers for the public good and for the good of scientific advancement itself. Librarians likewise are also interested in the fullest dissemination and sharing of knowledge and information, while user-creators and the new breed of citizen journalists that are the result of the Internet Age are also more liberal in their outlook regarding the proprietary nature of creative works.

Survival of the Abudant: Mutational Networks Constrain Evolution:

What has been found over the last few years is that these neutral mutations occur in networks. That means that there are little fleets of genotypes, all of the same “fitness”, that have overlapping series of neutral mutations. Most of these fleets are small, but a few are larger, and its the larger fleets of genotypes that the researchers in this study focused on. The large networks tend to be adjacent to a pretty large number of phenotypes. So you have all these little neutral mutations, next to RNA with a wide variety of phenotypes. Do these little neutral mutations influence evolution after all?

The Kudlow Year:

We’ve had a terrible year. Obvious problems remain, along with whatever else lurks beneath the waterline. Wall Street showed some optimism about the future yesterday, but we’ve still got a long way to go. A lot of this boils down to arithmetic. Pay more attention to the numbers and less to ideologues on teevee or the web who try to tell you different.

Scribd and Lulu partner:

Print-on-demand publisher Lulu (which offers an OA option for content providers) and document sharing site Scribd are partnering, according to ReadWriteWeb. Lulu will begin making some of their OA content available in Scribd’s iPaper format (a “sort of a YouTube for PDFs”), including utilizing iPaper’s ability to embed AdSense ads within the documents.

Rational Voters?

The underlying assumption, of course, is that issues matter, that voters are fundamentally rational agents who vote for candidates based on a coherent set of principles. In other words, they assume that my political preferences reflect some mixture of ideology and selfish calculation. I’ll vote for the guy who best matches my geopolitics and tax bracket.
The problem, as political scientist Larry Bartels notes, is that people aren’t rational: we’re rationalizers. Our brain prefers a certain candidate or party for a really complicated set of subterranean reasons and then, after the preference has been unconsciously established, we invent rational sounding reasons to justify our preferences. This is why the average voter is such a partisan hack and rarely bothers to revise their political preferences.

I Like My Facts Well Done and Humorless. The funny take on Sizzle.
PhysioProf rants and raves on Feministe for a couple of weeks or so. Check the tribal wars in the comments!
A pierced scientist? AKA, I need a mentor:

It occured to me yesterday that I have a lot of questions to ask and nobody to go to for answers. I really need a mentor of some kind. I mean, I have an academic advisor, but he’s an old white man who doesn’t make any attempt to engage me in conversation. He’s very standoffish and business-oriented whenever I meet with him, which I think has been once a year for the last three years. I doubt he knows my name. And I have Dr. Calhoun, my research advisor, who I’m starting to warm up to a little bit but I’m not really at the point where I can ask him the kinds of personal questions that are the most burning. I doubt I’ll ever be able to not be intimidated by him, especially since I found out he’s the chair of the graduate admissions committee.

Obligatory Reading of the Day: Cameron Neylon on Open Science

Policy for Open Science – reflections on the workshop:

One thing that was very clear to me was that the attendees of the meeting were largely disconnected from the more technical community that reads this and related blogs. We need to get the communication flowing in both directions – there are things the blogosphere knows, that we are far ahead on, and we need to get the information across. There are things we don’t know much about, like the legal frameworks, the high level policy discussions that are going on. We need to understand that context. It strikes me though that if we can combine the strengths of all of these communities and their differing modes of communication then we will be a powerful force for taking forward the open agenda.

Crackpottery

Just an hour or so ago I was in the car, listening to This American Life on NPR, when this story (Act Three) came up on the air:

Bob Berenz had a good job as an electrician. But he wanted to do something bigger. He came up with an idea for an invention. But as he studied physics texts to see if his invention could work, he happened upon the biggest idea of his life: a revelation about physics that would disprove Einstein, and Newton. That is, if Bob’s right.

It is a great story to listen to, and quite revealing about the psychology and the emotional motivations for crackpottery.
Ah, what a Great Cosmic Synchronicity – me and a bunch of other science bloggers, mainly biologists, physicians and philosophers, all got this e-mail today:
crackpot.JPG
Except, it is not a synchronicity. This show first aired in 2005. And no matter when it aired, that would be at least within the same week if not the same day when we get one of these crackpot e-mails. Usually, I spend about a millisecond before sending such things to Trash, but listening to the show made me fish it out again just so I can show it to you.
These kinds of e-mails are a constant in many science bloggers’ mailboxes. I get roughly one per week. I bet PZ gets a dozen a day. I cannot imagine how many of those are received and promptly deleted by real physics professors, or the editors of physics journals!
There are some things in common to all of them.
People who come up with these theories have no science background. They think they are very smart (and may innately be so – they usually do not sound stupid, just ignorant), but do not have any idea how much they do NOT know.
If they knew anything, why would they send their physics theories to a bunch of biologists?
They want to become famous scientists but are too lazy to do the necessary work to get there. They are much more interested in becoming instantly famous than becoming scientists.
They really do not know what constitutes knowledge, and the way one gets to knowledge. They do not understand how science works, because they were never trained in it.
They are incapable of taking criticism, or admitting they are wrong. Big egos help in this regard, and so does a lack of scientific training (which makes you quite humble pretty quick in grad school).
Once they try peddling their impressionistic ideas, they get rebuffed which makes them resort to conspiracy theories about the walls surrounding the academia. As Bob from the NPR show says at one point, scientists are too engrossed in all that mathematics to be able to see the Truth (I am confident he meant it with a capital T).
As it is impossible to talk sense to them, and as they are unwilling to put effort into some real training, the only thing one can do with e-mails like one above is to quickly delete them as they come in – there is just no reason to waste time on it.

My picks from ScienceDaily

Pathologists Believe They Have Pinpointed Achilles Heel Of HIV:

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) researchers at The University of Texas Medical School at Houston believe they have uncovered the Achilles heel in the armor of the virus that continues to kill millions.

Farming At Young Age May Lead To Bone Disease In Adulthood:

Although farm chores are likely to keep young boys in shape and out of trouble, University of Cincinnati (UC) environmental health experts caution that it could be harmful to overall bone health if done too often at a young age.

Volcanic Eruptions May Have Wiped Out Ocean Life 94 Million Years Ago:

Undersea volcanic activity triggered a mass extinction of marine life and buried a thick mat of organic matter on the sea floor about 93 million years ago, which became a major source of oil, according to a new study.

Distribution Of A Species Of Butterfly Predicted Using Geometric Variables:

Biologists have recently explored the distribution of the butterfly Iolana iolas, one of the endangered species in the Madrid region whose population dynamics are determined by its host plant. The study, prepared by scientists from the King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, proposes a new path for designing conservation plans for the species using geometric variables.

Good News For Veggies: Personal Values Deceive Taste Buds:

Many heavy meat eaters believe they eat a lot of meat because of the taste. But according to groundbreaking new research the reason that a beef burger tastes better than a veggie burger to some people has more to do with values than actual taste.

How to read a scientific paper

Here is a good example. Step-by-step.

ClockQuotes

Entire new continent can emerge from the ocean in the time it takes for a Web page to show up on your screen. Contrary to what you may have heard, the Internet does not operate at the speed of light; it operates at the speed of the DMV.
– Dave Barry

Nice shirt, Eric!

I am currently reading – and enjoying very much – The Carbon Age: How Life’s Core Element Has Become Civilization’s Greatest Threat by Eric Roston.
He was recently interviewed for DC Examiner and they ran a picture of him wearing a familiar t-shirt 😉
Eric%20with%20a%20shirt.JPG
Recently, Eric was quoted in TIME and lambasted by Rush Limbaugh, which, as Tom notes, means that Eric made it Big Time!

Obligatory Reading of the Day: Opening up Scientific Culture

Why are so many scientists reluctant to make full use of Web 2.0 applications, social networking sites, blogs, wikis, and commenting capabilities on some online journals?
Michael Nielsen wrote a very thoughtful essay exploring this question which I hope you read carefully and post comments.
Michael is really talking about two things – one is pre-publication process, i.e., how to get scientists to find each other and collaborate by using the Web, and the other is the post-publication process, i.e., how to get scientists to make their thoughts and discussions about published works more public.
Those of you who have been reading me for a while know that I am thinking along some very similar lines. If you combine, for instance, my review of Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge with
On my last scientific paper, I was both a stunt-man and the make-up artist with Journal Clubs – think of the future! with The Scientific Paper: past, present and probable future, you will see a similar thread of thinking.
But, what do you think?

Blog is software

I’ve said it before and I said it again, and I heard other people say it repeatedly (e.g., Anton): blog is software.
It’s up to every individual (or group, or organization, or company, or political entity) to put it to creative use.
Blog is not content. Content is what someone puts on a blog.
Medium is not the message. Though medium affects the message, of course, and content found on blogs is affected by the ease of use, extremely low cost, and frequency of updating, as well as social communication norms that develop over time.
This, this and this are expansions on that theme, mostly. Interesting reads, nonetheless. What do you think?

Evolution: Education and Outreach

The third issue of the Open Access journal ‘Evolution: Education and Outreach’ has been published, and it is again full of good, thought-provoking articles. You can see them (for free, of course) if you click here.

New and Exciting in PLoS this week

What’s new in PLoS Computational Biology, PLoS Genetics, PLoS Pathogens and PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases this week? Among else, these papers that caught my eye:
Emergent Synchronous Bursting of Oxytocin Neuronal Network:

When young suckle, they are rewarded intermittently with a let-down of milk that results from reflex secretion of the hormone oxytocin. Oxytocin is a neuropeptide made by specialised neurons in the hypothalamus, and is secreted from nerve endings in the pituitary gland. During suckling, every 5 min or so, each of these neurons discharges a brief, intense burst of action potentials; these are propagated down the axons, and release a pulse of oxytocin into the circulation. Here, we have built a computational model to understand how these bursts arise and how they are synchronized. In our model, bursting is an emergent behaviour of a complex system, involving both positive and negative feedbacks, between many, sparsely connected cells. The oxytocin cells are regulated by independent afferent inputs, but they interact by local release of oxytocin and endocannabinoids. Oxytocin released from the dendrites of these cells has a positive-feedback effect, while endocannabinoids have an inhibitory effect by suppressing the afferent input to the cells. Many neurons make peptides that act as messengers within the brain, and many of these are also released from dendrites, so this model may reflect a common pattern-generating mechanism in the brain.

Genome-Wide Expression Patterns and the Genetic Architecture of a Fundamental Social Trait:

Fundamental research goals for scientists interested in social evolution are to determine the numbers and types of genes that directly regulate individual social behaviors as well as to understand how the social environment indirectly influences the expression of socially relevant traits. The fire ant Solenopsis invicta features a remarkable form of social variation in which the occurrence of two distinct social types that differ in colony queen number is associated with genetic differences at a genomic region marked by the gene Gp-9. Our analyses of gene expression profiles in fire ant workers revealed that differences in Gp-9 genotype are associated with the differential expression of an unexpectedly small number of genes, many of which are predicted to function in chemical communication relevant to the regulation of colony queen number. Surprisingly, worker gene expression profiles are more strongly influenced by indirect effects associated with the social environment within their colony than by the direct effect of their own Gp-9 genotype. These results suggest a complex genetic architecture underlying the control of colony queen number in fire ants, with a single Mendelian factor directly regulating, and the social environment indirectly influencing, the expression of the individual behaviors that, in aggregate, yield an emergent colony social organization.

