The New Meanings of How and Why in Biology?

If you ask a biologist for an explanation for a trait of an organism, you will get different answers depending on what kind of biologist you asked.

One biologist will give you an explanation in terms of molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organ systems and the organism as a whole, explaining how that trait develops in the embryo and how it works in the adult.

The other biologist may give you an explanation of how that trait arose within that particular lineage, why it was selected, how it confers fitness to the organism, and why that trait is considered to be an adaptation.

For about a century following Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’, confusion reigned in biology as to which kind of explanation is the “real” explanation. Biologists misunderstood each other, talked past each other, and entered sometimes fierce debates when trying to explain biological phenomena.

As early as 1937, James Baker (who was an early researcher in my field, although he did not know it at the time, studying bird seasonality, latitude, reproduction and migration) suggested that biology asks two kinds of questions which are different, yet compatible with each other. The ‘How’ questions explain the mechanism by which a trait develops and works (physiological explanation) and the ‘Why’ questions explain the evolutionary history and adaptive function of the trait.

In 1961, Ernst Mayr published a very influential paper – ‘Cause and effect in biology’ – in Science in which (also using bird migration as an example) he named the ‘How’ questions ‘Proximate causes’ (how the birds’ brains orient and navigate) and the ‘Why’ questions ‘Ultimate causes’ (how did the birds evolve to start their long-distance migrations). In the paper Mayr argued that these two kinds of questions are separate domains of study, yet that they are compatible and that each informs the other. Evolutionary theorists and philosophers of science ran with this idea, and it quickly became almost universally accepted, entered the textbooks and has been taught in introductory biology courses ever since.

Two years later (1963), Niko Tinbergen published a paper that was a refinement of this idea, which became even more influential than Mayr’s among people studying animal behavior. In the paper, Tinbergen proposed that every biological phenomenon should be studied by asking four questions: mechanism (physiology), development, function, and evolutionary history. The former two are subsets of Proximate causes, and the latter two are subsets of Ultimate causes. Tinbergen argued that the only way to properly understand a trait is if one asks ALL four questions and let the answers to one question inform the research on the other three and so on, in an iterative manner, until the phenomenon is fully understood.

In today’s issue of Science, there is an interesting new paper by philosophers of biology Kevin Laland, Kim Sterelny, John Odling-Smee, William Hoppitt and Tobias Uller. In it, the authors argue that the sharp dichotomy between Proximate and Ultimate questions as stated by Mayr and accepted by many (but not all) biologists may not be as useful any more (while acknowledging it was useful at the time, if nothing else to settle the old disputes stemming from mutual misunderstandings as to what constitutes ‘explanation’ in biology).

In science, as in many other areas, words matter. Words are metaphors that put us in a particular frame of mind. Different frames of mind guide different approaches to research questions. Thus, re-evaluating scientific metaphors as used by researchers is an important exercise that all fields should do every now and then (like I did for my field yesterday).

The distinction between Proximate and Ultimate questions, especially in the strong version as envisioned by Mayr, suggests a uni-directional causation of biological traits – genes code for traits. Once developed in the individuals, the traits become visible to natural selection and can be selected for or against. The causation always flows from Proximate to Ultimate domain.

But, as the new paper reminds us, last several decades of research have shown that there are many aspects of biology in which this clean separation – and especially the single direction – does not work. The authors use examples of evo-devo, sexual selection, niche construction, evolution of human cooperation, and cultural evolution, in which development and physiology affect the evolution and vice versa.

In sexual selection, male and female traits (e.g., males’ long tails in peacocks and females’ preferences for long tails in peahens) affect each others selection, thus directs evolution in a small particular subset of all possible directions.

In niche construction, parents modify the environment in a way that affects the fitness of their progeny. They use the example of earthworms which change the physical and chemical properties of the soil. After such changes were effected by their parents, the offspring find themselves in a different selective environment than their parents. Given many generations, mechanistic trait (what earthworms do to the soil) changes the direction in which evolution proceeds. In many cases, the activities of one species affect the environment, and thus selective pressures, for other species in the same space.

While some researchers think of cultural evolution as a higher-level evolutionary process, others see it as a proximate cause that affects biological evolution. Just like in niche construction, transmission of cultural traits (e.g., knowledge and skills) affects the way humans live and work, thus altering the environment (living in big cities makes it less likely to get eaten by a lion, but more likely to get hit by a car, or die young due to stress) which now selects for different sets of traits.

The paper does not argue we should abandon the terms Proximate and Ultimate. The authors acknowledge that there will always be How and Why questions in biology, and that the two sets of questions are complementary and inform each other. What they argue is that straightforward causation from genes through development to traits visible to selection is rare in nature, more of an exception than the rule.

They suggest that, instead, we should change the way we think when we use the words “Proximate” and “Ultimate”. Proximate (How) questions are not limited to genes, development and physiology. And Ultimate (Why) questions are not limited to adaptive function and evolutionary history. The answers to both the How and the Why questions will almost always have both mechanistic and evolutionary components.

What they do not say explicitly is that this suggestion to change the way we think about How and Why questions is going to affect the way we do research and understand nature. In a paradigm in which developmental and evolutionary causes undergo multiple feedback loops of mutual effect, the notion of “gene control” (or as philosophers would say “upward causation”, or bad journalists would say “gene for X”) would be replaced by a more sophisticated and more realistic understanding of the world in which explanations reside simultaneously at multiple levels, and “control” can be both upward and downward.

In an effort to attract not only creationists but also climate change denialists and anti-vaccers in the comments, I should also note one more thing that is missing from the paper – why should we care about all of this?

And there is something very obvious going on in the world right now. Cultural evolution in humans has led to accumulation across generations of knowledge and skills that have profoundly affected the way we live. From the advances in medicine (especially germ theory leading to better public health, hygiene, vaccines and antibiotics) leading to a huge increase in survivability and longevity of humans leading to population explosion, to the way we find, transform and use energy, our newly developed behaviors have all resulted in large effects humans exert on the environment of other species.

While clear-cutting a forest affects local populations, global warming affects them all. We are in a midst of the grandest experiment of niche construction to ever happen on this planet. So perhaps we should think about it in a correct and realistic way – not just as cultural evolution we can be proud of, but also as a proximate cause of trials and tribulations of all the other organisms on Earth.

One final note – much of the stuff in this paper is not that new (though concisely and clearly stated here, for a change). It is not new to people who have been carefully reading journal papers and books in philosophy of biology over the past few decades. It is also not new to people who have been observing these kinds of debates between philosophers of science and theoretically minded biologists in the science blogosphere over the past several years. But by being published in Science this topic is now brought to the new audiences that are not familiar with either philosophical literature or the blogosphere – the thousands of researchers who are still limiting their information intake to journals like that. And it is useful for that audience to hear these ideas, too.

Reference:

Kevin N. Laland, Kim Sterelny, John Odling-Smee, William Hoppitt, Tobias Uller, Cause and Effect in Biology Revisited: Is Mayr’s Proximate-Ultimate Dichotomy Still Useful? Science, Vol. 334, December 6, 2011.

The Clock Metaphor

Originally published on June 30, 2009.

Chad Orzel wrote a neat history of (or should we say ‘evolution of’) clocks, as in “timekeeping instruments”. He points out the biological clocks are “…sort of messy application, from the standpoint of physics…” and he is right – for us biologists, messier the better. We wallow in mess, cherish ambiguity and relish complexity. Anyway, he is talking about real clocks – things made by people to keep time. And he starts with a simple definition of what a clock is:

In order to really discuss the physics of timekeeping, you need to strip the idea of a clock down to the absolute bare essentials. At its core, a clock really has only one defining characteristic: A clock is a thing that ticks.

OK, I’m using a fairly broad definition of “tick,” here, but if you’ll grant that leeway, “ticking” is the essential property of clocks. In this context, “ticking” just refers to some regular, repetitive behavior that takes place in a periodic fashion.

This reminds me that a “biological clock” is a metaphor. A useful metaphor, but a metaphor nonetheless (and just like metaphors of cellular machinery are taken literally by Creationists, they have been known on occasion to talk about circadian clocks as if they had real wheels and cogs and gears!).

I want to stress that the clock metaphor has been very useful for the study of biological rhythms. Without Pittendrigh’s insight that cycles in nature can be modeled with the math of physical oscillators, we would be probably decades behind (unless someone else of authority in the field at the time had the same insight back then) in our understanding of the underlying biology. Just check how useful it was in the entire conceptualization of entrainment and photoperiodism. The Phase-Response Curve, based on the math of physical oscillators, is the Number One tool in the chronobiological repertoire.

But, just as most people in the field take the clock metaphor for granted and without much thinking, there have been a few people who questioned its utility for some areas of research. For instance, for the study of biological rhythms in nature within an ecological and evolutionary context, Jim Enright proposed a metaphor of an audio-tape set on continuous play (Enright, J.T. (1975). The circadian tape recorder and its entrainment. In Physiological Adaptation to the Environment (ed. F.J.Vernberg), pp. 465-476. Intext Educational Publishers, Ney York.). Only a dozen or so publications since then took him seriously and tried to apply this concept. Today, in the age of CDs and iPods, who even remembers audio tapes?

While fully utilizing the utility of the clock metaphor and applying it myself in my own work, I was always cautious about it. Aware that it is a metaphor, I always wondered if it constrains the way we think about the biological process and if we may miss important insights by not thinking in terms of other possible metaphors.

While far from mature, my thinking is that different metaphors apply best to different areas of research and different questions. While the clock metaphor is great for understanding the entrainment of the circadian system (including whole organism, tissues and individual cells) and photoperiodism, and Enright’s endless tape (or some modern substitute) may be useful for ecological studies (including temporal learning and memory), other angles of study may require other concepts.

For instance, I think that the study of what goes inside the cell can benefit from a different metaphor. Studying the molecular basis of circadian rhythms may best be done by utilizing a Rube-Goldberg Machine metaphor: event A triggers event B which starts process C which results in event D….and so on until the event Z causes the event A to happen again. If that last step is missing, it is not a circadian rhythm – it is more akin to an hourglass clock in which something outside of the system needs to start the process all over again.

For studying the outputs, i.e., how the circadian system orchestrates timing of all the other processes in the body, the metaphor may have to fit the organism. An ON-OFF switch is the best metaphorical description of the clock system in (Cyano)bacteria, where there are only two states of the system: the day state and the night state.

For something a little bit more eukaryotic, a relay may be a better metaphor (more than two, but not too many states). The metaphor of a camshaft in car engines that times the opening and closing of cylinders would be fine for fungi and plants and perhaps some invertebrates.

But I had a hard time coming up with a decent metaphor that could apply to complex animals, like us. So far, the best I could come up with is the barrel of a Player Piano. Many little knobs on its surface determine when each note will be played. If you make the barrel rotate slowly and the song lasts 24 hours, then outputs from circadian pacemakers are knobs and the target organs (and peripheral oscillators in them) are those long prongs that make music. Can you think of a better metaphor?

Related reading:

Basics: Biological Clock
Circadian clock without DNA–History and the power of metaphor
A Pacemaker Is A Network
Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sleep (But Were Too Afraid To Ask)
Seasonal Affective Disorder – The Basics
Sun Time is the Real Time
Lesson of the Day: Circadian Clocks are HARD to shift!
Lithium, Circadian Clocks and Bipolar Disorder
Are Zombies nocturnal?
Diversity of insect circadian clocks – the story of the Monarch butterfly
Me and the copperheads–or why we still don’t know if snakes secrete melatonin at night
The Mighty Ant-Lion
City Of Light: Insomniac Urban Animals
Spring Forward, Fall Back – should you watch out tomorrow morning?

Basics: Biological Clock

First published on January 28, 2007

Considering I’ve been writing textbook-like tutorials on chronobiology for quite a while now, trying always to write as simply and clearly as possible, and even wrote a Basic Concepts And Terms post, I am surprised that I never actually defined the term “biological clock” itself before, despite using it all the time.

Since the science bloggers started writing the ‘basic concepts and terms’ posts recently, I’ve been thinking about the best way to define ‘biological clock’ and it is not easy! Let me try, under the fold:

A biological clock is a structure that times regular re-occurence of biochemical, physiological and behavioral events in an organism in constant environmental conditions

Perhaps the best way to explain this is to dissect the definition word-by-word, explaining my choice of words included (and those omitted) in the definition. But first, I need to make it clear that I am NOT trying to invent a new definition, or to impose my views on others. Instead, I am trying to capture the sense in which the term has actually been used by the practitioners in the field, and the way such usage may have changed over time.

What a Biological Clock isn’t

– I need to stress once again that the term “biological clock” is not a real entity, but a metaphor used by the researchers to describe a real entity in shorthand. This metaphor was very useful throughout the history of the field, though on occasion it locks people into frames of mind that may prevent them from seeing a problem as clearly as it could be.

– A biological clock is certainly not to be taken literally, as a real machine with gears or pendulums ticking somewhere inside a living organism.

– A biological clock does not refer to the pseudoscience of biorhythms, one of many ways to extract money from the gullible, either in its original Wilhelm Fliess version or its more recent and spiced-up Oriental variety.

– Colloquially, people often use the term ‘biological clock’ in the sense of “mine is ticking” meaning that time for having kids is running out. That is fine in conversation, but it is not a scientific use of the term.

– Biological Clock should not be confused with the Molecular Clock, a measure of the rate of nucleotide substitution in the DNA over evolutionary time periods, used to infer times of divergence between lineages.

…in an organism…

There are rhythms in nature that occur at levels higher than the organism, e.g., the cycles of population booms and busts in ecology (hare and lynx examples are most famous). Such rhythms are never refered to in the scientific literature as driven by any kind of clocks. The term ‘biological clock’ is sometimes used interchangeably with the term ‘physiological clock’.

This is also the reason I left out of the definition any references to adaptive or evolutionary factors and focused on the way the term is used in the literature – as a sources of a physiological mechanism.

…in constant environmental conditions…

If I give you an electroshock every two hours, you will exhibit a 2-hour cycle of convulsions. This does not mean that your rhythm is endogenously generated by an internal biological clock. It is directly induced by a recurring event in the environment. Many rhythms in living organisms are a result of a direct effect of some environmental factor. A biological clock is responsible only for recurring events that are not direct responses to the environmental cycles.

Yet, I did not use a term “environmentally independent” or some such phrase, because the rhythms generated by endogenous clocks are malleable to environmental factors, especially to light (and very few hormones and other chemicals) – the phase, period and amplitude of the rhythms can be modified by environmental cues. They just don’t disappear once the organism is held in completely constant conditions for prolonged periods of time (at least 2-3 times longer than the period of a single cycle).

…biochemical, physiological and behavioral events…

I did not want to say “everything”, although it comes close in reality. Again, this excludes ecological cycles. It also leaves it somewhat vague if developmental events are to be included or not, which is a good thing, because some developmental events are (e.g., insect eclosion, bird hatching, somite development, developmental timing in Nematodes), while others are not regulated by various types of biological clocks.

Also, not every clock in the body controls every event. A clock in the liver times events in the liver, a clock in the lungs controls events in the lungs. Only the pacemakers control everything, by synchronizing peripheral clocks, which in turn drive local rhythms.

A pacemaker in the suprachiasmatic area (SCN) of the mammalian brain may entrain other local clocks in the brain which in turn drive rhythms of various behaviors.

…times regular re-occurence…

I did not really want to use the word “rhythm” because it may suggest only rhythms of a high frequency (as in music rhythms). I also did not want to limit the definition only to daily/circadian rhythms. Other kinds of rhythms, e.g,. tidal, lunar and circannual, are also driven by biological clocks. The term “calendar” is sometimes seen in popular articles, though not as a specific scientific term, and only in reference to photoperiodism.

…a structure…

This was the hardest part of making the definition. What is a clock? A mechanism? An organ system?

Throughout the 20th century, this was easy. You take an organism, you put it in some kind of setup in which you can continuously monitor some kind of output (usually behavioral activity) and you document a rhythm in constant conditions. Then you systematically lesion or remove various organs or nuclei in the brain, until the rhythm disappears. The organ, which when removed results in arrhytmicity is, you publish, the biological clock in that organism. Thus, you discover the SCN in mammals or the pineal or retina in non-mammalian vertebrates, various brain-nuclei, optic lobes or eyes in invertebrates, etc.

But the world has changed since then. We are now investigating biological clocks at the molecular level. Is the transcription-translation feedback loop among a dozen or so canonical clock genes itself a clock? No, because it is only a necessary but not sufficient part of the clock. Or is a cell that contains such a molecular mechanism a clock? I’d say yes. Or is the tissue composed of such cells a clock? Different people in the field use this term differently, so I wanted to remain vague. But it is a structure.
At the same time, the distinction between a clock and a pacemaker is becoming more and more important, yet more and more difficult to define.

The clock in each cell of the liver is entrained by the signals from the pacemaker in the SCN. The SCN is, in turn, entrained by the light-dark cycles detected in the environment by the eyes. Is the only distinction between a pacemaker and the peripheral clock in the ability to directly (vs.indirectly) tap into environmental information? Does that mean that we have pacemakers and clocks, while fruitflies and zebrafish have only pacemakers as every cell of their bodies is a pacemaker directly entrained by environment? Those are some of the current problems in the field. This is the reason why more and more chronobiologists tend to use the term “circadian system” instead of “circadian clock”, in order to imply the underlying complexity.

In many animals, there are not just clocks in every cell in the body, but also multiple pacemakers, each getting information from the environment. These multiple pacemakers affect each other as well as peripheral clocks and are also affected by the feedback from the periphery.

And that is just vertebrates! We know much less about clocks and circadian organization in invertebrates, fungi and plants.

And then, there are unicellular organisms, both bacteria and protists, many of which contain, or should we say, ARE biological clocks. There is no distinction there between the clock and everything else the cell does.

Recently, it has been discovered that biological clocks (or at least clock genes) are also directly involved in regulation of (not just timing of) development, metabolism, appetite, thermoregulation, reproduction, sleep, cocaine addiction and behavior. Thus, the borderlines between the circadian system and other organ systems are getting increasingly fuzzy.

So, whatever structure (cell or higher) that controls the timing of oscillations in everything happening in the body devoid of environmental cues is a biological clock.

Related reading:

Circadian clock without DNA–History and the power of metaphor
Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sleep (But Were Too Afraid To Ask)
Seasonal Affective Disorder – The Basics
Sun Time is the Real Time
Lesson of the Day: Circadian Clocks are HARD to shift!
Lithium, Circadian Clocks and Bipolar Disorder
Are Zombies nocturnal?
Diversity of insect circadian clocks – the story of the Monarch butterfly
Me and the copperheads–or why we still don’t know if snakes secrete melatonin at night
The Mighty Ant-Lion
City Of Light: Insomniac Urban Animals
Spring Forward, Fall Back – should you watch out tomorrow morning?
A Pacemaker Is A Network

Data for #drunksci: Daily rhythm of alcohol tolerance

Everything important in our bodies cycles. Including liver enzymes. Including alcohol dehydrogenase (though DUI laws do not take this into consideration).

This data-set is from an old study (Wilson R, Newman E and Newman H. 1956. Diurnal Variation in Rate of Alcohol Metabolism. J Appl Physiol 8 556-558.), back from the times when it was OK to recruit some college freshmen to drink alcoholic beverages in the name of science (good luck in getting any IRB in the USA to let you do that today!).

This is a record of a diurnal rhythm in alcohol clearance, and the figure is from a pamphlet: Palmer JD 1983. Human Biological Rhythms. Carolina Biological Supply Company, Burlington NC.:

It shows why we can drink more in the evening than at other times of day – there is so much more alcohol dehydrogenase activity in the evening. I am not encouraging drinking here, but if you are into it and can be responsible about it, you can save some serious money by downing a single shot at dawn, according to this graph, or enjoy it more at night.

So, what do you think – does it matter at what time of day/night cops stop you to give you a breathalyzer test? Or your medical tests of various kinds?

And what do you think about the ethics of the study?

a) it was unethical to do this even back in 1956
b) it was OK according to the ethics of the day, but ethics evolves over time so it is unethical today.
c) it is ethical today, but the “ethics creep” of the IRBs has gone way over the line of common sense.

Thoughts?

Books: ‘Bonobo Handshake’ by Vanessa Woods

Originally posted on June 7, 2010.

To get disclaimers out of the way, first, Vanessa Woods (on Twitter) is a friend. I first met her online, reading her blog Bonobo Handshake where she documented her day-to-day life and work with bonobos in the Congo. We met in person shortly after her arrival to North Carolina, at a blogger meetup in Durham, after which she came to three editions of ScienceOnline conference.

I interviewed Vanessa after the 2008 event and blogged (scroll down to the second half of the post) about her 2009 session ‘Blogging adventure: how to post from strange locations’. At the 2010 conference, she was one of the five storytellers at the ScienceOnline Monti on Thursday night (and did another stint at The Monti in Carrboro a couple of months later). I have since then also met her husband Brian Hare and we instantly hit it off marvelously.

I have read Vanessa’s previous book, ‘It’s every monkey for themselves‘, but never reviewed it on the blog because I felt uneasy – that book is so personal! But it is an excellent and wonderfully written page-turner of a book so I knew I was in for a treat when I got a review copy of her new book, Bonobo Handshake (amazon.com). I could not wait for it to officially come out so I could go to the first public reading (where I took the picture) at the Regulator in Durham on May 27th, on the day of publication.

Vanessa recently moved her blog to a new location on Psychology Today network and had a few interviews in local papers, more sure to come soon.

The book weaves four parallel threads. The first is Vanessa’s own life. Bonobo Handshake starts where ‘Each monkey’ leaves off. And while the ‘Monkey’ covered the period of her life that was pretty distressing, this book begins as her life begins to normalize, describing how she met Brian, fell in love, and got married – a happy trajectory.

The second thread is the science – the experiments they did on behavior and cognition in bonobos and chimps, and how the results fit into the prior knowledge and literature on primate (including human) nature.

The third thread reports on the conservation status of great apes, especially bonobos, and all the social, cultural, financial and political factors that work for or against the efforts to prevent them from going extinct.

The fourth thread is the country of Congo, where all the bonobos in the wild live, especially its recent history of war and its effects on the local people.

The four threads are seamlessly intervowen with each other, but it takes some time into the book to realize that there is, besides the fact that Vanessa was there and did the stuff and wrote about it, another unifying thread – the question of cooperation vs. competition. Vanessa and Brian sometimes love, sometimes fight: what determined one behavior at one time and the opposite at another time?

For the most part, chimps compete and bonobos cooperate: why is that? And what accounts for occasional exceptions to that rule? When threatened, or perceiving to be threatened, animals become insecure. Chimps deal with that insecurity by lashing out – becoming violent and aggressive, or at least putting out a great show of machismo. When bonobos feel insecure (including when they are very young), they solve the problem (and release the tension) by having sex with each other. If chimps won the national elections in the USA, they would probably rule by fear and force, investing mightily into the military, the police and the prison system, going around the world bombing other countries, declaring various internal “Wars on X”, and generally trying to keep the population fearful, subdued and obedient. Bonobos in such a position would always first try to find out a diplomatic solution: how to turn a stranger, or even an enemy into a friend and ally? Share something! Whatever you have: food, shelter, sex…. Everyone is safer that way in the end.

Of course, there are reasons why chimps are one way and bonobos the other. Food is scarce where chimps live, thus there is competition for it, thus the strongest individual wins, and the winner takes all. The position in the hierarchy is the key to survival. Individualism rules. On the other hand, there is plenty of food where bonobos live, enough to share with everyone, eat enough to get bloated, and still plenty left over to just let rot. Why fight over it? Thus, communitarian spirit rules, and if a big strong male starts to feel his oats a little too much, the females will get together and gang up on him as a sisterhood and beat the crap out of him – a rare exception to their usual non-violence, but an act that restores harmony to the group as a whole.

What can we learn from it? That, being equally related to both species, as well as being smarter, we are quite capable of switching between the two modes of reaction to perceived threats: competitive or cooperative. Some people (probably due to the social environment in which they were raised) tend to respond more like chimps, others more like bonobos, but all are capable of behaving both ways. Thus, all are capable of making choices how to react. And the society as a whole can teach people about the exictence of this choice and, in some general ways regarding different kinds of issues, suggest which of the two reactions is condoned by the society and which one will lend you in jail. Studying both chimps and bonobos, comparing them to each other and to humans, can help us understand this choice better, and what it takes to make one or the other reaction to a perceived threat. And even how to study, as researchers, competitions versus cooperation, something that was historically colored by the social upbringing of individual scientists.

[An aside: this is not really relevant to the book as whole, but if I remember correctly it occurs once in the book, and Vanessa sometimes mentions it in her public speaking and on her blog. She mentions the old trope that we are about 98% identical to both chimps and bonobos. That number denotes the identity of sequences of DNA that is expressed in adult, sexually mature individuals at a particular time of year and particular time of day. It ignores all the unexpressed DNA, individual differences, seasonal/daily changes in expression, and effect of the environment. It also ignores the fact that the sequence is not what really matters – it is how the developing organism (from zygote, through embryonic and post-embryonic development, through metamorphosis, growth, maturation, puberty, adulthood and senescence) uses those sequences to effect the development of traits and the day-to-day response of the organism to the environment. It is not the sequence that matters, but which gene is expressed in which cell at what time and in conjunction with which other genes that matters. The number “98% equal” reeks of genetic determinism, which originates with Adaptation and Natural Selection, the 1966 book by George Williams which corrupted generations of biologists, and ‘The Selfish Gene‘, the 1976 book by Richard Dawkins which ruined generations of lay readers and science journalists. It peaked in late 1990s (I wrote this in 1999) with the hype over Human Genome Project (“Holy Grail”, “Blueprint of Life”!) and currently survives only in the realm of that abomination of science we all know as Evolutionary Psychology. There is a lot of literature explaining the poverty of the genocentric and deterministic view of biology, most notably the entire opuses of Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, their numerous students and proteges and fans, and an entire generation of evo-devo researchers (the field was spawned/inspired by Gould’s 1977 book ‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’) and Philosophers of Science (e.g.., Bob Brandon, Bill Wimsatt) who spent some years proving it wrong and, successfully done that, have since moved on to more fertile topics. Actually, one of the easiest-to-read books on the topic for lay audience is titled – What it Means to be 95% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and their Genes. Saying that humans and bonobos are 98 (or 95, or 99, different numbers are thrown out) percent identical to us is like saying that an airplane and a house are identical because both are built with identical sizes, shapes and colors of Lego blocks – except that one propeller-piece that the airplane has and the house does not. Bonobos and humans are similar because our development is similar, leading to similar phenotypes – not much to do with the sequences of c-DNA libraries. Aside over.]

Conservation of Great Apes depends on humans cooperating to make it happen, but also has to take into account the instrinsic proclivities of different species (chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons are all different) towards violence vs. collaboration which dictate the sizes and shapes and organizational schemes of their sanctuaries and eventual wild refuges.

Finally, civil war in Congo is an enormous example of violent competition, but what were its causes? Who chose to compete in this way and why? What was the competition about? Did the end of the Cold War sufficiently weaken the Non-Aligned Movement in a way that reduced the national pride of the people of its member-nations (allowing tribal instincts to take over), reduced the economic cooperation between the member countries (thus sending some of their economies into a downward spiral leading to hopelessness which often leads to lashing out at perceived enemies), or reduced the military cooperation between the members that would scare any potential leader of a tribal movement, or reduced the authority and thus ability of the Movement’s leadership to intervene and prevent wars between the members?

Why did some people come out of war utterly changed – the “living dead” – while others emerged hopeful, energetic and optimistic, full of life and love? How did collaboration of some people help save some of them from murder, and save their psyches from lifelong scars?

Vanessa weaves these four threads expertly and, at the end of the book, you cannot help but care about all four! It is a fast and easy read, you never feel bored or inundated by information, yet you end the book with vastly more knowledge than when you began. And once you know about something enough, you start caring.

I remember as a kid, before the Internet, trying to find something to read after I have finished all 20 library books I took out and still having a couple of weeks of boring vacation ahead of me. Stuck somewhere outside of civilization, with nothing else to do, there was nothing else but to explore the enormous leather-bound classics, each thousands of pages long, each unabridged – stuff that every home has. So I read, slowly and carefully as there was no need to rush, such books as David Copperfield, Pickwick Papers, Teutonic Knights, Moby Dick, Les Miserables, The Road to Life and Martin Eden and others. Being a kid, I did not know anything about any of those topics, and these ancient authors LOVED to write lengthy treateses on various topics over many pages, yet, by getting informed about them, I got to care about Victorian England, Medieval Religious Wars in Poland, classification of whales (and how Melville got it horribly wrong), Paris sewers, educational reforms, and the hard life of becoming a writer. Once, when I contracted something (rubella? scarlet fever?) that made me sick for a couple of days but contagious for another three weeks, with nothing to do at home, I read the unabridged five volumes of War and Peace – at the beginning I did not, but at the end I did care about Russian aristocracy and military strategy (or “how to lose a land war in a Russian winter, part I”).

I don’t know about you, but before I picked up ‘Bonobo Hanshake’ I cared about Vanessa, being a friend, and was thus interested to see what happened after the ‘Monkeys’ book was published. I was interested in bonobo behavior (as we discussed it a lot back in grad school – I did my concentration in Animal Behavior and was a part of the Keck Center for Behavioral Biology) especially as I did not follow the scientific literature on it over the past 6-7 years. I had no idea how endangered bonobos were, nor did I know anything about the civil war in the Congo (and how it is related to the civil war in Rwanda). And while Vanessa did not emulate the 19th century writers, and instead of long chapters on each topic she intertwined brief updates on each of the four threads within each short chapter, I still learned a lot – enough to start caring about the apes, about the people of Congo, about the primatologists working in dangerous places, about individual bonobos and individual Congolese people whose lives intersected Vanessa’s over the past few years. More you know, more you care. So, even if the four themes of this book do not automatically excite you, I suggest you pick up the book – a couple of hours later, you will deeply care about it, know more, want to know even more, and will feel good about it.

Update: In strange synchronicity, Jason Goldman and Brian Switek also reviewed the book today. The book has now also been reviewed by DeLene Beeland, Sheril Kirshenbaum and Christie Wilcox.

Circadian Rhythms in Human Mating

Very brief re-post, from March 18, 2006 – now with a little more added commentary:

I remember from an old review that John Palmer did a study on the diurnal pattern of copulation in humans some years ago. You can see the abstract here.

Now, Roberto Reffinetti repeated the study and published it in the online open-access Journal of Circadian Rhythms here:

The two studies agree: The peak copulatory activity in people living in a modern society is around midnight (or, really, around bedtime) with a smaller secondary peak in the morning around wake-time. This makes sense, as natural (pre-Edison) pattern of human sleep is bi-modal: two bouts of sleep. One bout starts at dusk. The second bout ends at dawn. And there is not much to do for a couple of hours of wakefulness in the middle of the night. You can stand sentry. You can think deep philosophical thoughts. Or, if you are there with your partner…well, you know what to do.

Dig through the papers yourself for additional data on workday-weekend differences and the temporal patterns of the female orgasm.

Books: ‘The Poisoner’s Handbook’ by Deborah Blum

Originally posted on July 6, 2010.

If you picked up The Poisoner’s Handbook (amazon.com) looking for a fool-proof recipe, I hope you have read the book through and realized at the end that such a thing does not exist: you’ll get busted. If they could figure it all out back in 1930s, can you imagine how much easier they can figure out a case of poisoning today, with modern sensitive techniques? And if you have read the book through, I hope you found it as fascinating as I did. Perhaps you should use your fascination with poisons to do good instead, perhaps become a forensic toxicologist?

Deborah Blum (blog, Twitter) has done it again – written a fast-paced page-turner, full of action and intrigue, and with TONS of science in it. It reads like a detective novel. Oh, wait, it is a detective novel. Who said that an author has to invent a fictional detective, an Arsene Lupin or Hercule Poirot or Sherlock Holmes or the Three Investigators? There existed in history real people just like them, including Charles Norris and Alexander Gettler, the heroes of The Poisoner’s Handbook.