Tracking the Odysseys of Juvenile Schistosomes to Understand Host Interactions:

The prospects confronting a “new-born” schistosome cercaria are formidable. That some of these microscopic helminths successfully negotiate the tortuous route from snail to human vasculature is a truly remarkable feature of adaptive biology. After escaping the birth pore of its parental sporocyst, a cercaria (at least we infer from studies of other digeneans [1]) swims and crawls through the snail body cavity before it burrows through a pre-formed escape tunnel to the aquatic environment. Once in that milieu, a cyclical suite of swimming behaviours positions the cercaria for its potential assault on the skin of an available host, should one appear. Upon skin penetration, the larva (now called a schistosomulum) sits within the skin for up to 72 hours before tracking to the lung, whereupon it re-enters a second static phase. This journey takes the organism through three distinct environments (five if we include the solid integuments of snail and human hosts), incorporates a wholesale remodelling of the surface membrane, and includes two poorly understood periods of relative immobility in the skin and the lung. Further development in the liver is required before the adults reach their ultimate destination in the vasculature of the intestine or bladder. How the juvenile stages of schistosomes negotiate these environments is of intense interest, not the least because protective immunity in schistosome infections, when it occurs, appears to be directed against the early intra-host stages, with the principal target being the lung stage schistosomulum

Dynamics of Genome Rearrangement in Bacterial Populations:

Whole-genome sequencing has revealed that organisms exhibit extreme variability in chromosome structure. One common type of chromosome structure variation is genome arrangement variation: changes in the ordering of genes on the chromosome. Not only do we find differences in genome arrangement across species, but in some organisms, members of the same species have radically different genome arrangements. We studied the evolution of genome arrangement in pathogenic bacteria from the genus Yersinia. The Yersinia exhibit substantial variation in genome arrangement both within and across species. We reconstructed the history of genome rearrangement by inversion in a group of eight Yersinia, and we statistically quantified the forces shaping their genome arrangement evolution. In particular, we discovered an excess of rearrangement activity near the origin of chromosomal replication and found evidence for a preferred configuration for the relative orientations of the origin and terminus of replication. We also found real inversions to be significantly shorter than expected. Finally, we discovered that no single reconstruction of inversion history is parsimonious with respect to the total number of inversion mutations, but on average, reconstructed genome arrangements favor “balanced” genomes–where the replication origin is positioned opposite the terminus on the circular chromosome.

Computational Biology Resources Lack Persistence and Usability:

Innovation in computational biology research is predicated on the availability of published methods and computational resources. These resources facilitate the generation of new hypotheses and observations both on the part of the creators and the scientists who use them. These methods and resources include Web servers, databases, and software, both complex and simple, that implement a specific procedure or algorithm. Usually, a resource is maintained by the laboratory in which it was initially developed. We would assert that there is a growing level of frustration among scientists who attempt to use many of these resources and find that they no longer exist or are not properly maintained. Whether you agree or disagree with this statement and the evidence that follows, we welcome your thoughts and invite you to add a Comment to this article to share your own experiences and perspectives.

Today’s carnivals

Skeptics’ Circle #91 is up on Sorting Out Science
Carnival of the Liberals LXIX is up on Stump Lane
The Carnival of Education #180 is up on Steve Spangler’s Blog

My picks from ScienceDaily

New Approach Sheds Light On Ways Circadian Disruption Affects Human Health:

Growing evidence indicates that exposure to irregular patterns of light and darkness can cause the human circadian system to fall out of synchrony with the 24-hour solar day, negatively affecting human health — but scientists have been unable to effectively study the relationship between circadian disruptions and human maladies.

Frogs With Disease-resistance Genes May Escape Extinction:

As frog populations die off around the world, researchers have identified certain genes that can help the amphibians develop resistance to harmful bacteria and disease. The discovery may provide new strategies to protect frog populations in the wild.

Men And Women May Need Different Diets:

Diet can strongly influence how long you live and your reproductive success, but now scientists have discovered that what works for males can be very different for females.

Gene That Regulates And Blocks Ovulation Discovered:

A group of Canadian and European researchers have unlocked the mystery of a gene with the potential to both regulate and block ovulation. The new study is a collaboration between the Université de Montréal in Canada and the Institut de génetique et biologie moléculaire et cellulaire of the Université de Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg, France.

From Humming Fish To Puccini: Vocal Communication Evolved With Ancient Species:

It’s a long way from the dull hums of the amorous midshipman fish to the strains of a Puccini aria — or, alas, even to the simplest Celine Dion melody. But the neural circuitry that led to the human love song — not to mention birdsongs, frog thrums and mating calls of all manner of vertebrates — was likely laid down hundreds of millions of years ago with the hums and grunts of the homely piscine.

Should We Move Species To Save Them From Climate Change?:

Many species must move to new areas to survive climate change. Often, this seems impossible. Species stranded on mountain tops in southern Europe that are becoming too hot for them, for instance, are unlikely to be able to reach northern Europe unaided. So should humans step in to help?

Fragile Antarctic Marine Life Pounded By Icebergs: Biodiversity Suffering:

Antarctic worms, sea spiders, urchins and other marine creatures living in near-shore shallow habitats are regularly pounded by icebergs. New data suggests this environment along the Antarctic Peninsula is going to get hit more frequently. This is due to an increase in the number of icebergs scouring the seabed as a result of shrinking winter sea ice.

Glimpses Of Earliest Forms Of Life On Earth: Remnant Of Ancient ‘RNA World’ Discovered:

Some bacterial cells can swim, morph into new forms and even become dangerously virulent – all without initial involvement of DNA. Yale University researchers describe July 18 in the journal Science how bacteria accomplish this amazing feat – and in doing so provide a glimpse of what the earliest forms of life on Earth may have looked like.

TOPAZ upgrade

TOPAZ software, the one that hosts five out of seven PLoS journals (ONE, Pathogens, Neglected Tropical Diseases, Genetics and Computational Biology) has just been upgraded. There is not much new in the terms of functionality visible to readers, but the upgrade should greatly increase the stability of the sites and the speed of loading of papers, comments and other pages.
Give it a test-drive: search and browse papers, download PDFs, post comments/notes/ratings, send trackbacks, and if you notice any glitches, let us know exactly where you were, what you were trying to do, and what happened (there is usually a “contact” or “report” button somewhere on each page, but you can also just e-mail me).

ClockQuotes

The daily arguments over putting away the toys or practicing the piano defeat us so easily. We see them coming yet they frustrate us time and time again. In many cases, we are mothers and fathers who have managed budgets and unruly bosses and done difficult jobs well through sheer tenacity and dogged preparation. So why are we unable to persuade someone three feet tall to step into six inches of water at bathtime?
– Cathy Rindner Tempelsman

My picks from ScienceDaily

Birds Have A Good Sense Of Smell:

Sight and hearing are the most important senses for birds – this is at least the received wisdom. By studying bird DNA, however, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, along with a colleague at the Cawthron Institute in New Zealand, have now provided genetic evidence that many bird species have a well-developed sense of smell (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 16.07.2008).

Europe’s Ancestors: Cro-Magnon 28,000 Years Old Had DNA Like Modern Humans:

Some 40,000 years ago, Cro-Magnons — the first people who had a skeleton that looked anatomically modern — entered Europe, coming from Africa. A group of geneticists, coordinated by Guido Barbujani and David Caramelli of the Universities of Ferrara and Florence, shows that a Cro-Magnoid individual who lived in Southern Italy 28,000 years ago was a modern European, genetically as well as anatomically.

Corporations Can Profit From Being Environmentally Friendly:

Though many policymakers have argued that environmental regulations can negatively impact on an organization’s bottom line, a new study by George Mason University researcher Nicole Darnall shows that companies that develop green production processes can not only offset the costs of regulations, but can also reap further benefits.

Wasps And Bumble Bees Heat Up, Fly Faster With Protein-rich Food:

Good pollen makes bees hot, biologists at UC San Diego have found. Wasps warm up too when they find protein-rich meat, a separate experiment has shown.

Over 100 Species Of Bats Found Within Several Acres Of Rainforest In Ecuador:

Bats are a remarkable evolutionary success story representing the second largest group of mammals, outnumbered only by rodents in number of species. Now, researchers of the Leibniz-Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research in Berlin (Germany) and Boston University (U.S.A.) have discovered the place that harbours the highest number of bat species ever recorded. In a few ha* of rainforest in the Amazon basin of eastern Ecuador, the authors have found more than 100 species of bats.

Darwinist

Olivia Judson is absolutely right – let’s get rid of the terms “Darwinist” and “Darwinism”. She writes, among else:

I’d like to abolish the insidious terms Darwinism, Darwinist and Darwinian. They suggest a false narrowness to the field of modern evolutionary biology, as though it was the brainchild of a single person 150 years ago, rather than a vast, complex and evolving subject to which many other great figures have contributed. (The science would be in a sorry state if one man 150 years ago had, in fact, discovered everything there was to say.) Obsessively focusing on Darwin, perpetually asking whether he was right about this or that, implies that the discovery of something he didn’t think of or know about somehow undermines or threatens the whole enterprise of evolutionary biology today.

I am glad to see that John Wilkins, Jonah Lehrer and Brian Switek also agree with this, though each one cites a somewhat different reason for it. Many of those reasons have been put together into a table form (with deep explanations) by Wilkins before – a good reference for the future, something to bookmark.
Brian Switek says, and I agree that at least for us in the USA, this is the most pressing reason to abandon the terms:

I’ve never liked the term “Darwinism.” To me it has always been more of a watchword that might indicate that I was talking to a creationist, a term I generally do not encounter unless I’m reading or hearing an argument against a straw-man version of evolution. (I’m not a big fan of “evolutionist,” either.) It may have been useful in the past, when evolution by natural selection (as popularized by Darwin) was competing with other systems like Neo-Lamarckism and orthogenesis, but today it doesn’t have any relevance. (It should also be noted that A.R. Wallace wrote a book on natural selection called Darwinism. Despite his own work on the same subject he calls evolution by natural selection “Darwin’s theory.”) If anything it continues the myth that Darwin is the be-all and end-all of evolutionary science, and while he certainly deserves a lot of credit On the Origin of Species is not some kind of secular Bible where every word is dogma.

According to Blake Stacey (and I have heard this before), the terms is used much more widely in the UK, including, until recently, by Dawkins who should have known better about the power of words:

I’ve written before about the different ways people define the word Darwinism and its close relatives. The short version is that American biologists and other academics don’t seem too likely to use the word: they just like to say “evolutionary biology” and be done with it. In the U. S. and A., hearing the word “Darwinism” is a pretty sure sign you’re dealing with a creationist, or at least a person whose knowledge of science derives too much from creationist misinformation. Over in Britain, serious academics still use the word, as do people who appear fairly pro-science (maybe there’s some kind of national pride thing going on?). One can still see negative uses of the D-word over in the UK, of course, particularly from people who confuse “social Darwinism” with actual biology or radically misinterpret kin selection and the “selfish gene” idea, but sorting out all their problems would require a book of its own.

Perhaps, I thought, this is because Darwin was British, so there may be an element of national pride involved. But then, smalled nations with even bigger reasons to push national pride, would have gone further than this, yet I have never heard a Serb proclaim to be a “Teslaist” or “Milankovichist”.
I have ranted about this before (e.g., here, here and here). For instance, here I wrote:

Bashing evolution is an example of phatic language. Words like “Darwinist” and “evolutionist” that are never used by actual evolutionary biologists serve as code-words for belonging to the Creationist Village, just like saying “Democrat party” instead of “Democratic party” immediatelly signals one’s political party affiliation (GOP). These two words, ending with “-ist” also serve to provide equivalency between creationist belief and evolutionary methodology, infering that evolutionary theory is a religious belief instead of a method for understanding the material world. If the two are seen as two opposed religions, they can have a war on equal footing in which “my religion is better than yours” contest can take place and Christians, due to sheer numbers and the tight community spirit are confident in victory. This kind of rhetoric also allows the creationists to show up on TV as equals to evolutionary biologists, as the naive media misreads phatic language as logical language and, following the American fairness sentiment, indulges in destructive “He said/She said” pseudo-journalism.

And here I wrote:

I am not an “evolutionist”. I am not a “Darwinist”. I am a biologist. Thus, by definition, I am an evolutionary biologist. Although my research is in physiology and behavior, I would never be able to make any sense of my data (or even know what questions to ask in the first place) without evolutionary thinking.
As I am also interested in history and philosophy of biology, I consider myself a Darwinian. But not a “Darwinist” or “evolutionist” – those two words are Creationists’ constructs. They arise from the basic misunderstanding of evolution. Being religious believers they cannot fathom that people can operate outside of the realm of belief, thus they assume that evolution is a belief, akin to and in competition with their belief.
I do not believe in evolution. It is not something you believe in or not: it is something you understand or not. I judge the evidence. If I think it is fishy I will delay my judgement until more data comes in. If the evidence looks good, I will tentatively and temporarily accept it as correct until more data come in. Evolutionary biology is sitting on such large mountains of strong evidence collected over the past 150 years that it appears impossible that over the next 150 years we will be able to collect an equivalent amount of data challenging it in order to question the validity of evolutionary theory. It is one of the strongest supported theory in all of science. For all practical purposes, evolution (as in “common descent”) is a fact, an d natural selection is the strongest of several mechanisms by which evolution operates. There is nothing controversial about this.
——-snip—————
Those two terms (“evolutionist” and “Darwinist”) have lately also been used on purpose, as code-words for their own audience. They understand that using these terms implies (and turns on a frame of mind in the listeners) that evolution is a religious belief. It is similar to the way I think of myself as a member of the Democratic Party, but Republicans prefer to use the Luntzism “Democrat Party”. It’s all about framing the debate.

Note a little difference between me and Olivia here. I want to preserve one of the three words – Darwinian, but only in the sense of “Darwinian Scholarship”, i.e., the historical and philosophical study of the history of evolutionary thought, rightfully centered around Darwin, and including the world he lived in – the Victorian England. Darwin is a gold mine for scholars. He was a little, let’s say, anal-retentive, so he preserved all of his correspondence, his papers, books, notebooks and diaries. Hundreds of biographies of Darwin have been published, in addition to book about Darwin, about the history of evolutionary thought, biographies of other players (e.g., Huxley, Wallace, Lamarck). I doubt that there is any other aspect of history that is known and studied more than British aristocracy of teh 19th century, so the context for Darwin’s life and work is well understood. The Darwinian Industry has enough material to keep thriving for decades to come.
However, another important reason is the one that Jonah Lehrer empasizes:

My problem with “Darwinism,” then, is the exact opposite of Judson’s. She dislikes “Darwinism” because she thinks the noun is applied too broadly, so that Darwin gets implicit credit for things like population genetics. But I think that “Darwinism” misleads because it causes people to underestimate Darwin’s real achievement, which is far grander than merely getting people to believe that species change. If “Darwinism” should be a synonym for anything it should be the ideology of unrepentant materialism, which is the underlying philosophy of modern science.

I completely agree. Actually, in a very old post I wrote something similar:

What we, who consider ourselves rational are, is not Aristotelian, but Darwinian. What????!!!!! Forget Darwin’s contribution to biology, or the misuse of his name by eugenicists and social-Darwinists of all kinds. The greatest contribution of Darwin is the way we in the Western world THINK! We require data! Give me information! Empirical proof! Statistics! At least give me polls! Before Darwin, people thought their great ideas in the seclusion of their homes and published books. It was my word against your word. Many philosophers became famous this way. Descartes and others started, earlier on, asking for empirical proofs but nobody provided them. Darwin did – he showed how philosophy is done! There were evolutionary theories before him, written by Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, Chambers and others that were laughed out of court. Everyone took “The Origin” seriously because it provided a consilient set of proofs: not just internal logic of the argument (many earlier philosophies had that) but a link to the reality of the world. That was the Day One of the Age of Rationality. If asked who my favourite philosopher was, I would have said Darwin and lost the Presidency that very moment! But it is true. The Western world lives in a Darwinian worldview – the worldview of empiricism.

The Giant’s Shoulders #1

Welcome to the Firstest, Biggestest, Inaugural Edition of The Giant’s Shoulders, the carnival of History Of Science! The carnival grew out of the Classic Papers Challenge by gg of Skulls in the Stars. That was so much fun, several of us thought this is something that should be done regularly, perhaps every month. So, gg and I got together and got this thing started.
I know some of the future hosts will do this very creatively (and yes, you can volunteer to host, though you will have to wait six months for your turn!), and I envisioned doing this in a form of, perhaps, a vigorous debate at the meeting of Royal Society or something like that. But then I got so many entries and the carnival got so big, I decided I had to go with a simpler scheme – the link and brief quote from each post.
As I was reading all the entries, I realized how much I tend to read only within my own area of interest and rarely find time and energy to read science bloggers when they dig into the depths of their own fields which I do not understand well. And I realized how much fun it is to read about things one knows very little about. So, I wanted to organize the carnival in a way that will make you more likely to check “the other guys” instead of just checking out your best buddies. So, instead of grouping the entries by discipline, I laid them out in chronological order, from the oldest to the newest. I hope you read them in order. This way, you can get a feel for what was known at what time, what was in the news at each era, what was the Zeitgeist, and how the practice of science (and science-writing) gradually changed.
Without further ado, here are the exciting carnival entries for July 2008:
1543 – Vesalius. It’s hard to go any earlier than this in the history of modern science, so we have to start with catatau at catatau blog, with a brief post Humanis Corporis Fabrica de Vesalius with the famous illustrations:

Em 1543 Andreas de Vesalius publicou uma lição de anatomia intitulada De Humanis Corporis Fabrica. Como Copérnico, Vesalius foi considerado por muitos um “precursor” de formas científicas modernas.

1729 – De Mairan. Oh, this one is mine
Clock Classics: It all started with the plants:

In the old days, when people communed with nature more closely, the fact that plants and animals did different things at different times of day or year did not raise any eyebrows. That’s just how the world works – you sleep at night and work during the day, and so do (or in reverse) many other organisms. Nothing exciting there, is it? Nobody that we know of ever wondered how and why this happens – it just does.

1750 – La Mettrie. This post by catatau at catatau is in Portugese, so I do not understand it, but those of you who can (and you can give us a summary in English) will enjoy La Mettrie: O Homem-Máquina e A Arte do Gozo

Existe uma corrente atual (na verdade, ela é bem mais antiga do que admitiriam seus mais fiéis defensores) de pensamento que busca subsumir os dados históricos às “descobertas”, “avancos” e “temas” contemporaneos. Assim, um livro esquecido hoje teria sua justificativa de ser “esquecido” precisamente por nao ter relevancia alguma para historiadores ou cientistas: e algo como irrelevante, ultrapassado, demode.

1751 – Hill. Brian Switek of Laelaps goes back to rowdy days of scientific debates: Geese from barnacles

In 1751 John Hill, upset the Royal Society of London rejected his application for membership, published a scathing critique of credulous papers printed by that body. One such review focused on a paper printed about an old, but common, legend that the Brent-Goose (probably Branta bernicla) was born not of eggs but of seashells dropped like fruit from a particular type of tree. Hill could not stand to see such nonsense peddled to the people, and the fact that it was being promulgated by the Society that rejected him gave him an opportunity for some revenge.

1751 – Linneaus. Here is another one of mine, in the same vein as my previous one: Carolus Linnaeus’ Floral Clocks

Linnaeus observed over a number of years that certain plants constantly opened and closed their flowers at particular times of the day, these times varying from species to species. Hence one could deduce the approximate time of day according to which species had opened or closed their flowers.

1781 – Herschel and Herschel. John McKay of Archy tracks the history of discovering and naming planets in our Solar System in On Planets X and Names:

The bottom line is that we are just beginning to understand the outer solar system and to come up with plausible scenarios for the evolution of the solar system that account for all of its parts. If Lykawka’s theory proves correct and someone finds Planet X, the really important question will be what do we call it. George is still up for grabs.

1781 – Jefferson. Brian of Laelaps found the old politicians involved in scientific debates as well, in Thomas Jefferson’s All-American incognitum:

To Buffon the Americas contained a degenerate fauna, everything about them (including Native Americans) being inferior to Old World creatures. Although Jefferson admired Buffon’s general appreciation for natural history he would not sit idly by and let Buffon call the New World and his country (still experiencing labor pains as he wrote his Notes) degenerate. The discovery of the American incognitum earlier in the century and it’s identification as some variety of elephant (albeit a carnivorous one) by the 1760’s provided Jefferson with a perfect “American Monster” to counter Buffon.

1810 – Arago. This one is from GG, the carnival founder and manager on Skulls in the Stars – definitely a “Classical” paper: What a drag: Arago’s Experiment (1810)

From a historical point of view, Arago’s experiment* is absolutely fascinating: as we will see, it was a failed experiment, based on incorrect theories of light propagation, which was interpreted incorrectly by Fresnel, but this incorrect interpretation helped lead to the (correct) view that light has wavelike properties! The incorrect interpretation, however, also led physics into a hundred-year ‘red herring’ search that only ended with the advent of Einstein’s relativity. These are a lot of twists and turns to untangle, so let’s take them one step at a time.

1848 – Harlow. SciCurious from Neurotic Physiology tackles the most famous medical case of all times – Passage of an Iron Rod Through the Head:

When I ask people if they know who Phineas Gage is, most people stop and say “who?” Then you say five words “railroad spike through the head”, and everyone says “OH! YES!” The case of Phineas Gage is one of the best-known case reports in medicine, and since then, Phineas Gage and his tamping iron have been the source of numerous books, TV specials, retroactive research, review articles, and neurology lectures. This is pretty good fame for a railroad foreman whose only claim to fame was a freak accident.