Charles Norris was the first Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York, or at least the first one who was actually qualified for that position which, before him, was a political appointment not requiring any expertise. Norris served in this role from 1918. to 1935. and revolutionized both the position and the science of forensic medicine. Alexander Gettler was one of his first appointees, who served as New York City’s chief toxicologist until 1959.

The two of them used their prominent position to set the new high standards for the profession of a public medical examiner, and also set the new high standards for the scientific research in forensic pathology, including forensic toxicology – the study of the way poisons kill and how to detect it. They affected rules and legislation with their work, they sent clever murderers to the electric chair, and exonerated the innocents who were headed that way due to mistakes of the non-science-based courtroom battles. And in order to do that, they needed to do a lot of their own research during many years of long days and nights in the lab performing meticulous and often gruesome studies of the effects of various substances on animals, people, living and dead tissues and coming up with ever more sensitive and clever methods for detecting as small quantities of the poison as was technically possible at the time.

In the author’s note at the end of the book, Deborah Blum notes that there were many other forensic scientists before, during and after the Norris-Gettner era, and many of them got mentioned in the book or are cited in the EndNotes (which I discovered only once I finished the book – I hate the way publishers do this these days!). But it is also true that Norris and Gettner were the leaders – they used their prominent position and political clout, and their meticulous research defined the high standards for the nascent discipline. In a way, the central importance and prominence of these two men worked well for the book – here we have two interesting characters to like and follow instead of a whole plethora of unfleshed names. And as each chapter focuses on one poisonous substance and one or two notorious cases of its use, it is just like following Holmes and Watson through a series of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories – the two characters are the connecting thread, and they evolve throughout their lives and throughout the book, case by case.

Apart from being a history of forensic toxicology, the book has several other themes that keep recurring in each chapter, as they chronologically unfold. The book is also a history of 1920/30s New York City, and a history of technology and engineering. Carbon monoxide poisoning? That was the beginning of the car craze. Gas? Everyone cooked and heated with it at the time. Some other poisons were easily found in many over-the-counter products in stores and pharmacies.

Having just read On The Grid, I was also attuned to the discussions of infrastructure of NYC in the early 20th century. How did people transport themselves? Air pollution? Gas? Clean water? Wastewater? All sources of potentially toxic chemicals. How efficient was garbage collection? Not much….thus there were many rats. And rats needed to be controlled. And for that, there was plenty of rat poison to be bought. And rat poison can kill a human as well – inadvertently, as a method for suicide, or as a murder weapon. It is kinda fun to see some of the same infrastructure issues, like garbage disposal and pest extermination in N.Y.City, addressed from different angles in different books – this one, On The Grid, as well as Rats, another fascinating science book that covers New York City engineering, infrastructure and politics of the time. All the threads tie in together….

Another topic addressed in each chapter was Prohibition. One can certainly die of a huge overdose of ethyl alcohol normally found in drinks, but at the time when producing and selling drinks was illegal, people still drank, perhaps even more. And what did they drink? Whatever they could find on the black market – home-made concoctions brewed by unsavory types more interested in profit than the safety of their product. Instead of ethyl, those drinks were mostly made of methyl (wood) alcohol which is much more dangerous in much smaller doses. Prohibition saw a large increase in drinking-related deaths, a fact often loudly pronounced by Norris, leading to the eventual end of Prohibition. Can we apply that thinking to the War On Drugs now?

And the story of Prohibition has another element to it – the importance of regulation. An unregulated substance is potentially dangerous. By solving a number of poisoning cases, and by doing their research on the toxicity of then easily available substances, Norris and Gettner have managed to initiate regulation of a number of toxins, or even their removal from the market altogether. Some substances that were found in everything, even touted as health potions (even radioactive substances!!!) were discovered by forensic toxicologists to be deadly, and were subsequently banned or rigorously controlled. Today we have entire federal agencies dealing with regulation of dangerous chemicals, but in the early 20th century, it was the time of laissez-faire murder, suicide, suffering and death.

Finally, after I finished this fascinating book, I realized it gave me something more: an anchor, or a scaffolding, or a context, for every story about poisons I see now. Now every blog post on Deborah’s blog makes more sense – I can fit it into a body of knowledge and understanding I would not have if I have not read the book. This really goes hand in hand with the recent discussions of #futureofcontext in journalism – see The Future Of Context for starters. The idea is that news stories do not provide enough context for readers who tune into a new topic for the first time. A story that is an update on an ongoing story is not comprehensible without some context, which the news story cannot provide. So now various media organizations are experimenting with ways to provide context for people who are just tuning in. The perfect source of context for a topic is a book, especially now that every book appears to have its own website with links and news and a blog and a Twitter feed and a Facebook page. The book provides context, and all these other things provide updates.

For example, reading Bonobo Handshake may not provide much more context for me about animal behavior and cognition since I already have that context, but it certainly now makes it easier for me to understand the news stories regarding conservation of great apes. And without that book I would never have sufficient background in the recent history of Congo to understand and appreciate this comment thread. ‘On The Grid’ gives me context for all news regarding infrastructure. Explaining Research is a great recent example of a book that is a great start on the topic, but which constantly reminds the reader that this field is in flux and that the book’s website contains frequent updates and additional resources. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks provides fantastic context for the discussions of medical ethics and its evolution in the USA in the past several decades, which I riffed off a little bit in my latest interview.

What reading The Poisoner’s Handbook did for me is to give me enough knowledge and understanding on the topic that I can really appreciate it. I now get excited about news stories regarding poisons because I feel I understand them better. While reading Deborah Blum’s blog was interesting before, now it is more than interesting – it is exciting and I can’t wait for a new post to show up. I did not know how much I did not know. Now that I do, I want to know more. I am hungry for more knowledge, and more news, and more stories about toxins and poisons and how various strange and not so strange substances affect our bodies – where they come from, how they get in, how they hijack or disrupt our normal biochemical processes, how they kill us, and how do we figure that all out in the laboratory or in the basement of the mortuary. I hope you will feel the same once you finish reading this book. You will do that now, OK?

What is a ‘natural’ sleep pattern?

Nothing too complicated today, but something you should all know (originally from March 13, 2006).

I have mentioned this in my older post: in a natural state, humans do not sleep a long consecutive bout throughout the night (except in the middle of the summer in low latitudes). The natural condition is bimodal – two bouts of sleep interrupted by a short episode of waking in the middle of the night.

In today’s New York Times, there is an article about this:

Sleep Disorder? Wake Up and Smell the Savanna by RICHARD A. FRIEDMAN, M.D.:

————snip———–
Many patients tell me they have a sleep problem because they wake up in the middle of the night for a time, typically 45 minutes to an hour, but fall uneventfully back to sleep. Curiously, there seems to be no consequence to this “problem.” They are unaffected during the day and have plenty of energy and concentration to go about their lives.
————snip———–
The problem, it seems, is not so much with their sleep as it is with a common and mistaken notion about what constitutes a normal night’s sleep.
It’s a question that Dr. Thomas Wehr at the National Institute of Mental Health asked himself in the early 1990’s. He conducted a landmark experiment in which he placed a group of normal volunteers in 14-hour dark periods each day for a month. He let the subjects sleep as much and as long as they wanted during the experiment.
————snip———–
By the fourth week, the subjects slept an average of eight hours a night — but not consecutively. Instead, sleep seemed to be concentrated in two blocks. First, subjects tended to lie awake for one to two hours and then fall quickly asleep. Dr. Wehr found that the abrupt onset of sleep was linked to a spike in the hormone melatonin. Melatonin secretion by the brain’s pineal gland is switched on by darkness.

After an average of three to five hours of solid sleep, the subjects would awaken and spend an hour or two of peaceful wakefulness before a second three- to five-hour sleep period. Such bimodal sleep has been observed in many other animals and also in humans who live in pre-industrial societies lacking artificial light.

Carol Worthman, an anthropologist at Emory University in Atlanta, has studied the sleep patterns of non-Western populations. From the !Kung hunter-gatherers in Africa to the Swat Pathan herders in Pakistan, Dr. Worthman documented a pattern of communal sleep in which individuals drifted in and out of sleep throughout the night.

She speculates that there may even be an evolutionary advantage to interrupted sleep. “When we lived in open exposed savanna, being solidly asleep leaves us vulnerable to predators.”

With artificial light, modern humans have essentially managed to extend their daytime activities late into the night, when all other sensible creatures are busy sleeping.

As a result, we have compressed our natural sleep into artificially short nighttimes, but not all people are so easily tamed by artificial light. Some people, who may just have very strong circadian rhythms, still have this primitive bimodal sleep that they confuse with a sleep disorder.

Add these people to the rest of us who, under the pressures of modern life, often have some trouble falling or staying asleep and there is a large captive audience for drug companies.

Thanks in large part to the meteoric rise in direct-to-consumer advertising, medications like Ambien and Lunesta have become household names and seductive panaceas that millions find hard to resist — even though a majority have no serious sleep problem to repair. If it’s any consolation to those of you who are awake in the middle of the night for an hour or so, reading or watching television, you may simply be the most natural sleepers.

I have nothing to add, except I can also give you an image I dug up – the original data from Wehr’s experiment. See how the sleep is bimodal during the long winter nights and gets compressed during simulated summer:

Related reading:

Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sleep (But Were Too Afraid To Ask)
Sun Time is the Real Time
Lesson of the Day: Circadian Clocks are HARD to shift!
Seasonal Affective Disorder – The Basics
Are Zombies nocturnal?
Spring Forward, Fall Back – should you watch out tomorrow morning?

Science + Storytelling + Good (Food & Drink) = The Monti at ScienceOnline2012 Banquet

Originally posted by Karyn Traphagen at the official ScienceOnline2012 blog

Now, that’s an equation for an awesome evening.

Do you love to hear a good story? Love to tell a good story?

Folks, have we got a night for you. On Fri., Jan. 20, 2012, during the ScienceOnline2012 banquet you will be treated to a special edition of The Monti, hosted by Jeff Polish.

The Monti is a non-profit organization whose mission is to create community through the telling of stores. At every show, they invite ordinary people to tell extraordinary stories without notes in front of a live audience.

There are rules, of course.

The four requirements that all stories must follow:

– All stories are true.
– All stories are told without the use of notes.
– All stories adhere to a specific time limit.
– All stories must revolve around a predetermined theme.

    For our event, the theme will be CONNECTIONS.

    You can get a taste of what The Monti is all about by listening to their online archive. In particular, you might enjoy ScienceOnline alum Scott Huler’s story.

    If you are interested in potentially being selected as a storyteller for the night, you should fill out the Call for Entries form on the main site. You must be a ScienceOnline2012 attendee to participate (and you must have a ticket for the Banquet—you can still get a ticket if you didn’t sign up during registration). In addition to your contact info, we’ll ask you to tell the gist of your story in 100 WORDS. No more. The Call for Entries will close on December 15th. Jeff Polish will curate the entries and select the stories he feels will give us the best variety of stories for the topic. He will work with the selected storytellers to help them cultivate their stories and their performance.

    In the meantime, you should follow @TheMonti1 for 140-character quips. But don’t try to bribe him for a spot on the evening lineup!

    To sign up – go to the official blog and fill out the form.

    Learn more:

    Homepage
    Blog
    Planning Wiki
    Draft Program
    See who’s registered
    Waitlist sign-up
    Facebook page
    FriendFeed group
    Tumblr coverage blog
    Google Plus official page
    Google Plus circle of participants
    Twitter account
    #scio12 hashtag
    Twitter repository
    Twitter list of participants
    Previous conferences
    Nice things people said about ScienceOnline2010
    ScienceOnline2011 on YouTube
    ScienceOnline2011 on Flickr
    ScienceOnline2011 official recordings

    Previously in this series:

    What is: ScienceOnline2012 – and it’s coming soon!
    ScienceOnline participants’ interviews
    Some updates on #scio12, #NYCscitweetup, Story Collider and more.
    Updates: ScienceOnline2012, Science blogging, Open Laboratory, and #NYCSciTweetup
    ScienceOnline2012 – we have the Keynote Speaker!
    Mathematics – Algebra and Statistics and more – at ScienceOnline2012
    Information, data and technology at ScienceOnline2012
    Health and Medicine at ScienceOnline2012
    Education at ScienceOnline2012
    Movies and Video at ScienceOnline2011
    Sound and Music at ScienceOnline2012
    Visual Communication at ScienceOnline2012
    Submissions for the Cyberscreen Science Film Festival are now OPEN!
    Scientists and the Media, at ScienceOnline2012
    Writing, narrative and books at ScienceOnline2012
    Outreach, activism and persuasion at ScienceOnline2012
    Updates: #scio12, #soNYC, #NYCSciTweetup and more.
    Making it in the new media ecosystem, at ScienceOnline2012

    ScienceOnline2011 – interview with Paul Raeburn

    Continuing with the tradition from last three years, I will occasionally post interviews with some of the participants of the ScienceOnline2011 conference that was held in the Research Triangle Park, NC back in January 2011. See all the interviews in this series here.

    Today my guest is Paul Raeburn (blog, Twitter)

    Welcome to A Blog Around The Clock. Would you, please, tell my readers a little bit more about yourself? Where are you coming from (both geographically and philosophically)? What is your (scientific) background?

    I’ve been self-employed in New York City since 2004, when I left Business Week. I’m a native of Michigan (for a map, hold up your right palm; I was born near the fleshy part of your thumb, in a suburb of Detroit), and my first full-time journalism job was with the Lowell, Mass. Sun. I began by covering the Lowell suburb of Dracut—working hard to earn my promotion to the city staff, where I covered what I think was the nation’s first urban national park, devoted to Lowell’s textile mills.

    I came up through newspapers and the Associated Press, where I worked for 15 years, all but the first two years of that as science editor. I have a bachelor’s degree in physics from MIT, which had nothing to do with my science writing career—except that it prompted editors to send me out on “science” stories (rising gas prices, nuclear plant protests). I liked it, and it was a great way to distinguish myself from the rest of the staff. That is how I became a science writer.

    Tell us a little more about your career trajectory so far: interesting projects past and present?

    When I worked at the AP, I fought the image that many then had of AP reporters—they were fast, clear, and could do almost anything in 500 words. But they couldn’t do much else. I freelanced for magazines as much as I could, and I wrote my first book, The Last Harvest, about agriculture and the environment, while I was working full time at the AP. (I know others have done that sort of thing, too, but I don’t recommend it. A much better plan is to be independently wealthy.)

    I moved to Business Week as science editor for seven years, where I wrote two more books, one on Mars for National Geographic, and a memoir called Acquainted with the Night. I left Business Week to write the last one, and so was able to immerse myself in it. I liked that. I detoured through radio, including hosting two shows on XM for a couple of years, but mostly stuck with print.

    What is taking up the most of your time and passion these days? What are your goals?

    These days I’m holding down multiple jobs, somehow, including writing for magazines, blogging at the Knight Science Journalism Tracker, teaching, and working (slowly) on my fourth book, called Do Fathers Matter?

    My goals? I’m a slow learner. I seem to learn something with each piece I write, so my goal is to keep getting better at this—and to try to shed a little light in dark corners while doing it.

    How does blogging figure in your work? How about social networks, e.g., Twitter, FriendFeed, Facebook and others? How do you integrate all of your online activity into a coherent whole? Do you find all this online activity to be a net positive (or even a necessity) in what you do?

    I’m blogging at the Tracker, and I’ve blogged for Psychology Today and others. I find it to be incredibly liberating. I think I get more story ideas and tips—and more wonderful reading—from FB and Twitter than anywhere else now. The online activity is essential to my work, and it has opened up all kinds of new opportunities for all of us—something I don’t have to explain to the ScienceOnline crowd. If all of this had not happened, I’m sure I would enjoy writing for newspapers and magazines and book publishers, but it’s incredibly exciting to be exploring a whole new world after more than 20 years as a reporter. I feel very fortunate to be around for the revolution.

    What was the best aspect of ScienceOnline2011 for you?

    The energy—the energy! No other conference I’ve attended as a reporter has been fueled by so much enthusiasm, energy, and excitement about telling the kinds of stories we tell.

    Thank you so much for the interview. See you again in January!

    Best of November at A Blog Around The Clock

    I posted 33 times in November. That is, on A Blog Around The Clock only (not counting the posts on The Network Central, The SA Incubator, Video of the Week, Image of the Week, or editing Guest Blog and Expeditions).

    A couple of brand new posts:

    Myths about myths about Thanksgiving turkey making you sleepy
    Books: ‘Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science’ by Michael Nielsen
    Let’s Talk About Evolution [Video]

    A couple of updates, interviews, and announcements:

    Some updates on #scio12, #NYCscitweetup, Story Collider and more.
    Interview, in Spanish, in Journal of Feelsynapsis
    Updates: #scio12, #soNYC, #NYCSciTweetup and more.

    Announcing the sessions of the upcoming ScienceOnline2012 meeting:

    Mathematics – Algebra and Statistics and more – at ScienceOnline2012
    Information, data and technology at ScienceOnline2012
    Health and Medicine at ScienceOnline2012
    Education at ScienceOnline2012
    Movies and Video at ScienceOnline2011
    Sound and Music at ScienceOnline2012
    Visual Communication at ScienceOnline2012
    Scientists and the Media, at ScienceOnline2012
    Writing, narrative and books at ScienceOnline2012
    Outreach, activism and persuasion at ScienceOnline2012
    Making it in the new media ecosystem, at ScienceOnline2012

    Another Q&A with a participant of last year’s meeting:

    ScienceOnline2011 – interview with Kathleen Raven

    And a few more videos from the ScienceOnline2011 sessions:

    #scio11 – Blogging on the Career Path
    #scio11 – Perils of Blogging as a Woman under a Real Name
    #scio11 – Blogging in the Academy
    #scio11 – MLK, Jr., Memorial Session
    #scio11 – It’s All Geek to Me

    Several re-posts from the old archives:

    Lesson of the Day: Circadian Clocks are HARD to shift!
    Sun Time is the Real Time
    The Scientific Paper: past, present and probable future
    Spring Forward, Fall Back – should you watch out tomorrow morning?
    BIO101 – Introduction to Anatomy and Physiology
    BIO101 – Physiology: Regulation and Control
    Blogs – a means to finding people to do rhythmic things with?
    BIO101 – Physiology: Coordinated Response
    Hot Peppers – Why Are They Hot?

    Previously in the “Best of…” series:

    2011

    October
    September
    August
    July
    June
    May
    April
    March
    February
    January

    2010

    December
    November
    October
    September
    August
    July
    June
    May
    April
    March
    February
    January

    2009

    December
    November
    October
    September
    August
    July
    June
    May
    April
    March
    February
    January

    ScienceOnline2011 – interview with Kathleen Raven

    Continuing with the tradition from last three years, I will occasionally post interviews with some of the participants of the ScienceOnline2011 conference that was held in the Research Triangle Park, NC back in January 2011. See all the interviews in this series here.

    Today my guest is Kathleen Raven (blog, Twitter).

    Welcome to A Blog Around The Clock. Would you, please, tell my readers a little bit more about yourself? Where are you coming from (both geographically and philosophically)? What is your (scientific) background? Tell us a little more about your career trajectory so far: interesting projects past and present?

    I live in a place that struggles with frequent droughts, nutrient-starved soil and really hot summers. Does that narrow it down enough? I like to think that no matter where we call home, we live closer together than we realize and have more in common than we think. Anyway, I’m from Athens, Georgia.

    Philosophically, I’m liberal-minded, outrageously optimistic, and a fan of rigorous science. Especially the scientists who stray way off path and risk ridicule to push the field forward. My scientific background includes a currently in-progress master’s of science degree in conservation ecology. For three years, I’ve studied sustainable agriculture in Georgia’s Piedmont region. This past year I wrapped up a video project that features conservation tillage practices on a small farm during the four seasons. Video brings a thrilling edge to science communication. So I’m trying to learn as much as possible about filming and editing. My next project is to explore how videos might help small farmers learn and share information.

    Through May 2012, I’ll continue to my current assistantship as science writer for the University of Georgia’s News Service. This has absolutely been one of my career highlights so far. Each interview with a scientist or researcher is like translating hieroglyphs into English. I love it—especially when the scientist comes back and says, “Hey, you got the science part right.” At the moment I’m looking forward spending a week in Germany. Along with 14 other U.S. journalists, I’m participating in this year’s Berlin Capital Program sponsored by the Fulbright Commission.

    What is taking up the most of your time and passion these days? What are your goals?

    As a graduate student, classwork takes up much of my time (surprise) and passion, too. Nerds rule. While I’ll be done with my M.S. program in the spring, I still have another semester or so to go for my master’s of art degree in health and medical journalism. I began that program this past August. Mind and body health fascinate me. All of us are conceived exactly the same way, well, sort of, and then – bam! – the tiniest details create a sketch of the rest of our lives. Did the mother eat a balanced diet during pregnancy? What is a balanced diet? Which genes were inherited? Which socioeconomic class was the child born into? Even before we are out of the gate, we struggle and strive. That and about a million other things make me want to learn more about human and global health. The world needs more investigative science and health writers to weigh, balance, question and attempt to make some sense of a topic for the general public.

    My goal is to be a writer who does these things. I’m terrible at specializing. I’m interested in local food networks, genetics and psychology, nanotechnology, climate change, international diseases, wildlife health, online communication, evolution, how statistics can be skewed any way you want… The list morphs every minute. Another great passion of mine is the Great Outdoors. I get outside as much as possible. Nature keeps us honest to the big questions no matter our specialty in science.

    What aspect of science communication and/or particular use of the Web in science interests you the most?

    We’re living in the heyday of science communication!! We can check any study, news article, politician’s comment or blog post we want from wherever WiFi is available. Huge datasets are available to download and to discover previously unknown correlations! We are explorers of vast swathes of information masses. The power that online science writers have comes with a price: the ease of lazy reporting. Who is checking all of these “facts” anyway? I’m watching the field of scientific citing and general attribution intently. Are we still generally making progress in our scientific knowledge, or are we spinning our wheels? Are important voices getting drowned out in the online chatter? I’m intensely curious to see how we, as online communicators, will keep pushing the limits of getting accurate information into public domain, and also how to track and monitor information in its many forms.

    How does (if it does) blogging figure in your work? How about social networks, e.g., Twitter, FriendFeed, Facebook and others? How do you integrate all of your online activity into a coherent whole? Do you find all this online activity to be a net positive (or even a necessity) in what you do?

    My dream would be to write a blog post every day—every morning before breakfast. And I plan to increase my blog writing time in the coming year. All of us write our posts in stolen snatches of time; but even those have been so scarce lately. I rely heavily on hashtags to stay current on issues of interest (#scio12, #climatechange, #science, and whatever the latest topic I’m writing about). Lately I’ve spent more time monitoring Twitter than contributing to it.

    My social media networks are purposefully in silos. I use Twitter for information gathering and sharing—and not really to talk to friends. My Facebook account has some bits of professional stuff here and there. Mostly I use it to vent frustrations, stay in touch with folks, share an interesting article. I’ve ventured into FriendFeed, Google+ and Academia, but my accounts there are sorely neglected. I’m trying to figure out how to make use of these networks in the most time efficient way. Maybe I’ll learn more about this at ScienceOnline2012! Overall, I try to keep a hyper-focused attitude when I’m working with social media. Usually I will literally set a timer: 30 minutes on Twitter and then close it down. I’m so curious—it’s easy for me to fall down a rabbit hole.

    When and how did you first discover science blogs? What are some of your favourites? Have you discovered any cool at the Conference?

    Bora, I met YOU at the National Association of Science Writers in 2011. That was really my first introduction to the rich ecosystem of online science blogs. I have many favorites—some of which I have mentioned on my own blog. From last year’s conference, I discovered extremely specialized blogs and others that covered all topics in a fresh voice. So an example of specialization is Ivan Oransky’s Retraction Watch. Love his eagle eye! As an example of a blogger who doesn’t limit herself to any topic, I check in frequently with Stephanie Zvan’s Almost Diamonds.

    What was the best aspect of ScienceOnline2011 for you? Any suggestions for next year?

    The best aspect of ScienceOnline2011 was, hands down, meeting the people. Even as holographic technology advances, there will never be a substitute for the human interaction. All of the amazing creativity and intellectual energy spurred me to work harder toward my goals and think beyond now to the future and how to make it better.

    Is there anything that happened at this Conference – a session, something someone said or did or wrote – that will change the way you think about science communication, or something that you will take with you to your job, or to your science reading and writing?

    I will always remember the session titled “Science journalism online: better, or merely different?” with Ed Yong, Virginia Hughes, John Rennie and Steve Silberman. You couldn’t see the floor in that room by the time the session started and I think we went beyond our official time slot. As someone who has been working in newspapers since I was 16 (back then we put the newspaper together with a wax machine and blueprint), I am extremely sympathetic to the old school. However, the possibilities discussed that day made me extremely excited about how journalism can only get better as we consume more of our news online. And, as always, the basic rules—accuracy, thoroughness, colorful writing—never change.

    Thank you so much for the interview. See you again in January!

    Books: ‘Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science’ by Michael Nielsen

    We knew for quite some time that Michael Nielsen (blog, Twitter) was writing a book about the future of science. He said so on his blog a few times, and wrote some posts as early, preliminary thoughts on the topics he’d like to cover in it, back in 2008 and in 2009 (those two posts are especially worth re-visiting – still current and thought-provoking).

    The book is now out, and I have read the galley proofs sent to me by the publisher early on (bloggers get lots of free books, with no strings attached – it is up to us to review positively, review negatively, or not review at all). I was just too busy to sit down and write the review until now…

    For those of you who do not have the patience to read the whole review, but are interested in the way new technologies, especially the Internet, are changing the way science is done, I can say – go now and buy yourself a copy of Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. It is excellent. Worth your investment in time and money.

    It is almost easier to describe this book by stating what it is not

    It is not an utopian, hyper-optimistic manifesto for all things Open Science (though the tone is generally optimistic and positive).

    It is not an encyclopedia listing thousands of Open Science projects that people have started over the years, so your favourites (including perhaps a project of your own) are unlikely to be mentioned there.

    What it is, is a careful examination of the potential for new ways of producing new knowledge. Note that it is not titled “Reinventing Science” or “Reinventing Research” but “Reinventing Discovery”, a much broader concept than just science. It is about various ways in which groups of people, by finding each other online and working together (either cooperatively or competitively), can make new discoveries about the world.

    What Michael Nielsen did was carefully choose just a few projects, each using different technology, each having a different goal, and each having a different method, and analyzed how and why they were successful. What small differences made these projects successful while many similar ones were failures? What aspects of the method were key to its success, what were the strengths and what were the weaknesses? Why are some methods better for some specific goals than other methods? Why were some – initially exciting and heavily touted – projects failures in the long run? What did they do wrong?

    His most thoroughly described and analyzed examples include the Polymath Project, Galaxy Zoo, Linux, and the Kasparov vs. World chess match. Where needed, he also introduced other projects or classes of projects, e.g., Open Notebook Science, Open Access Publishing (e.g,.PLoS), Wikipedia, arXiv, GenBank, InnoCentive, Open Dinosaur Project, eBird and Fold-It. Some notable failed projects are also mentioned and analyzed (e.g., Qwiki).

    As you can see, that is quite a breadth of projects with some very different histories, and very different goals. What ties them together is the crowdsourcing element – how large groups of people can solve problems that a handful of experts cannot solve alone, either due to lack of brain power, or lack of computing power, or lack of time. Some of these projects require that the crowd consists of people with high level of expertise on the subject – after all, non-mathematicians could not be of much help in the Polymath Project, or non-coders for developing Linux. But for other projects, literally anyone can contribute – one only needs to have a source of electricity, online access, and an instrument (e.g., computer, or smartphone) to get online to participate. The former are highly informal networks of experts working on a problem, the latter are what we now call “citizen science” projects.

    What is notably missing from the book are lengthy discourses about science communication. There is nothing about the way the Web is disrupting and changing science journalism (and actually very little about scientific publishing). Science blogging is covered in a single subheading about one page long (though pros and cons of the blogging software for discovery are carefully dissected in the discussion of the Polymath Project). There is almost nothing about the use of the Web in science education.

    And this is fine – covering all of those topics would make the book twice as long and would dilute its message (if I was not so busy and so ADHD, I’d relent to the hounding publisher/agent who wants me to write a book about those other areas – perhaps one day I’ll say yes to that idea so Amazon.com can suggest that people who like my book should also buy Michael’s and vice versa). The book is about the way knowledge is made, not how it is disseminated once it is made – there is an unstated undertone that the open online activity of the discovery, especially when it involves thousands of non-experts, will inevitably result in the spread of the information, coupled with the excitement of watching – and sometimes participating in – the way the information is wrestled from Nature.

    The world Nielsen describes is quite reminiscent of the way science is done in “Rainbows End” by Vernor Vinge:

    …How does one get answers to scientific questions, or get new technologies developed? By using the hive-mind. There are online boards and forums. You go there, offer virtual money, and the collective effort of the people on there provides you the answer in a timely fashion. It is so powerful that you can rely on the people to design you a new technology according to your specifications, and do it in time for you to go ahead with your plans, certain that the technology will be available to you at the time when you need it…

    Just like in the fictional world of Vinge, the projected future world of Nielsen has in it a place for scientists trained in a traditional way, employed by traditional institutions, funded in traditional ways. After all, much of research is expensive, requires large investment in infrastructure and generally cannot be done at home in one’s garage. But, like Vinge, Nielsen imagines a world in which those scientists are not isolated from the rest of the world – they are dependent on the broad participation of many other people, with varying degrees of expertise: some collect data, some are good thinkers, some lend their computers to it, others provide a little extra funding for particular small projects. This is a vision of a world in which science is just one integral part of the general process of discovery of knowledge, which is one integral part of what the world normally does every day anyway.

    But unlike pure speculative fiction, Nielsen’s ideas are built on a careful analysis of the past – from the anagrams of Galileo and Newton, to Henry Oldenburg and the invention of the scientific journal, to the invention of peer-review in mid-20th century, to the developments of the past couple of decades since the invention of the World Wide Web. It takes into account people and how they, being human, resist or accept new ways of doing old stuff. It points out the obstacles, and errors one can make in pushing for a more open and more collaborative research. But it also provides a blueprint for how to do it right. And this last thing is why YOU should buy this book and read it carefully – it gives you a cool-headed, calm, thoughtful analysis of the things that work. Use them.

    Making it in the new media ecosystem, at ScienceOnline2012

    There are many sessions (already noted in this series) that cover various aspects of science communication, but the sessions listed today are specifically about the way journalism is changing and how to adapt to this new world:

    Going from blogging to MSM: selling out or gateway drug? (discussion) – Hannah Waters and Lucas Brouwers

    The rise of science blogging has ushered in a new generation of writers who have more experience with blogging than with writing for traditional publications. And when said writers start writing for MSM, they face a distinct set of challenges — technical, managerial, and philosophical. This session intends to be part how–to, and part a wider discussion about transitioning from the blogger mindset to more traditional journalism. What do bloggers bring to the table, and how do you market those skills? What are some of the pitfalls they face? As you spend more time working on ‘official’ writing projects, what happens to the blog and how does the space change? How do you cope with having less control over the words and presentation of your writing? How do you deal with getting pushed out of your comfort zone of expertise? How do you reconcile the two approaches and leave work without feeling like you’ve sacrificed a part of your soul? We plan to feature testimony from editors dealing with writers fresh-from-the-wordpress to get a sense of the other side of the table. Neither of us have significant freelance experience, so we invite freelancers to add to the discussion.

    Harassing the Powerful for Fun and Profit: An Informal Investigative Reporters’ Guide to Uncovering Secrets and Bypassing Flacks (discussion) – Charles Duhigg and Ivan Oransky

    This workshop will explain how to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and non-FOIA methods to find information that people don’t want you to know, and how to pick topics and targets most likely to yield important insights. It will examine how to identify the officials and other sources most likely to provide assistance, and then how to get them to talk. It will explore how to investigate scientists and research efforts, and how to make use of the data you’ve received from government agencies. It won’t really explain how to make much of a profit. But, if your idea of a good time is ruining an arrogant bureaucrat’s day, you’re in the right place.