1856 – Owen. Matt (and Darren) of Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week look at the early pioneering days: Sauropod pneumaticity, the early years:

Today, the idea that sauropods (and non-avian theropods) were pneumatic animals is well established and universally accepted (a minority view – promoted by those who insist that birds cannot be dinosaurs – maintains that non-avian dinosaurs were not pneumatic, but I see no indication that the workers concerned know what they’re talking about). Indeed, sauropod pneumaticity has been discussed a lot here at SV-POW! But have people always regarded sauropods as pneumatic? As someone particularly interested both in pneumaticity and in the dinosaurs of the Lower Cretaceous Wealden Supergroup of southern England, the whole ‘Pneumaticity: the Early Years’ story is of special interest to me. I hope you get something out of it too…

1858 – Darwin and Wallace. Greg Laden of Greg Laden’s blog goes for the Superheroes: Darwin and Wallace 1858

It has been fashionable to underscore the differences between them (and that is quite interesting) but if each of these writings were proffered as answers to an AP biology exam question asking “What is Natural Selection … how does it work and what is the evidence for it?” the two essays would score about the same grade. I wonder what the grade would be?

1880 – Dutton. This one by Tuff Cookie at Magma Cum Laude is about an entire book – A Report on the Geology of the High Plateaus of Utah:

Reading any of Dutton’s works is a pleasure – not only because they are accounts of the first explorations of the geology of the western US, but because of the writing style of Dutton’s time. It reads a little like a travelogue, a little like an adventure story, and is elegant, succinct and thoroughly insightful.

1881 – Reid. Here is Brian of Laelaps again, with a post that reminds us how far science has moved on since the old heady days – Wallowing dinosaurs and birds on the 5th day:

The fact that dinosaurs were envisioned by some as being giant, swamp-bound monsters during this time gave Reid a way out. The Genesis narrative was clear that birds were created on the 5th day, the same day as the great whales and other “moving creatures of the water” (within which Reid lumped non-avian dinosaurs). If mammals (including humans) appeared on the next day, representing the “Age of Mammals,” then the 5th must have been the “Age of Reptiles”.

1884 – Freud. SciCurious at Neurotic Physiology finds famous roots of the study of cocaine in Uber Coca, by Sigmund Freud:

Most people know Sigmund Freud as the founder of psychoanalysis, as well as originating the idea of the role of the unconscious in conscious thought, and of course for “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” But were you also aware that Freud was one of the pioneers of research into the properties of cocaine?

1885 – Ebbinghaus. Dave Munger of Cognitive Daily decided to check out The origins of the study of memory:

What’s notable about Ebbinghaus’s study isn’t so much the conclusions he draws from it, but the fact that he’s the first person to attempt a systematic, experimental study of memory. He actually devised his own system of accounting for error (anticipating standard deviation).

1887 – Petri. Epicanis at The Big Room explains where the Petri dishes come from in A small modification of Koch’s plating method:

This was kind of a pain to work with, so some clever guy named Julius came up with a modification of this method in 1887, using pairs of shallow dishes, one slightly larger than the other so that it could be turned upside down to use as a lid. Then, you don’t necessarily need the bell jar, and you don’t need to stack them so they’re easier to pour. Julius Robert Petri’s idea was so useful that we still use it today. Oh, yeah, and they named the dish-and-lid combination after him.

1890 – Wiener. This physics post is also by the carnival’s manager, gg at Skulls in the Stars: Otto Wiener’s experiment:

The experiment that Wiener performed, as we will see, is conceptually simple and elegant. I foolishly thought that this would “translate” into a short, easy to cope with paper. As one can see from the citation above, no such luck: the paper is 40 pages of somewhat antiquated German! I accepted my fate, though, and soldiered on.

1900 – Shinn. Another one by Dave Munger at Cognitive DailyA baby’s psychological development at six months:

In 1890, her niece Ruth was born, and Shinn spent hours carefully observing the child’s every behavior. This “large mass of data” became the basis for a book that was welcomed by the scholars of the day, The Biography of a Baby, which, while not the first of its kind, certainly was one of the most thorough scientific accounts of a baby’s cognitive and physical development in its time.

1914 – Hayes. The excitement of discovery in the field, by coconino at Ordinary High Water Mark: Another oldie but goodie…

There are actually few geologists I know who have and regularly use horsemanship skills in the course of their field work (I’ve only known a few who needed pack animals and a muleskinner usually came with the mules/ponies/horses/burros – my grandfather needed dog-sledding, fishing, and hunting skills for his gold-mining in Alaska). Besides that and a little gender-bias, his words remain fairly true. At least a couple of profs I’ve known over the years have wanted to instill this understanding in their field-oriented students.

1917 – Graham. SciCurious at Neurotic Physiology shows once again how an accident can teach us something very basic about the way the human body works – Diabetes Insipidus as a Sequel to a Gunshot Wound of the Head

But on the fourth day, he began to PEE. And pee. And pee. It was so bad that they couldn’t even collect it all, he would urinate in the bed before they could even get him to a toilet. He was voiding 4.5-5.5 liters per day, and drinking copiously to retain any fluid at all. It never seemed to stop, even after he was discharged (to a mental hospital, unfortunately he remained severely unstable for the rest of his life).

1917 – Barrell. Climate and tectonics and sedimentation and stratigraphy, all in one paper covered by BrianR at Clastic DetritusBarrell and the Rhythms of Geologic Time:

Before I get into the ideas of the paper, the first thing to note is the style of writing. Simply look at the page range in the citation above … these old-school scientists were verbose! If you’re looking for concise statements and something you can digest quickly, this is not the place to go. But, if you’re in the mood to read some great scientific prose and dive deep into an idea, these old papers can be a delight.

1921 – Kulik. JohnMcKay of Archy is a historian, so he prefers concepts to individual papers, but I picked the oldest of the papers he mentions in A Century of Tunguska:

As Kulik was boarding his train to the Far East one of his colleagues handed him a page torn from an old calendar that had a news article about a meteor fall in Siberia in 1908. Almost every detail of the article was wrong. It described a red glowing stone landing near the railroad and curious passengers standing around to watch it cool. However, from the date and location in the story, Kulik was able to figure out what had happened. He prepared a questionnaire about the event that he gave to people across Siberia. Comparing witness accounts he was able to calculate approximately where the streak in the sky should have touched down. Kulik had no doubt that the 1908 explosion was a meteorite.

1931 – Loomis, Brown and Brouwer. Tom of Swans on Tea covers something dear to my own heart (yes, there is even influence of the Moon!), from a physical perspective – two papers about time, in a three-part post: ‘Classic’ Timekeeping, Part I, ‘Classic’ Timekeeping, Part II and ‘Classic’ Timekeeping, Part III:

These are from 1931, fulfilling the pre-WWII criterion, when you still had individuals engaging in research that were self-financed or supported by a patron and much of the equipment was self-manufactured. The science in this case was largely self-funded, and as for the “basement,” well, it’s a pretty fancy basement as you’ll see, as one might suspect of someone who can fund his own science. But classic nonetheless.

1933 – Wright. From Barn Owl of Guadalupe Storm-Petrel, a famous person and a famous species – Otocephaly in the Guinea Pig:

Although mice and rats are far more commonly used animal models in biomedical research, we still refer to human test populations and volunteers for experiments as “guinea pigs”. Between 1915 and 1925, the Bureau of Animal Industry at the USDA maintained a number of guinea pig strains for genetics research, and this 1933 paper* by Sewall Wright describes the appearance of, and inheritance patterns associated with, “otocephalic monsters” in one inbred strain (“family 13″) of these rodents.

1933 – Schaeffer and Fulton. Here is another one by Epicanis at The Big Room, tracking the origin of standard lab techniques – A simplified method of staining endospores:

If you take a microbiology lab, this is the endospore staining technique (or “technic” as they used to spell it) that you’ll practice.

1935 – Windle and Austin. Barn Owl at Guadalupe Storm-Petrel repeats history in Earliest Axons in the Early Bird Embryo:

Compared to Windle and Austin, I had a lot of sophisticated equipment and labeling techniques at my disposal; in the end, however, my results were almost identical to theirs, with respect to the timing of arrival of the earliest central axons, and I had a nice historical confirmation for a section of the Neuron paper my mentor and I published.

1936 – Diserens and Wood. Podblack of the eponymous PodBlack Blog is skeptical – Belief in Fortune Telling Amongst College Students:

How does research on belief of college students in fortune-telling from 1936, compare to research today? Are the students that much different or does research now recognise a wider spectrum of influences that could have been included in the initial study? What were some of the socio-cultural influences that could have made a group of 101 students from the University of Cincinnati respond the way they did – and could a paper of that time recognised those elements?

1937 – Dingemanse. Here is SciCurious of Neurotic Phsyiology again with yet another weird historical experiment – Weird Science Friday REDUX

For this weird science Friday, I want to take you back. Back to a time before estrogen and testosterone. Back to a time when people were still trying to figure out was these “hormones” were. Back to when the grass was green, men had male hormone, women had female hormone, and roosters were castrated in the service of science.

1941 – Beadle and Tatum. This one by ecoli of Thoughts from gut bacteria is so famous, it is at least mentioned even in the intro genetics courses – Science Classics: The Beadle and Tatum Experiment:

About 15 years before Watson and Crick proposed a model for DNA and back when scientists were in disagreement about how genetic information was actually stored, there was the Beadle and Tatum experiment.

1942 – Coons, Creech, Jones, and Berliner. Mary from The OpenHelix Blog did some serious detective sleuthing to figure out who was the first to use labeling of a tissue sample with a fluorescent antibody and her digging uncovered some cool work in the basement and other nifty history – The Beginnings of Immunofluorescence:

Ok, so fluorescent antibodies didn’t just come out of the freezer (ice-box). They came from a process. And they came from a time when lots of things actually could have gone wrong. Coons might have not come back from the war. Not everyone made it through.

1944 – Avery, MacLeod & McCarty. Gerlach, who writes on Off Resonance, covers another Big Classic – DNA as the molecule of heredity

I would like to say that the Avery paper did not, at that time, definitively establish DNA as genetic material. Rather, it only showed that DNA was the transforming principle, and there were competing ideas about the mechanism of transformation. However, many scientists did interpret transformation as a genetic phenomenon, so the genetic implications of the paper were immediately recognized. That said, the paper did not find immediate acceptance.

1949 – Libby. Megs of Katzenklavier takes a look at the way Radiocarbon dating revolutinized archaeology, in Hot Dates in Chi-Town:

Archaeologists are notorious moochers. Or maybe I should be nice and just say we’re ‘highly adaptive’. Either way, we constantly pick up new techniques from other disciplines, such as using G.I.S. and performing DNA analysis on ancient skeletons. Even our trowels were designed for masonry work.

1952 – Lederberg and Lederberg. Mike of the Ramblings of a Mad Scientist blog, in On the shoulders of giants describes an important experiment that used a technique that is still the standard one in use in everyday microbiology to select for bacteria which are sensitive to an antibiotic, or a virus, or require a certain compound for growth:

So, thank you, Drs. Lederberg. this paper of yours not only established the importance of mutation prior to exposure to an environmental challenge, but also outlined a handy lab technique I’ve made repeated and systematic use of in my own experiments.

1953 – Salpeter. Eric Roston of Dispatches From Carbon Nation is, of course, covering something that has to do with carbon – how stars produce it – The Giant’s Shoulders: Edwin Salpeter edition:

In 1951, Salpeter spent a summer at Caltech, working with Willy Fowler, the amiable head of the Kellogg Radiation Laboratory. Fowler handed off some unprocessed 1949 nuclear physics experimental data to Salpeter to see if he could solve a tough problem: Physicists couldn’t figure out how stars make carbon.

1955 – Wertheimer. Here is another one by Dave Munger at Cognitive DailyGestalt-o-mania!:

Gestalt theory hit the psychology world by storm in the 1920s, and the Gestalt school’s unquestioned leader (though probably not the originator of the concept) was Max Wertheimer. While many people have an intuitive understanding of the concept of “gestalt” as the essence or overall meaning of something, they may not be as aware of the Gestalt school’s principles, which were laid down by Wertheimer and others in very specific and concrete ways.

1957 – Eshelby. Guru of Entertaining Research covers a pair of extremely influential and highly cited physics papers – Elastic stresses due to inclusions and inhomogeneities

However, as Eshelby himself seems to have noted, the most important reason why these two papers are classics are not for their results, but for the methodology that was developed in them, which continue to be of use fifty years after he published these papers.

1960 – Pittendrigh. Another one of mine, on the most famous (and probably most cited) paper in my field: Forty-Five Years of Pittendrigh’s Empirical Generalizations:

It appears that every scientific discipline has its own defining moment, an event that is touted later as the moment of “birth” of the field. This can be a publication of a paper (think of Watson and Crick) or a book (“Origin of Species” anyone?). In the case of Chronobiology, it was the 1960 meeting at Cold Spring Harbor. The book of Proceedings from the Meeting (Symposia on Quantitative Biology, Vol.XXV) is a founding document of the field: I have two copies, my advisor has three (all heavily used and annotated).

1962 – Binford. This post by cfeagans of Hot Cup Of Joe describes the beginnings of Binford’s push for a processual paradigm in American archaeology – A Classic Paper: Archaeology as Anthropology:

One of the things that makes this such a seminal paper is that Binford not only establishes his assertions and what he believes the future of archaeology should become, but he details why. More than this, he provides a working example of his proposed methods at work by using the Old Copper Complex of the Western Great Lakes as an example.

1964 – Heisuke Hironaka. Charles of Rigorous Trivialities gets deeply mathematical in Resolution of Singularities:

“…I’m going to talk about Resolution of Singularities. This is a very classical topic, and research continues in it to this day.”

1966 – Bauer, Kirby, Sherris and Turck. Here is another one by Epicanis at The Big Room
Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing by a Standardized Single-Disk Method

The authors here didn’t invent this trick. Not all antibiotic-susceptibility tests are “Kirby-Bauer” tests (the blurry picture there is of an experiment I did involving the beer ingredient hops, and is not a Kirby-Bauer test. Click the picture to go to my “Beer Cures Anthrax” post from long ago…). What this paper describes is a method that finally standardized this test.

1971 – Shepard and Metzler. Dave of Cognitive Daily casts his vote for The Greatest Cognitive Science Experiment, Ever?:

The design of the experiment is simple and brilliant; yet it was not easy to execute at the time. Today researchers studying vision almost always use computers to display stimuli. In 1970, when the experiment was designed, psychologists didn’t have easy access to computers capable of displaying Shepard and Metzler’s complex, three-dimensional images.

1973 – D.L. Rosenhan. Martin of The Lay Scientist goes into the roots of physchiatry in Into the Cuckoo’s Nest: The Rosenhan Experiment:

“….his simple question was: “If sanity and insanity exist, how shall we know them?” [1]. In order to investigate, he planted a number of perfectly sane patients in mental hospitals to see if staff would notice. The shocking results of his experiment sparked a fierce debate that continues to this day.”

1973 – Maynard Smith and Price. Another true classic by Winawer at Mild OpinionsThe beginning of biological game theory

The paper was a model of simplicity and clarity. It posed a central question: why aren’t more animal fights fatal? This was a question of some concern, because animals have large repertoires of nasty weapons with which to pursue violent conflicts, but as Maynard Smith and Price pointed out, animals rarely fight to the death.

1977 – Fox, Magrum, Balch, Wolfe and Woese. Microbiologist XX, whose blog is called, you guessed it, Microbiologist XX describes how our view of Life completely change with the publication of a single paper – Carl Woese Changed the Tree of Life:

Prior to 1977 the tree of life was composed of two branches, prokaryotes and eukaryotes. However, that changed when the Carl Woese lab published the classic paper Classification of Methanogeic bacteria by 16S ribosomal RNA Characterization. This paper introduced a new domain of life, archae (referred to at the time of publication as archaebacteria), and simultaneously created a new paradigm for understanding the origins of life on earth. Furthermore, this paper underscored the importance and power of classifying organisms using genetic relationships instead of morphological similarities.

1987 – Armando. PodBlack Cat has another one that is of quite modern interest: Dungeons And Dragons – Or Mazes And Monsters?:

Much of my current work as a research assistant deals with the theories of Csikszentmihalyi, and so I first came across research on games in relation to how Flow theory is used to explain the popularity of massive multi-player online role-playing games (MMORPG). Having seen the development and maintenance of peer cultures within forum boards develop, including negative aspects like cliques and bullying, which extended into the ‘real-world’, I wondered about the early research on games and whether it was just indeed just a bad experience of a few turned into unwanted hysteria. Certainly not all forum boards can be judged on less than a handful – so was it the same in this case, warranting such a study?

1992 – Kresge, Leonowicz, Roth, Vartuli and Beck. We will finish with a post on a chemistry paper that is not too ‘new’ (but still within our carnival criterion – older than 10 years), but since it has been cited over 6 thousand times it’s ‘classic’ enough, methinks. From Katy of Endless PossibilitiesClassic Chemistry: MCM 41:

As with many things, empty space matters as much in chemistry as the atoms or molecules that surrounds it. Some of the most intriguing and beautiful structures are found in the realms of porous (holey) materials.

And with this, we enter the most recent era, not really history yet. So, this is the end of the carnival and start of your own inspired writing for the next edition, which will be hosted by Martin on The Lay Scientist, exactly one month from today.

New and Exciting in PLoS ONE

There are 74 new articles in PLoS ONE today. Browse for your own choices – these are mine:
A 28,000 Years Old Cro-Magnon mtDNA Sequence Differs from All Potentially Contaminating Modern Sequences:

DNA sequences from ancient speciments may in fact result from undetected contamination of the ancient specimens by modern DNA, and the problem is particularly challenging in studies of human fossils. Doubts on the authenticity of the available sequences have so far hampered genetic comparisons between anatomically archaic (Neandertal) and early modern (Cro-Magnoid) Europeans. We typed the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) hypervariable region I in a 28,000 years old Cro-Magnoid individual from the Paglicci cave, in Italy (Paglicci 23) and in all the people who had contact with the sample since its discovery in 2003. The Paglicci 23 sequence, determined through the analysis of 152 clones, is the Cambridge reference sequence, and cannot possibly reflect contamination because it differs from all potentially contaminating modern sequences. The Paglicci 23 individual carried a mtDNA sequence that is still common in Europe, and which radically differs from those of the almost contemporary Neandertals, demonstrating a genealogical continuity across 28,000 years, from Cro-Magnoid to modern Europeans. Because all potential sources of modern DNA contamination are known, the Paglicci 23 sample will offer a unique opportunity to get insight for the first time into the nuclear genes of early modern Europeans.

Potential Effects of Oilseed Rape Expressing Oryzacystatin-1 (OC-1) and of Purified Insecticidal Proteins on Larvae of the Solitary Bee Osmia bicornis:

Despite their importance as pollinators in crops and wild plants, solitary bees have not previously been included in non-target testing of insect-resistant transgenic crop plants. Larvae of many solitary bees feed almost exclusively on pollen and thus could be highly exposed to transgene products expressed in the pollen. The potential effects of pollen from oilseed rape expressing the cysteine protease inhibitor oryzacystatin-1 (OC-1) were investigated on larvae of the solitary bee Osmia bicornis ( = O. rufa). Furthermore, recombinant OC-1 (rOC-1), the Bt toxin Cry1Ab and the snowdrop lectin Galanthus nivalis agglutinin (GNA) were evaluated for effects on the life history parameters of this important pollinator. Pollen provisions from transgenic OC-1 oilseed rape did not affect overall development. Similarly, high doses of rOC-1 and Cry1Ab as well as a low dose of GNA failed to cause any significant effects. However, a high dose of GNA (0.1%) in the larval diet resulted in significantly increased development time and reduced efficiency in conversion of pollen food into larval body weight. Our results suggest that OC-1 and Cry1Ab expressing transgenic crops would pose a negligible risk for O. bicornis larvae, whereas GNA expressing plants could cause detrimental effects, but only if bees were exposed to high levels of the protein. The described bioassay with bee brood is not only suitable for early tier non-target tests of transgenic plants, but also has broader applicability to other crop protection products.

Molecular Characterization of the Gastrula in the Turtle Emys orbicularis: An Evolutionary Perspective on Gastrulation:

Due to the presence of a blastopore as in amphibians, the turtle has been suggested to exemplify a transition form from an amphibian- to an avian-type gastrulation pattern. In order to test this hypothesis and gain insight into the emergence of the unique characteristics of amniotes during gastrulation, we have performed the first molecular characterization of the gastrula in a reptile, the turtle Emys orbicularis. The study of Brachyury, Lim1, Otx2 and Otx5 expression patterns points to a highly conserved dynamic of expression with amniote model organisms and makes it possible to identify the site of mesoderm internalization, which is a long-standing issue in reptiles. Analysis of Brachyury expression also highlights the presence of two distinct phases, less easily recognizable in model organisms and respectively characterized by an early ring-shaped and a later bilateral symmetrical territory. Systematic comparisons with tetrapod model organisms lead to new insights into the relationships of the blastopore/blastoporal plate system shared by all reptiles, with the blastopore of amphibians and the primitive streak of birds and mammals. The biphasic Brachyury expression pattern is also consistent with recent models of emergence of bilateral symmetry, which raises the question of its evolutionary significance.

Female Dominance over Males in Primates: Self-Organisation and Sexual Dimorphism:

The processes that underlie the formation of the dominance hierarchy in a group are since long under debate. Models of self-organisation suggest that dominance hierarchies develop by the self-reinforcing effects of winning and losing fights (the so-called winner-loser effect), but according to ‘the prior attribute hypothesis’, dominance hierarchies develop from pre-existing individual differences, such as in body mass. In the present paper, we investigate the relevance of each of these two theories for the degree of female dominance over males. We investigate this in a correlative study in which we compare female dominance between groups of 22 species throughout the primate order. In our study female dominance may range from 0 (no female dominance) to 1 (complete female dominance). As regards ‘the prior attribute hypothesis’, we expected a negative correlation between female dominance over males and species-specific sexual dimorphism in body mass. However, to our surprise we found none (we use the method of independent contrasts). Instead, we confirm the self-organisation hypothesis: our model based on the winner-loser effect predicts that female dominance over males increases with the percentage of males in the group. We confirm this pattern at several levels in empirical data (among groups of a single species and between species of the same genus and of different ones). Since the winner-loser effect has been shown to work in many taxa including humans, these results may have broad implications.