    How do we teach science journalism in the era of social media? (discussion) – Paul Raeburn and Misha Angrist

    For those of us trying to train next-gen science writers and bloggers, what do we teach them? Tools and tricks–and let them figure out how to use them? Intellectual examination of the history and nature of journalism, and let the students learn the tricks and tools on the job? Law schools teach deep academic content, and let employers teach the grads how to be lawyers. Journalism schools have traditionally taught writing and reporting skills. Medical schools are in the middle–study of science, and instruction in skills. Where should science journalism pedagogy be, with the media landscape changing as quickly as it is? To what breaches do we once more unto? If we insist on teaching John McPhee, are we fighting the last war? Or is now the moment to stand fast in defense of timeless storytelling?

    Do press officers/public information officers need journalists any more? (duscussion) – David Harris

    With the plethora of tools available to press officers/public information officers for direct-to-audience communication, how much is the intermediary of the mainstream press required? What kinds of formats and players are taking the place of mainstream press? How are press officers/PIOs using these tools effectively to both communicate messages and engage in substantive dialog with their stakeholders and audiences? The session is intended to not only assess where we are now but to futurecast the direction of this kind of work.

    I can haz context? (discussion) – Ed Yong and Maggie Koerth-Baker

    There’s a lot of talk about the need for more context in science journalism, to depict science as a fluid process rather than fixating on the latest paper-of-the-day. Vigorous nodding ensues. But how do we actually achieve this, how does this work for different media (print, blogs etc), what types of context are actually useful, how do journalists balance time and depth, how can we use the tools of the internet to provide context, and how can context in science writing actually help science itself?

    Data Journalism: Talking the talk (hands-on workshop) – Ruth Spencer and Lena Groeger

    We want this workshop to be first and foremost USEFUL to people, without requiring many in depth tutorials or technical explanations. One of the main hurdles on the adventure that is data journalism, is knowing just enough to be able to have a conversation with someone who can make your data dreams into data realities (read: programmers and developers). We’re less interested in perfecting your program skills and much more keen to get you familiar with the tools and processes you need to get your big project off the ground. We’ll explore how to get started and launch into a whirlwind tour through the (free!) resources for journalists looking to work with data. This will be less of a workshop and more of a crash course: What you need to know before you even know what you need to know (about data journalism).

    Charting Your Own Course: How to Make It As a Freelancer (discussion) – Brian Switek and Hillary Rosner

    Freelancing can be tough. Generating ideas, pitching stories, balancing projects, planning ahead to make sure the money keeps coming… How do full-time freelancers do it? What does it take to start science-writing without a safety net, especially during a time when paid work is increasingly elusive? Whether you’re a veteran freelancer or thinking about taking the plunge, bring your questions, tips, and tricks.

    Writing about science for women’s (and men’s) magazines and not being ashamed of it, dammit (discussion) Maryn McKenna and Elizabeth Devita-Raeburn

    The major women’s magazines — SELF, Health, More and others — reach audiences of more than 1 million per month in their paper versions and several million more on the web. Yet there’s science-writing community debate over whether we should write for them, to bring science to the masses (and also because they pay pretty well), or whether they are so compromised by simplification and error that writing for them is a scarlet letter of shame.

    And on Saturday at 3:45-4:45pm, just before the end of the conference – the Plenary Panel: Check, check, 1, 2 . . . The sticky wicket of the scientist-journalist relationship, moderated by David Kroll, with panelists: Maggie Koerth-Baker, Seth Mnookin and Bora Zivkovic.

    Despite the reach of science blogs, science reporting from wide-circulation online or print publications continues to have the greatest impact on the public perception of science. The most essential but misunderstood component of science reporting is the relationship between the writer and the scientist source. While journalists and scientists may appear to have shared goals and expectations in story reporting, their distinctive motivations can lead to discord. This closing session will discuss three overlapping themes: 1) the perils of journalists growing too close with their sources, 2) the threat to objectivity in consulting scientist sources for fact-checking, and 3) for scientists, the drawbacks of engaging with the press on your science or that of others in your field. Each theme also carries significant advantages. How are the journalist and scientist best served while preserving the integrity of the science?

    Learn more:

    Homepage
    Blog
    Planning Wiki
    Draft Program
    See who’s registered
    Waitlist sign-up
    Facebook page
    FriendFeed group
    Tumblr coverage blog
    Google Plus official page
    Google Plus circle of participants
    Twitter account
    #scio12 hashtag
    Twitter repository
    Twitter list of participants
    Previous conferences
    Nice things people said about ScienceOnline2010
    ScienceOnline2011 on YouTube
    ScienceOnline2011 on Flickr
    ScienceOnline2011 official recordings

    Previously in this series:

    What is: ScienceOnline2012 – and it’s coming soon!
    ScienceOnline participants’ interviews
    Some updates on #scio12, #NYCscitweetup, Story Collider and more.
    Updates: ScienceOnline2012, Science blogging, Open Laboratory, and #NYCSciTweetup
    ScienceOnline2012 – we have the Keynote Speaker!
    Mathematics – Algebra and Statistics and more – at ScienceOnline2012
    Information, data and technology at ScienceOnline2012
    Health and Medicine at ScienceOnline2012
    Education at ScienceOnline2012
    Movies and Video at ScienceOnline2011
    Sound and Music at ScienceOnline2012
    Visual Communication at ScienceOnline2012
    Submissions for the Cyberscreen Science Film Festival are now OPEN!
    Scientists and the Media, at ScienceOnline2012
    Writing, narrative and books at ScienceOnline2012
    Outreach, activism and persuasion at ScienceOnline2012
    Updates: #scio12, #soNYC, #NYCSciTweetup and more.

    Hot Peppers – Why Are They Hot?

    I first posted this on July 21, 2006.

    Some plants do not want to get eaten. They may grow in places difficult to approach, they may look unappetizing, or they may evolve vile smells. Some have a fuzzy, hairy or sticky surface, others evolve thorns. Animals need to eat those plants to survive and plants need not be eaten by animals to survive, so a co-evolutionary arms-race leads to ever more bizarre adaptations by plants to deter the animals and ever more ingenious adaptations by animals to get around the deterrents.

    One of the most efficient ways for a plant to deter a herbivore is to divert one of its existing biochemical pathways to synthesize a novel chemical – something that will give the plant bad taste, induce vomiting or even pain or may be toxic enough to kill the animal.

    But there are other kinds of co-evolution between plants and herbivores. Some plants need to have a part eaten – usually the seed – so they can propagate themselves. So, they evolved fruits. The seeds are enveloped in meaty, juicy, tasty packages of pure energy. Those fruits often evolve a sweet smell that can be detected from a distance. And the fruits are often advertised with bright colors – red, orange, yellow, green or purple: “Here I am! Here I am! Please eat me!”

    So, the hot peppers are a real evolutionary conundrum. On one hand, they are boldly colored and sweet-smelling fruits – obvious sign of advertising to herbivores. On the other hand, once bitten into, they are far too hot and spicy to be a pleasant experience to the animal. So, what gives?

    Back in 1960s, Dan Johnson had an interesting proposal he dubbed “directed deterrence” which suggested that some plants may make choices as to exactly which herbivores to attract and which to deter. Hot peppers are prime candidates for such a phenomenon. What is hot in peppers is capsaicin, a chemical that elicits a sensation of pain when it binds the vanilloid receptors in the nerve endings (usually inside the mouth) of the trigeminal nerve. As it happens, all mammals have capsaicin receptors, but it was found, relatively recently, that birds do not.

    To test that hypothesis, Josh Tewksbury used two variants of hot peppers – one very hot (Capsicum annuum) and the other with a mutation that made it not hot at all (Capsicum chacoense) – and offered both as meals to rodents (packrats and cactus mice) and to birds (curve-billed thrashers).

    All species ate the sweet kind about equally. When Josh offered them identically prepared meals made out of the hot stuff, the two rodents refused to eat it while the birds happily munched on it.

    The study appeared in 2001 in Nature (pdf) and I saw Josh give a talk about it at that time as he was joining our department to postdoc with Dr.Nick Haddad. While my lab-buddy Chris and I gave him a lot of grief in the Q&A session on his lenient criteria of what constitutes a “hungry animal” (he needed them to be hungry for the feeding tests), still the main conclusions of the study are OK.

    More importantly, it really happens in nature. Mammals avoid hot peppers out in Arizona where Josh studied them (and made videos of their behavior), but the birds gorged on peppers. When he analyzed the droppings of rodents and birds fed peppers, he saw that seeds that passed through avian intestinal tracts were fully fertile, while seeds eaten by mammals were chewed, crushed, broken or semi-digested and not fertile at all.

    Additionally, the thrashers tend to spend a lot of time on fruiting shrubs of different kinds. While there, they poop. The hot pepper seeds in the droppings germinate right there and this is an ideal shady spot for them to grow.

    What a great example of a (co)evolutionary adaptation!

    Related: Hot Peppers

    Updates: #scio12, #soNYC, #NYCSciTweetup and more.

    I was recently interviewed for Sigma BioBlogs about science education and outreach, and the interview is now online – check it out: @BoraZ – Science online’s BlogFather on Science Outreach and Education.

    =========

    Next Science Online NYC will be on December 8th at 7pm in room Weiss 305 (Rockefeller University, E66th and York Ave., New York, NY). The topic is Matching medium and messengers to meet the masses (very related to the topic of my interview above), with a stellar panel: Darlene Cavalier, Jamie Vernon, Molly Webster and Kevin Zelnio. It is free, but you need to RSVP (just click on the link) to get the tickets.

    =========

    #NYCSciTweetup #6 is this Thursday, December 1st, at Peculier Pub. I will, sadly, not make it. But you should come if you can. My most likely next trip to NYC will be December 12-15, fingers crossed.

    =========

    This is the time of year when there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes, organizing all the little details of ScienceOnline2012, with not much visible to the public.

    The waitlist is already very long, but we are still keeping the application form open (the scholarship application is closed). Watch our traditional Thanksgiving message. Keep checking out the updates on the blog.

    If you are registered, get your travel plans in place and hotel room reserved. Then organize for carpooling and room-sharing if you need to. Also, write a blog post about yourself and post the link to the Blog and Media coverage page on the wiki (just edit the page) and make sure that your own homepage/blog is correctly listed on the participants’ Blogroll.

    If you are planning to come early or stay a little longer after the meeting, there are plenty of things to do and see in the Triangle region of North Carolina.

    Finally, to help us make sure there is plenty of coffee and food and swag and buses/shuttles and travel grants for students, we are still looking for additional sponsors – let us know if your organization is interested.

    Myths about myths about Thanksgiving turkey making you sleepy

    Does tryptophan from turkey meat make you sleepy?

    Short answer is NO.

    Long answer is much, much more interesting than what you usually hear.

    You have probably heard or read two types of contradictory stories:

    In one type of story, eating a lot of turkey meat makes you sleepy. It is wrong in its conclusion because it makes (at least) two assumptions wrong.

    In the other type of story, eating a lot of turkey meat does not make you sleepy. Its conclusion is correct, but not for the right reasons – it still (even the best article I could find) is likely to contain at least one erroneous assumption.

    Both types of stories rely on the same underlying mechanism of how, potentially, this could work, based on what we know about human physiology. But both are ignoring (or are not aware) of a mechanism that is much more plausible. Turkey does not end up making you sleepy only due to that one little factoid that pro-sleepy stories get wrong and anti-sleepy stories get right.

    Let’s dissect this story, then. What are the essential lines that all (pro and con) stories have?

    A) Tryptophan is an essential amino acid that we get from food. Tryptophan is a biochemical precursor of serotonin, i.e., our bodies convert tryptophan into serotonin in the brain.

    B) Serotonin makes you sleepy.

    C) More there is tryptophan in the body, more serotonin will be produced in the brain.

    D) Since turkey meat has lots of tryptophan, eating it will result in sleepiness.

    Pro-sleepy stories make all four assumptions. All four are wrong.

    Most anti-sleepy stories make two or three of those four assumptions, thus they get at least one of them right. What the anti-sleepy stories usually get right is that D) is incorrect –  it is a myth that turkey meat has much tryptophan. It actually has only about 509mg per 200-Calorie serving and is thus quite an average food (some other foods served at Thanksgiving may contain more tryptophan than turkey does).

    At least some of the anti-sleepy stories also figure out that B) is wrong. Serotonin may make you happy or confident, but it cannot make you sleepy. Those articles get something important right: the amino-acid tryptophan is a precursor of neurotransmitter serotonin which in turn is the precursor of hormone melatonin. It is melatonin that makes you sleepy.

    Here it is in a simplified shorthand:

    What really derails both the pro-sleepy and anti-sleepy stories is the insistence that this all has to happen in the brain – the combined statements A) and C).

    So they spend some time and effort figuring out how all that postulated extra tryptophan could possibly get into the brain. And that’s hard – tryptophan does not passively pass the blood-brain barrier but is imported by a molecular carrier. The same carrier also transports other amino-acids. Thus one would have to ingest incredible amounts of pure tryptophan, no other molecules included, and somehow trick the carriers to transport all of the tryptophan into the brain, for this to work.

    Once in the brain, that tryptophan would supposedly be turned into serotonin, and then serotonin would be turned into melatonin inside of the tiny pineal gland in the brain.

    It appears that not everyone knows that all the enzymes needed for synthesis of melatonin (from tryptophan, via serotonin) can be found and are active in places other than just the pineal organ.

    Conversion of tryptophan, via serotonin, to melatonin also happens in the retina of the eye, in the Harderian gland (located in the ocular orbit just behind the eyeball), and in the intestine.

    The intestine has a large and complex semi-independent nervous system (“The Second Brain” of sensationalist reports) in which most or all of the same neurotransmitters and hormones are found as in the brain.

    Actually, more melatonin is produced in the intestine than in all the other sites combined.

    Normally, intestinal melatonin plays a role in control of gut motility – peristalsis – and perhaps some other local functions.

    In most species intestinal melatonin gets degraded within the intestine. In other words, little or no melatonin ever leaves the intestine and leaks into the bloodstream.

    Also, depending on the species, melatonin in the intestine is predominantly synthesized either during the day, or during the night, or continuously (Serotonin N Transferase enzyme is the “rate-limiting” enzyme in the pathway you see above in the picture, and it is under direct control of the circadian clock). In humans, it appears that some intestinal melatonin (not much, though) leaks into the bloodstream at all times, and that most of the synthesis happens during the day.

    What happens if one ingests incredibly large amounts of pure tryptophan (not just tryptophan-rich food, where other molecules may interfere with the process)?

    Interestingly, it has been shown in rats and chickens that adding extra tryptophan can promote synthesis of extra melatonin. In other words, the enzymes do not get saturated or down-regulated by extra tryptophan. Either there is a lot of enzymes already there, capable of processing extra tryptophan fast, or (we don’t know yet) the enzymes may even get up-regulated by the tryptophan load.

    In studies in which rats and chickens were loaded with huge amounts of pure tryptophan, extra melatonin leaks from the intestine into the bloodstream even if it normally does not do so in that particular species.

    Other studies show that melatonin secreted from the intestine does not in any way affect the levels of melatonin synthesis in other locations (pineal, eye). If there is more melatonin, it came from the gut.

    Melatonin does not require any carriers or transporters to cross the blood-brain barrier. No matter where it was originally produced, it easily enters the brain. Once there, it can produce sleepiness either directly or by acting on the circadian clock. It has long been known that increasing levels of melatonin in the bloodstream can phase-shift the circadian clock, place the phase into the night, and thus promote the feeling of sleepiness.

    So, what anti-sleepy stories get right (and pro-sleepy stories get wrong), is that turkey is a weak agent for this. One would need enormous amounts of pure tryptophan to get an effect.

    What both types of stories get wrong is their insistence that this has to happen in the brain. That is a wrong mechanism to look at – blood-brain barrier guards against extra tryptophan, so no amount of extra loading can do the trick.

    But a huge load of tryptophan (how about a gallon of saturated solution poured directly into your stomach via gastric gavage?) could have the effect, and easily so, if one knows that all that extra tryptophan would first be converted into melatonin in the intestine itself, then easily pass into the brain. The mechanism is much more plausible, it is just that the turkey meat is incapable of triggering it.

    So, why are you sleepy at the end of Thanksgiving dinner? You are tired of all that travel, cooking, hugging family, watching football, serving and eating… You are overstimulated. You may have had some alcohol with your meal. And look at the clock – it’s almost bed-time anyway.

    Outreach, activism and persuasion at ScienceOnline2012

    Much of science communication is not trying to be “objective” and present “both sides”, but rather is an attempt to educate, inform and persuade, sometimes working against the forces of pseudoscience and quackery. We have a series of sessions helping you navigate these waters.

    You Got Your Politics in My Science (discussion) – John Timmer and Stephanie Zvan

    Like it or not, anyone involved in communicating science will end up facing decisions about where the boundary lies between basic reporting and advocacy. Some scientific findings, like those surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccination, call out for public education and political action. The U.S. government is the largest source of funding in many fields, which inextricably links science to policy decisions. And this year sees a U.S. presidential election in which there are stark differences in the acceptance of basic science between many candidates. Where is the boundary between informing about science–including its attendant politics–and advocating? When is advocacy appropriate? Is it even possible to avoid it? And how can staking out positions on issues unrelated to science (perhaps on Twitter or Facebook) influence how your professional work as a science communicator or scientist is perceived?

    Networking Beyond the Academy (discussion) – Nancy Parmalee and Summer Ash

    So you’ve been at the bench for a decade and now you’d like to branch out. Is your passport in order? Do you speak the language? What is the exchange rate for academic currency? A discussion of transferable skills, cultural and linguistic differences, and navigating a different world. Topics of interest: staying abreast of happenings  outside of the academy, using your network to find opportunities, figuring out how to be great once you get there.

    Covering Political Neuroscience in the Blogosphere (discussion) – Chris Mooney and Andrea Kuszewski

    Recent research suggests that liberals and conservatives differ, in a measurable way, in brain structure and function. Yeah. Think about that. This work is far from phrenology, but interpreting its meaning is difficult and contentious. And indeed, given the massively controversial nature of this research, how can science bloggers contribute measure and sanity to the discussion of it? What caveats are necessary? What declarations are supportable? For it is not like this work is going away. Rather, we can expect more and more of these types of studies—of political phenotypes, of bio-politics—to emerge.

    Citizens, experts, and science (discussion) – Amy Freitag and Janet Stemwedel

    This session hopes to explore the “third wave of science” or “democratizing science” as we move beyond recognizing trained scientists as the sole source of authoritative, objective expertise. We will discuss some examples of how citizens can get involved in the scientific process – both in terms of where in the process (idea generation through analysis) and how (web access, in the field, etc.). Finally, we will cover what ethical questions must be addressed as this movement towards participatory science broadens.
    – use of the web as a citizen science tool for data collection and beyond
    – including citizens in the scientific process from idea generation to analysis and outreach
    – ethics (who gets credit/authorship, where do you publish, etc.)
    – Academic rewards for participating in participatory science
    – conversations on blogs as early review
    – who qualifies as an “expert” and what criteria do we use

    Blogging Science While Female (discussion) – Christie Wilcox and Janet Stemwedel

    The session on women in science blogging at Science Online 2011 sparked internet-wide discussion about sexism, discrimination and gender representation in science and science blogging. Now here we are, a year later. How have we, as a community, faced the issues brought up by last year’s discussion? What has changed? What have we learned, and what challenges still lie ahead? Moderators and attendees will assess the current state of women in the science blogosphere and discuss the best way we can support and encourage gender representation in science blogging.

    Understanding audiences and how to know when you are *really* reaching out (discussion)- Kevin Zelnio and Emily Finke

    Who is your audience? Do you write for anyone who will listen or do you target specific groups? How do you know you are reaching anyone? How do you address audience ignorance without making your audience feel ignorant? This session will explore taking a science communication pluralism approach to maximize the number of audiences we can reach. Some writers want to reach other scientists or professionals in their fields, some view their online activities as “broader impact” or outreach, while others write for publishing outlets and others write for whoever pays attention! Audiences are segregated by age class, geography, career, background knowledge and other random interests and often use widely different social networks for finding, aggregating an sharing content. How can we manage the balance of voice, scientific accuracy and tailoring content to appeal to a wider variety of audiences? How can we best communicate to different audiences without making anyone feel either ignorant or bored? Let’s discuss how science writers craft their content to cater to more than one audience, how they can address lack of basic background knowledge, how social networking is utilized and can be further harnessed and whether social media (and which types) make any difference in pimping your content out for a broader reach. What are the appropriate metrics to measure impact across a diverse array of audiences and more importantly what metrics do we need that are currently not available or accessible on freely available web stats software?

    Broadening the Participation of Underrepresented Populations in Online Science Communication and Communities (discussion) – Danielle Lee

    How are you using your skills in online communication to engage students and/or fellow scientists from underrepresented groups? How do you feel about the unusual digital divide: while texting is used more by underrepresented groups, does that compromise writing skills? How can non-minority allies cultivate and retain minority students into the sciences? Are credibility and authenticity necessary for mentoring minorities? Women scientist bloggers have been increasingly successful in creating a supportive online community that addresses their needs – what are the challenges for scientist-bloggers from underrepresented groups? More generally, and in the spirit of Dr. King, how has the web been used for nonviolent protesting and influencing culture?

    Science Communication, Risk Communication, and the role of Social Networks (discussion) – David Ropeik

    As important as it is for science communicators to provide clear, relevant, accurate information, people’s views about climate change or vaccines or genetically modified food or chemicals or nuclear power, or so many other health and safety issues, are a blend of conscious reasoning about the factual evidence, and subconscious emotional interpretation of that evidence. The subjective nature of risk perception, which shapes the choices people make as individuals and together as a society, raises unique challenges and ethical issues for science communicators. At a time of rising science denialism, as researchers in Italy face manslaughter charges for how they handled risk communication around the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, with the debate about climate change raging, this is a critically important issue. Topics to explore include: Why do people’s fears so often not match the evidence? What is the ethical obligation of science communication about risk? What is the latest research on risk perception? How can we integrate this research into science communication training? How does social media amplify or attenuate perceived risk?

    Blogging to save the world: Conservation biology and social media (discussion) – David Shiffman and Neil Hammerschlag

    Students, researchers, and staff from the University of Miami’s RJ Dunlap Marine Conservation Program will discuss how their lab uses social media tools to educate people about the marine environment and how they use these tools to encourage science-based conservation policies. The discussion will include using Twitter to teach ‘introduction to marine biology lectures’ online, webinars and other free online resources for educators, a ‘virtual expedition’, and more. Additionally, the speakers will share their personal experiences using social media to generate support for conservation-friendly policy changes using petitions, encouraging people to contact policymakers directly, and other techniques. We will also discuss the strengths and weaknesses of social media technology as it applies to conservation biology in general, as well as the future of these tools for this purpose.

    Science writing in and for developing nations (discussion) – Grant Jacobs and Madhusudan Katti

    To what extent might good science coverage improve the lot of the so-called ‘developing’ nations, what practical steps might help achieve this, what are the needs of science writers/journalists in those locations, etc. This topic may seem to clash with the demographics of those attending scio with most attendees coming from North America, the UK & Europe, but it’s topic that appeals to a wish to improve the lot of “developing” nations. It also appeals in that I’ve seen so little discussion of science writing/journalism in developing nations. I’m taking ‘developing nations’ very loosely here to allow for examples from nations that might be considered further developed than the poorest of the poor. In Western nations we rally against pseudoscience and poor reporting of science. For developing nations these issues run deeper. Would it be idealism to aspire to shift the mindsets of those in pivotal positions in those nations? Mindsets are, in many respects, the hardest thing to shift and practical initiatives can come to nothing if the will and want to use them isn’t there. Would these nations be helped by media there showing “heroes” in sound science and practical science-based applications? Is there a gap in who traditional media reach (think of low literacy in these nations) – would alternative communication be more effective? (Travelling seminars, perhaps?) What case examples might serve as prototypes? What organisations will, or might, support ventures like these?

    Can Democracy Still Work in the Age of Science? (discussion) – Shawn Otto

    Jefferson’s central idea of democracy is that “whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” Jefferson thought it required “no very high degree” of education for people to be well-enough informed. But what happens in a world dominated by complex science? Are the people still well-enough informed to be trusted with their own government? Why or why not? Today, science is under political attack like never before. At the same time, science impacts almost every aspect of modern life, and is poised to create more knowledge in the next 40 years than in all of recorded history. Can we expect attacks to increase or lessen? Why is this happening? Why is it so much worse in the United States than the UK or EU? Why are people the world over protesting against both autocratic and democratic governments? Can democracy survive the rush of science? We’ll compare strategies scientists and journalists can use online and off to manage these emerging science challenges – together with a world of unsolved legacy environmental science challenges – for science and better public policy.

    Learn more:

    Homepage
    Blog
    Planning Wiki
    Draft Program
    See who’s registered
    Waitlist sign-up
    Facebook page
    FriendFeed group
    Tumblr coverage blog
    Google Plus official page
    Google Plus circle of participants
    Twitter account
    #scio12 hashtag
    Twitter repository
    Twitter list of participants
    Previous conferences
    Nice things people said about ScienceOnline2010
    ScienceOnline2011 on YouTube
    ScienceOnline2011 on Flickr
    ScienceOnline2011 official recordings

    Previously in this series:

    What is: ScienceOnline2012 – and it’s coming soon!
    ScienceOnline participants’ interviews
    Some updates on #scio12, #NYCscitweetup, Story Collider and more.
    Updates: ScienceOnline2012, Science blogging, Open Laboratory, and #NYCSciTweetup
    ScienceOnline2012 – we have the Keynote Speaker!
    Mathematics – Algebra and Statistics and more – at ScienceOnline2012
    Information, data and technology at ScienceOnline2012
    Health and Medicine at ScienceOnline2012
    Education at ScienceOnline2012
    Movies and Video at ScienceOnline2011
    Sound and Music at ScienceOnline2012
    Visual Communication at ScienceOnline2012
    Submissions for the Cyberscreen Science Film Festival are now OPEN!
    Scientists and the Media, at ScienceOnline2012
    Writing, narrative and books at ScienceOnline2012

    Writing, narrative and books at ScienceOnline2012

    There will be a whole host of sessions and workshops about writing – tips on how to do it better, on getting ideas, on writing longform pieces and publishing books:

    The Path from Research to Book: Tools & Workflow Tips from Top Writers (discussion)- David Dobbs and Maryn McKenna

    Once we used index cards. Now we use … well, what do we use? And how do we use it Writing any book, especially a science book, involves gathering and then somehow harnessing and drawing from an enormous amount of raw material — scientific papers; articles, video, audio from mass media; notes from reading in a huge variety or sources; interviews, web pages, stray thoughts, scenes from one’s one interviews. One of the writer’s biggest challenges is how to find, gather, sift, save, and ultimately parse that material into bits and pieces with which to build the book. Good software can aid this task. But to succeed rather than go mad, you must choose and use your tools wisely — and create a workflow that helps you harness and shape your material in a way that complements your work and cognitive style. In this session, two experienced authors on the stage, and hopefully several more in the room, will describe how they’ve gone about this — their physical and software tools, their workflows, their work habits — with an emphasis on finding a smart path from raw material to solid draft. We’ll cover both Mac and PC tools. Then we’ll see what the crowd uses.

    The Uses of the Past: History of Science as a tool for Science Journalists/Writers. (discussion) – Tom Levenson and Eric Michael Johnson

    What does the history of science have to offer writers of stories concerned with contemporary results? A lot: context, for one; explanatory tools for another, (every complex modern science question/result has its roots in more accessible inquiries); bullsh*t detection; narrative…and so on. Historical knowledge and thinking like a historian help provide both specific material for stories and a technique for thinking about what to write and why.

    Sex, gender and controversy: writing to educate, writing to titillate (discussion) – Scicurious and Kate Clancy

    “Everyone loves a duck penis (seriously! everyone!), but do audiences drawn to sexy topics actually learn about science? How can we blog these issues in a way that’s more than just titillating? How can we use research on reproduction, sexuality and gender, and sexism and bias to promote interest in wider aspects of science? How much does the identity of the blogger matter? The identity of the audience? Join us for discussions of gender, sex, blogging, and… humping rats.”

    The Punchlines and Perils of Science Humor (discussion) – Brian Malow and John Rennie

    “What can I get you?” the bartender asks. A tachyon walks into a bar. And so on. Well-executed touches of humor can help make science writing more expressive, personal, and memorable. Badly executed humor can induce eye-rolling, embarrassment, and retreats for the nearest exit. This session will focus on doing the latter. —Eh, maybe not, but we’re setting the bar low. We will in fact discuss how to find the humor hiding inside science stories and how to present it to good effect to various audiences. How can analogies and metaphors, anecdotes, and other storytelling devices help to bring the science alive? How can you express your humanity and curiosity through the humor without becoming that guy who tries too hard? Brian Malow (@sciencecomedian) will draw on his extensive experience for this discussion while John Rennie (@tvjrennie) holds his coat. Everyone is encouraged to bring, share, and discuss their own favorite examples of analogies, metaphors and other humorous devices (rhetorical, not electrical!) useful for conveying scientific points.

    Story as Shape or Song: Geometry and Music as Longform Nonfiction Structural Models (discussion) – Deborah Blum and David Dobbs

    Nonfiction narratives longer than about 3000 words often demand different, more various structures than shorter pieces do. In this workshop, authors and longform writers Deborah Blum and David Dobbs will describe open a discussion of literally storytelling by describing how geometric shapes (Blum) and musical forms (Dobbs can offer models for conceptualizing, organizing, and composing narratives from about 3000 words up. Is you story a parabola? A circle? A pyramid? Or is it a pop song, a fugue, or a sonata? With a variety of forms to consider as models, you can create what Blum calls “a structured seduction of the reader.” Which, when it works, makes everybody feel good. Pulitzer Prize winner Deborah Blum, author of The Poisoner’s Handbook and Love at Goon Park, writes for leading magazines and literary journals including Scientific American, Slate, Lapham’s Quarterly and Tin House and keeps her blog, Speakeasy Science, at PLOSblogs. She teaches nonfiction writing at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. David Dobbs, author of Reef Madness and the Atavist hit My Mother’s Lover, writes features for The New York Times Magazine, The Atlantic, National Geographic, Slate, and other magazines, and is working on his fourth book, The Orchid and the Dandelion. His blog Neuron Culture is at Wired.

    Weird and wonderful stories in the history of science (discussion) – Brian Malow and Greg Gbur

    The history of science is filled with great stories: entertaining, enlightening, and sometimes horrifying! In this lighthearted session we’ll talk about using weird tales in the history of science to liven up your science posts and teach about science and its methodology. People are encouraged to bring their favorite historical stories to share, and discuss what lessons the story provides. The moderators will also tell some of their favorite unusual tales!

    Making Book on E-books: How to write a science or medical e-book and publish and sell it online (discussion) – Tabitha M. Powledge and Carl Zimmer

    The emphasis of this session/workshop would be on *practical steps* for writers who understand that electronic publishing has turned the book world upside down and who want to take charge of preparing their books and bringing them into the world electronically. Participants to include a writer who has done this on his/her own, a writer who has worked on an e-book with a traditional publisher, and a writer who has worked with a commercial online publisher such as Amazon’s services.

    Oral storytelling

    We’ll soon send out instructions and a call for submissions for those who want to tell a (hopefully science-related) story at the Friday night banquet, organized by our friends at The Monti. More information soon.