Diversity and Evolution of Coral Fluorescent Proteins:

GFP-like fluorescent proteins (FPs) are the key color determinants in reef-building corals (class Anthozoa, order Scleractinia) and are of considerable interest as potential genetically encoded fluorescent labels. Here we report 40 additional members of the GFP family from corals. There are three major paralogous lineages of coral FPs. One of them is retained in all sampled coral families and is responsible for the non-fluorescent purple-blue color, while each of the other two evolved a full complement of typical coral fluorescent colors (cyan, green, and red) and underwent sorting between coral groups. Among the newly cloned proteins are a “chromo-red” color type from Echinopora forskaliana (family Faviidae) and pink chromoprotein from Stylophora pistillata (Pocilloporidae), both evolving independently from the rest of coral chromoproteins. There are several cyan FPs that possess a novel kind of excitation spectrum indicating a neutral chromophore ground state, for which the residue E167 is responsible (numeration according to GFP from A. victoria). The chromoprotein from Acropora millepora is an unusual blue instead of purple, which is due to two mutations: S64C and S183T. We applied a novel probabilistic sampling approach to recreate the common ancestor of all coral FPs as well as the more derived common ancestor of three main fluorescent colors of the Faviina suborder. Both proteins were green such as found elsewhere outside class Anthozoa. Interestingly, a substantial fraction of the all-coral ancestral protein had a chromohore apparently locked in a non-fluorescent neutral state, which may reflect the transitional stage that enabled rapid color diversification early in the history of coral FPs. Our results highlight the extent of convergent or parallel evolution of the color diversity in corals, provide the foundation for experimental studies of evolutionary processes that led to color diversification, and enable a comparative analysis of structural determinants of different colors.

Does Sex-Selective Predation Stabilize or Destabilize Predator-Prey Dynamics?:

Little is known about the impact of prey sexual dimorphism on predator-prey dynamics and the impact of sex-selective harvesting and trophy hunting on long-term stability of exploited populations. We review the quantitative evidence for sex-selective predation and study its long-term consequences using several simple predator-prey models. These models can be also interpreted in terms of feedback between harvesting effort and population size of the harvested species under open-access exploitation. Among the 81 predator-prey pairs found in the literature, male bias in predation is 2.3 times as common as female bias. We show that long-term effects of sex-selective predation depend on the interplay of predation bias and prey mating system. Predation on the ‘less limiting’ prey sex can yield a stable predator-prey equilibrium, while predation on the other sex usually destabilizes the dynamics and promotes population collapses. For prey mating systems that we consider, males are less limiting except for polyandry and polyandrogyny, and male-biased predation alone on such prey can stabilize otherwise unstable dynamics. On the contrary, our results suggest that female-biased predation on polygynous, polygynandrous or monogamous prey requires other stabilizing mechanisms to persist. Our modelling results suggest that the observed skew towards male-biased predation might reflect, in addition to sexual selection, the evolutionary history of predator-prey interactions. More focus on these phenomena can yield additional and interesting insights as to which mechanisms maintain the persistence of predator-prey pairs over ecological and evolutionary timescales. Our results can also have implications for long-term sustainability of harvesting and trophy hunting of sexually dimorphic species.

Influenza Virus in Human Exhaled Breath: An Observational Study:

Recent studies suggest that humans exhale fine particles during tidal breathing but little is known of their composition, particularly during infection. We conducted a study of influenza infected patients to characterize influenza virus and particle concentrations in their exhaled breath. Patients presenting with influenza-like-illness, confirmed influenza A or B virus by rapid test, and onset within 3 days were recruited at three clinics in Hong Kong, China. We collected exhaled breath from each subject onto Teflon filters and measured exhaled particle concentrations using an optical particle counter. Filters were analyzed for influenza A and B viruses by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Twelve out of thirteen rapid test positive patients provided exhaled breath filter samples (7 subjects infected with influenza B virus and 5 subjects infected with influenza A virus). We detected influenza virus RNA in the exhaled breath of 4 (33%) subjects-three (60%) of the five patients infected with influenza A virus and one (14%) of the seven infected with influenza B virus. Exhaled influenza virus RNA generation rates ranged from <3.2 to 20 influenza virus RNA particles per minute. Over 87% of particles exhaled were under 1 µm in diameter. These findings regarding influenza virus RNA suggest that influenza virus may be contained in fine particles generated during tidal breathing, and add to the body of literature suggesting that fine particle aerosols may play a role in influenza transmission.

Major Histocompatibility Complex Based Resistance to a Common Bacterial Pathogen of Amphibians:

Given their well-developed systems of innate and adaptive immunity, global population declines of amphibians are particularly perplexing. To investigate the role of the major histocompatibilty complex (MHC) in conferring pathogen resistance, we challenged Xenopus laevis tadpoles bearing different combinations of four MHC haplotypes (f, g, j, and r) with the bacterial pathogen Aeromonas hydrophila in two experiments. In the first, we exposed ff, fg, gg, gj, and jj tadpoles, obtained from breeding MHC homozygous parents, to one of three doses of A. hydrophila or heat-killed bacteria as a control. In the second, we exposed ff, fg, fr, gg, rg, and rr tadpoles, obtained from breeding MHC heterozygous parents and subsequently genotyped by PCR, to A. hydrophila, heat-killed bacteria or media alone as controls. We thereby determined whether the same patterns of MHC resistance emerged within as among families, independent of non-MHC heritable differences. Tadpoles with r or g MHC haplotypes were more likely to die than were those with f or j haplotypes. Growth rates varied among MHC types, independent of exposure dose. Heterozygous individuals with both susceptible and resistant haplotypes were intermediate to either homozygous genotype in both size and survival. The effect of the MHC on growth and survival was consistent between experiments and across families. MHC alleles differentially confer resistance to, or tolerance of, the bacterial pathogen, which affects tadpoles’ growth and survival.

Evaluating the Influence of Epidemiological Parameters and Host Ecology on the Spread of Phocine Distemper Virus through Populations of Harbour Seals:

Outbreaks of phocine distemper virus (PDV) in Europe during 1988 and 2002 were responsible for the death of around 23,000 and 30,000 harbour seals, respectively. These epidemics, particularly the one in 2002, provided an unusual opportunity to estimate epidemic parameters for a wildlife disease. There were marked regional differences in the values of some parameters both within and between epidemics. We used an individual-based model of seal movement that allowed us to incorporate realistic representations of space, time and animal behaviour into a traditional epidemiological modelling framework. We explored the potential influence of a range of ecological (foraging trip duration, time of epidemic onset, population size) and epidemiological (length of infectious period, contact rate between infectious and susceptible individuals, case mortality) parameters on four readily-measurable epidemic characteristics (number of dead individuals, duration of epidemic, peak mortality date and prevalence) and on the probability that an epidemic would occur in a particular region. We analysed the outputs as if they were the results of a series of virtual experiments, using Generalised Linear Modelling. All six variables had a significant effect on the probability that an epidemic would be recognised as an unusual mortality event by human observers. Regional and temporal variation in contact rate was the most likely cause of the observed differences between the two epidemics. This variation could be a consequence of differences in the way individuals divide their time between land and sea at different times of the year.

Seventeen New Complete mtDNA Sequences Reveal Extensive Mitochondrial Genome Evolution within the Demospongiae:

Two major transitions in animal evolution-the origins of multicellularity and bilaterality-correlate with major changes in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) organization. Demosponges, the largest class in the phylum Porifera, underwent only the first of these transitions and their mitochondrial genomes display a peculiar combination of ancestral and animal-specific features. To get an insight into the evolution of mitochondrial genomes within the Demospongiae, we determined 17 new mtDNA sequences from this group and analyzing them with five previously published sequences. Our analysis revealed that all demosponge mtDNAs are 16- to 25-kbp circular molecules, containing 13-15 protein genes, 2 rRNA genes, and 2-27 tRNA genes. All but four pairs of sampled genomes had unique gene orders, with the number of shared gene boundaries ranging from 1 to 41. Although most demosponge species displayed low rates of mitochondrial sequence evolution, a significant acceleration in evolutionary rates occurred in the G1 group (orders Dendroceratida, Dictyoceratida, and Verticillitida). Large variation in mtDNA organization was also observed within the G0 group (order Homosclerophorida) including gene rearrangements, loss of tRNA genes, and the presence of two introns in Plakortis angulospiculatus. While introns are rare in modern-day demosponge mtDNA, we inferred that at least one intron was present in cox1 of the common ancestor of all demosponges. Our study uncovered an extensive mitochondrial genomic diversity within the Demospongiae. Although all sampled mitochondrial genomes retained some ancestral features, including a minimally modified genetic code, conserved structures of tRNA genes, and presence of multiple non-coding regions, they vary considerably in their size, gene content, gene order, and the rates of sequence evolution. Some of the changes in demosponge mtDNA, such as the loss of tRNA genes and the appearance of hairpin-containing repetitive elements, occurred in parallel in several lineages and suggest general trends in demosponge mtDNA evolution.

Willingness of Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) in the United States to Be Circumcised as Adults to Reduce the Risk of HIV Infection:

Circumcision reduces HIV acquisition among heterosexual men in Africa, but it is unclear if circumcision may reduce HIV acquisition among men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States, or whether MSM would be willing to be circumcised if recommended. We interviewed presumed-HIV negative MSM at gay pride events in 2006. We asked uncircumcised respondents about willingness to be circumcised if it were proven to reduce risk of HIV among MSM and perceived barriers to circumcision. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify covariates associated with willingness to be circumcised. Of 780 MSM, 133 (17%) were uncircumcised. Of these, 71 (53%) were willing to be circumcised. Willingness was associated with black race (exact odds ratio [OR]: 3.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3-9.8), non-injection drug use (OR: 6.1, 95% CI: 1.8-23.7) and perceived reduced risk of penile cancer (OR: 4.7, 95% CI: 2.0-11.9). The most commonly endorsed concerns about circumcision were post-surgical pain and wound infection. Over half of uncircumcised MSM, especially black MSM, expressed willingness to be circumcised. Perceived risks and benefits of circumcision should be a part of educational materials if circumcision is recommended for MSM in the United States.