    Learn more:

    Homepage
    Blog
    Planning Wiki
    Draft Program
    See who’s registered
    Waitlist sign-up
    Facebook page
    FriendFeed group
    Tumblr coverage blog
    Google Plus official page
    Google Plus circle of participants
    Twitter account
    #scio12 hashtag
    Twitter repository
    Twitter list of participants
    Previous conferences
    Nice things people said about ScienceOnline2010
    ScienceOnline2011 on YouTube
    ScienceOnline2011 on Flickr
    ScienceOnline2011 official recordings

    Previously in this series:

    What is: ScienceOnline2012 – and it’s coming soon!
    ScienceOnline participants’ interviews
    Some updates on #scio12, #NYCscitweetup, Story Collider and more.
    Updates: ScienceOnline2012, Science blogging, Open Laboratory, and #NYCSciTweetup
    ScienceOnline2012 – we have the Keynote Speaker!
    Mathematics – Algebra and Statistics and more – at ScienceOnline2012
    Information, data and technology at ScienceOnline2012
    Health and Medicine at ScienceOnline2012
    Education at ScienceOnline2012
    Movies and Video at ScienceOnline2011
    Sound and Music at ScienceOnline2012
    Visual Communication at ScienceOnline2012
    Submissions for the Cyberscreen Science Film Festival are now OPEN!
    Scientists and the Media, at ScienceOnline2012

    Let’s Talk About Evolution [Video]

    No need for me to add anything – just watch it and share:

    Scientists and the Media, at ScienceOnline2012

    Several sessions this year focus on the strategies for scientists and the media how to talk to each other better:

    Pimp your elevator pitch (workshop) – Karen James

    For practising scientists: can you describe your research, clearly and accessibly, in two minutes? We plan to video about five volunteers doing their ‘elevator pitch’, then ask for feedback from the floor. Then the same five people do it again, and we compare the two (times five) videos. Hopefully this will be a worthwhile and engaging experiment for everybody who wants to engage with their family, the wider population, the departmental head, rich philanthropists…

    Why Scientists Hate & Fear the Media; or, Science training for journalists. (discussion) – Miriam Goldstein and Craig McClain

    During last year’s Death to Obfuscation workshop, tips & tricks came up for getting scientists to talk to journalists. But why do scientists have to be cajoled, lured, and begged to talk to journalists? And how can you as a journalist/writer avoid being a source of fear & loathing, and develop a positive relationship with scientists? Practicing scientists who’ve spent time in the communication trenches (Miriam on the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch”, Craig on “Isopocalypse”, and others in the room) will give the inside scoop about what scientists complain about behind closed doors, and how you as a journalist/writer can get beyond the apathy and hostility to amazing science stories.

    Do press officers/public information officers need journalists any more (discussion) – David Harris

    With the plethora of tools available to press officers/public information officers for direct-to-audience communication, how much is the intermediary of the mainstream press required? What kinds of formats and players are taking the place of mainstream press? How are press officers/PIOs using these tools effectively to both communicate messages and engage in substantive dialog with their stakeholders and audiences? The session is intended to not only assess where we are now but to futurecast the direction of this kind of work.

    On the record – a media-skills workshop for scientists. (workshop) – Ed Yong and Charles Duhigg

    This practical workshop will cover why media work is important, how to gain confidence, how to defend yourself against misquoting, and how to deal with interviews in a variety of media – phone, TV and radio; live and pre-recorded. It will be run by a massive raft of seasoned spokespeople and journalists. We will hope to give delegates practice by matching them up in pairs or small groups with journalists for mock interviews. The journalists may or may not be pretending to be evil.

    What to do when you’re the go-to online outreach person at your institution: guidelines from the Science Online group (Working Group – commit to develop a written document) – Miriam Goldstein and Jai Ranganathan

    When someone comes to you and says, “So I want to get into this internets things,” what do you tell them? Best practices? Lessons learned? This information is scattered over the blogosphere to some degree, so this working group will gather it up, incorporate new suggestions, and create a document for newcomers to online science communication. In addition to best practices, it would be useful to provide scientists with a “layman’s guide to social media” – what outlets are good for what kind of information, the most popular (and informative) tools, how to make your life easy in managing them all (programs like tweetdeck, linking posts, etc)

    Next generation scientific society and conference – (discussion) – Scicurious and Donna Krupa

    The most interesting scientific meetings for the participants are small, with lots of time for informal interactions and discussion of not-yet-published results. They sometimes happen in remote or unusual locations and are often funded by foundations or agencies rather than scientific societies. Such meetings have many drawbacks that go against the principles of open science — they encourage cliques, exclude many people who may be interested, and may fail to make a broad impact outside the participants. The documents that come out of such meetings, often edited volumes running hundreds of dollars, look good on a shelf but have little urgency or value. Journalists and the public may not even know that an interesting meeting is happening! This session will explore ways to create hybrid conferences, that combine the focus of a small meeting with a broader communication and publication strategy. The questions include: When is streaming media useful? How best to integrate remote participants? What kind of video product after the conference is most useful? How can a small meeting accomplish open access publication? What kind of advance timeline is necessary to catalyze the participants? How can such meetings be leveraged for outreach opportunities? Discussing how scientific societies and other scientific non-profits can work with science bloggers to increase the outreach potential of both. More organizations are becoming interested in recruiting bloggers, and many scientist bloggers are interested in blogging meetings related to their interests. We are interested in bringing the two together, and sharing our experiences as bloggers who blog meetings, and as organizers for societies that have worked with bloggers. How are bloggers different from mainstream reporters? Why should an organization work with one? How should organizations work with bloggers in terms of registration, setup, and facilitating their work? From the blogger’s end, what are organizations looking for in science bloggers, and what should we expect from the organization? What are best practices of blogging conferences? How do you approach an organization about blogging for one of their meetings?

    Why the resistance to science blogging? (discussion) – Pascale Lane and Holly Bik

    Many scientists and journal editors actively dismiss and denigrate all scientists who blog. They argue that bloggers are anonymous, untrustworthy, engage in ad hominem attacks, have no authority, and cannot (indeed, should not) be considered to be part of the scientific record. This session could examine ways to change the culture within peer-reviewed journals in particular that accepts – maybe even encourages! – the usefulness of blogging and other online discussion. How can bloggers change the attitude of journal editors, editorial boards, and reviewers? Can blogging, post-publication peer review, and other online activities be brought into the fold as part of the scientific record?

    Learn more:

    Homepage
    Blog
    Planning Wiki
    Draft Program
    See who’s registered
    Waitlist sign-up
    Facebook page
    FriendFeed group
    Tumblr coverage blog
    Google Plus official page
    Google Plus circle of participants
    Twitter account
    #scio12 hashtag
    Twitter repository
    Twitter list of participants
    Previous conferences
    Nice things people said about ScienceOnline2010
    ScienceOnline2011 on YouTube
    ScienceOnline2011 on Flickr
    ScienceOnline2011 official recordings

    Previously in this series:

    What is: ScienceOnline2012 – and it’s coming soon!
    ScienceOnline participants’ interviews
    Some updates on #scio12, #NYCscitweetup, Story Collider and more.
    Updates: ScienceOnline2012, Science blogging, Open Laboratory, and #NYCSciTweetup
    ScienceOnline2012 – we have the Keynote Speaker!
    Mathematics – Algebra and Statistics and more – at ScienceOnline2012
    Information, data and technology at ScienceOnline2012
    Health and Medicine at ScienceOnline2012
    Education at ScienceOnline2012
    Movies and Video at ScienceOnline2011
    Sound and Music at ScienceOnline2012
    Visual Communication at ScienceOnline2012
    Submissions for the Cyberscreen Science Film Festival are now OPEN!

    BIO101 – Physiology: Coordinated Response

    In this lecture, as well as in the previous one and the next one, I tackle areas of Biology where I am really weak: origin of life, diversity of life, and taxonomy/systematics. These are also areas where there has been a lot of change recently (often not yet incorporated into textbooks), and I am unlikely to be up-to-date, so please help me bring these lectures up to standards…. This post was originally written in 2006 and re-posted a few times, including in 2010.

    As you may know, I have been teaching BIO101 (and also the BIO102 Lab) to non-traditional students in an adult education program for about twelve years now. Every now and then I muse about it publicly on the blog (see this, this, this, this, this, this and this for a few short posts about various aspects of it – from the use of videos, to the use of a classroom blog, to the importance of Open Access so students can read primary literature). The quality of students in this program has steadily risen over the years, but I am still highly constrained with time: I have eight 4-hour meetings with the students over eight weeks. In this period I have to teach them all of biology they need for their non-science majors, plus leave enough time for each student to give a presentation (on the science of their favourite plant and animal) and for two exams. Thus I have to strip the lectures to the bare bones, and hope that those bare bones are what non-science majors really need to know: concepts rather than factoids, relationship with the rest of their lives rather than relationship with the other sciences. Thus I follow my lectures with videos and classroom discussions, and their homework consists of finding cool biology videos or articles and posting the links on the classroom blog for all to see. A couple of times I used malaria as a thread that connected all the topics – from cell biology to ecology to physiology to evolution. I think that worked well but it is hard to do. They also write a final paper on some aspect of physiology.

    Another new development is that the administration has realized that most of the faculty have been with the school for many years. We are experienced, and apparently we know what we are doing. Thus they recently gave us much more freedom to design our own syllabus instead of following a pre-defined one, as long as the ultimate goals of the class remain the same. I am not exactly sure when am I teaching the BIO101 lectures again (late Fall, Spring?) but I want to start rethinking my class early. I am also worried that, since I am not actively doing research in the lab and thus not following the literature as closely, that some of the things I teach are now out-dated. Not that anyone can possibly keep up with all the advances in all the areas of Biology which is so huge, but at least big updates that affect teaching of introductory courses are stuff I need to know.

    I need to catch up and upgrade my lecture notes. And what better way than crowdsource! So, over the new few weeks, I will re-post my old lecture notes (note that they are just intros – discussions and videos etc. follow them in the classroom) and will ask you to fact-check me. If I got something wrong or something is out of date, let me know (but don’t push just your own preferred hypothesis if a question is not yet settled – give me the entire controversy explanation instead). If something is glaringly missing, let me know. If something can be said in a nicer language – edit my sentences. If you are aware of cool images, articles, blog-posts, videos, podcasts, visualizations, animations, games, etc. that can be used to explain these basic concepts, let me know. And at the end, once we do this with all the lectures, let’s discuss the overall syllabus – is there a better way to organize all this material for such a fast-paced class.

    These posts are very old, and were initially on a private-set classroom blog, not public. I have no idea where the images come from any more, though many are likely from the textbook I was using at the time. Please let me know if an image is yours, needs to be attributed or removed. Thank you.

    ==================

    Last week we looked at the organ systems involved in regulation and control of body functions: the nervous, sensory, endocrine and circadian systems. This week, we will cover the organ systems that are regulated and controlled. Again, we will use the zebra-and-lion example to emphasize the way all organ systems work in concert to maintain the optimal internal conditions of the body:

    So, if you are a zebra and you hear and see a lion approaching (sensory systems), the brain (nervous system) triggers a stress-response (endocrine system). This is likely to happen during the day, as the biological clock (circadian system) of both animals makes them diurnal, i.e., day-active (as opposed to nocturnal, or night-active animals). If the chase occurred during the night, the lion would run slower and the zebra would take longer to mount a stress-response. Both animals would also be handicapped by lower sensitivity of their sensory systems.

    Another name for the stress response is fight-or-flight response. Considering the size, strength and weaponry of the lion, the zebra’s brain is unlikely to make a decision to fight.

    Flight, i.e., running away is the best course of action for the zebra.

    Zebra’s great speed and the lion’s hunting tactics are a result of a co-evolutionary arms race. Let’s see what is happening in the body of the zebra once it starts running.

    Running is movement. In vertebrates, the movement is accomplished by contraction and relaxation of muscles attached to the bones of the internal skeleton. The attachments of muscles to the bones are called tendons (the attachment between one bone and another is called a ligament). By the alternate contraction and relaxation of muscles located on opposite sides of the bone, the bones are moved around the joints, the hooves push against the ground and propel the body forward.

    What makes the skeletal muscles contract? Muscles are composed of many muscle cells. Each cell is very long and thin and each cell receives a synaptic connection from a motor neuron. The neurotransmitter at this synapse (called the ‘neuro-muscular junction’) is acetylcholine. Release of acetylcholine into the synaptic cleft and its binding to the receptors on the surface of the muscle cell membrane triggers an influx of calcium into the cell, as well as release of calcium from intercellular stores – the endoplasmatic reticulum.

    The muscle cell is divided into segments. The muscle cell is filled with long thin molecules of actin and myosin that run lengthwise along the whole length of the segment. Myosin is the thicker of the two molecules. It contains myosin heads which form cross-bridges by binding to actin filaments. ATP is necessary for detaching the myosin heads from actin, while calcium is necessary for attaching the heads again – at a new place further down the filament. In this fashion, the two kinds of molecules slide over each other. As they do so, each segment of the muscle cell shortens, thus the whole muscle cell shortens – this is contraction.

    So, for the muscles to contract, it is necessary for the muscle cells to be supplied with calcium and with ATP. Calcium is regulated by a number of organs. The intake (absorption) of calcium into the body is controlled by the digestive system. Loss (excretion) of calcium is regulated by the kidney. Calcium is deposited in bones. All three of those processes (absorption in the intestine, excretion into urine, and deposition into bones) is controlled by hormones: parathormone (parathyroid gland), calcitonin (thyroid gland), estradiol (ovary and adrenal cortex) and Vitamin D (a hormone synthesized by skin). If muscle cells lack calcium, parathormone will be released, while calcitonin and estradiol will be inhibited. This will increase absorption from the gut, decrease loss via urine, and release some calcium out of the bones.

    The other requirement for muscle contraction is ATP. It is synthesized during breakdown of glucose. The first several steps of the biochemical breakdown of glucose (glucolysis) do not require oxygen and result in production of just a few molecules of ATP. The last several steps of the biochemical breakdown of glucose (Krebs cycle) occur in the mitochondria (of which muscle cells have many), require the presence of oxygen, and result in production of many molecules of ATP.

    Thus, in order to synthetize sufficient amounts of ATP needed for contraction, muscle cells need glucose and oxygen. Both are delivered to the muscles via blood, by the circulatory system. Oxygen in blood is bound to the molecule of hemoglobin. Hemoglobin is tightly packed inside red blood cells. In muscles, the concentration of oxygen in red blood cells is greater than in the surrounding tissue, thus hemoglobin releases oxygen which follows its concentration gradient. In lungs, the concentration of oxygen is greater in the air than in the blood, so oxygen enters the blood and binds to hemoglobin. Carbon dioxide does the opposite – it also follows its own concentration gradient, thus leaving the muscle cells and binding hemoglobin in a nearby capillary, then leaving the red blod cells and diffusing into the air in the lungs.

    During stress response, epinephrine (from adrenal medulla) and the sympathetic system speed up the heart rate, thus increasing the rate at which blood circulates through the tissues. At the same time, capillaries in the muscle dilate (open up) allowing more blood to perfuse the muscle cells.

    Heart is a large muscular organ. All muscle cells in the heart are connected to each other via gap junctions so the electrical potential is spread through the heart very fast. The oxygenated blood from the lungs enters the heart via pulmonary veins into the left atrium (one of the four chambers of the heart). It flows from left atrium into the left ventricle. When the left ventricle is filled, the contraction of the heart expells the blood into aorta – the largest artery of the body. Aorta branches off into many other arteries that take blood into all parts of the body. Smaller and smaller branches of arteries finally end in capillaries.

    Capillaries are blood vessels that are bounded only by a very thin single-cell layer with pores, which allows many molecules to leave the bloodstream or enter the bloodstream following their concentration gradients. Oxygen-rich blood enters the capillaries and releases oxygen.

    Oxygen-poor blood moves from capillaries into small veins, which join together into large and larger veins and finally into the vena cava. Vena cava enters the heart in the right atrium. From there, O2-poor blood fills the right ventricle. When the heart contracts, the blood is expelled into the pulmonary arteries which take the blood to the lungs where the blood becomes oxygen-rich again.

    The frequency and depth of respiration also increase, thus increasing the concentration of oxygen in blood. Furthermore, working muscles produce heat. Higher temperature makes it easier for hemoglobin to release oxygen into the muscle. At the same time, increased ventilation (by intercostal muscles and the diaphragm) of lungs decreases the air temperature in lungs, which makes it easier for hemoglobin to bind oxygen. All this makes more oxygen available to the working muscles.

    Still, after only a few seconds of strenous work, the oxygen reserves in the muscle are depleted. The glucose is now broken down only by glucolysis (anaerobically). As a result, the final products of glucose metabolism are not water and carbon dioxide, but lactic acid – the substance that makes tired muscles hurt. The presence of lactic acid decreases the local pH in the muscle, which also makes it easier for the hemoglobin to release additonal oxygen into the muscle, but the capacity of blood to bring in more oxygen is overwhelmed by the oxygen need of the working muscle cells.

    Where does the muscle get its glucose from? Most of the glucose in the body is stored in the form of glucogen in muscle cells and liver cells. Hormones like glucagon and cortisol trigger the breakdown of glucogen into glucose molecules and release of glucose out of liver into the bloodstream, thus making it available for the muscle to use.

    But, where do the glucose stores come from? From food, which is ingested, digested and absorbed by the digestive system.

    Digestion of food begins in the mouth, where saliva begins the process of breaking down carbohydrates, along with making the food softer for the action of teeth and tongue in breaking down the food into smaller particles that can be swallowed. The food then goes through the esophagus into the stomach. The stomach is a muscular organ. It secretes hydrochloric acid and many digestive enzymes. The movements of the stomach further turn the food into a liquid. The movements of the stomach, as in many other internal organs, is due to the activity of smooth muscles. Those are much shorter muscle cells which are, unlike skeletal muscles, not under voluntary control. The muscles of the stomach and intestine are inhibited by the sympathetic system, thus digestion slows down during the stress response – the digestive process is too slow to provide glucose to the muscles at a rate needed for escaping the lion, thus the business of digestion (which is quite energy-demanding) is postponed until after the stresful event is over.

    Once the food is made completely liquid by the stomach, it passes through the pyloric sphincter into the first portion of the small intestine – the duodenum. Here, the very acidic content of the stomach is neutralized and the pH of the rest of the digestive tract is slightly alkaline. At the beginning of the duodenum, two important organs add their products into the lumen of the intestine – the liver and the pancreas. The liver produces bile which is stored in the gall bladder and secreted into the duodenum. Bile is a mix of salts that act like detergents – breaking down large globules of fats into smaller droplets, thus making fats accessible to enzymes. Pancreas produces a wide range of digestive enzymes which, together with intestinal enzymes, break down different types of food molecules: proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids, various minerals, vitamins, etc.

    Next portion of the small intestine is the longest – the jejunum – followed by ileum. In herbivores in general, the small intestine is very long, while in carnivores (e.g, the lion), it is comparatively short. Most of digestion and absorption of nutrients is performed by the small intestine.

    The small food molecules absorbed by the intestine are picked up by the hepatic portal system – a system of blood vessels that take the blood to the liver. Liver is the chemical factory of the body – it breaks down toxins as well as foods, builds new molecules out of simpler building blocks and makes those available to the rest of the body by releasing them into the main bloodstream.

    Large intestine – the coecum, the colon and the rectum – is primarily involved in reabsorption of water so it is not lost via feces. In some animals, various portions of the digestive tract are enlarged and contain chambers full of bacteria and protista that are capable of breaking down food substances (e.g., cellulose) that the animal itself is incapable of digesting. In ruminants (e.g., cows, sheep, camels, giraffes), it is the stomach that serves this function – it is divided into four large chambers. In horses and zebras, the coecum serves the same function. In humans, coecum is a rudimentary organ – all that is left is the non-functional appendix.

    If you paid attention so far, you may have noticed a pattern. During stress reponse – running in this case – the most important organ system is the system for locomotion – the skeletal muscles. Every other organ system that is involved in providing the muscles with the optimal internal environment for maximal function, i.e., the systems that control calcium, or provide glucose and oxygen to the muscles, are stimulated by the control and regulatory mechanisms. All other systems are inhibited or even completely shut down – they consume precious energy. If the muscles perform their function succesfully and the zebra escapes, the normal function of these systems can resume.

    However, using up energy by non-essential systems can lead to the zebra not having enough energy for running at the maximum speed for sufficiently long time to evade the lion. Being eaten by the lion is certainly not good for zebra’s homeostasis!

    Along with the digestive system, other systems that are inhibited during stress response are the immune system (which we will not cover in this course), the excretory system (kidney) and the reproductive system. Compared to the lion, fighting off bacteria is not so important – this can wait for a couple of minutes. Having to stop to pee is not a good idea while running away from the lion as well. It goes without saying that engaging in reproductive functions is out of question during the flight from the ferocious predator – but the survivors will have the opportunity to breed later, passing on their genes to the next generation – genes that contain information about building the body that is capable of effectively allocating resources in order to escape a lion’s attack.

    So, now that you – the zebra – have successfully run away from the lion, all the functions are coming back to normal – the breathing and heart-rate slow down, the glucose gets redeposited as glucagon in the liver and muscles (under the influence of insulin), the digestion restarts and the immune system re-engages. Let’s now look at the remaining two systems – excretion and reproduction.

    The main organ of the excretory system is the kidney. Kidney is built of billions of little tubes called the nephrons. At the beginning of each nephron, a web of capillaries releases much water and other molecules into the nephron. Then, along the length of the nephron, there is exchange between the nephron, the neighboring capillaries and the space between them. Some substances, e.g, glucose, get completely reasborbed out of the nephron and back into the bloodstream. Toxic and waste materials are actively secreted from the blood into the nephron. Many ions are also exchanged, leading to regulated changes in pH. Finally, most of the water gets reabsorbed as well, under control of antidiuretic hormone and aldosterone. Control of how much water gets excreted in the urine and how much is reabsorbed back into the bloodstream is important not just for preventing water loss, but also in controlling blood pressure. The urine is collected in the urinary bladder and, when it fills up, it is excreted via urethra into the outside environment.

    Testis is the main organ of the male reproductive system. Apart from being an endocrine gland – secreting testosterone – this is the site where sperm cells are continuously produced out of their stem cells within long convoluted tubes of the testis. The mature sperm cells – spermatozoids – are collected in the epidydimis on the surface of the testis. At the end of copulation, during orgasm, the sperm cells are ejected via sperm duct (vas deferens) and urethra (housed within the penis) into the female’s vagina. On the way out, the sperm cells are mixed with secretions of three glands – the prostate, the seminal vesicles and the bulbourethral glands whcih provide the optimal environment (e.g, pH, sugars) for the survival of sperm cells in the inhospitable regions of the acidic female genital tract.

    In the female, the ovary is the organ which produces hormones estradiol and progesterone. All the egg cells are stored in the ovary before birth, i.e., no new eggs are produced after birth. In every cycle, one of the egg cells matures – it builds around itself a large follicle. Ovulation is the moment at which the follicle bursts and the egg is released into the oviduct. If no fertilization occurs, the egg, together with the lining of the uterus, gets shed out of the body (menstruation). If fertilization does occur in the oviduct, the zygote moves into the uterus and implants itself into its wall. The empty follicle left behind in the ovary turns into the yellow body which secretes progesterone throughout pregnancy. The fertilized egg starts developing. A part of it develops into placenta and the other part into an embryo.

    Previously in this series:

    BIO101 – Biology and the Scientific Method
    BIO101 – Cell Structure
    BIO101 – Protein Synthesis: Transcription and Translation
    BIO101: Cell-Cell Interactions
    BIO101 – From One Cell To Two: Cell Division and DNA Replication
    BIO101 – From Two Cells To Many: Cell Differentiation and Embryonic Development
    BIO101 – From Genes To Traits: How Genotype Affects Phenotype
    BIO101 – From Genes To Species: A Primer on Evolution
    BIO101 – What Creatures Do: Animal Behavior
    BIO101 – Organisms In Time and Space: Ecology
    BIO101 – Origin of Biological Diversity
    BIO101 – Evolution of Biological Diversity
    BIO101 – Current Biological Diversity
    BIO101 – Introduction to Anatomy and Physiology
    BIO101 – Physiology: Regulation and Control

    Blogs – a means to finding people to do rhythmic things with?

    I wrote this post a long time ago – in December 24, 2008. At the time, Twitter was new, FriendFeed was small, Facebook did not yet have functionalities it has today, and Google Plus did not exist. So the main platform for finding an online community were blogs.

    I found this (the link is now broken, but the site still exists, and I could not find the post – perhaps got lost to the vagaries of time, or a re-design of the site, or blogger’s whim) quite intriguing:

    Those thinking that online social networking is a substitute for face-to-face interactions might want to think again. Recent research in psychology suggests there are some benefits to real-life socializing that the Internet just can’t provide; researchers at Stanford University have published a report in Psychological Science called “Synchrony and Cooperation” that indicates engaging in synchronous activities (e.g., marching, singing, dancing) strengthens social attachments and enables cooperation. As most of our online social networking to date is based on asynchronous communication and interaction, this could spell trouble for those that prefer to engage in relationships online rather than off.

    Hmmm, isn’t this quite a leap? There is a difference between being in the same physical space and doing something rhythmic in it. There is also a difference between doing something together online vs. offline. I do not see how those things are comparable.

    Scientists have theorized that synchronous activities lead to group cohesion ever since the 1970s, but Stanford’s Scott Wiltermuth and Chip Heath wanted to put some backing behind this notion. In one study, the researchers led 30 participants around campus in two different conditions: one walking in step (marching), the other walking normally. Afterwards, the participants were instructed to play an experimental economics game called the “Weak Link” in which productivity is a function of the lowest level of input. Wiltermuth and Heath found that participants that walked in step were initially more likely to cooperate as a team.

    In a second study, participants were instructed to read or sing the Canadian National Anthem while performing a simple activity in tandem or separately. As you’d expect from the hypotheses, individuals that sang together or acted together showed a greater level of cooperation. A third study cemented these results.

    OK, that’s fine. This is why people chant, sing, dance, march, etc. There are good reasons why simultaneous rhythmic activity fosters cooperation and closeness. Have you ever been to a political rally and chanted something in unison with thousands of others?

    That’s building a communal spirit:

    Have you ever been to a soccer game in Europe:

    The game started a couple hours later as it was getting dark. It gets dark here at 4:30pm. And that was around the time the crowd began to cheer for their team. It was amazing to listen to. Imagine an entire stadium cheering together… but not the kind of cheering that we know in the States. This was not the sound of random cheers… or the periodic screams that come with doing the wave… and at no time did I ever heard the word “fence”. No, the Serbian fans were singing. They were all singing together to support their team. And their voices in unison echoed through the chilly night and into our apartment. It was astonishing. I truly believe that everyone should have the great privilege of listen to European soccer fans. Then again… I have no idea what they were singing… honestly, it could have been about a fence… but I’m not going to focus on that.

    It does not matter if you are playing for Milan, Borussia, Real-Madrid or Manchester United – you have to be a professional, an amazingly self-controlled person with nerves of steel in order not to be affected by the continuous chant of 100,000 Red Star fans when playing at their stadium. The players play in sync with the audience chants, and the audience alters the chant to match the rhythm of the play. It is absolutely amazing to watch. So yes, rhythmic synchronized behavior is a great way to ensure group cohesion which is needed for attaining the group goals, e.g., of scoring goals. Or winning elections.

    But now we get to the argument that does not seem to have anything to do with rhythmic behavior:

    The Internet is a great enabler of asynchronicity. Instead of phone conversations or face-to-face chats, for instance, occurring in real time, instant messaging allows all parties involved to think and react at their own paces. E-mail is handled at the recipient’s leisure. The pace of social networking is dictated by the participants. Is the nature of online communication- that is, a lack of synchronicity- potentially damaging for relationships? If it takes a certain sort of tandem activity to strengthen social connections, maybe the Web is missing out big-time.

    As an aside, this might also suggest why individuals that are deep into the gaming scene (e.g., MMORPGs, first person shooters, etc.) often tend to find companionship online more easily than most: perhaps playing a game online is a cooperatively kinesthetic experience that satisfies this human need for synchronicity.

    Hmmm, none of this is rhythmmic activity. It is social, communal and synchronous, but it is not rhythmic. Thus, the study noted above can’t really say anything about it. A lot of the stuff online happens synchronously, in real time – Skype, chat, fast-moving discussions on blogs and forums, etc. are just as synchronous as a real-life conversation. Here, the distinction is not between rhythmic and arrhythmic, but between online and offline.

    Now, a lot of online activity is centered around finding like-minded people. When you find them, and, let’s say you read their blogs regularly, after a while you start wishing to meet them in person. What do you do? You connect with them on Facebook or Dopplr.com in order to track each others travel so you can meet up whenever you are in the same town. You organize a Blogger MeetUp to meet like-minded people in your area, or a BloggerCon if you want to broaden the scope geographically. That is how ScienceOnline originated – my wish to meet other science bloggers in person.

    But when we meet in person, do we engage in rhythmic behaviors (no, I don’t want to know about that kind!)? Perhaps we may raise a glass of beer or wine in a completely synchronous and rhythmic manner, but that is rare. It is not about rhythmicity, it is about physical proximity. Even most of the Flash Mob activities (see this list for examples) are rarely rhythmic – I found only one example that is synchronously rhythmic.

    This is also related to my obsession with the Death Of The Office, i.e., with the world of telecommuting and coworking. Instead of having the people picked for you by others – going to the office – you pick your own friends and, whenever possible, meet them in person. You actively choose to live in the place where you can combine all your needs for a particular climate and culture, with the proximity to a substantial number of people you like to see often, although you have first discovered each other online.

    Then you can go with them to a soccer match and chant in sync if you want, but that’s not the point.

    Visual Communication at ScienceOnline2012

    There will be tons of stuff to do and learn about art, illustration, photography, data visualization and other ways of visually representing science and nature this year:

    Science Scribe 2.0 (hands-on workshop, by sign-up ahead of time) – Perrin Ireland

    Science Scribe 2.0 will be an introduction to visual note taking skills that can be used to augment and illuminate science stories. We will go over current examples of visual representations of science, learn techniques and practices for creating SketchNotes, and look at samples from the SketchNotes masters for tips on simple, clean ways to enhance science presentations. Participants will leave armed with a notebook, pens, and a new set of skills for visualizing science. Our goal for the conference is to crowd-source scribing – participants can volunteer to take SketchNotes for one or two presentations throughout the conference. We will then digitize these notes and feature them online as records of the conference and its contents.

    Effective Research and Nature Photography (hands-on workshop) – Enrique Gutierrez and Peyton Hale

    Using examples of good (and not-so-good) photos, this workshop will cover topics ranging from basic rules for effective composition, strategies for controlling light and eliminating distractions, and basic photo processing. The session will be appropriate for photographers with any level of expertise, but heavily geared towards casual and amateur photographers.

    Data visualization (hands-on workshop) – Ashley Yaeger

    With the latest Web-based tools, turning numbers into art doesn’t require a degree in computer science. Join this hands-on workshop to explore how to use data to report and tell stories visually using the latest tools, such as Google Fusion tables, to create data visualizations. Participants will break into groups and visualize a provided data set, while workshop leaders circulate to answer questions and give feedback and tips on best practices and design. What to bring: laptops with power supply.

    Making Beautiful Maps (hands-on workshop) – Tim De Chant

    Maps are a wonderful way to convey geographic information, but making them can seem like an intimidating task. In this session, we’ll run through freely available GIS software, how to use it, and how to beautify the maps that they produce. For those looking to make even simpler maps, we’ll also run through where to find free image files that can be easily color coded with free software. It’s a straightforward and simple way without having to dive into GIS. The session will start with demos and lead to a discussion/Q&A about cartography and the role of maps in science writing. This session will be aimed at anyone interested in maps or geographic information.

    Communicating with Images on Blogs (discussion) – Glendon Mellow and Emily Bauernfeind

    This discussion will focus on improving images (illustration, photography, data viz) on blogs. Expanding on a session from SCIO09, you need not have attended the earlier session. In this session we will discuss and share:
    –Why use images on your blog? What makes an image effective at communicating an idea?
    –Where to find images (open-source, artists for hire; share your favourite places to find images)
    –An overview of copyright and Creative Commons Licences and proper image credits (Note: “Image by Wikipedia” is um, not right)
    –How to effectively re-size images so they don’t cause your blog to load s l o w l y.
    –Quick tutorial using free software (Gimp) Picnik? to show how to reduce image size.