Forty Years Trends in Timing of Pubertal Growth Spurt in 157,000 Danish School Children:

Entering puberty is an important milestone in reproductive life and secular changes in the timing of puberty may be an important indicator of the general reproductive health in a population. Too early puberty is associated with several psychosocial and health problems. The aim of our study was to determine if the age at onset of pubertal growth spurt (OGS) and at peak height velocity (PHV) during puberty show secular trends during four decades in a large cohort of school children. Annual measurements of height were available in all children born from 1930 to 1969 who attended primary school in the Copenhagen Municipality. 135,223 girls and 21,612 boys fulfilled the criteria for determining age at OGS and age at PHV. These physiological events were used as markers of pubertal development in our computerized method in order to evaluate any secular trends in pubertal maturation during the study period (year of birth 1930 to 1969). In this period, age at OGS declined statistically significantly by 0.2 and 0.4 years in girls and boys, respectively, whereas age at PHV declined statistically significantly by 0.5 and 0.3 years in girls and boys, respectively. The decline was non-linear with a levelling off in the children born between 1940 and 1955. The duration of puberty, as defined by the difference between age at OGS and age at PHV, increased slightly in boys, whereas it decreased in girls. Our finding of declining age at OGS and at PHV indicates a secular trend towards earlier sexual maturation of Danish children born between 1930 and 1969. Only minor changes were observed in duration of puberty assessed by the difference in ages at OGS and PHV.

Today’s carnivals

Oekologie #17 is up on Reconciliation Ecology
Carnival of the Green #136 is up on AIDG blog
Grand Rounds 4.43 are up on Unprotected Text
The 133rd Carnival of Homeschooling is up on Red Sea School

My Picks From ScienceDaily

Two Extinct Flying Reptiles Compared: One Was A Glider, The Other A Parachutist:

Archaeopteryx is famous as the world’s oldest bird, but reptiles were flying about some 50 million years earlier than that (225 million years ago), even before large dinosaurs roamed the Earth. A new study of extinct reptiles called kuehneosaurs, by scientists from the University of Bristol, England, shows that these early flyers used extraordinary extensions of their ribs to form large gliding surfaces on the side of the body.

Marsupials And Humans Share Same Genetic Imprinting That Evolved 150 Million Years Ago:

Research published in Nature Genetics by a team of international scientists including the University of Melbourne, Department of Zoology, has established an identical mechanism of genetic imprinting, a process involved in marsupial and human fetal development, which evolved 150 million years ago.

Men And Women Are Programmed Differently When It Comes To Temptation:

Temptation may be everywhere, but it’s how the different sexes react to flirtation that determines the effect it will have on their relationships. In a new study, psychologists determined men tend to look at their partners in a more negative light after meeting a single, attractive woman. On the other hand, women are likelier to work to strengthen their current relationships after meeting an available, attractive man.

Snake Venom Tells Tales About Geography:

Just as people give away their origins by that southern drawl or New England twang, poisonous snakes produce venom that differs distinctly from one geographic area to another, the first study of the “snake venomics” of one of the most common pit vipers in Latin America has found.

Big Predatory Mammals Such As Felines Need Between 5 And 7 Different Types Of Prey To Meet Their Dietary Needs:

Faced with earlier studies stating that the big predators such as tigers, lions, and lynxes fulfil their dietary needs by eating one or two types of prey, scientists from the University of Malaga assure us now that felines need from 5 to 7 different types of prey to fulfil their dietary needs, although they may be more specialised anatomically than the canines (wolves, dogs) who can obtain 100% ingested biomass by eating three types of prey.

Mystery Insect Found In London’s Natural History Museum’s Wildlife Garden:

An insect, not seen in the UK before, has been discovered living in the Natural History Museum’s Wildlife Garden. The tiny bug is baffling insect experts at the Museum who are still trying to identify the mystery newcomer.

Sizzle

Yes, I am one of many SciBlings and other bloggers who got offered to pre-screen Randy Olson’s new movie “Sizzle” (check the Front Page of scienceblogs.com for links to all the others). I was reluctant at first, but in the end I gave in and agreed to preview a copy. Why was I reluctant? As a scientist, I need to start my piece with a bunch of neatly organized caveats, so here are the reasons why I thought I would not be a good person to review the movie:
– I am just not a good movie critic. Of the thousands of movies I have seen in my life, I disliked perhaps three. I am terribly uncritical of movies in general. When I go to the theater, I go with a blank mind, no expectations and, just like any Average Joe, I sit back with a bag of popcorn and ask the Director “Entertain me”. And I am usually quite entertained. I do not have the willpower to watch a movie critically – I just go for the ride. I want to enjoy myself, so I do.
– Ïn the past couple of years (and this may have to do with my internet “addiction”) I have found it increasingly more difficult to focus. It is hard to read a book – I need to deliberately remove myself from the vicinity of the computer for this task, so I mostly manage to read books on airplanes and at the pool. The same with scientific papers – I find it hard to focus and read the thing from beginning to end unless I print it out and take it somewhere away from the lure of the Web. It has come to the point that I have the same problem with movies. Sometimes kids drag me to the theater, but if my wife gets something Netflixed, I usually watch a few seconds and leave the room. A person who has the requisite training and the official license to diagnose people, unofficially suggested I would need Ritalin to go through a book, and he knows me pretty well.
– I am not a climate scientist, but I am a scientist and think like one. I am not the intended audience for this movie. Am I able to watch it through the eyes of an Average Joe?
– I am firmly in the camp of Global Warming believers. But it is not because I would know how to make a climate model. Or because I studied the issue deeply. It is because people I trust say so. Good science bloggers (and a couple of good journalists) explained the models in ways I can understand. They explained the issues in ways I can understand. But most importantly, I believe it because of people who say GW is not a problem – their backgrounds, their corporate and political ties and their sources of income make me deeply mistrustful of them. In a way, my view of GW is political: I see who the people on the two sides are, see how nicely the two sides divide between the people who genuinely care and have no reason to lie, and the people whose financial and political interests led them to lie on many other issues before, and the conclusion is clear.
– I have zero background or even context to watch this in. Nothing to compare. I never saw The Incovenient Truth. I never saw Al Gore’s slideshow presentation. I never saw Randy’s other movie The Flock Of Dodos. I never saw Borat (though I saw a couple of older Michael Moore’s documentaries). I never read a book that is specifically about Climate. The only related thing I saw was that action movie in which GW arrives in hours and traps some kids in a library in the frozen NYC (which I, of course, enjoyed, as I always do, despite of obvious scientific flaws). So, my mind is less prepared for this than either scientists or the Average Joes.
– I am weary of the Framing Wars in the blogosphere and I am afraid that a bunch of blog reviews of the movie will start off another round. This time, I am not sure if I want to participate…
– I am such a stupid Luddite! Knowing that my DVD player can’t do anything with a CD-ROM, I unthinkingly assumed that the reverse is also true, i.e., that my computer would not know what to do with a DVD. So, this stupidity resolved, Sizzle was the very first movie that I ever watched on my computer. I usually watch movies with a bowl of popcorn and a glass of wine, in a comfortable chair or bed, like most people will watch it. But this time I watches it crouched over my laptop, with my earphones on, the way only geeks will see it. I do not know if that is good or bad.
So, I got the DVD and watched the whole thing in one sitting. Normally, I would have quit after the first few minutes, but I persisted because a) I promised to do it, b) I heard that the second half is better than first, and c) because I could not believe that Randy would really be that bad, so I wanted to see more, to see how I was played by Randy in the beginning. It appeared too bad to be genuinely bad – there must have been a catch!
So I put myself into my typical inert film-watching state of mind: my idiotically zen-like, blank-slate, “entertain me”, uncritical, unscientific, impressionistic mode. And through the first half of the movie I was frustrated, frustrated, frustrated, frustrated, frustrated, frustrated!
The first half is so over-the-top awkward. There are totally shallow gay and Black stereotypes. Randy looks and acts like a doofoos and a jerk. The critique of the Star-Obsessed movie-making culture was painful, especially since I had my own experiences with it: younger and more “have-something-to-prove” the movie-makers, more shallow, self-centered, ignorant and arrogant they are. But they needed horses (and people who can ride them, in costumes) and they paid well, so we did try to survive their torture.
For the scientists, the first half (heck, the whole movie) is frustrating because there is very little data and very little explanation of the science of climate change. For the politically minded, like me, the first half is frustrating because it looks like a typically “balanced” He-said-she-said piece, where both sides are given equal time and equal merit. Heck, if anything, the Bad Guys were given more time – there are interviews in there with six sweet-talking GW deniers whose political and financial ties are not put up front for all to see, versus only two climate scientists and one environmentalist spokesperson, none of whom was as eloquent as the deniers. Randy’s occasional angry assertions that denialists are lying are weak and off-putting and make you like the denialists better, especially since the “Average Joe” – Marion, the cameraman – is cool and hip and easy to identify with and yet he swallows all the denialist crap bait, hook and sinker.
I hope people do not get up and leave during the first half.
Because it is subtle. And the second half shows how. The whole movie has to be seen to the end.
The first half is frustrating to us because it shows us our own view in the mirror. Many of us in the sciences, or in the “reality based community”, will find it uneasy and uncomfortable to see that view, but many of us are just like Randy: too serious, too controlling, blind and deaf to the “regular” people’s ways of looking at the world, and overconfident that “truth will set you free”. Yes, it is a caricature, but not too far from the reality of how many of us try to communicate to people who do not think like us.
When we try to explain something and the person we talk to does not believe us, despite of all our years of study, we get frustrated and try to persuade them the same way we try to persuade our scientific peers: by throwing more data at them. But they are not our scientific peers – the data do not hold such a large sway on them. You need to persuade them to believe you, not to understand the graphs. And that is where the professional PR hacks do better – they do the PR tricks: they smile, and bribe, and compliment, and talk like “regular folks” and appeal to emotion. And it works. We know it works. I believe in GW because people who study it persuaded me to believe them, not because I understand their science, or even have any interest in the details of their data. They earned my trust in other ways, and the opponents earned my distrust in other ways. Even for me, a scientist, data had no effect on my current belief – it is the way two sides present the data, or manipulate the data, and explain “what it really means” that one side earned my trust.
And that is exactly what is shown in the second half of the movie. Randy’s mom, and his crew (mostly the sound man, until then pretty silent, even refusing to talk) pretty much sit Randy down and give him a lesson. Now we see some other, previously unseen snippets from the interviews: how well the climate scientists explain stuff when asked by laymen in regular language. And how sleazy the denialists are in their sweet-talking, but can be derailed by a straightforward, direct question.
We are shown a simple graphic of how the six denialists disagree with each other. Oooh!
Then we see two superb examples of scientists who are great communicators, chatting and bantering, at ease with answering questions from skeptical lay audience, putting it all very plainly yet very effectively. While watching the polar bears play. Just before going to New Orleans to see the devastation still there two years after Katrina, and what people who live there have to say.
Every sympathy for the denialist side you could have gathered in the first half disappears after this. No need to show any data, to present any facts, to get angry in the face when screaming that the denialists are lying. You clearly see who is honest and who is not. Who is compassionate and who is a sleazebag. You easily choose who to trust and who not. Without any additional information, you grasp that GW is real, is man-made and should be fixed by us, humans, and soon.
Then you realize that the frustrating over-the-topness of the first half is subtle and there on purpose, to give us contrast, to show us how we keep trying to do it wrong, and then how to do it right.
I noticed how many times I laughed during the second, “serious” half of the movie. I was overjoyed. And I never even chuckled during the first, “comedic” half. The joke was on me. Us.
That is powerful.