    Data Journalism: Talking the talk (hands-on workshop) – Ruth Spencer and Lena Groeger

    We want this workshop to be first and foremost USEFUL to people, without requiring many in depth tutorials or technical explanations. One of the main hurdles on the adventure that is data journalism, is knowing just enough to be able to have a conversation with someone who can make your data dreams into data realities (read: programmers and developers). We’re less interested in perfecting your program skills and much more keen to get you familiar with the tools and processes you need to get your big project off the ground. We’ll explore how to get started and launch into a whirlwind tour through the (free!) resources for journalists looking to work with data. This will be less of a workshop and more of a crash course: What you need to know before you even know what you need to know (about data journalism).

    Art and Science, 4.0 – Accurate, Personal and Powerful: commissioned Science-Art (discussion) – Glendon Mellow and Nathaniel Gold

    Commissioned art and illustration have always been collaborative between the artist, the editor and the client. When science-art is commissioned, the added voice reality and scientific tradition enter the mix. How does this affect illustrations for publications? How does bad art affect public perception.? Just how many edits does a scientific journal demand, anyway? And what happens when science -art is commissioned to go on a scientist’s wall, or on their skin?

    Art+Photo Nature walk (hands-on workshop) – led by Kalliopi Monoyios, Perrin Ireland, A.V.Flox and Enrique Gutierrez

    A group of attendees, previously signed up for this (info coming soon how to do this), will go out of the building and will find nature in the North Carolina January. They will bring their notebooks with markers, pencils or crayons, or their cameras, or iPhones, or iPads with preloaded Brushes app, and will try their hand at capturing the images of nature. If they are happy with their work, it will be uploaded on our site and shared with the online world.

    Art Gallery (demo) – Glendon Mellow and Karyn Traphagen

    Art, illustration, photography and SketchNotes submitted ahead of time (Glendon will provide more details later), or produced by the participants during the meeting, will be displayed on the screen in the main conference hallway. At least some of it will also be visible online.

    Learn more:

    Homepage
    Blog
    Planning Wiki
    Draft Program
    See who’s registered
    Waitlist sign-up
    Facebook page
    FriendFeed group
    Tumblr coverage blog
    Google Plus official page
    Google Plus circle of participants
    Twitter account
    #scio12 hashtag
    Twitter repository
    Twitter list of participants
    Previous conferences
    Nice things people said about ScienceOnline2010
    ScienceOnline2011 on YouTube
    ScienceOnline2011 on Flickr
    ScienceOnline2011 official recordings

    Previously in this series:

    What is: ScienceOnline2012 – and it’s coming soon!
    ScienceOnline participants’ interviews
    Some updates on #scio12, #NYCscitweetup, Story Collider and more.
    Updates: ScienceOnline2012, Science blogging, Open Laboratory, and #NYCSciTweetup
    ScienceOnline2012 – we have the Keynote Speaker!
    Mathematics – Algebra and Statistics and more – at ScienceOnline2012
    Information, data and technology at ScienceOnline2012
    Health and Medicine at ScienceOnline2012
    Education at ScienceOnline2012
    Movies and Video at ScienceOnline2011
    Sound and Music at ScienceOnline2012

    Sound and Music at ScienceOnline2012

    Text, image, video…what about sounds? Sounds of human voice, sounds of nature, sounds of science in action, sounds of music…all of those have strong emotional impact on the listeners, but it takes some skill to make it work, to get listeners to pay attention and learn. We have lined up some amazing people to help us learn how to do exactly that:

    Podcasting for Beginners (hands-on workshop) – Ginger Campbell and Alok Jha

    Experienced podcasters Ginger Campbell (the Brain Science Podcast) and Alok Jha (Science Weekly) will lead this session for everyone who is interested in creating audio content with a focus on podcasting. This is a practical “nuts and bolts” session aimed at beginners, but it is also an opportunity for all podcasters to share questions, tips, and advice.

    Science Podcasting: Pros and Cons (discussion) – Julia Galef and Desiree Schell

    Desiree Schell (host of Skeptically Speaking) and Julia Galef (co-host of Rationally Speaking) both host successful podcasts that inform and entertain the science-loving public. They’ll lead a discussion on the creative ways that science communicators of all types can get their message out via podcast. Topics include: finding your voice, reaching your audience, involving bloggers and non-blogging scientists, and helping experts make the topics accessible and engaging to laypeople.

    The Sound of Science (discussion) – Rose Eveleth

    Science is most often communicated visually. We all remember the flow charts, there are beautiful field guide illustrations, and sometimes you just need a good diagram. But look over there in the corner, where poor little sound is sitting, just waiting for you to recognize its potential. This session would explain why, and how, you should use sound to explain science. We’d look at ways in which sound can enhance your story. Whether it’s the voice of the researcher, or just the sound that the stuff you’re talking about makes, there’s something to be said for hearing a story. And this doesn’t require Radiolab-style production (we can’t all be MacArthur geniuses after all). A simple sound, embedded into your story, can turn things up to 11. The session will explore what kinds of stories are worth “soundifying”, look at some good examples of sounds within stories, and talk about how to embed sound into your work in an easy, sensical way.

    The Music of Science: An Effective Tool for Science Communication? (discussion) – Princess Ojiaku and Adrian J. Ebsary

    A review of what’s currently happening in the music and science worlds and how it influences the public perception of science. From Symphony of Science to Bjork’s new album, Biophilia, in what way do people making science musical inspire themselves and others? We’ll present examples from scientists and science communicators who make educational music about science to musicians who use science as a vehicle for personal expression. We’ll take examples from the big names and the smaller names and analyze their reach and effectiveness. We’ll also discuss how to get involved in the conversation by presenting platforms for scientist-musician collaborations across distances.

    The late-night Open Mike, a big hit last year as so many of our attendees are talented musicians, may still happen this time around – stay tuned.

    Learn more:

    Homepage
    Blog
    Planning Wiki
    Draft Program
    See who’s registered
    Waitlist sign-up
    Facebook page
    FriendFeed group
    Tumblr coverage blog
    Google Plus official page
    Google Plus circle of participants
    Twitter account
    #scio12 hashtag
    Twitter repository
    Twitter list of participants
    Previous conferences
    Nice things people said about ScienceOnline2010
    ScienceOnline2011 on YouTube
    ScienceOnline2011 on Flickr
    ScienceOnline2011 official recordings

    Previously in this series:

    What is: ScienceOnline2012 – and it’s coming soon!
    ScienceOnline participants’ interviews
    Some updates on #scio12, #NYCscitweetup, Story Collider and more.
    Updates: ScienceOnline2012, Science blogging, Open Laboratory, and #NYCSciTweetup
    ScienceOnline2012 – we have the Keynote Speaker!
    Mathematics – Algebra and Statistics and more – at ScienceOnline2012
    Information, data and technology at ScienceOnline2012
    Health and Medicine at ScienceOnline2012
    Education at ScienceOnline2012
    Movies and Video at ScienceOnline2011

    Related:

    Upcoming North Carolina Science Conference
    Obsessively early planning for science online 2012
    ScienceOnline2012 – only two registration slots to go
    SCIENCEONLINE 2012: SCIENZIATI E BLOGGER SPIEGANO COME SI COMUNICA LA SCIENZA
    ScienceOnline 2012
    Understanding Audiences at Science Online 2012
    Math at Science Online 2012 ???
    Sixth time around – ScienceOnline2012 coming soon
    Let’s Talk About ScienceOnline2012

    Interview, in Spanish, in Journal of Feelsynapsis

    In early September, I went to Science Online London. During one of the breaks between fascinating sessions, I was interviewed by Marisa Alonso Nuñez (blog, Twitter).

    The interview is now online in the brand new Spanish-language free online magazine of science communication called Journal of Feelsynapsis, run by the Feelsynapsis community. You can read the interview, looking very pretty and polished in Spanish original here, or you can read the rough translation of it into English language here. Thank you, Marisa, for doing a wonderful job with it. And I especially like the Blogfather graphic – which I will now co-opt and use as my own 😉

    Movies and Video at ScienceOnline2011

    From short educational videos to Hollywood blockbusters, movie is one of the most persuasive and important media that can influence what people know and how they think about science. Thus, we have prepared quite a line-up of sessions on this topic for this year:

    Basic Video Making 101: An online tutorial (hands-on workshop) – Jim Hutchins and Joanne Manaster

    This is a hands-on workshop where participants can begin to script and produce their own videos. Each video needs to tell a story. What are your objectives for the video you’re making? What do you hope to accomplish? Just as we have clearly defined objectives and a “hidden curriculum” in the classroom, video production needs a set of decisions about level of presentation, lighting, dress, and setting that will affect how your audience reacts to your video. We will also work together to develop “best practices”: what works, and what doesn’t work, in online videos? Come prepared with your ideas and we will work together to turn them into ready-to-post videos.

    Filming and Communicating Your Research: The Power is Yours! (discussion) – Austin Gallagher and Carin Bondar

    The combination of affordable portable video recording devices and streamlined, universal online video communication has paved the road for an emerging and exciting platform for science communication. We propose a discussion that brings together filmmakers, journalists, and scientists, to share experiences and success stories on how to use these technologies to one’s advantage. For example, we share stories from a recent real-time video virtual expedition conducted from on white shark research in South Africa (called the White Shark Manifesto), and the lessons we have learned through creating and leading film festivals such as the Beneath the Waves Film Festival, a unique film festival held within a scientific conference. The discussion will be led by Austin Gallagher and Christine Shepard: one is a scientist who dabbles heavily in film–the other a filmmaker who dabbles heavily science. We hope to share exciting video clips and stories from the field, while moderating a session for tips, advice, and discussion with question and answer.

    So You Want To Make A Science Documentary (discussion) – Tom Levenson

    This workshop is aimed at those who want to take the next step into storytelling with moving images or sound in work that moves past straight news, commentary or illustration into documentary. It will be half practical, focusing on production much more than technical crafts, which is to say it will talk about how to organize a documentary project down to a quite nitty-gritty level more than how to use a camera or which microphone to buy. (Though some of that kind of stuff will, no doubt, slip in.) The other half of the workshop will look at/listen to a couple of short, well made science documentaries, including recent student work, to start the discussion on what the particular challenges and opportunities for telling stories the media of audio or video create.

    “It’s Good To Be The King” – Blogging the Mel Brooks Way! (discussion) – David Manly and @DrRubidium

    How to get started, engage a audience, conduct blog research, establish collaborations, keep your writing fresh, appreciate your followers, effectively deal with detractors and many other blogging lessons can be gleaned from an unlikely source – Mel Brooks movies (Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, The Producers, Space Balls, Robin Hood: Men in Tights…). We will present lessons learned through blogging and Brooks movies in this fun and informative session.

    ‘Cyberscreen Science Film Festival’ – hosted by Carin Bondar and Joanne Manaster. Last year, this was one of the break-out sessions. But it was such a great success, we decided to give it its own time-slot this time so everyone can see it. They will soon post more information about it on their blog.

    Learn more:

    Homepage
    Blog
    Planning Wiki
    Draft Program
    See who’s registered
    Waitlist sign-up
    Facebook page
    FriendFeed group
    Tumblr coverage blog
    Google Plus official page
    Google Plus circle of participants
    Twitter account
    #scio12 hashtag
    Twitter repository
    Twitter list of participants
    Previous conferences
    Nice things people said about ScienceOnline2010
    ScienceOnline2011 on YouTube
    ScienceOnline2011 on Flickr
    ScienceOnline2011 official recordings

    Previously in this series:

    What is: ScienceOnline2012 – and it’s coming soon!
    ScienceOnline participants’ interviews
    Some updates on #scio12, #NYCscitweetup, Story Collider and more.
    Updates: ScienceOnline2012, Science blogging, Open Laboratory, and #NYCSciTweetup
    ScienceOnline2012 – we have the Keynote Speaker!
    Mathematics – Algebra and Statistics and more – at ScienceOnline2012
    Information, data and technology at ScienceOnline2012
    Health and Medicine at ScienceOnline2012
    Education at ScienceOnline2012

    BIO101 – Physiology: Regulation and Control

    In this lecture, as well as in the previous one and the next one, I tackle areas of Biology where I am really weak: origin of life, diversity of life, and taxonomy/systematics. These are also areas where there has been a lot of change recently (often not yet incorporated into textbooks), and I am unlikely to be up-to-date, so please help me bring these lectures up to standards…. This post was originally written in 2006 and re-posted a few times, including in 2010.

    As you may know, I have been teaching BIO101 (and also the BIO102 Lab) to non-traditional students in an adult education program for about twelve years now. Every now and then I muse about it publicly on the blog (see this, this, this, this, this, this and this for a few short posts about various aspects of it – from the use of videos, to the use of a classroom blog, to the importance of Open Access so students can read primary literature). The quality of students in this program has steadily risen over the years, but I am still highly constrained with time: I have eight 4-hour meetings with the students over eight weeks. In this period I have to teach them all of biology they need for their non-science majors, plus leave enough time for each student to give a presentation (on the science of their favourite plant and animal) and for two exams. Thus I have to strip the lectures to the bare bones, and hope that those bare bones are what non-science majors really need to know: concepts rather than factoids, relationship with the rest of their lives rather than relationship with the other sciences. Thus I follow my lectures with videos and classroom discussions, and their homework consists of finding cool biology videos or articles and posting the links on the classroom blog for all to see. A couple of times I used malaria as a thread that connected all the topics – from cell biology to ecology to physiology to evolution. I think that worked well but it is hard to do. They also write a final paper on some aspect of physiology.

    Another new development is that the administration has realized that most of the faculty have been with the school for many years. We are experienced, and apparently we know what we are doing. Thus they recently gave us much more freedom to design our own syllabus instead of following a pre-defined one, as long as the ultimate goals of the class remain the same. I am not exactly sure when am I teaching the BIO101 lectures again (late Fall, Spring?) but I want to start rethinking my class early. I am also worried that, since I am not actively doing research in the lab and thus not following the literature as closely, that some of the things I teach are now out-dated. Not that anyone can possibly keep up with all the advances in all the areas of Biology which is so huge, but at least big updates that affect teaching of introductory courses are stuff I need to know.

    I need to catch up and upgrade my lecture notes. And what better way than crowdsource! So, over the new few weeks, I will re-post my old lecture notes (note that they are just intros – discussions and videos etc. follow them in the classroom) and will ask you to fact-check me. If I got something wrong or something is out of date, let me know (but don’t push just your own preferred hypothesis if a question is not yet settled – give me the entire controversy explanation instead). If something is glaringly missing, let me know. If something can be said in a nicer language – edit my sentences. If you are aware of cool images, articles, blog-posts, videos, podcasts, visualizations, animations, games, etc. that can be used to explain these basic concepts, let me know. And at the end, once we do this with all the lectures, let’s discuss the overall syllabus – is there a better way to organize all this material for such a fast-paced class.

    These posts are very old, and were initially on a private-set classroom blog, not public. I have no idea where the images come from any more, though many are likely from the textbook I was using at the time. Please let me know if an image is yours, needs to be attributed or removed. Thank you.

    =================

    It is impossible to cover all organ systems in detail over the course of just two lectures. Thus, we will stick only to the basics. Still, I want to emphasize how much organ systems work together, in concert, to maintain the homeostasis (and rheostasis) of the body. I’d also like to emphasize how fuzzy are the boundaries between organ systems – many organs are, both anatomically and functionally, simultaneously parts of two or more organ systems. So, I will use an example you are familiar with from our study of animal behavior – stress response – to illustrate the unity of the well-coordinated response of all organ systems when faced with a challenge. We will use our old zebra-and-lion example as a roadmap in our exploration of (human, and generally mammalian) physiology:

    So, you are a zebra, happily grazing out on the savannah. Suddenly you hear some rustling in the grass. How did you hear it?

    The movement of a lion produced oscillations of air. Those oscillations exerted pressure onto the tympanic membrane in your ears. The vibrations of the membrane induced vibrations in three little bones inside the middle ear, which, in turn, induced vibrations of the cochlea in the inner ear.

    Cochlea is a long tube wrapped in a spiral. If the pitch of the sound is high (high frequency of oscillations), only the first portion of the cochlea vibrates. With the lowest frequences, even the tip of the cochlea starts vibrating. Cochlea is filled with fluid. Withing this fluid there is a thin membrane transecting the cochlea along its length. When the cochlea vibrates, this membrane also vibrates and those vibrations move the hair-like protrusions on the surface of sensory cells in the cochlea. Those cells send electrical impulses to the brain, where the sound is processed and becomes a conscious sensation – you have heard the lion move.

    The perception of the sound makes you look – yes, there is a lion stalking you, about to leap! How do you see the lion? The waves of light reflected from the surface of the lion travel to your eyes, enter through the pupil, pass through the lens and hit the retina in the back of the eye.

    Photoreceptors in the eye (rods and cones) contain a pigment – a colored molecule – that changes its 3D structure when hit by light. In the rods, this pigment is called rhodopsin and is used for black-and-white vision. In the rods, there are similar pigments – opsins – which are most sensitive to particular wavelengths of light (colors) and are used to detect color. The change in 3D structure of the pigment starts a cascade of biochemical reactions resulting in the changes in the electrical potential of the cell – this information is then transferred to the next cell, the next cell, and so on, until it reaches the brain, where the information about the shape, color and movement of the objects (lion and the surrounding grass) is processed and made conscious.

    The ear and the eye are examples of the organs of the sensory system. Hearing is one of many mechanical senses – others include touch, pain, balance, stretch receptors in the muscles and tendons, etc. Many animals are capable of hearing sounds that we cannot detect. For instance, bats and some of their insect prey detect the high-pitched ultrasound (a case of a co-evolutionary arms-race). Likewise for dolphins and some of their fish prey. Dogs do, too – that is why we cannot hear the dog whistle. On the other hand, many large animals, e.g., whales, elephants, giraffes, rhinos, crocodiles and perhaps even cows and horses, can detect the deep rumble of the infrasound.

    Vision is a sense that detects radiation in the visible specter. Many animals are capable of seeing light outside of our visible specter. For instance, many insects and birds and some small mammals can see ultraviolet light, while some snakes (e.g., pit vipers like rattlesnakes and boids like pythons) and some insects (e.g., Melanophila beetle and some wasps) can perceive infrared light.

    Another type of sense is thermoreception – detection of hot and cold. Chemical senses are attuned to particular molecules. Olfaction (smell) and gustation (taste) are the best known chemical senses. Chemical senses also exist inside of our bodes – they are capable of detecting blood pH, blood levels of oxygen, carbon dioxide, calcium, glucose etc. Finally, some animals are capable of detecting other physical properties of the environment., e.g., the electrical and magnetic fields.

    All senses work along the same principles: a stimulus from the external or internal environment is detected by a specialized type of cell. Inside the cell a chemical cascade begins – that is transduction. This changes the properties of the cell – usually its cell membrane potential – which is transmitted from the sensory cell to the neighboring nerve cell, to the next cell, next cell and so on, until it ends in the appropriate area of the nervous system, usually the brain. There, the sum of all stimuli from all the cells of the sensory organ are interpreted (integrated and processed over time) and the neccessary action is triggered. This action can be behavioral (movement), or it can be physiological: maintanance of homeostasis.

    The sensory information is processed by the Central Nervous System (CNS): the brain and the spinal cord.

    All the nerve cells that take information from the periphery to the CNS are sensory nerves. All the nerves that take the decisions made by the CNS to the effectors – muscles or glands – are motor nerves. The sensory and motor pathways together make Peripheral Nervous System.

    The motor pathways are further divided into two domains: somatic nervous system is under voluntary control, while autonomic (vegetative) nervous system is involuntary. Autonomic nervous system has two divisions: sympathetic and parasymphatetic. Symphatetic nervous system is active during stress – it acts on many other organ systems, releasing the energy stores, stimulating organs needed for the response and inhibiting organs of no immediate importance.

    Thus, a zebra about to be attacked by a lion is exhibiting stress response. Sympathetic nervous system works to release glucose (energy) stores from the liver, stimulates the organs necessary for the fast escape – muscles – and all the other systems that are needed for providing the muscles with energy – the circulatory and respiratory systems. At the same time, digestion, immunity, excretion and reproduction are inhibited. Once the zebra successfully evades the lion, sympathetic system gets inhibited and the parasympathetic system is stimulated – it reverses all the effects. The two systems work antagonistically to each other: they always have opposite effects.

    But, how does the nervous system work? Let’s look at the nerve cell – the neuron:


    A typical neuron has a cell body (soma) which contains the nucleus and other organelles. It has many thin, short processes – dendrites – that bring information from other neighboring cells into the nerve cell, and one large, long process that takes information away from the cell to another cell – the axon.

    There is an electrical potential of the cell membrane – the voltage on the inside and the outside of the cell is different. The inside of the neuron is usually around 70mV more negative (-70mV) compared to the outside. This polarization is accomplished by the specialized proetins in the cell membrane – ion channels and ion transporters. Using energy from ATP, they transport sodium out of the cell and potassium into the cell (also chlorine into the cell). As ions can leak through the membrane to some extent, the cell has to constantly use energy to maintain the resting membrane potential.

    An electrical impulse coming from another cell will change the membrane potential of a dendrite. This change is usually not sufficiently large to induce the neuron to respond. However, if many such stimuli occur simultaneously they are additive – the neuron sums up all the stimulatory and inhibitory impulses it gets at any given time. If the sum of impulses is large, the change of membrane potential will still be large when it travels across the soma and onto the very beginning of the axon – axon hillock. If the change of the membrane potential at the axon hillock crosses a threshold (around -40mV or so), this induces sodium channels at the axon hillock to open. Sodium rushes in down its concentration gradient. This results in further depolarization of the membrane, which in turn results in opening even more sodium channels which depolarizes the membrane even more – this is a positive feedback loop – until all of the Na-channels are open and the membrane potential is now positive. Reaching this voltage induces the opening of the potassium channels. Potassium rushes out along its concentration gradient. This results in repolarization of the membrane. The whole process – from initial small depolarization, through the fast Na-driven depolarization, subsequent K-driven repolarization resulting in a small overshoot and the return to the normal resting potential – is called an Action Potential which can be graphed like this:

    An action potential generated at the axon hillock results in the changes of membrane potential in the neighboring membrane just down the axon where a new action potential is generated which, in turn, results in a depolarization of the membrane further on down the axon, and so on until the electrical impulse reaches the end of the axon. In vertebrates, special cells called Schwann cells wrap around the axons and serve as isolating tape of sorts. Thus, the action potential instead of spreading gradually down the axon, proceeds in jumps – this makes electrical transmission much faster – something necessary if the axon is three meters long as in the nerves of the hind leg of a giraffe.

    What happens at the end of the axon? There, the change of membrane polarity results in the opening of the calcium channels and calcium rushes in (that is why calcium homeostasis is so important). The end of the axon contains many small packets filled with a neurotransmitter. Infusion of calcium stimulates these packets to fuse with the cell membrane and release the neurotransmitter out of the cell. The chemical ends up in a very small space between the axon ending and the membrane of another cell (e.g., a dendrite of another neuron). The membrane of that other cell has membrane receptors that respond to this neurotransmitter. The activation of the receptors results in the local change of membrane potential. Stimulatory neurotransmitters depolarize the membrane (make it more positive), while inhibitory neurotransmitters hyperpolarize the membrane – make it more negative, thus harder to produce an action potential.

    The target of a nerve cell can be another neuron, a muscle cell or a gland. Many glands are endocrine glands – they release their chemical products, hormones, into the bloodstream. Hormones act on distant targets via receptors. While transmission of information in the nervous system is very fast – miliseconds, in the endocrine system it takes seconds, minutes, hours, days, months (pregnancy), even years (puberty) to induce the effect in the target. While transmission within the nervous system is local (cell-to-cell) and over very short distances – the gap within a synapse is measured in Angstroms – the transmission within the endocrine system is over long distances and global – it affects every cell that possesses the right kind of receptors.

    Many endocrine glands are regulated during the stress response, and many of them participate in the stress response. The thyroid gland releases thyroxine – a hormone that acts via nuclear receptors. Thyroxine has many fuctions in the body and several of those are involved in the energetics of the body – release of energy from the stores and production of heat in the mitochondria. It also produces calcitonin which is one of the regulators of calcium levels in the blood.

    Parathyroid gland is, in humans, embedded inside the thyroid gland. Its hormone, parathormone is the key hormone of calcium homeostasis. Calcitonin and parathormone are antagonists: the former lowers and the latter raises blood calcium. Together, they can fine-tune the calcium levels available to neurons, muscles and heart-cells for their normal function.

    Pancreas secretes insulin and glucagon. Insulin removes glucose from blood and stores it in muscle and liver cells. Glucagon has the opposite effect – it releases glucose from its stores and makes it available to cells that are in need of energy, e.g., the muscle cells of a running zebra. Together, these two hormones fine-tune the glucose homeostasis of the body.

    Adrenal gland has two layers. In the center is the adrenal medulla. It is a part of the nervous system and it releases epineprhine and norepinephrine (also known as adrenaline and noradrenaline). These are the key hormones of the stress response. They have all the same effects as the sympathetic nervous system, which is not surprising as norepinephrine is the neurotransmitter used by the neurons of the sympathetic system (parasympathetic system uses acetylcholine as a transmitter).

    The outside layer is the adrenal cortex. It secretes a lot of hormones. The most important are aldosterone (involved in salt and water balance) and cortisol which is another important stress hormone – it mobilizes glucose from its stores and makes it available for the organs that need it. Sex steroid hormones are also produced in the adrenal cortex. Oversecretion of testosterone may lead to development of some male features in women, e.g., growing a beard.

    Ovary and testis secrete sex steroid hormones. Testis secretes testosterone, while ovaries secrete estradiol (an estrogen) and progesterone. Progesterone stimulates the growth of mammary glands and prepares the uterus for pregnancy. Estradiol stimulates the development of female secondary sexual characteristics (e.g., general body shape, patterns of fat deposition and hair growth, growth of breasts) and is involved in monthly preparation for pregnancy.

    Testosterone is very important in the development of a male embryo. Our default condition is female. Lack of sex steroids during development results in the development of a girl (even if the child is genetically male). Secretion of testosterone at a particular moment during development turns female genitals into male genitals and primes many organs, including the brain, to be responsive to the second big surge of testosterone which happens at the onset of puberty. At that time, primed tissues develop in a male-specific way, developing male secondary sexual characteristics (e.g., deep voice, beard, larger muscle mass, growth of genitalia, male-typical behaviors, etc.).

    Many other organs also secrete hormones along with their other functions. The heart, kidney, lung, intestine and skin are all also members of the endocrine system. Thymus is an endocrine gland that is involved in the development of the immune system – once the immune system is mature, thymus shrinks and dissappears.

    Many of the endocrine glands are themselves controlled by other hormones secreted by the pituitary gland – the Master Gland of the endocrine system. For instance, the anterior portion of the pituitary gland secretes hormones that stimulate the release of thyroxine from the thyroid gland, cortisol from the adrenal cortex, and sex steroids form the gonads. Other hormones secreted by the anterior pituitary are prolactin (stimulates production of milk, amog else) and growth hormone (which stimulates cells to produce autocrine and paracrine hormones which stimulate cell-division). The posterior portion of the pituitary is actually part of the brain – it secretes two hormones: antidiuretic hormone (control of water balance) and oxytocin (stimulates milk let-down and uterine contractions, among other functions).

    All these pituitary hormones are, in turn, controlled (either stimulated or inhibited) by hormones/factors secreted by the hypothalamus which is a part of the brain, which makes the brain the biggest and most important endocrine gland of all.

    Pineal organ is a part of the brain (thus central nervous system). In all vertebrates, except mammals and snakes, it is also a sensory organ – it perceieves light (which easily passes through scales/feathers, skin and skull). In seasonally breeding mammals, it is considered to be a part of the reproductive system. In all vertebrates, it is also an endocrine organ – it secretes a hormone melatonin. In all vertebrates, the pineal organ is an important part of the circadian system – a system that is involved in daily timing of all physiological and behavioral functions in the body. In many species of vertebrates, except mammals, the pineal organ is the Master Clock of the circadian system. In mammals, the master clock is located in the hypothalamus of the brain, in a structure known as the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN).

    Retina is part of the eye (sensory system), it is part of the brain (nervous system), it also secretes melatonin (endocrine system) and contains a circadian clock (circadian system) in all vertebrates. In some species of birds, the master clock is located in the retina of the eye. The day-night differences in light intensity entrain (synchronize) the circadian system with the cycles in the environment. Those differences in light intensity are perceived by the retina, but not by photoreceptor cells (rods and cones). Instead, a small subset of retinal ganglion cells (proper nerve cells) contains a photopigment melanopsin which changes its 3D structure when exposed to light and sends its signals to the SCN in the brain.

    Wherever the master clock may be located (SCN, pineal or retina) in any particular species, its main function is to coordinate the timing of peripheral circadian clocks which are found in every single cell in the body. Genes that code for proteins that are important for the function of a particular tissue (e.g., liver enzymes in liver cells, neurotransmitters in nerve cells, etc.) show a daily rhythm in gene expression. As a result, all biochemical, physiological and behavioral functions exhibit daily (circadian) rhythms, e.g., body temperature, blood pressure, sleep, cognitive abilities, etc. Notable exceptions are functions that have to be kept within a very narrow range of values, e.g., blood pH and blood concentration of calcium.

    So, nervous, endocrine, sensory and circadian systems are all involved in control and regulation of other functions in the body. We will see what happens to all those other functions in the stressed, running zebra next week.

    Previously in this series:

    BIO101 – Biology and the Scientific Method
    BIO101 – Cell Structure
    BIO101 – Protein Synthesis: Transcription and Translation
    BIO101: Cell-Cell Interactions
    BIO101 – From One Cell To Two: Cell Division and DNA Replication
    BIO101 – From Two Cells To Many: Cell Differentiation and Embryonic Development
    BIO101 – From Genes To Traits: How Genotype Affects Phenotype
    BIO101 – From Genes To Species: A Primer on Evolution
    BIO101 – What Creatures Do: Animal Behavior
    BIO101 – Organisms In Time and Space: Ecology
    BIO101 – Origin of Biological Diversity
    BIO101 – Evolution of Biological Diversity
    BIO101 – Current Biological Diversity
    BIO101 – Introduction to Anatomy and Physiology

    Education at ScienceOnline2012

    As I mentioned before, ScienceOnline is a conference that explores the ways the Web changes the way science is communicated, taught and done. As always, there will be a nice track of sessions focusing on the “taught” part. Here they are:

    Blogging in the undergraduate science classroom (how to maximize the potential of course blogs) (discussion) – Jason Goldman and John Hawks

    This session will mainly feature a roundtable discussion of “best practices” for incorporating blogs into undergraduate courses. Possible topics that will be covered: Developing, evaluating, and grading assignments, incorporating blogs into syllabi, how blogging can contribute to learning goals, privacy versus openness, especially with respect to FERPA, and interacting with students with social media more broadly (e.g. twitter, G+, facebook, etc).

    Undergraduate Education: Collaborating to Create the Next Generation of Open Scientists (discussion) – John Dupuis and Tanya Noel

    There are two ideas here, centered around the kinds of things that faculty and librarians can work on together in undergraduate education. First: teaching undergrads about the scholarly information landscape. On the one hand, this is about making sure students can find the information they need for their school work, both formal sources like journals and informal sources like blogs. And this brings up the problem of how do we get them to think about what formal and informal really means? Students don’t just arrive at university with that knowledge built in. We might like to think they do, we might hope they do, and certainly the ones we like to hang around with at conferences already do. So, how do we — faculty, librarians and others — work together to teach students to navigate the disciplinary landscape and become productive and critical consumers of and contributors to their disciplinary conversation. Second: how do we teach students about the great big wide world of open science? How do all the various players in higher education make sure that the incredible depth and complexity of what going on out there is communicated to the next generation? How do we raise the next generation of Cameron Neylons, Steve Kochs and Jean-Claude Bradleys (not to mention the next generation of Dorothea Salos or Christina Pikases)? There’s a lot to cover here: blogs, blog networks, blog aggregators, open access, open data, open notebooks, citizen science, alt-metrics and all the rest.

    Is encouraging scientific literacy more than telling people what they need to know? (discussion) – Marie-Claire Shanahan and Catherine Anderson

    The idea of scientific literacy is a sometimes maligned idea, one that too often focuses on which scientific ideas the public doesn’t understand. But what happens when we think about it differently? What if scientific literacy is a fluid concept that lets us consider the skills and contextual understandings that people need to really engage with science, in the media and in their everyday lives? What does this kind of literacy mean for online science? This session will explore the scientific literacy skills and understandings that help people understand and engage with complex scientific controversies where simple scientific facts are not enough (such as the recent neutrino results). It will also ask how writers and bloggers can engage and encourage those skills and understandings in their reading community and how science education and outreach efforts can reflect this view of scientific literacy.

    The Next Generation of Bloggers (discussion) – Stacy Baker and students

    From classroom blogging, to blogging at Nature, these students had quite a year! They’d like to start by talking about their experience with blogging so far, what they’ve learned, where they’ve had problems, and where they’ve been successful. Then, they want to get ideas from the audience on how to start a 1 day conference in NYC for middle/high school students interested in blog

    Students as Messengers of Science (discussion) – Gabrielle Lyon and Stephanie Levi

    High school and undergraduate students have a unique place in engaging their communities through science, while becoming the next generation of scientists, science writers, and journalists. As an increasingly diverse pool of students engage their families in their pursuits through mentoring, research and other immersion programs, as well as writing and journalism, they lay the groundwork for making science accessible for the non-scientists in their lives, representing a range of diverse ethnic and socio-economic communities. How as educators and mentors do we nurture them as scientists and communicators? What skills and practices are key for helping young people reflect on learning while also developing effective communication skills? This session will foster a discussion of the barriers, challenges and best practices for creating the infrastructure, mentoring relationships, and building the confidence of students as they experience science to help them develop their voices. The session will also explore how we recruit readers of such sites, and will explore examples of online media connected with science engagement programs geared toward high school and undergraduate students that are creating a local culture of science, among traditionally underrepresented communities, with a local impact.

    TechNyou – Building an online teaching community and developing critical thinking in students (demo) – Rob Thomas

    Robert Thomas from the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research discusses the science education resource http://www.technyou.edu.au/education, an Australian Government initiative for high school science teachers. The resource provides materials in the fields of biotechnology and nanotechnology, and covers student learning objectives, including creative thinking and effective communication.

    Learn more:

    What is: ScienceOnline2012 – and it’s coming soon!
    Homepage
    Blog
    Planning Wiki
    Draft Program
    See who’s registered
    Waitlist sign-up
    Facebook page
    FriendFeed group
    Tumblr coverage blog
    Google Plus official page
    Google Plus circle of participants
    Twitter account
    #scio12 hashtag
    Twitter repository
    Twitter list of participants

    Health and Medicine at ScienceOnline2012

    This year we are expanding our Health/Medicine track of sessions as well – from the usual one session to five! See:

    The special perils–and pleasures–of medical blogging (discussion): Paul Raeburn and Maia Szalavitz

    When Charlie Sheen spread his psyche across the web, Drew Pinsky and many others had no problem diagnosing him—a person they’d never met. The same thing happened with Jared Loughner–plenty of shrinks were happy to say what was wrong with him despite never having examined him, as were plenty of bloggers. Medical blogging is littered with traps that we can fall into—disease mongering, raising false hopes, violating patient privacy, and skirting around tricky ethical issues. At what point is it OK to discuss symptoms that could indicate mental disorder— and when does it do readers and affected people a disservice? When do efforts to destigmatize disease become advocacy and why do many affected people actually prefer medicalization to other labeling?

    The basic science behind the medical research: where to find it, how and when to use it. (discussion) – Emily Willingham and Deborah Blum

    Sometimes, a medical story makes no sense without the context of the basic science–the molecules, cells, and processes that led to the medical results. At other times, inclusion of the basic science can simply enhance the story. How can science writers, especially without specific training in science, find, understand, and explain that context? As important, when should they use it? The answers to the second question can depend on publishing context, intent, and word count. This session will involve moderators with experience incorporating basic science information into medically based pieces with their insights into the whens and whys of using it. The session will also include specific examples of what the moderators and audience have found works and doesn’t work from their own writing.

    The Limits of Transparency: Self-Censorship in Physician Writers (discussion) – Judy Stone and Shara Yurkiewicz

    This session is about more than HIPAA violations. Being a physician or a physician-in-training involves loyalties on a number of levels. We have moral obligations to ourselves, to our patients, to our colleagues, and to the community at large. Sometimes, what we want to say on behalf of one group conflicts with the interests of the others. When writing, we don’t get to choose our audience; the words are open to all. How can we say something meaningful that serves a community’s greater interest without compromising our professional loyalties or damaging our reputation among our medical peers? Or, how can we reflect upon the profession in a constructive way that doesn’t alienate the public or further erode the trust between patients and their doctors? Medicine is a tight-knit community where–like it or not–reputation matters and self-policing reigns supreme. Criticism is not always received well, even if it’s kept internal. If information is broadcast to those outside the profession, the author can be perceived as anything from less-than-serious to a liability to the profession’s image. (Neurologist and best-selling author Oliver Sacks has been criticized as “a much better writer than he is a clinician” and “the man who mistook his patients for a literary career.”) There is currently only vague policy and precedent with regard to social media and blogging. “Use common sense” seems to be the theme, but, as we’ve increasingly witnessed, the boundaries of that “sense” vary widely among physician writers. What kind of balance can be struck to write substantially, professionally, and honestly?

    Advocacy in medical blogging/communication–can you be an advocate and still be fair? (discussion) – Emily Willingham and Maia Szalavitz

    There is already a session on how reporting facts on controversial topics can lead to accusations of advocacy. But what if you *are* an avowed advocate in a medical context, either as a person with a specific condition (autism, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease) or an ally? How can you, as a self-advocate or ally of an advocate, still retain credibility–and for what audience?

    Genomic Medicine: From Bench to Bedside (discussion) – Kristi Holmes and Sandra Porter

    This session will serve as an introduction to the topic of personalized medicine from the perspective of major stakeholders including: scientists, physicians, patients and their advocates, community groups and media professionals. We’ll begin with an introduction to the basic concepts and efforts in this area, followed by a discussion of information resources to serve stakeholder groups including relevant clinical, consumer health, and advocacy and policy resources. Various initiatives by government agencies, the commercial sector and academia will be discussed, including: Genetics Home Reference, 23andMe, PatientsLikeMe, and more.

    Learn more:

    What is: ScienceOnline2012 – and it’s coming soon!
    Homepage
    Blog
    Planning Wiki
    Draft Program
    See who’s registered
    Waitlist sign-up
    Facebook page
    FriendFeed group
    Tumblr coverage blog
    Google Plus official page
    Google Plus circle of participants
    Twitter account
    #scio12 hashtag
    Twitter repository
    Twitter list of participants

    Information, data and technology at ScienceOnline2012

    ScienceOnline2012 is the conference that explores how the Web is changing the way science is communicated, taught and done.

    While communicators, being quite communicative by nature, tend to communicate a lot about what they do at our meetings, do not forget the more quiet types, those who make new tools that make it easier for scientists to do their work – to gather and analyze data, network with each other, share data and information, and more. The pioneers of Open Source, Open Access and Open Data movements, the developers and promoters of new ways of doing science. This has been an important aspect of our conference from the very first one. And this year, there are more sessions, workshops and demos than ever – some really great stuff!

    Interested in this? You still have a chance. There are 25 seats left, and those will be open for registration tonight at 6pm EST.

    What Data/Info/Tech sessions do we offer this time? See:

    Dealing with Data (discussion) – Antony Williams and Kaitlin Thaney

    On the importance of data publication, data management, and discovery in the sciences – from the tools that serve as enablers (ChemSpider, FigShare) to the broader issues affecting how we approach data-driven science and sharing of information (access, ownership, social stigma). This session will build upon Open Data sessions of the past, and look at how we can make better use of information to not only surface new insights, but do better science, as well as reward contributions in a way that reflects the move to digital.

    Cybersecurity: Defense Against the Dark Arts (discussion) – Liz Neeley

    Think about everything you have online. Blog posts, emails, personal information – the record of years of your life. How safe is it? How do you know if you are doing enough? Worrying too much? From basic password management to dealing with personal threats, this session will tackle questions of security and safety online. Come share your strategies and war stories, trade information on emerging trends, and help us combat hacks and attacks on the ScienceOnline community.

    Open Notebook Science (discussion) – Jean-Claude Bradley and Steve Koch

    We will discuss the semantic representation of Open Lab Notebooks and automated discovery by social mapping of ONS content. An example of merging ONS datasets with “Dark Open Science Contributors” – companies and government agencies that will donate large amounts of data to the public domain – if they are asked – will be presented. (e.g.Alfa Aesar and EPA donate Open Melting Point data ). We will also discuss the variety of electronic platforms for ONS and how to apply them in undergraduate science lab courses.

    Know Your Digital Rights! (discussion) – Dave Mosher and Arikia Millikan

    When you click “publish,” what rights have you gained, forfeited or abused? As more bloggers fall under the umbrella of mainstream media organizations, and traditional journalists increasingly navigate uncertain digital waters, all shades of contributors should know their legal safe zones — and good netiquette. In this session, we’ll cover the legalities and formalities of photo use, re-blogging, aggregating, excerpting, contracts and more, including some rare but dreaded missteps that may end in a lawsuit. We’ll present case studies and advice from legal pros and writers who have been through the ringer so that #Scio12 attendees might understand their rights and navigate future endeavors with more ease, better pay and peace of mind.

    Using altmetrics tools to track the online impact of your research (discussion) – Euan Adie and Martin Fenner

    We will briefly introduce the field of altmetrics, present the outcomes of an analysis performed especially for Science Online and then demo tools including ScienceCard , altmetric.com , and Total Impact . We will finish with a discussion of how these metrics might be used as alternatives and supplements to citation-based approaches.

    Scientists and Wikipedia (discussion)- Greta Munger and Dario Taraborelli

    The APS Wikipedia Initiative (APSWI) wants to ensure that the psychological science presented in Wikipedia is accurate and up to date. Instead of writing a literature review, my students (undergraduates) in a 200-level lecture course paired up to improve Wikipedia articles on various topics in cognitive psychology. Discussion topics could include: creating and managing the assignment; pros and cons of Wikipedia editing compared to traditional college paper writing; the value of engaging undergraduates in public scholarship as a form of civic engagement.

    The Semantic Web (discussion) – Kristi Holmes and Antony Williams

    Semantic Web-based projects are becoming increasingly more popular across a wide variety of disciplines. The session will provide a basic introduction to the topic and highlight different perspectives from people working in this space. We’ll show *why* this technology is being used in so many areas – and demonstrate the benefits of linked data (especially in areas related to data reuse for visualizations, research discovery, and more). Open PHACTS, VIVOproject, and a number of the open government initiatives are good examples and there are many others. This session can serve as an introduction to the concept and highlight interesting and different ways that this technology is being used successfully.

    The Attention Economy: The currencies for social media influence and exchange rates for attention (workshop) – Adrian J. Ebsary and Lou Woodley

    In this session we’ll look at the various tools that claim to measure user influence on across social networks and discuss some of the issues and etiquette around how you can increase your influence. Using screenshot walkthroughs, we will describe briefly the currently available influence metrics and look to analyze the values and shortfalls of each one. Also, we’ll examine some recent studies that look at network growth on Twitter and aim to start a discussion on the etiquette aspects of social media influence. What role do reciprocity (e.g. #followback) and attentional rewards (e.g. listing, favouriting, public shout-outs such as awarding K+ or #ff) play in personal network development? Are there other “soft” ways to increase your influence?

    Digital Preservation and Science Online (discussion) – Trevor Owens and Bonnie Swoger

    Preserving Science Online? What should we be keeping for posterity? Science is now a largely digital affair. A lot of resources are being invested in ensuring that scientific datasets and digital incarnations of traditional scholarly journals will be around for the future. However, little effort has been spent on the preservation of new modes of science communication; like blogging and podcasting, or on things like citizen science projects. After a brief introduction to digital preservation, this session will serve to brainstorm and identify critical at-risk digital content and articulate why that content is important. Time permitting, we will kick around ideas for how we might go about putting partnerships together to collect and preserve this content. Come prepared to discuss what science is happening online that you think is important and why? How should we go about selecting what to preserve? Lastly, who should go about ensuring long term access to this content?

    Data Journalism: Talking the talk (hands-on workshop) – Ruth Spencer and Lena Groeger

    We want this workshop to be first and foremost USEFUL to people, without requiring many in depth tutorials or technical explanations. One of the main hurdles on the adventure that is data journalism, is knowing just enough to be able to have a conversation with someone who can make your data dreams into data realities (read: programmers and developers). We’re less interested in perfecting your program skills and much more keen to get you familiar with the tools and processes you need to get your big project off the ground. We’ll explore how to get started and launch into a whirlwind tour through the (free!) resources for journalists looking to work with data. This will be less of a workshop and more of a crash course: What you need to know before you even know what you need to know (about data journalism).

    Drowning in Information! How Can We Create Organization & Balance – Tools and strategies for managing information overload (science and otherwise) (discussion) – Walter Jessen and Simon Franz

    We’re all suffering from the same condition: information overload and filter failure. Yet some people seem to manage the torrent of information more efficiently and effortlessly than others. What’s their secret? We’ll take a tour of some of the tools available to manage the mass of science-related content — from RSS to reference managers, and from collaboration docs to social aggregation. We’ll also reveal the daily reading habits of some of the best-known purveyors of science content, and come armed with your own tips for battling info overload too.

    Using crowdfunding to fund your scientific research: lessons from the #SciFund Challenge (discussion) – Jai Ranganathan and Liz Neeley

    Crowdfunding is a fundraising tool that has exploded in popularity recently, especially in the arts. Unfortunately, this revolution has left science mostly behind. The #SciFund Challenge is a campaign to encourage a large number of scientists to use crowdfunding to fund their scientific research. As part of the Challenge, participants will be running their own crowdfunding campaigns in November 2011. Due to the large number of independent campaigns that will be simultaneously running in November, there will be a huge opportunity for learning which techniques work (and don’t work) for crowdfunding for research dollars. This session will focus on lessons learned in the #SciFund Challenge for successful scientific fundraising through crowdfunding.

    FigShare – ‘Get credit for all of your research’ (demo) – Mark Hahnel

    FigShare is a open data data project that allows researchers to publish their data in a citable, searchable and sharable manner. The data can come in the form of individual figures, datasets or video files and users are encouraged to share their negative data and unpublished results too. All data is persistently stored online under the most liberal Creative Commons licence, waiving copyright where possible. This allows scientists to access and share the information from anywhere in the world with minimal friction. This demo will walk you through how to use the tool, and what’s planned for the future. Come see how FigShare has grown from a seed of an idea at #scio11 to a full fledged project supported by Digital Science. For more, visit http://FigShare.com

    A new way to fundraise for science: the SciFund Challenge (demo) – Jai Ranganathan

    Can scientists raise money for their research through crowdfunding? In November and December, 49 scientists took the leap in the SciFund
    Challenge. Find out the lessons that were learned about how research can be funded in this new way.

    Biomedical apps (demo) – Jennifer Williams

    In this demo session I will explore apps from BioMed Central and other publishers that extend the information ecosystem. These apps will connect bioscience resources mentioned in journal articles to the actual databases and to training on their usage, and also help readers extract and extend their understanding more easily.

    PaperCritic (demo) – Jason Priem (on behalf of Martin Bachwerk)

    In a world where our lives are broadcast by Facebook and Twitter, our news consumption is dominated by blogs and our knowledge is defined by Wikipedia articles, science somehow remains 20 years behind in terms of communicating about its advances. PaperCritic aims to improve the situation by offering researchers a way of monitoring all types of feedback about their scientific work, as well as allowing everyone to easily review the work of others, in a fully open and transparent environment. The demo will give an overview of the site’s main functions as well as discuss some plans for the future. Feel welcome to visit http://www.papercritic.com in the meantime to check it out for yourself.

    Measuring the Ocean Online (demo) – Rachel Weidinger

    How does the ocean measure up in social media? For the first time, aggregate, issue-level benchmarking analysis will be available. A new team will present findings– including content analysis, keyword trends, and possibly sentiment and influencer analysis– from project underway to lay down a baseline on the state of ocean conservation conversations on the social web. The goal of the yet unnamed project is to help science-based ocean content providers reach wider audiences with greater impact. Though it’ll focus on ocean issues, the benchmarking pattern may be of use in related disciplines.

    Article-Level Metrics (ALM) at PLoS (demo) – Jennifer Lin

    TBD

    Mapping, knowledge sharing, and citizen science on the web using CartoDB – Andrew Hill

    CartoDB (http://www.cartodb.com) is an open source, geospatial database on the web that provides storage, simple APIs, and mapping. Using components of CartoDB, we have helped develop a variety of science tools on the web from citizen science projects like OldWeather (http://oldweather.org/) and NEEMO (http://neemo.zooniverse.org/), to knowledge sharing projects like Protected Planet (http://protectedplanet.net/), and science support tools like GeoCAT (http://rlat.kew.org/). Now we would like to share some of CartoDB capabilities as well as discuss some of the lessons we have learned building science tools on the web.

    Learn more:

    What is: ScienceOnline2012 – and it’s coming soon!
    Homepage
    Blog
    Planning Wiki
    Draft Program
    See who’s registered so far
    Register
    Facebook page
    FriendFeed group
    Tumblr coverage blog
    Google Plus official page
    Google Plus circle of participants
    Twitter account
    #scio12 hashtag
    Twitter repository
    Twitter list of participants

    Mathematics – Algebra and Statistics and more – at ScienceOnline2012

    In the past years, we would have perhaps one session (and sometimes none) focused on math. But this year, we have a whole track – three discussion sessions and two demos specifically on math, not to count others that touch on math sideways, through computing etc.

    So if math is your thing, and you decided to skip ScienceOnline because you thought there was no math there – think twice. There are 25 seats left, and those will be open for registration tomorrow at 6pm EST.

    What math sessions do we offer this time? See:

    Math Future network of communities: A year in review (discussion) – Maria Droujkova

    The Math Future Interest Group is an international network of researchers, educators, families, community leaders and technology enablers. We are collaborating on a variety of research and development projects and conversation threads about social media as it relates to mathematics and mathematics education. In 2011, we opened a peer-to-peer School of the Mathematical Future in collaboration with P2PU; started to develop a community publishing process and a press called Delta Stream Media; launched Math Game Design group; held a successful crowd-funding campaign for “Moebius Noodles,” a young math project; and organized our 100th open, free and interactive webinar in the ongoing series.

    Teaching Core Competencies in Science: Solving Algebraic and Word Problems (discussion) – Kiyomi Deards and Khadijah M Britton

    Math skills are necessary to the successful pursuit of science. Unfortunately, many students have not successfully developed these skills by the time they enter a biology, physics, chemistry, or other science class. Come share your expertise and questions about how we can communicate math simply, clearly and effectively to help students understand these core concepts, and the scientific process.

    Never Tell Me the Odds: Assessing Certainty and Probability in Scientific Data (discussion) – Matthew R. Francis and Cedar Riener

    Many stories in science aimed both at the general public and technical stories between scientists hinge on understanding probability, but our brains aren’t really built for comprehending probability. However, it’s not really that hard to grasp on a basic level, so we can talk about the relative chances of a particular statement being “right” — and avoid insulting anybody’s intelligence in the process. (I did something of this sort in my Science Vs. Pseudoscience class last year. We actually tested telepathy statistically.) Trained scientists know (on an intellectual level at least) that absolute certainty isn’t known, and working with error bars or other measures of uncertainty is standard. However, as narratives often focus on conflict and seeking out the rare dissenting voice on matters where there is a great deal of consensus (e.g. global climate change), it’s essential to get an idea of levels of uncertainty. This session might involve learning to read (or learning to explain for those who know how to read) plots and other figures that have error quantified in them.

    Mathblogging.org (demo) – Peter Krautzberger

    Mathblogging.org started out as a copy-cat of scienceblogging.com but with a focus on the small niche that is mathematical blogging. The project is now little over a year old and has slowly grown in terms of its database and functionality. In this process we moved away from mimicry to ideas that serve the mathematical community better, such as supporting other projects like mathoverflow.net.

    Booles’ Rings (demo) – Peter Krautzberger

    At first sight, it may appear that Booles’ Rings is yet-another-blogging-network, running a wordpress multisite installation to host a couple of sites. However, the goal of Booles’ Rings is to change the way mathematicians (and other researchers) use their academic homepages: we are developing best practices for using a modern website technology to present and connect our online presences as researchers in the fullest sense. Using wordpress and other open-source tools we incorporate aspects of decentralized social networks hoping to bring the scientific community a tiny step forward towards being an actual community of people: in control of their content and making connections and interactions with other researchers transparent and visible beyond publication metrics. I will demonstrate the features of and ideas for our very young project (beyond the well-known wordpress features) focusing on the potential of wordpress and other decentralized social networking tools.

    Learn more:

    What is: ScienceOnline2012 – and it’s coming soon!
    Homepage
    Blog
    Wiki
    Draft Program
    See who’s registered so far
    Register
    Facebook page
    FriendFeed group
    Google Plus official page
    Google Plus circle of participants
    Twitter account
    #scio12 hashtag
    Twitter repository
    Twitter list of participants

    Some updates on #scio12, #NYCscitweetup, Story Collider and more.

    You may remember that I told a story at The Story Collider last month. The podcast of my story is now online so you can listen – From Serbia with horses:

    How do you get the right background to be blogs editor at Scientific American? For Bora Zivkovic it started with raising horses in Belgrade.

    ================

    Cristina Merrill went to last month’s #NYCscitweetup and wrote up a nice article about it for the International Business Times – see Tweetups Provide Haven for Science Lovers:

    The NYCSci Tweetup was born out of ScienceOnline, an annual conference that takes place in January in North Carolina. Another chapter also exists in Washington, D.C.

    “We had this great kind of synergy,” said Krystal D’Costa, a digital anthropologist, who was inspired by the North Carolina conference and started to organize the monthly Tweetups in New York City. New York has a diverse community of science enthusiasts who mostly know each other through online groups, she said. “How do we get them all offline?” she wondered.

    The next #NYCscitweetup, the last one of the year, will be on December 1st at Peculier Pub. I’ll do my best to be there. If you can come, please indicate so on the Facebook event page so we can get a rough head count in advance. If you “Like” the official #NYCscitweetup Facebook page you will be able to see updates, e.g., whenever a new event is set up.

    ================

    Organization of ScienceOnline2012 is in full swing. Hotel information is coming soon – with a larger number of people this year, we need to secure two hotels and this takes some time and effort. Once we do, we’ll let you know in several spaces, including on this wiki page. If you are already registered, you can start organizing carpooling and room-sharing here.

    Next two registration times will be on Tues, Nov 8th at 00:01 a.m. EST (yes, that is tonight at midnight) and on Wed, Nov 9th at 6 p.m. EST. As we already have over 300 registrants, and are capping at 450 maximum, these two openings we’ll let in fewer than 100 people each time – we are still calculating how many. You can see who has registered so far here.

    With the bad economy, many of our moderators and attendees are hurting for money and asking for some financial help for travel. If your organization is interested in sponsoring some of them with travel grants, or if you’d like to sponsor the event in other ways, please let us know ASAP.

    The main Program is online (though exact scheduling and room assignments are still to come), but there will be much more: lab and museum tours, banquet, stand-up comedy, art gallery, film festival, book reading, Keynote address, demos+TechExpo, citizen science projects, and more. Stay tuned.

    You can get updates on the official blog (RSS feed), the official Facebook page, official FriendFeed group and official Twitter account. Also follow the #scio12 hashtag, and see the collection of tweets so far. You can follow the attendees by checking out their Twitter list and Google Plus circle.

    The first blog posts are coming up as well – here, our old friend David Warlick, expert in the use of technology in education, describes why educators, teachers and students should try to attend: Upcoming North Carolina Science Conference:

    There’s not much that’s better, for this confirmed and long-time nerd, than being in a room filled with scientists. Teachers and students should feel this thrill as well.

    BIO101 – Introduction to Anatomy and Physiology

    In this lecture, as well as in the previous one and the next one, I tackle areas of Biology where I am really weak: origin of life, diversity of life, and taxonomy/systematics. These are also areas where there has been a lot of change recently (often not yet incorporated into textbooks), and I am unlikely to be up-to-date, so please help me bring these lectures up to standards…. This post was originally written in 2006 and re-posted a few times, including in 2010.

    As you may know, I have been teaching BIO101 (and also the BIO102 Lab) to non-traditional students in an adult education program for about twelve years now. Every now and then I muse about it publicly on the blog (see this, this, this, this, this, this and this for a few short posts about various aspects of it – from the use of videos, to the use of a classroom blog, to the importance of Open Access so students can read primary literature). The quality of students in this program has steadily risen over the years, but I am still highly constrained with time: I have eight 4-hour meetings with the students over eight weeks. In this period I have to teach them all of biology they need for their non-science majors, plus leave enough time for each student to give a presentation (on the science of their favourite plant and animal) and for two exams. Thus I have to strip the lectures to the bare bones, and hope that those bare bones are what non-science majors really need to know: concepts rather than factoids, relationship with the rest of their lives rather than relationship with the other sciences. Thus I follow my lectures with videos and classroom discussions, and their homework consists of finding cool biology videos or articles and posting the links on the classroom blog for all to see. A couple of times I used malaria as a thread that connected all the topics – from cell biology to ecology to physiology to evolution. I think that worked well but it is hard to do. They also write a final paper on some aspect of physiology.

    Another new development is that the administration has realized that most of the faculty have been with the school for many years. We are experienced, and apparently we know what we are doing. Thus they recently gave us much more freedom to design our own syllabus instead of following a pre-defined one, as long as the ultimate goals of the class remain the same. I am not exactly sure when am I teaching the BIO101 lectures again (late Fall, Spring?) but I want to start rethinking my class early. I am also worried that, since I am not actively doing research in the lab and thus not following the literature as closely, that some of the things I teach are now out-dated. Not that anyone can possibly keep up with all the advances in all the areas of Biology which is so huge, but at least big updates that affect teaching of introductory courses are stuff I need to know.

    I need to catch up and upgrade my lecture notes. And what better way than crowdsource! So, over the new few weeks, I will re-post my old lecture notes (note that they are just intros – discussions and videos etc. follow them in the classroom) and will ask you to fact-check me. If I got something wrong or something is out of date, let me know (but don’t push just your own preferred hypothesis if a question is not yet settled – give me the entire controversy explanation instead). If something is glaringly missing, let me know. If something can be said in a nicer language – edit my sentences. If you are aware of cool images, articles, blog-posts, videos, podcasts, visualizations, animations, games, etc. that can be used to explain these basic concepts, let me know. And at the end, once we do this with all the lectures, let’s discuss the overall syllabus – is there a better way to organize all this material for such a fast-paced class.

    ———————————————

    Anatomy is the sub-discipline of biology that studies the structure of the body. It describes (and labels in Latin) the morphology of the body: shape, size, color and position of various body parts, with particular attention to the internal organs, as visible by the naked eye. Histology is a subset of anatomy that describes what can be seen only under the microscope: how cells are organized into tissues and tissues into organs. (Classical) embryology describes the way tissues and organs change their shape, size, color and position during development.

    Anatomy provides the map and the tools for the study of the function of organs in the body. It describes (but does not explain) the structure of the body. Physiology further describes how the body functions, while evolutionary biology provides the explanation of the structure and the function.

    While details of human anatomy are essential in the education of physicians and nurses (and animal anatomy for veterinarians), we do not have time, nor do we need to pay too much attention to fine anatomical detail. We will pick up on relevant anatomy as we discuss the function of organs: physiology.

    There are traditionally two ways to study (and teach) physiology. The first approach is medical/biochemical. The body is subdivided into organ systems (e.g., respiratory, digestive, circulatory, etc.) and each system is studied separately, starting with the physiology of the whole organism and gradually going down to the level of organs, tissues, cells and molecules, ending with the biochemistry of the physiological function. Only the human body is studied. Often, pathologies and disorders are used to illustrate how organs work – just like fixing a car engine by replacing a broken part helps us understand how the engine normally works, so studying diseases helps us understand how the healthy human body works.

    The other approach is ecological/energetic. The physiological functions are divided not by organ system, but by the problem – imposed by the environment – that the body needs to solve in order to survive and reproduce, e.g., the problem of thermoregulation (body temperature), osmoregulation (salt/water balance), locomotion (movement), stress response, etc., each problem utilizing multiple organ systems. Important aspect of this approach is the study of the way the body utilizes energy: is the solution energetically optimal? Individuals that have solved a problem with a more energy-efficient physiological mechanism will be favored by natural selection – thus this approach is also deeply rooted in an evolutionary context. Finally, this approach is very comparative – study of animals that live in particularly unusual or harsh environments helps us understand the origin and evolution of physiological mechanisms both in humans and in other animals.

    The textbook is unusually good (for an Introductory Biology textbook) in trying to bridge and combine both approaches. Unfortunately, we do not have enough time to cover all of the systems and all of the problems in detail, so we will stick to the first, medical approach and cover just a few of the systems of the human body, but I urge you to read the relevant textbook chapters in order to understand the ecological and evolutionary aspects of physiology as well (not to mention some really cool examples of problem-solving by animal bodies). Hint: use the “Self Test” questions at the end of each chapter and if you answer them correctly, you are ready for the exam.

    Let’s start out by looking at a couple of important basic principles that pertain to all of physiology. One such principle is that of scaling, for which you should read the handout that we will discuss in class next time. The second important principle in physiology is the phenomenon of feedback loops: both negative and positive feedback loops.

    Negative feedback loop works in a way very similar to the graph we drew when we discussed behavior. The body has a Sensor that monitors the state of the body – the internal environment (as opposed to external environment we talked about when discussing behavior), e.g,. the blood levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide, blood pressure, tension in the muscles, etc. If something in the internal environment changes from the normal, optimal values, the sensor informs the Integrator (usually the nervous system) which initiates action (via an Effector) to bring back the body back to its normal state.

    Thus, an event A leads to response B which leads to the countering and elimination of the event A. Almost every function in the body operates like a negative feedback loop. For instance, if a hormone is secreted, along with the functional effect of that hormone, there will also be a trigger of a negative feedback loop that will stop the further secretion of that hormone.

    There are very few functions in the body that follow a different pattern – the positive feedback loop. There, an event A leads to response B which leads to re-initiation and intensification of the event A which leads to a stronger response B…and so on, until a threshold is reached or the final goal is accomplished, when everything goes abruptly back to normal.

    We will take a look at an example of the positive feedback loop that happens in the nervous system next week. For now, let’s list some other notable positive feedback loops in humans.

    First, the blood clotting mechanism is a cascade of biochemical reactions that operates according to this principle. An injury stimulates production of a molecule that triggers production of another molecule which triggers production of another molecule as well as production of more of the first molecule, and so on, until the injury has completely closed.

    Childbirth is another example of the positive feedback loop. When the baby is ready to go out (and there’s no stopping it at this point!), it releases a hormone that triggers the first contraction of the uterus. The contraction of the uterus pushes the baby out a little. That movement of the baby stretches the wall of the uterus. The wall of the uterus contains stretch receptors which send signals to the brain. In response to the signal, the brain (actually the posterior portion of the pituitary gland, which is an outgrowth of the brain) releases hormone oxytocin. Oxytocin gets into the bloodstream and reaches the uterus triggering the next contraction which, in turn, moves the baby which further stretches the wall of the uterus, which results in more release of oxytocin…and so on, until the baby is expelled, when everything returns to normal.