ClockQuotes

Avoid Quiet and Placid persons unless you are in Need of Sleep.
– National Lampoon

Blogrolling for today

IBY’s Island Universe


Podblack blog (new URL)


Tomorrow’s Table


49 percent

Sleep and Circadian group on Graduate Junction

There is now a Sleep and Circadian group on Graduate Junction so if you are a student or postdoc in the field, and enough of you join up, we can see if can get some discussions going….

My Picks From ScienceDaily

Understanding Hearing, Molecule By Molecule:

Berkeley Lab scientists have for the first time pieced together the three-dimensional structure of one of nature’s most exquisite pieces of machinery, a gossamer-like filament of proteins in the inner ear that enables the sense of hearing and balance.

Marine Worm’s Jaws Say ‘Cutting-edge New Aerospace Materials’:

Researchers in California and New Hampshire report the first detailed characterization of the protein composition of the hard, fang-like jaws of a common marine worm. Their work could lead to the design of a new class of super-strong, lightweight materials for use as construction and repair materials for spacecraft, airplanes, and other applications.

Apples And Pears Contain Pathways To ‘Breathe’:

Pears and apples contain air pathways to “breathe”. The pathways are microscopically small structures for oxygen supply and are key elements in determining the fruit’s health. Researchers from the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium and the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) have visualized them for the first time, therefore proving their hypothesized existence.

Scientists Discover Key Patterns In The Packaging Of Genes:

Although every cell of our bodies contains the same genetic instructions, specific genes typically act only in specific cells at particular times. Other genes are “silenced” in a variety of ways. One mode of gene silencing depends upon the way DNA, the genetic material, is packed in the nucleus of cells.

Info about the way OA benefits conservation is itself not OA

How free access internet resources benefit biodiversity and conservation research: Trinidad and Tobago’s endemic plants and their conservation status:

Botanists have been urged to help assess the conservation status of all known plant species. For resource-poor and biodiversity-rich countries such assessments are scarce because of a lack of, and access to, information. However, the wide range of biodiversity and geographical resources that are now freely available on the internet, together with local herbarium data, can provide sufficient information to assess the conservation status of plants. Such resources were used to review the vascular plant species endemic to Trinidad and Tobago and to assess their conservation status. Fifty-nine species were found to be endemic, much lower than previously stated. Using the IUCN Red List criteria 18 endemic species were assessed as Critically Endangered, 16 as Endangered, 15 as Vulnerable, three as Near Threatened, and three as Data Deficient (i.e. insufficient data are available to assess their conservation status). Although such rapid assessments cannot replace in depth research, they provide essential baseline information to target research and conservation priorities and identify specific conservation actions.

Kevin Zelnio:

In a paper just out in the conservation journal Oryx, Van Den Eynden and colleagues discuss how they evaluated plant endemism, conservation status and reserve effectiveness utilizing only freely available online resources from the internet and local Herbaria. There were several conclusions drawn about plant conservation, but here is a tidbit about how free access to information helped in assessing conservation status.

“Research institutes that use information technology to catalogue and distribute information online promote the advancement of knowledge at a global scale. Using such free-access online resources, and advice offered freely by taxonomy experts, a review of the endemic vascular plant species of Trinidad and Tobago and an assessment of their conservation status was carried out in a relatively short time and without significant cost. This in turn has been made freely available online (Van den Eynden, 2006). Such rapid evaluation of conservation status cannot replace the need for in depth field-based monitoring and assessment but it provides valuable baseline information for the identification and targeting of specific conservation and research needs. The methods used can be applied by most countries for initial assessments of plant extinction risks. Lack of resources or research data is no longer an argument not to do so.”

Free information, it werks bitchez.
(Unfortunately their paper was NOT freely accessible, the irony of it all…)

Are scientists getting happier with science journalism?

Interactions with the Mass Media (pdf):

Our analysis shows that interactions between scientists and journalists are more frequent and smooth than previously thought. This five-country survey also suggests that the scientists most involved in these interactions tend to be scientifically productive, have leadership roles, and–although they consider concerns as well as perceived benefits–that they perceive the interactions to have more positive than negative outcomes. Despite minor variations in the assessment of media contacts across the five countries, the basic patterns are surprisingly similar. The functional necessity of public science communication may be a global phenomenon in democratic knowledge societies.

Knight Science Journalism Tracker:

The Tracker welcomes the general tenor of the study but has quibbles with the generally rosy release. First of all, are the numbers all that flattering to the press? If only about 60 percent of researchers are satisfied with their experience with the press (in two areas, epidemiology and stem cell research), that means 40 percent or so are neutral or unhappy – and that’s per encounter. It doesn’t take a very high ratio of getting burned to drive a general hostility to the press. Few science stories, by proportion, are investigative pieces whose writers expect their subjects to be upset. Mostly, they are efforts to present work at face value and to explain what happened clearly. Mostly, on this beat, one hopes one’s sources are content, happy even. Mostly, too, that’s how it turns out.
Second and more important, if there is a sea change away from distrust or hostility to the press, perhaps it’s not so much underway now as all done. Subjectively, it seems things changed in the 80s or 90s, maybe earlier. If scientists are now more willing to talk one could argue that is because deans, research division heads, and other bosses have been telling them for some time that it’s good for getting grants or for business. That is, they need us more. They may not like us more.

Planet B612:

This definitely is good news, but (with the Tracker) I wonder if it is fair to say a “sea change” is under way. In my job as a university PIO, I still run into researchers who are either uninterested or unwilling to work with the press. And there are plenty of instances where the researchers are unhappy with stories about their work, although this happens most frequently when dealing with local reporters who do not specialize in science or technology. The study seems to bear this out, noting that 90 percent of respondents identified the “risk of incorrect quotation” and the “unpredictability of journalists” as important disincentives.
The survey also investigated scientists’ reasons for wanting to engage in media outreach. The top reason was to increase the public’s appreciation of science, which was linked in their minds to a better-educated general public. All good things, of course, but this just leads to more questions about the concept of “science literacy,” “the deficit model,” “public engagement,” “public understanding of science,” etc. Surely these topics will be explored in future posts, so I won’t go there now.
I wonder if another reason for a growing willingness to engage in media outreach is the emphasis placed on communication by funding agencies, especially NSF. That would seem like a good incentive if there ever were one.

New and Exciting in PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine

Monday – the day when PLoS Medicine and PLoS Biology publish new articles, among others, these:
Persistent Leatherback Turtle Migrations Present Opportunities for Conservation :

Highly migratory marine animals routinely cross international borders during extensive migrations over thousands of kilometers, thus requiring conservation strategies with information about habitat use and movement patterns. Critically endangered leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the eastern Pacific have suffered a severe population decline in recent years. In this study, we present the largest multi-year satellite tracking data set for leatherback turtles (n = 46 turtles, 12,095 days) to describe the migrations, habitats, and dispersal of female leatherbacks tagged at Playa Grande, Costa Rica. Leatherbacks followed a migration corridor southward from Costa Rica into the South Pacific Gyre in each year of our study. In the equatorial region, leatherbacks experienced strong ocean currents that influenced the direction of their movements; leatherbacks responded to current deflection with rapid, directed movements to maintain their southward heading. After passing through this equatorial current field, turtles dispersed broadly within a low-energy, low-productivity region of the South Pacific. Our analyses revealed that ocean currents shaped the migration corridor and influenced the scope of turtle dispersal in the South Pacific–results that provide a biological rationale for the development of multi-scale conservation strategies. These strategies could involve improved and enhanced monitoring of leatherback-fisheries interactions as well as dynamic time-area fisheries closures and protected area designations within the high seas of the South Pacific.

Next Stop, Don’t Block the Doors: Opening Up Access to Clinical Trials Results:

2008 has been a good year for access to research. Effective New Year’s Day, both the Canadian Institutes of Health Research [1] and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute [2] require publicly accessible archiving of papers published by their grantees. Also in January, the European Research Council announced its European Union-wide open-access mandate [3]. In February, the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences voted to give the University a worldwide license to exercise copyright in each faculty member’s scholarly articles for the purpose of making these articles freely available [4]; Harvard Law School committed to mandatory free access in May [5]. In March, the European University Association endorsed open-access repositories [6], and in April the United States National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy [7] took effect, bringing America’s leading sponsor of biomedical research into the impressive circle of agencies that require archiving of papers resulting from the research they fund. Judging by the ever-increasing number of submissions to PLoS journals, authors appear to be voting with their manuscripts for open access to research.

Controlling Size in Multicellular Organs: Focus on the Leaf:

Leaf size depends on cell number and size. However, leaves are not simply the sum of cell size and number; rather, they are under the control of an unknown, organ-wide integration system. The existence of such a system is strongly suggested by two mysterious phenomena: compensation and high-ploidy syndrome. Compensation is characterized by cell enlargement triggered by a significant decrease in cellular proliferation, while plants with high-ploidy syndrome have more than eight sets of homologous chromosomes (8C), resulting in an increase in cell volume, but smaller leaves. Determining the mechanisms underlying these phenomena will provide important insight into the mechanism of multicellular organogenesis.

Considering the First Steps toward a Stable and Orderly Way of Bacterial Life:

Bacteria are small unicellular organisms who could well enjoy a bohemian life–moving independently wherever and whenever they want to and existing with no regard for conventional rules of behavior. In spite of this apparent freedom, most bacteria abandon their footloose lifestyle as soon as they come into contact with a surface. Irrespective of whether the surface is of biotic or abiotic origin, they clinch to it, forgoing independence in favor of settling down. Similar to animals that gather in flocks and people who live in societies, surface-attached microbes can form networks as multicellular communities called biofilms. Bacterial biofilms are heterogeneous structures of increasing complexity that consist of differently specialized cells enclosed in a self-produced polymeric matrix associated with the surface.

How To Behave On An Internet Forum

How To Behave On An Internet Forum

Web 2.0 and education

What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education by Paul Anderson:

The report establishes that Web 2.0 is more than a set of ‘cool’ and new technologies and services, important though some of these are. It has, at its heart, a set of at least six powerful ideas that are changing the way some people interact. Secondly, it is also important to acknowledge that these ideas are not necessarily the preserve of ‘Web 2.0’, but are, in fact, direct or indirect reflections of the power of the network: the strange effects and topologies at the micro and macro level that a billion Internet users produce. This might well be why Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web, maintains that Web 2.0 is really just an extension of the original ideals of the Web that does not warrant a special moniker. However, business concerns are increasingly shaping the way in which we are being led to think and potentially act on the Web and this has implications for the control of public and private data. Indeed, Tim O’Reilly’s original attempt to articulate the key ideas behind Web 2.0 was focused on a desire to be able to benchmark and therefore identify a set of new, innovative companies that were potentially ripe for investment. The UK HE sector should debate whether this is a long-term issue and maybe delineating Web from Web 2.0 will help us to do that.

The Sigil

sigil.JPGHenry Gee has published drafts of his new SF trilogy The Sigil on Lulu.com. Apparently, publishers have no problem with this tactic – the final version will be published by them in the end.
I have ordered the trilogy and all three books arrived here about a week ago. I’ll let you know what I think once I find some time to read them.