    Next example of the positive feedback loop is also related to babies – nursing. When the infant is hungry, mother brings its mouth to the nipple of the breast. When the baby latches onto the nipple and tries to suck, this stimulates the receptors in the nipple which notify the brain. The brain releases hormone oxytocin from the posterior pituitary gland. Oxytocin gets into the bloodstream and stimulates the mammary gland to release milk (not to synthesize milk – it is already stored in the breasts). Release of milk at the nipple stimulates the baby to start suckling vigorously, which stimulates the receptors in the nipple even more, so there is even more oxytocin released from the pituitary and even more milk is released by the mammary gland, and so on, until the baby is satiated and unlatches from the breast, when everything goes back to normal.

    Next example of the positive feedback loop is also related to babies, but nine months earlier. Copulation – yes, having sex – is an example of a positive feedback loop, both in females and in males. Initial stimulation of the genitals stimulates the touch receptors which notify the brain which, in turn, stimulates continuation (and gradual speeding up) of movement, which provides further tactile stimulation, and so on, until the orgasm, after which everything goes back to normal (afterglow notwithstanding).

    The last example also applies to the nether regions of the body. Micturition (urination) is also a positive feedback loop. The wall of the urinary bladder is built in such a way that there are several layers of cells. As the bladder fills up, the wall stretches and these cells move around until the wall is only a single cell thick. At this point, urination is inevitable (cannot be stopped by voluntary control). Beginning of the urination starts the movement of the cells back from single-layer state to multi-layer state. This contracts the bladder further which forces urine out even more which contracts the wall of the bladder even more, and so on until the bladder is completely empty again and everything goes back to normal.

    The concept of feedback loops is essential for the understanding of the principle of homeostasis. Homeostatic mechanisms ensure that the internal environment remains constant and all the parameters are kept at their optimal levels (e.g,. temperature, pH, salt/water balance, etc) over time. If a change in the environment (e.g., exposure to heat or cold) results in the change of internal body temperature, this is sensed by thermoreceptors in the body. This triggers corrective mechanisms: if the body is overheated, the capillaries in the skin expand and radiate heat and the sweat gland release sweat; if the body is too cold, the capillaries in the skin contract, the muscles start shivering, the hairs stand up (goosebumps), and the thyroid hormones are released, resulting in opening of pores in the membranes of mitochondria in the muscles, thus reducing the efficiency of the break-down of glucose to water and carbon-dioxide, thus producing excess heat. Either way, the body temperature will be returned to its optimal level (around 37 degrees Celsius), which is called the set-point for body temperature. Each aspect of the internal environment has its own set-point which is defended by homeostatic mechanisms.

    While essentially correct, there is a problem with the concept of homeostasis. One of the problems with the term “homeostasis” is linguistic: the very term homeostasis is misleading. “Homeo” means ‘similar, same’ and “stasis” means ‘stability’. Thus, the word homeostasis (coined by Walter Cannon in the early 20th century) suggests strong and absolute constancy. Imagine that you were told to draw a graphical representation of the concept of homeostasis in 10 seconds. Without sufficient time to think, you would probably draw something like this:

    The main characteristic of this graph is that the set-point is constant over time. But that is not how it works in the real world. The graph above is correct only if the time-scale (on the X-axis) spans only seconds to minutes. If it is expanded to hours, days or years, the graph would be erroneous – the line would not be straight and horizontal any more. The set point changes in a predictable and well-controlled manner. For instance, the set-point for testosterone levels in the blood in human males over the course of a lifetime may look like this:

    That would be an example of developmental control of a set-point. At each point in time, that set-point is defended by homeostatic mechanisms, but the set-point value is itself controlled by other physiological processes. Another example of controlled change of a set-point may look like this:

    This would be an example of an oscillatory control of a set-point. In the early 1980s, Nicholas Mrosovsky coined a new term to replace ‘homeostasis’ and specifically to denote controlled changes in set-points of all biochemical, physiological and behavioral values – rheostasis.

    Almost every aspect of physiology (and behavior) exhibits rheostasis, both developmental and oscillatory (daily and/or yearly rhythms). Some notable exceptions are blood pH (which has to be kept within very narrow range 7.35-7.45) and blood levels of Calcium. If pH or Calcium levels move too far away from the optimal value, cells in the body (most notably nerve cells, muscles and heart cells) cannot function properly and the body is in danger of immediate death.

    Additional Readings:

    ‘Medicine Needs Evolution’ by Nesse, Stearns and Omenn

    Previously in this series:

    BIO101 – Biology and the Scientific Method
    BIO101 – Cell Structure
    BIO101 – Protein Synthesis: Transcription and Translation
    BIO101: Cell-Cell Interactions
    BIO101 – From One Cell To Two: Cell Division and DNA Replication
    BIO101 – From Two Cells To Many: Cell Differentiation and Embryonic Development
    BIO101 – From Genes To Traits: How Genotype Affects Phenotype
    BIO101 – From Genes To Species: A Primer on Evolution
    BIO101 – What Creatures Do: Animal Behavior
    BIO101 – Organisms In Time and Space: Ecology
    BIO101 – Origin of Biological Diversity
    BIO101 – Evolution of Biological Diversity
    BIO101 – Current Biological Diversity

    #scio11 – It’s All Geek to Me

    It’s All Geek to Me from NASW on Vimeo.

    This is a recording of a session from ScienceOnline2011, the fifth annual conference on Science and the Web. Join us for the sixth – bigger and better edition – next January at ScienceOnline2012.

    #scio11 – MLK, Jr., Memorial Session

    MLK, Jr., Memorial Session from NASW on Vimeo.

    This is a recording of a session from ScienceOnline2011, the fifth annual conference on Science and the Web. Join us for the sixth – bigger and better edition – next January at ScienceOnline2012.

    #scio11 – Blogging in the Academy

    Blogging in the Academy from NASW on Vimeo.

    This is a recording of a session from ScienceOnline2011, the fifth annual conference on Science and the Web. Join us for the sixth – bigger and better edition – next January at ScienceOnline2012.

    Spring Forward, Fall Back – should you watch out tomorrow morning?

    I originally published this on November 2, 2008. You really need to reed the comments there, at the original post, as well as the “related” posts at the bottom of this post, as this story had some legs – a lot of discussion ensued.

    If you live in (most places in) the United States as well as many other countries, you have reset your clocks back by one hour last night (or last week). How will that affect you and other people?

    One possibility is that you are less likely to suffer a heart attack tomorrow morning than on any other Monday of the year. Why? Let me try to explain in as simple way as possible (hoping that oversimplification will not lead to intolerable degrees of inaccuracy).

    Almost all biochemical, physiological and behavioral parameters in almost all (at least multicellular) organisms display diurnal (daily) rhythms and most of those are directly driven by the circadian clock (or, more properly, by the circadian system). Here is an old and famous chart displaying some of the peaks (acrophases) of various physiological functions in the human:

    It may be a little fuzzy, but you can see that most of the peaks associated with the cardiovascular function are located in the afternoon. The acrophases you see late at night are for things like “duration of systole” and “duration of diastole” which means that the Heart Rate is slow during the night. Likewise, blood pressure is low during the night while we are asleep.

    Around dawn, heart rate and blood pressure gradually rise. This is a direct result of the circadian clock driving the gradual rise in plasma epinephrine and cortisol. All four of those parameters (HR, BP, Epinephrine and Cortisol) rise roughly simultaneously at dawn and reach a mini-peak in the morning, at the time when we spontaneously wake up:

    This rise prepares the body for awakening. After waking up, the heart parameters level off somewhat and then very slowly rise throughout the day until reaching their peak in the late afternoon.

    Since the four curves tend to be similar and simultaneous in most cases in healthy humans, let’s make it easier and clearer to observe changes by focusing only on the Cortisol curve in the morning, with the understanding that the heart will respond to this with the simultaneous rise in heart rate and blood pressure. . This is how it looks on a day when we allow ourselves to wake up spontaneously:

    But many of us do not have the luxury of waking up spontaneously every day. We use alarm clocks instead. If we set the alarm clock every day to exactly the same time (even on weekends), our circadian system will, in most cases (more likely in urban than rural areas, though), entrain to the daily Zeitgeber – the ring of the alarm-clock – with a particular phase-relationship. This usually means that the rise in cardiovascular parameters will start before the alarm, but will not quite yet reach the peak as in spontaneous awakening:

    The problem is, many of us do not set the alarm clocks during the weekend. We let ourselves awake spontaneously on Saturday and Sunday, which allows our circadian clock to start drifting – slowly phase-delaying (because for most of us the freerunning period is somewhat longer than 24 hours). Thus, on Monday, when the alarm clock rings, the gradual rise of cortisol, heart rate and blood pressure will not yet be as far along as the previous week. The ring of the alarm clock will start the process of resetting of the circadian clock – but that is the long-term effect (may take a couple of days to complete, or longer.).

    The short term effect is more dramatic – the ring of the alarm clock is an environmental stressor. As a result, epinephrine and cortisol (the two stress hormones) will immediately and dramatically shoot up, resulting in an instantaneous sharp rise in blood pressure and heart rate. And this sharp rise in cardiovascular parameters, if the heart is already damaged, can lead to a heart attack. This explains two facts: 1) that heart attacks happen more often on Mondays than other days of the week, and 2) that heart attacks happen more often in the morning, at the time of waking up, than at other times of day:

    Now let’s see what happens tomorrow, the day after the time-change. Over the weekend, while you were sleeping in, your circadian system drifted a little, phase delaying by about 20 minutes on average (keep in mind that this is an average – there is a vast variation in the numerical value of the human freerunning circadian period). Thus, your cardiovascular parameters start rising about 20 minutes later tomorrow morning than last week. But, your alarm clock will ring an entire hour later than last week – giving you an average of a 40-minute advantage. Your heart will be better prepared for the stress of hearing the ringing than on any other Monday during the year:

    Now let’s fast-forward another six month to the Spring Forward weekend some time in March or April of next year. Your circadian system delays about 20 minutes during the weekend. On top of that, your alarm clock will ring an hour earlier on that Monday than the week before. Thus, your cardiovascular system is even further behind (80 minutes) than usual. The effect of the stress of the alarm will be thus greater – the rise in BP and HR will be even faster and larger than usual. Thus, if your heart is already damaged in some way, your chances of suffering an infarct are greater on that Monday than on any other day of the year:

    This is what circadian theory suggests – the greater number of heart attacks on Mondays than other days of the week (lowest during the weekend), the greatest number of heart attacks on the Monday following the Spring Forward time-change compared to other Mondays, and the lowest incidence of heart attacks on the Monday following the Fall Back time-change compared to other Mondays.

    A couple of days ago, a short paper appeared that tested that theoretical prediction and found it exactly correct (Imre Janszky and Rickard Ljung, October 30, 2008, Shifts to and from Daylight Saving Time and Incidence of Myocardial Infarction, The New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 359:1966-1968, Number 18.). The authors looked at a large dataset of heart attacks in Sweden over a large period of time and saw that (if you look at the numbers) the greatest number of heart attacks happens on Mondays compared to other days of the week (and yes, the numbers are lowest during the weekend), the greatest number of heart attacks occur on the Monday following the Spring Forward time-change compared to Mondays two weeks before and after, and the lowest incidence of heart attacks happens on the Monday following the Fall Back time-change compared to Mondays two weeks before and after:

    Thus, the predictions from the circadian theory were completely and clearly correct. But I was jarred by the conclusions that the authors drew from the data. They write:

    The most plausible explanation for our findings is the adverse effect of sleep deprivation on cardiovascular health. According to experimental studies, this adverse effect includes the predominance of sympathetic activity and an increase in proinflammatory cytokine levels.3,4 Our data suggest that vulnerable people might benefit from avoiding sudden changes in their biologic rhythms.

    It has been postulated that people in Western societies are chronically sleep deprived, since the average sleep duration decreased from 9.0 to 7.5 hours during the 20th century.4 Therefore, it is important to examine whether we can achieve beneficial effects with prolonged sleep. The finding that the possibility of additional sleep seems to be protective on the first workday after the autumn shift is intriguing. Monday is the day of the week associated with the highest risk of acute myocardial infarction, with the mental stress of starting a new workweek and the increase in activity suggested as an explanation.5 Our results raise the possibility that there is another, sleep-related component in the excess incidence of acute myocardial infarction on Monday. Sleep-diary studies suggest that bedtimes and wake-up times are usually later on weekend days than on weekdays; the earlier wake-up times on the first workday of the week and the consequent minor sleep deprivation can be hypothesized to have an adverse cardiovascular effect in some people. This effect would be less pronounced with the transition out of daylight saving time, since it allows for additional sleep. Studies are warranted to examine the possibility that a more stable weekly pattern of waking up in the morning and going to sleep at night or a somewhat later wake-up time on Monday might prevent some acute myocardial infarctions.

    And in the quotes in the press release they say the same thing, so it is not a coincidence:

    “It’s always been thought that it’s mainly due to an increase in stress ahead of the new working week,” says Dr Janszky. “But perhaps it’s also got something to do with the sleep disruption caused by the change in diurnal rhythm at the weekend.”

    Dr.Isis has already noted this and drew the correct conclusion. She then goes on to say something that is right on the mark:

    And, of course, my first thought is, what about all the other times we are sleep deprived by, you know, one hour. Is waking up in the middle of the night to feed Baby Isis potentially going to cause Dr. Isis to meet her maker early? In that case Baby Isis can freakin’ starve. But, this is the New England Journal of Medicine and Dr. Isis appreciates the innate need that authors who publish here have to include some clinical applicability in their work.

    The authors responded to Dr.Isis in the comments on her blog and said, among else:

    We wonder whether you have ever tried to publish a research letter somewhere. The number of citations (maximum 5!) and the number of words are strictly limited. Of course we are familiar with studies on circadian rhythms and cardiovascular physiology. There was simply no space to talk more about biological rhythms than we actually did.

    But what they wrote betrays that even if they are familiar with the circadian literature, they do not really understand it. Nobody with any circadian background ever speculates about people’s conscious expectations of a stressful week as a cause of heart attacks on Monday mornings. Let me try to explain why I disagree with them on two points they raise (one of which I disagree with more strongly than the other).

    1) Sleep Deprivation. It is important to clearly distinguish between the acute and the chronic sleep deprivation. Sleepiness at any given time of day is determined by two processes: a homeostatic drive that depends on the amount of sleep one had over a previous time period, and a circadian gating of sleepiness, i.e., at which time of day is one most likely to fall asleep. Sleep deprivation affects only the homeostatic drive and has nothing to do with circadian timing.

    Humans, like most other animals, are tremendously flexible and resilient concerning acute sleep deprivation. Most of us had done all-nighters studying for exams, or partying all night with non ill effects – you just sleep off the sleep debt the next day or the next weekend and you are fine. Dr.Isis is not going to die because her baby wakes her up several times during the night. This is all part of a normal human ecology, and human physiology had adapted to such day-to-day variations in opportunities for sleep.

    The Chronic sleep deprivation is a different animal altogether. This means that you are getting less sleep than you need day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, with rarely or never sleeping off your sleep debt (“catching up on sleep”). As a result, your cognitive functions suffer. If you are a student, you will have difficulties understanding and retaining the material. If you are a part of the “creative class”, you will be less creative. If you are a scientist, you may be less able to clearly think through all your experiments, your data, and your conclusions. No matter what job you do, you will make more errors. You may suffer microsleep episodes while driving and die in a car wreck. Your immune system will be compromised so you will constantly have sniffles and colds, and may be more susceptible to other diseases.

    And yes, a long term chronic sleep deprivation may eventually damage your heart to the extent that you are more susceptible to a heart attack. This means that you are more likely to suffer a heart attack, but has no influence on the timing of the heart attack – it is the misalignment between the natural circadian rhythms of your body and the social rhythms imposed via a very harsh stressor – the alarm clock – that determines the timing. Being sleep deprived over many years means you are more likely to have a heart attack, but cannot determine when. Losing just one hour of sleep will certainly have no effect at all.

    Thus, the data presented in the paper have nothing to say about sleep deprivation.

    2) Cytokines. These are small molecules involved in intercellular signaling in the immune system. Like everything else, they are synthesized in a diurnal manner. But they act slowly. Maybe they play some small part in the gradual damage of the heart in certain conditions (prolonged inflammation, for instance), thus they may, perhaps, have a role in increasing risk of a heart attack. But they play no role in timing of it. Thus they cannot be a causal factor in the data presented in the paper which are ONLY about timing, not the underlying causes. The data say nothing as to who will suffer a heart attack and why, only when you will suffer one if you do.

    If I was commissioned to write a comprehensive review of sleep deprivation, I may have to force myself to wade through the frustratingly complicated and ambiguous literature on cytokines in order to write a short paragraphs under a subheading somewhere on the 27th page of the review.

    If I had a severe word-limit and needed to present the data they showed in this paper, I would not waste the space by mentioning the word “cytokine” at all (frankly, that would not even cross my mind to do) as it is way down the list of potential causes of heart attack in general and has nothing to do with the timing of heart attacks at all, thus irrelevant to this paper.

    So, it is nice they did the study. It confirms and puts clear numbers on what “everybody already knew for decades” in the circadian community. But their interpretation of the data was incorrect. This was a purely chronobiological study, yet they chose to present it as a part of their own pet project instead and tried mightily to make some kind of a connection to their favourite molecules, the cytokines, although nothing warranted that connection. Nails: meet hammer.

    The fake-insulted, haughty and inappropriate way/tone they responded to Dr.Isis is something that is important to me professionally, as is there misunderstanding of both the role and the tone of science blogs, so I will revisit that issue in a separate post later. I promise. It is important.

    But back to Daylight Saving Time. First, let me ask you (again) to see Larry’s post from last year, where you will find a lot of useful information and links about it. What is important to keep in mind is that DST itself is not the problem – it is the time-changes twice a year that are really troubling.

    Another important thing to keep in mind is that DST was instituted in the past at the time when the world looked very different. At the time when a tiny sliver of the population is still involved in (quite automated and mechanized) agriculture, when electricity is used much more for other things than illumination (not to mention that even the simple incandescent light bulbs today are much more energy efficient than they used to be in the past, not to mention all the newfangled super-efficient light-bulbs available today), when many more people are working second and third shifts than before, when many more people work according to their own schedules – the whole idea of DST makes no sense any more.

    Even if initially DST saved the economy some energy (and that is questionable), it certainly does not do so any more. And the social cost of traffic accidents and heart attacks is now much greater than any energy savings that theoretically we may save.

    Furthermore, it now seems that circadian clocks are harder to shift than we thought in the past. Even that one-hour change may take some weeks to adjust to, as it is not just a singular clock but a system – the main pacemaker in the SCN may shift in a couple of days, but the entire system will be un-synchronized for some time as it may take several weeks for the peripheral clocks in the liver and intestine to catch up – leading to greater potential for other disorders, e.g., stomach ulcers.

    The social clues (including the alarm clocks) may not be as good entraining agents as we thought before either, especially in rural areas where the natural lighting still has a profound effect.

    Finally, the two time-change days of the year hit especially hard people with Bipolar Disorder and with Seasonal Affective Disorder – not such a small minority put together, and certainly not worth whatever positives one may find in the concept of DST. We should pick one time and stick with it. It is the shifts that cost the society much more than any potential benefits of DST.

    Related reading:

    Roosevelts on Toilets
    The Shock Value of Science Blogs
    Add yet another factor to the circadian hypothesis of morning heart-attacks
    Daylight Saving Time
    Daylight Savings Time worse than previously thought
    Time
    Sun Time is the Real Time
    Lesson of the Day: Circadian Clocks are HARD to shift!
    Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sleep (But Were Too Afraid To Ask)
    Seasonal Affective Disorder – The Basics
    Circadian clock without DNA–History and the power of metaphor
    Lithium, Circadian Clocks and Bipolar Disorder
    Are Zombies nocturnal?
    Diversity of insect circadian clocks – the story of the Monarch butterfly
    Me and the copperheads–or why we still don’t know if snakes secrete melatonin at night
    The Mighty Ant-Lion
    City Of Light: Insomniac Urban Animals

    Best of October at A Blog Around The Clock

    I posted 32 times in October. That is, on A Blog Around The Clock only (not counting the posts on The Network Central, The SA Incubator, Video of the Week, Image of the Week, or editing Guest Blog and Expeditions).

    A brand new post:

    The Fracking Song

    A couple of new ScienceOnline interviews:

    ScienceOnline2011 – interview with Richard Grant
    ScienceOnline2011 – interview with Kiyomi Deards

    A couple of announcements:

    #NYCSciTweetup
    Just a few quick updates: NASW, Science(blogging) and more.
    ScienceOnline participants’ interviews

    Several videos from last year’s ScienceOnline conference:

    #Scio11 – Making the History of Science [Video]
    #scio11 – How is the Web changing the way we identify scientific impact?
    #scio11 – Experiments with the Imagination
    #scio11 – Open Notebook Science: Pushing Data from Bench to Web Service
    #scio11 – Visual Storytelling
    #scio11 – What’s Keeping Us from Open Science? Is It the Powers That Be, Or Is It… Us?
    #scio11 – The Entertainment Factor
    #scio11 – Data Discoverability: Institutional Support Strategies
    #scio11 – Science-Art
    #scio11 – The Digital Toolbox
    #scio11 – Video: From YouTube to TV to Hollywood and Back: Mini Science Film Festival
    #scio11 – Having Fun with Citations
    #scio11 – How can we maintain high journalism standards on the web?
    #scio11 – Web 2.0, Public and Private Spaces in the Scientific Community, and Generational Divides in the Practice of Science
    #scio11 – Standing Out: Marketing Yourself in Science

    Several re-posts from the old archives:

    BIO101 – What Creatures Do: Animal Behavior
    What does it mean that a nation is ‘Unscientific’?
    BIO101 – Organisms In Time and Space: Ecology
    Diversity of insect circadian clocks – the story of the Monarch butterfly
    Is education what journalists do?
    Cicadas, or how I Am Such A Scientist, or a demonstration of good editing
    BIO101 – Origin of Biological Diversity
    BIO101 – Evolution of Biological Diversity
    BIO101 – Current Biological Diversity
    Revenge of the Zombifying Wasp
    Are Zombies nocturnal?

    Previously in the “Best of…” series:

    2011

    September
    August
    July
    June
    May
    April
    March
    February
    January

    2010

    December
    November
    October
    September
    August
    July
    June
    May
    April
    March
    February
    January

    2009

    December
    November
    October
    September
    August
    July
    June
    May
    April
    March
    February
    January

    The Scientific Paper: past, present and probable future

    I first published this post on December 5, 2007. It was later edited and published in the Journal of Science Communication.

    Communication

    Communication of any kind, including communication of empirical information about the world (which includes scientific information), is constrained by three factors: technology, social factors, and, as a special case of social factors – official conventions. The term “constrained” I used above has two meanings – one negative, one positive. In a negative meaning, a constraint imposes limits and makes certain directions less likely, more difficult or impossible. In its positive meaning, constraint means that some directions are easy and obvious and thus much more likely for everyone to go to. Different technological and societal constraints shape what and how is communicated at different times in history and in different places on Earth.

    Technology – Most communication throughout history, including today, is oral communication, constrained by human language, cognitive capabilities and physical distance. Oral communication today, in contrast to early history, is more likely to include a larger number of people in the audience with whom the speaker is not personally acquainted. It may also include technologies for distance transmission of sound, e.g., telephone or podcasts. This is the most “natural” means of communication.

    Smoke signals and tom-toms introduced new constraints to communication – the messages had to be codified, short and simple and much of verbal and non-verbal communication had to be eliminated. Invention of writing, on stone tablets, clay tablets and papyrus, and later on paper and in print, changed the constraints further, making some aspects of communication easier and others more difficult, leading to the development of universal rules and norms of written communication. Unlike oral communication, the written communication is unidirectional, from one to many, making feedback from the audience difficult or impossible. Thus, it is necessarily linear. Its permanence also requires greater care be taken about the form and content. Finally, physical constraints (i.e., the size of a book) impose a structure to written communication, e.g., breaking down the work into chapters, subheadings and paragraphs, placed in a particular order. Also, written communication introduces the concept of authorship (and readership) while oral communication is “owned” by all the participants in the conversation.

    Society – What and how is communicated differs dramatically if the audience is small and familiar (e.g., one’s children or neighbors) or large and unfamiliar (speaking at a conference). Written communication is, by definition, aimed at a large and unfamiliar audience, which has an effect on form, style and content of communication. Local habits and traditions further determine the forms and styles of communication.

    Conventions – Different types of communication within particular groups of people are often officially codified, often precisely defining the language, style and format. Legal and scientific literature are probably the most extreme examples of a very strict code imposed by official societies. Such strict formalization of communication was initially very useful, imposing order (positive meaning of “constraint”) to an otherwise chaotic and undependable mish-mash of communication forms, allowing all the members of the community to understand and trust each other. However, when such strict forms last for decades and centuries, they are often made out-dated by the passage of time, invention of new technologies and societal changes, thus making the negative meaning of ‘constraint’ more and more obvious.

    Scientific Communication

    Development of communication of science reflects the development of science itself. Communication of information about the facts about the world did not differ much from other forms of communication for most of history until science itself started distinguishing itself as a special type of human endeavor, different from philosophy and religion. The way science communication evolved parallels the changes in our thinking about the scientific method. At the time when trips to the countryside and armchair thinking were still regarded as science, much of communication was in the form of books. When the hypothetico-deductive aspect of the scientific method “won” as the scientific method, the fledgling scientific societies, led by the Royal Society in the UK and the Academy in France, designed the form and structure of the scientific paper – the form we still use today: title, author, abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion and references.

    Today, we understand that the hypothetico-deductive method is just one of several elements of the scientific method (see this) and that the standard format of the scientific paper is perfectly unsuitable for publication of findings reached through other methods.

    Description of new species (extant or extinct) requires a monograph format, for which specialized journals exist that cater to this particular format. Ecological surveys are often straight-jacketed into the standard format, with addition of unwarranted mathematization – not all science requires numbers and statistics. Finally, science is getting more and more collaborative – single-author papers are becoming a rarity, while the papers boasting 10, 20, 50 or even 100 authors are becoming a norm, which challenges the way authorship in science is determined (see this and links within).

    But what really made the limitations of the standard format obvious is the genomic revolution. Sequencing a genome is not hypothetico-deductive science – it is akin to an ecological survey: apply a technique and see what you get! Now that the excitement of publication of the first few genomes has receded, the existing journals are inadequate platforms for publication of new genomes. While sequencing is getting easier with time, it is still expensive and time-consuming. Yet, the techniques have been standardized and there is really not much to say in the introduction, materials and methods or discussion sections of a genome paper. All that is needed is a place to deposit the raw data as tools for future research in an easily-minable format that makes such future research easy. The data would be accompanied by the minimal additional information: which species (or individual) was sequenced, which standard method was used (and if it was modified), and who did the work. It is not, any more, an intellectually creative endeavor, as useful as it is for the progress of biology and medicine.

    Science On The Web

    When e-mail first became popular as a communication method, some people understood it as an extension of the written communication (letters) while others took it to be a new form of oral communication (telephone). Of course, it is both and more. Two people can rapidly exchange a large number of brief personal messages (as in a phone conversation), or one can send a long e-mail message to a large group of people, written with proper grammar, capitalization, punctuation and formatting (as a pamphlet). And yet, it is also neither – unlike oral communication, there is no way to convey non-verbal communication (thus the invention of emoticons 😉 ). Unlike written communication, it is fast, informal, not usually taken very seriously or read carefully, and is easy to delete. E-mail is now a communication form of its own.

    The communication on the Web is, likewise, a whole new form. Again, some people see it as written communication (putting an article or book online in order to reach more readers and nothing more), while others see it as a more personal, oral communication that is written down (and such people, unlike the first group, love podcasts and videos which add the non-verbal components of communication to the text). The former prefer static web-pages with their ‘feel’ of permanence. The latter prefer Usenet, livejournals and blogs. The latter perceive the former as stodgy, authoritarian and boring. The former perceive the latter as wild, illiterate and untrustworthy. Again, they are both right and they are both wrong – it is a whole new way of communicating, fusing and meshing the two styles in sometimes unpredictable ways – it is a mix of written and oral communication that combines permanency and authority with immediacy, honesty and the ability for rapid many-to-many communication. The younger generation will use it naturally (though this does not mean that many senior citizens today did not grasp it already as well).

    So, how will the constraints (both positive and negative) imposed by the new technology and new social norms alter the formality of the scientific communication, including the format of the scientific paper?

    Online, the constraints of the paper and printing press will be gone. No more need for volumes, or issues, or page numbers, or, for that matter, for the formal scientific papers.

    The standard format of the scientific paper will become just one of many (and probably not the dominant or most frequent) form of scientific communication. Different people have different talents and inclinations. One is analytic, another synthetic. One is creative, another a hard worker. One has great hands with the equipment or animals, while another is good with computers and statistics. One has a lot of space and money and a network of collaborators at a prestigious institution, another is stuck in a small office somewhere in the developing world with no research funds at all. And each can make a valid and useful contribution to science. How?

    One will have a great idea and publish it online. The other will turn the idea into an experimental protocol that tests the idea and will publish it somewhere online. The next will make a video of the experimental method. The next person will go to the lab and actually follow the protocol and post raw data online. The next person will take the data an analyze it and post the results somewhere else online. The next person will graph and visualize the data for easier understanding. The next person will write an essay that interprets the findings and puts them into the broader context (e.g., what does it mean?). The next one will write a summary that combines several of those findings (a review). The next will place that entire research program into the historical or philosophical context. The next will translate it into normal language that lay-people can understand.

    They are all co-authors of the work. Each used his/her own strengths, knowledge and talents to contribute to the work. Yet they did not publish together, simultaneously or in the same online space, though all the pieces link to each other and thus can be accessed from a single spot. That single spot is the Scientific Journal, a place that hosts all of the pieces and links them together (also see Vernor Vinge’s vision of the science of the future, combining laboratories at universities with online boards where ideas and results are rapidly exchanged).

    In the future, journals will be online hosts for all styles of scientific contribution and ways to link them together (within and betwen journals) – from hypotheses and experimental methods, to data, analyses, graphs to syntheses and philosophical discussions. The peers will review each other in real time and assign each other portions of the available funding according to the community perceptions of the individual’s needs and qualities. Universities will be places for teaching/training the next generations of scientists and for housing the labs. The PhD will be needed for becoming a professor, but not for becoming a worthy and respected contributor to science – that evaluation will be up to peers.

    This may sound like science fiction, but we are already living in it. Repositories (like arXiv and Nature Precedings), science blogs, OA journals, Open Notebook Science (what Rosie Redfield and Jean-Claude Bradley do, for instance) are already here. And there is no going back.

    So, how do we prepare for this future? Word: slowly but smartly. Science has some very conservative elements (in a non-political sense of the term) that will resist change. They will denigrate online contributions unless they are peer-reviewed in a traditional sense and published in a reputable journal in the traditional format of a scientific paper. Some will retire and die out. Others can be reformed. But such reforming takes patience and careful hand-holding.

    The division of scientists into two camps as to understanding of the Web is obvious in the commentary on PLoS ONE articles (which used to be my job to monitor closely). Some scientists, usually themselves bloggers, treat the commentary space as a virtual conference – a place where real-time oral communication is written down for the sake of historical record. Their comments are short, blunt and to the point. Others write long treatises with lists of references. Even if their conclusions are negative, they are very polite about it (and very sensitive when on the receiving end of criticism). The former regard the latter as dishonest and thin-skinned. The latter see the former as rude and untrustworthy (just like in journalism). In the future, the two styles will fuse – the conversation will speed up and the comments will get shorter, but will still retain the sense of mutual respect (i.e., unlike on political blogs, nobody will be called an ‘idiot’ routinely). It is important to educate the users that the commentary space on TOPAZ-based journals is not a place for op-eds, neither it is a blog, but a record of conversations that are likely to be happening in the hallways at conferences, at lab meetings and journal clubs, preserved for posterity for the edification of students, scientists and historians of the future.

    PLoS ONE is a good example of the scientific journal of the future that I have in mind – the ONE place where all the data will be deposited. The commentary space and the Hubs are where all the really interesting stuff will be happening before and after publication of data: hypotheses, methods, videos, podcasts, blogs, debates, discussions, user-user peer-review, etc. The other PLoS Journals will be places, closely connected to ONE and the Hubs, of course, where works of special value will be highlighted – high-quality, media-worthy and large/complete pieces of work, plus editorials, news, etc. – the added value. They are a necessary link between the present (past?) and the future – the showcase of the quality that we can provide and thus hopefully change the minds of the more resistant members of the scientific community.

    #scio11 – Perils of Blogging as a Woman under a Real Name

    Perils of Blogging as a Woman under a Real Name from NASW on Vimeo.

    This is a recording of a session from ScienceOnline2011, the fifth annual conference on Science and the Web. Join us for the sixth – bigger and better edition – next January at ScienceOnline2012.

    Sun Time is the Real Time

    I originally published this on January 31, 2007.

    If you really read this blog “for the articles”, especially the chronobiology articles, you are aware that the light-dark cycle is the most powerful environmental cue entraining circadian clocks. But it is not the only one. Clocks can also be entrained by a host of other (“non-photic”) cues, e.g., scheduled meals, scheduled exercise, daily dose of melatonin, etc.

    Clocks in heterothermic (“cold-blooded”) animals can also entrain to temperature cycles. Lizards can entrain to temperature cycles (pdf) in which the difference between nightime low and daytime high temperatures is as small as 2 degrees Celsius. When taken out of a warm-blooded animal, the SCN clock can also be entrained (if you are a regular here, you recognize the name, don’t you) by temperature cycles (presumably a nice feedback loop that stabilizes the mammalian rhythms: the clock entrains body temperature cycles and body temperature cycles entrain the clock).

    Some rodents can phase-shift (and thus presumably entrain if presented daily) their clocks under the influence of conspecifics odors or pheromones. In an old study (which was not very good, but enough can be concluded from the data), rats held in groups in constant conditions entrained their rhythms to each other (while the quail did not), suggesting some kind of social entrainment, perhaps mediated by smell.

    Social animals are supposed to be sensitive to social cues and it is presumed that their clocks can be entrained by social cues as well. It is also widely believed that no other animal’s clock is as sensitive to social cues as the human’s.

    Everyone who’s been in this field has heard the anecdotes about the experiments conducted by Jurgen Asschoff and others at Andechs, Germany in the 1950s and 60s, in which human volunteers were kept in constant light conditions for prolonged periods of time in old underground bunkers (I think Asschoff’s bunkers are now preserved as monuments to science, just like the Knut Schmidt-Nielsen’s camel chamber is preserved over at Duke University with a nice brass plaque). According to the lore of the field (were those things ever published?), social cues like newspapers, or physical appearance of technicians called in to bring in the food (e.g., sleepy look, or the 5-o-clock stubble) were sufficient cues to entrain human subjects.

    It is always difficult to directly test the relative importance of different environmental cues. Sure, one can put them in direct competition by having, for instance, a light-dark cycle and a temperature cycle being 180 degrees out of phase and see to which one of those animals actually entrain (such a study in Neurospora was published a few years back). But, how do you know that the intensities are equivalent? What is the equivalent of 1000 lux in degrees Celsius? Ten, twenty, a hundred?

    So, perhaps one should look at the ecologicaly relevant levels of intensity of environmental cues. But how does one dissociate two synchronous cues out in nature in order to do the experiment? Well, of course, use humans for this experiment as the society has already made sure some cues get dissociated! And that is exactly what Till Roenneberg, C. Jairaj Kumar and Martha Merrow did in a new paper in Current Biology: The human circadian clock entrains to sun time (Volume 17, Issue 2 , 23 January 2007, Pages R44-R45)

    What they did is take advantage of the fact that time zones are very broad – about 15 angle degrees each. This means that the official (social) midnight and the real (geophysical) midnight coincide only in a very narrow strip running smack through the middle of the time zone. Most of Europe is one time zone. If it is officially midnight in Europe, i.e., the clock strikes 12, it is really midnight (as in “Mid-Night”) in a place like Munich, but it is already something like an hour later in Bucharest, and still something like an hour to wait for it in Lisbon.

    So, in this paper, they looked at actual entrainment patterns of more than 21000 Germans to see if they entrain to the real midnight – suggesting that light cues are stronger, or to official midnight, suggesting that social cues are stronger. They controlled for age, sex, chronotype (owls/larks) and general culture (former East and West Germanies) and what they found was very interesting: in small cities, towns and villages, people entrain to the light-dark cycles and mostly ignore the official time. However, bigger the city, more independent the entrainment was from the real light-dark cycle. The phase was delayed and more in sync with the official time.

    It is hard to interpret the findings, really. Do people in big cities entrain to official time due to stronger social cues (the busy big-city life and social scene) or because they are better sheltered from the natural light-dark cycle and, due to all the light pollution and technology, better able to impose on their clocks an artificial light-dark cycle. I am assuming that untangling this question is going to be their next project.

    But, one thing this study did was make us take a more skeptical look at all those Andech bunkers anecdotes. Sure, social cues may work in the absence of all other cues, but they are not THAT powerful and do not seem to be able to overcome the effects of natural light cycles in places in which people are able to perceive a natural light cycle. I guess one can view the life in a big city (“black box”) as being in a laboratory experiment in which the society acts as an experimenter, imposing the light-dark cycle on people, while the life out in the country is more like a field experiment in which the human subjects are exposed to the natural environmental cues.

    Addendum

    Related:

    Sun Time is the Real Time
    Lesson of the Day: Circadian Clocks are HARD to shift!
    Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sleep (But Were Too Afraid To Ask)
    Seasonal Affective Disorder – The Basics
    Circadian clock without DNA–History and the power of metaphor
    Are Zombies nocturnal?
    Diversity of insect circadian clocks – the story of the Monarch butterfly
    Me and the copperheads–or why we still don’t know if snakes secrete melatonin at night
    The Mighty Ant-Lion
    City Of Light: Insomniac Urban Animals

    #scio11 – Blogging on the Career Path

    Blogging on the Career Path from NASW on Vimeo.

    This is a recording of a session from ScienceOnline2011, the fifth annual conference on Science and the Web. Join us for the sixth – bigger and better edition – next January at ScienceOnline2012.

    Lesson of the Day: Circadian Clocks are HARD to shift!

    I originally published this on February 28, 2007.

    This is a story about two mindsets – one scientific, one not – both concerned with the same idea but doing something very different with it. Interestingly, both arrived in my e-mail inbox on the same day, but this post had to wait until I got out of bed and started feeling a little bit better.

    First, just a little bit of background:

    Circadian oscillations are incredibly robust, i.e., resistant to perturbations and random noise from the environment. Ricardo Azevedo has described one model that accounts for such robustness in his two-part post here and here and others have used other methods.

    Circadian clock can be re-set only by a very limited set of environmental cues. For each cue, there is a dedicated, evolved pathway by which such cue resets the clock. Light is one such cue – the one we understand the best, down to each molecule. Temperature is another one (in warmblooded animals, the clock is exposed to a constant temperature of the body, but taken out into a dish, it does entrain to temperature cycles). In some animals, olfactory cues (smell) can affect the clock. Scheduled feeding and bouts of exercise can also reset the clock. In each case we have a decent idea which part of the brain is responsible for feeding this information to the clock and by which neurotransmitters or hormones.

    For a long time it was thought that humans are especially sensitive to social cues, but perhaps this conclusion is erroneous as, at the time, it was thought that very dim light cannot shift human clocks so many exchanges between subjects and staff occurred in dim light. We now know that dim light resets the human clock.

    Clock regulates timing of thousands of body functions, sleep being only one of them. Most of the functions timed by the clock cannot themselves feed back on the clock. Of the hormones whose release is timed by the clock, melatonin is the only hormone that can phase-shift and entrain the rhythms, while in some organisms, sex steroids can also have a slower, long-term effect on the period and phase.

    So, can the act of sleeping reset the clock?

    This is not a bad question as there is nothing theoretically against such a notion. The question was asked by sleep and clock researchers in the past and, them being scientists, they tested it in several different ways. Every time the answer came out the same: No, timing of sleep cannot affect the working of the clock. Falling asleep and waking up at unusual times does not reset the clock. Naps do not reset the clock.

    This is now a well-known fact in chronobiology which was creatively used in the experimental design of the study reported here and here. The question they asked was if the circadian time affects athletic ability in competitive swimmers.

    But, how can they eliminate all the other potentially confounding factors, e.g., time since waking-up, time since last meal, etc.? It is impossible to control for all those other factors. So, they did the opposite, they made sure that every confounding factor is present at every time of day and every swimming test. They did it by utilizing the knowledge that naps do not reset the clock. All the swimmers were made to sleep for an hour and be awake for two hours and over and over agaian, for a very long period of time (about 55 hours). They swam 200m during every bout of wakefulness.

    What they found was that the time of day made a big difference – as much as 5 seconds (remember that 5 hundredths of the second can make a difference between Olympic Gold and no medal at all!). Afternoon times were better than morning times. Period between 2am and 8am was awful! The 11pm time was the best.

    What is also important is that the findings from this study are very similar to findings of previous studies which in no way attempted to control for confounding factors. This suggests that, coaches’ beliefs notwithstanding, all those other factors have little or no effect on swimming performance compared to the effects of the circadian time.

    Anyway, that was a good scientific study utilizing the knowledge that repeated naps do not reset the biological clock.

    Now, to the second story.

    How about a story about a guy who wakes up one morning with a brilliant idea – if something could reset the clock a little bit, perhaps something like a massage, doing a series of those while on an intercontinental flight could potentially beat jet-lag!

    Now, someone with a scientific mindset would get on Google and, in two-to-five minutes of searching discover those few cues that actually do reset clocks. No massage there. Back to the drawing board. This idea has no legs. It’s over. One of those many brilliant ideas to discard before breakfast.

    But if you do not have a scientific mindset but a predatory business mindset? What then? Then, of course, your next question is not going to be if your idea is valid, but how to turn your idea into dollars. So, you build a website, give it a catchy name of Jet Lag Passport and sell a PDF explaining to the unitiated how to get rid of jet-lag for $19.95. Which doesn’t work.

    But, sounding all scientific only brings in some potential customers. How can one bring in some others, for more money? Well, that’s easy. Pepper your idea with additional woo. How about some New-Agey mind-body woo plus some Oriental “medicine”? Sure, why not? People seem to fall for that kind of stuff. You just need to press some acupressure points every two hours and that will help reset your clock (I am wondering how molecular transcription factors in the SCN respond to pressing your nose?!). Oh, and don’t forget to say some magic words as you do this (“Even though I have this jet lag, I deeply and completely accept myself, and I choose to feel good now and when I arrive in (your destination). “) because self-persuasion must really be effective! Oh, drink enough fluids as dehydration prevents this method from working!

    Frankly, reading through the PDF (provided to me for free by the author who, for some unexplained reason, thought I’d like it! Sometimes one wonders if the quacks are really aware how bad their stuff is! Or is it the huge ego?). I did not know where to start. Nothing in it makes any sense. This is just NOT the way a human body works. Not even close. Molecules in our cells could not care less what we say and what we want and what parts of the skin we touch. I could not deceive my body that I was feeling fine last week – I had to take antibiotics instead. Likewise, chanting and acupressure and self-suggestion will not in any way change the rate of transcription of clock genes in your SCN or the rate of degradation of the clock proteins. And that is just SCN. Jet-lag is not a symptom of resetting of the SCN clock but the result of internal desynchronization between myriads of clocks in all our organs. Drinking water will not help, sorry.

    Remember the beginning of this post? How difficult it is to shift the clock? How robust it is? How useful this fact was for the swimming study? Only people’s gullibility can match its robustness!

    But then I looked around the website and realized that this is no naive amateur writing this. This is a subset of the notorious Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) which is a variant of the Thought Field Therapy (TFT). See the first link for a who’s-who in medical woo on the sidebar (starting with Deepak Chopra of course) and check the second link for a beautiful fisking of another EFT-related quackery by Orac. There is an ocean of woo there – far too much for just one person – little me – to debunk on one’s own. So, let’s just remain on the topic of jet-lag.

    If anyone offers to sell you a cure for jet-lag that does not combine, in some way, use of bright lights, melatonin pills and strict scheduling of meals and exercise upon reaching the destination, do not buy it – it will not and cannot work. There are just no physiological explanations even how it might work – it is so New-Agey and gooey and mystical it is not even approaching a form of a testable hypothesis and thus does not warrant any time wasted by scientific researchers on it. Go read something else….The correct information about alleviating jet-lag is available online for FREE!

    Are Zombies nocturnal?

    For Halloween, I thought I’d republish this old post of mine from July 1, 2010.

    Blame ‘Night of the Living Dead’ for this, but many people mistakenly think that zombies are nocturnal, going around their business of walking around town with stilted gaits, looking for people whose brains they can eat, only at night.

    You think you are safe during the day? You are dangerously wrong!

    Zombies are on the prowl at all times of day and night! They are not nocturnal, they are arrhythmic! And insomniac. They never sleep!

    Remember how one becomes a zombie in the first place? Through death, or Intercision, or, since this is a science blog and we need to explain this scientifically, through the effects of tetrodotoxin. In any case, the process incurs some permanent brain damage.

    One of the brain centers that is thus permanently damaged is the circadian clock. But importantly, it is not just not ticking any more, it is in a permanent “day” state. What does that mean practically?

    When the clock is in its “day” phase, it is very difficult to fall asleep. Thus insomnia.

    When the clock is in its “day” phase, metabolism is high (higher than at night), thus zombies require a lot of energy all the time and quickly burn through all of it. Thus constant hunger for high-calory foods, like brains.

    Insomnia, in turn, affects some hormones, like ghrelin and leptin, which control appetite. If you have a sleepless night or chronic insomnia, you also tend to eat more at night.

    But at night the digestive function is high. As zombies’ clock is in the day state, their digestion is not as efficient. They have huge appetite, they eat a lot, but they do not digest it well, and what they digest they immediately burn. Which explains why they tend not to get fat, while living humans with insomnia do.

    Finally, they have problems with wounds, you may have noticed. Healing of wounds requires growth hormone. But growth hormone is secreted only during sleep (actually, during slow sleep phases) and is likewise affected by ghrelin.

    In short, a lot of the zombies’ physiology and behavior can be traced back to their loss of circadian function and having their clock being in a permanent “day” state.

    But the real take-home message of this is…. don’t let your guard down during the day!


    Picture of me as a Zombie drawn by Joseph Hewitt of Ataraxia Theatre whose latest project, GearHead RPG, is a sci-fi rogue-like game with giant robots and a random story generator – check it out.

    #scio11 – Standing Out: Marketing Yourself in Science

    Standing Out: Marketing Yourself in Science from NASW on Vimeo.

    This is a recording of a session from ScienceOnline2011, the fifth annual conference on Science and the Web. Join us for the sixth – bigger and better edition – next January at ScienceOnline2012.

    Revenge of the Zombifying Wasp

    As it is Halloween, I am republishing my old post (from February 04, 2006, reposted on July 1, 2010):

    Ampulex compressa

    I was quite surprised that Carl Zimmer, in research for his book Parasite Rex, did not encounter the fascinating case of the Ampulex compressa (Emerald Cockroach Wasp) and its prey/host the American Cockroach (Periplaneta americana, see also comments on Aetiology and Ocellated).

    In 1999, I went to Oxford, UK, to the inaugural Gordon Conference in Neuroethology and one of the many exciting speakers I was looking forward to seeing was Fred Libersat. The talk was half-hot half-cold. To be precise, the first half was hot and the second half was not.

    In the first half, he not just introduced the whole behavior, he also showed us a longish movie, showing in high magnification and high resolution all steps of this complex behavior (you can see a cool picture of the wasp’s head here).

    How the wasp injects the cockroach

    First, the wasp gives the roach a quick hit-and-run stab with its stinger into the body (thorax) and flies away. After a while, the roach starts grooming itself furiously for some time, followed by complete stillness. Once the roach becomes still, the wasp comes back, positions itself quite carefully on top of the raoch and injects its venom very precisely into the subesophageal ganglion in the head of the roach. The venom is a cocktail of dopamine and protein toxins so the effect is behavioral modification instead of paralysis.

    Apparently, the wasp’s stinger has receptors that guide it to its precise target:

    “To investigate what guides the sting, Ram Gal and Frederic Libersat of Ben-Gurion University in Beer-Sheva, Israel, first introduced the wasp to roaches whose brains had been removed. Normally, it takes about a minute for the wasp to find its target, sting, and fly off. But in the brainless roaches, the wasps searched the empty head cavity for an average of 10 minutes. A radioactive tracer injected into the wasps revealed that when they finally did sting, they used about 1/6 the usual amount of venom. The wasps knew something was amiss.”

    The wasp then saws off the tips of the roach’s antennae and drinks the haemolymph from them. It builds a nest – just a little funnel made of soil and pebbles and leads the roach, by pulling at its antenna as if it was a dog-leash, into the funnel. It then lays an egg onto the leg of the roach, closes off the entrance to the funnel with a rock and leaves. The roach remains alive, but completely still in the nest for quite some time (around five weeks). The venom, apart from eliminating all defense behaviors of the roach, also slows the metabolism of the cockroach, allowing it to live longer without food and water. After a while, the wasp egg hatches, eats its way into the body of the roach, eats the internal organs of the roach, then pupates and hatches. What comes out of the (now dead) cockroach is not a larva (as usually happens with insect parasitoids) but an adult wasp, ready to mate and deposit eggs on new cockroaches.

    Why was the second half of the talk a disappointment? I know for a fact I was not the only one there who expected a deeper look into evolutionary aspects of this highly complex set of behaviors. However, the talk went into a different direction – interesting in itself, for sure, but not as much as an evolutionary story would have been. Libersat described in nitty-gritty detail experiments that uncovered, one by one, secrets of the neuroanatomy, neurophysiology and neurochemistry of the cockroach escape behavior – the one suppressed by toxin – as well as the chemistry of the toxin cocktail. Ganglion after ganglion, neuron after neuron, neurotransmitter after neurotransmitter, the whole behavior was charted for us on the screen. An impressive feat, but disappointing when we were all salivating at a prospect of a cool evolutionary story.

    He did not say, for instance, what is the geographic overlap between the two species. I had to look it up myself afterwards. American cockroach can be found pretty much everywhere in the world. The wasp also has a broad geographical range from Africa to New Caledonia (located almost directly between Australia and Fiji) and, since 1941, Hawaii (another example of a non-native species wreaking havoc on the islands), but not everywhere in the world, especially not outside the tropics – there are most definitely parts of the planet where there are roaches but no Ampulex compressa.

    In most cases in which one species is susceptible to the venom or toxin of another species, the populations which share the geography are also engaged in an evolutionary arms-race. The victim of the venom evolves both behavioral defenses against the attack of the other species and biochemical resistance to the venom. In turn, the venom evolves to be more and more potent and the animal more and more sneaky or camouflaged or fast in order to bypass behavioral defenses.

    There are many examples of such evolutionary arms-races in which one of the species is venomous/toxic and the other one evolves resistance. For instance, garter snakes on the West Coast like to eat rough-side newts. But these newts secrete tetrodotoxin in their skins. The predator is not venomous, but it has to deal with dangerous prey. Thus, in sympatry (in places where the two species co-exist) snakes have evolved a different version of a sodium channel. This version makes the channel less susceptible to tetrodotoxin, but there is a downside – the snake is slower and more lethargic overall. In the same region, the salamanders appear to be evolving ever more potent skin toxin cocktails.

    Similar examples are those of desert ground squirrels and rattlesnakes (both behavioral and biochemical innovations in squirrels), desert mice (Southwest USA) and scorpions (again it is the prey which is venomous), and honeybees and Death’s-Head sphinx-moths (moths come into the hives and steal honey and get stung by bees after a while).

    But Libersat never wondered if cockroaches in sympatry with Emerald wasps evolved any type of resistance, either behavioral or physiological. Perhaps the overwhelming number of roaches in comparison with the wasps makes any selective pressure too weak for evolution of defenses. But that needs to be tested. He also never stated if the attack by the wasp happens during the day or during the night. Roaches are nocturnal and shy away from light. The movie he showed was from the lab under full illumination. Is it more difficult for the wasp to find and attack the roach at night? Is it more difficult for the roach to run away or defend itself during the day? Those questions need to be asked.

    Another piece of information that is missing is a survey of parasitizing behaviors of species of wasps most closely related to Ampulex compressa. Can we identify, or at least speculate about, the steps in the evolution of this complex set of behaviors (and the venom itself)? What is the precursor of this behavior: laying eggs on found roach carcasses, killing roaches before laying eggs on their carcasses, laying eggs on other hosts? We do not know. I hope someone is working on those questions as we speak and will soon surprise us with a publication.

    But let me finish with a witty comment on Zimmer’s blog, by a commenter who, for this occasion, identified as “Kafka”:

    “I had a dream that I was a cockroach, and that wasp Ann Coulter stuck me with her stinger, zombified my brain, led me by pulling my antenna into her nest at Fox News, and laid her Neocon eggs on me. Soon a fresh baby College Republican hatched out, burrowed into my body, and devoured me from the inside. Ann Coulter’s designs may be intelligent, but she’s one cruel god.”

    That post on The Loom attracted tons of comments. Unfortunately, most of them had nothing to do with the cockroaches and wasps – Carl’s blog, naturally, attracts a lot of Creationists so much of the thread is a debate over IDC. However, Carl is happy to report that a grad student who actually worked on this wasp/cockroach pair, appeared in the thread and left a comment that, among else, answers several of the behavioral and evolutionary questions that I asked in this post.

    You can watch some movies linked here and here.

    ScienceOnline participants’ interviews

    I decided to put together links to all the Q&As I did with the participants of the ScienceOnline conferences so far. Many people who came once try to keep coming back again and again, each year. And next year, I guess I can start doing some “repeats” as people’s lives and careers change quite a lot over a period of 3-4 years. I should have thought of doing this in 2007! And there will be (hopefully) more 2012 interviews posted soon.

    2012 (about 450 attendees):

    Dirk Hanson
    Meg Lowman
    Matthew Hirschey
    Matt Shipman
    Jessica Morrison
    Elizabeth Preston
    David Shiffman
    Roger Austin
    Katie Cottingham
    Josh Witten
    Michele Arduengo
    Jamie DePolo
    Chuck Bangley
    Rebecca Guenard
    Tanya Lewis
    Kate Prengaman
    Tracy Vence
    Lali Derosier
    Joe Kraus
    Sarah Chow
    Mark Henderson
    Adam Regelmann
    Kathryn Bowers
    Trevor Owens
    Emily Buehler
    Kaitlin Vandemark
    Michelle Sipics
    Bug Girl
    Adrian Down
    Samuel Arbesman
    Helen Chappell
    Matthew Francis
    David Ng
    Maryn McKenna
    Mindy Weisberger
    William Gunn
    Cathy Clabby
    Allie Wilkinson
    Bora Zivkovic
    Chris Gunter
    Sean Ekins
    Anthony Salvagno
    Anton Zuiker
    Sarah Webb

    2011 (about 320 attendees):

    Taylor Dobbs
    Holly Tucker
    Jason Priem
    David Wescott
    Jennifer Rohn
    Jessica McCann
    Dave Mosher
    Alice Bell
    Robin Lloyd
    Thomas Peterson
    Pascale Lane
    Holy Bik
    Seth Mnookin
    Bonnie Swoger
    John Hawks
    Kaitlin Thaney
    Kari Wouk
    Michael Barton
    Richard Grant
    Kiyomi Deards
    Kathleen Raven
    Paul Raeburn
    Kristi Holmes

    2010 (about 280 attendees):

    Ken Liu
    Maria Droujkova
    Hope Leman
    Tara Richerson
    Carl Zimmer
    Marie-Claire Shanahan
    John Timmer
    Dorothea Salo
    Jeff Ives
    Fabiana Kubke
    Andrea Novicki
    Andrew Thaler
    Mark MacAllister
    Andrew Farke
    Robin Ann Smith
    Christine Ottery
    DeLene Beeland
    Russ Williams
    Patty Gainer
    John McKay
    Mary Jane Gore
    Ivan Oransky
    Diana Gitig
    Dennis Meredith
    Ed Yong
    Misha Angrist
    Jonathan Eisen
    Christie Wilcox
    Maria-Jose Vinas
    Sabine Vollmer
    Beth Beck
    Ernie Hood
    Carmen Drahl
    Joanne Manaster
    Elia Ben-Ari
    Leah D. Gordon
    Kerstin Hoppenhaus
    Hilary Maybaum
    Jelka Crnobrnja
    Alex, Staten Island Academy student
    Scott Huler
    Tyler Dukes
    Tom Linden
    Jason Hoyt
    Amy Freitag
    Emily Fisher
    Antony Williams
    Sonia Stephens
    Karyn Hede
    Jack, Staten Island Academy student
    Jeremy Yoder
    Fenella Saunders
    Cassie Rodenberg
    Travis Saunders
    Julie Kelsey
    Beatrice Lugger
    Eric Roston
    Anne Frances Johnson
    William Saleu
    Stephanie Willen Brown
    Helene Andrews-Polymenis
    Jennifer Williams
    Morgan Giddings
    Anne Jefferson
    Marla Broadfoot
    Kelly Rae Chi
    Princess Ojiaku
    Steve Koch

    2009 (about 210 attendees):

    Sol Lederman
    Greg Laden
    SciCurious
    Peter Lipson
    Glendon Mellow
    Dr.SkySkull
    Betul Kacar Arslan
    Eva Amsen
    GrrrlScientist
    Miriam Goldstein
    Katherine Haxton
    Stephanie Zvan
    Stacy Baker
    Bob O’Hara
    Djordje Jeremic
    Erica Tsai
    Elissa Hoffman
    Henry Gee
    Sam Dupuis
    Russ Campbell
    Danica Radovanovic
    John Hogenesch
    Bjoern Brembs
    Erin Cline Davis
    Carlos Hotta
    Danielle Lee
    Victor Henning
    John Wilbanks
    Kevin Emamy
    Arikia Millikan
    Tatjana Jovanovic-Grove
    Blake Stacey
    Daniel Brown
    Christian Casper
    Cameron Neylon

    2008 (about 170 attendees):

    Karen James
    James Hrynyshyn
    Talia Page
    Deepak Singh
    Sheril Kirshenbaum
    Graham Steel
    Jennifer Ouelette
    Anna Kushnir
    Dave Munger
    Vanessa Woods
    Moshe Pritsker
    Hemai Parthasarathy
    Vedran Vucic
    Patricia Campbell
    Virginia Hughes
    Brian Switek
    Jennifer Jacquet
    Bill Hooker
    Gabrielle Lyon
    Aaron Rowe
    Christina Pikas
    Tom Levenson
    Liz Allen
    Kevin Zelnio
    Anne-Marie Hodge
    John Dupuis
    Ryan Somma
    Janet Stemwedel
    Shelley Batts
    Tara Smith
    Karl Leif Bates
    Xan Gregg
    Suzanne Franks
    Rick MacPherson
    Karen Ventii
    Rose Reis
    me
    Elisabeth Montegna
    Kendall Morgan
    David Warlick
    Jean-Claude Bradley

    In 2007, we had about 130 attendees, but I did not think about doing Q&As yet at that time.

    BIO101 – Current Biological Diversity

    In this lecture, as well as in the previous one and the next one, I tackle areas of Biology where I am really weak: origin of life, diversity of life, and taxonomy/systematics. These are also areas where there has been a lot of change recently (often not yet incorporated into textbooks), and I am unlikely to be up-to-date, so please help me bring these lectures up to standards…. This post was originally written in 2006 and re-posted a few times, including in 2010.

    As you may know, I have been teaching BIO101 (and also the BIO102 Lab) to non-traditional students in an adult education program for about twelve years now. Every now and then I muse about it publicly on the blog (see this, this, this, this, this, this and this for a few short posts about various aspects of it – from the use of videos, to the use of a classroom blog, to the importance of Open Access so students can read primary literature). The quality of students in this program has steadily risen over the years, but I am still highly constrained with time: I have eight 4-hour meetings with the students over eight weeks. In this period I have to teach them all of biology they need for their non-science majors, plus leave enough time for each student to give a presentation (on the science of their favourite plant and animal) and for two exams. Thus I have to strip the lectures to the bare bones, and hope that those bare bones are what non-science majors really need to know: concepts rather than factoids, relationship with the rest of their lives rather than relationship with the other sciences. Thus I follow my lectures with videos and classroom discussions, and their homework consists of finding cool biology videos or articles and posting the links on the classroom blog for all to see. A couple of times I used malaria as a thread that connected all the topics – from cell biology to ecology to physiology to evolution. I think that worked well but it is hard to do. They also write a final paper on some aspect of physiology.

    Another new development is that the administration has realized that most of the faculty have been with the school for many years. We are experienced, and apparently we know what we are doing. Thus they recently gave us much more freedom to design our own syllabus instead of following a pre-defined one, as long as the ultimate goals of the class remain the same. I am not exactly sure when am I teaching the BIO101 lectures again (late Fall, Spring?) but I want to start rethinking my class early. I am also worried that, since I am not actively doing research in the lab and thus not following the literature as closely, that some of the things I teach are now out-dated. Not that anyone can possibly keep up with all the advances in all the areas of Biology which is so huge, but at least big updates that affect teaching of introductory courses are stuff I need to know.

    I need to catch up and upgrade my lecture notes. And what better way than crowdsource! So, over the new few weeks, I will re-post my old lecture notes (note that they are just intros – discussions and videos etc. follow them in the classroom) and will ask you to fact-check me. If I got something wrong or something is out of date, let me know (but don’t push just your own preferred hypothesis if a question is not yet settled – give me the entire controversy explanation instead). If something is glaringly missing, let me know. If something can be said in a nicer language – edit my sentences. If you are aware of cool images, articles, blog-posts, videos, podcasts, visualizations, animations, games, etc. that can be used to explain these basic concepts, let me know. And at the end, once we do this with all the lectures, let’s discuss the overall syllabus – is there a better way to organize all this material for such a fast-paced class.

     

    ———————————————

    Current Biological Diversity

    In the first two parts of this lecture we tackled the Origin of Life and Biological Diversity and the mechanisms of the Evolution of Biological Diversity. Now, we’ll take a look at what those mechanisms have produced so far – the current state of diversity on our planet.

    The Three Domains

    The organisms living on Earth today are broadly divided into three large domains: Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya (Protista, Plants, Fungi and Animals). Our understanding of the relationship between the three domains is undergoing big changes right now. The old divisions have been based on morphological and biochemical differences, but recent genetic data are forcing us to rethink and revise the way we think about the three Domains.

    It was thought before that Bacteria arose first, that Archaea evolved from a branch off of bacterial line, while the first Eukarya (protists) evolved through the process of endosymbiosis: small bacteria and archaea finding permanent homes within the cell of larger bacteria and forming organelles. It was thought that bacteria were always simple, that Archaea are somewhat more complex, and that Eukarya are the most complex.

    Neither Bacteria nor Archaea possess any organelles or subcellular compartments. The chemistry of cell walls is strikingly different between the two groups. The genes of Archaea, like Eukaryia, have introns. Until recently, it was thought that bacterial genes have no introns, however remnants of bacterial introns have been recently discovered, suggesting that Bacteria used to have introns in the past but have secondarily lost them – becoming simpler over the 3.6 billions of evolution. The enzymes involved in transcription of DNA in Archaea are much more similar to the equivalent enzymes in Eukarya than those in Bacteria.

    Molecular data, as well as what we know from evolutionary theory how population size affects the strength of natural selection, a new picture has emerged. The earliest Bacteria were simple, hugging the Left Wall of Complexity. While their population sizes were still small, Bacteria evolved greater and greater complexity, leaving the left wall somewhat, evolving more complex genomes, more complex mechanisms of DNA transcription (including introns), and perhaps even some organelles. Likewise, the Archaea split off of Bacteria (or perhaps they even appeared first) and evolved much greater complexity in parallel with the Bacteria. Eukarya also split off of Bacterial tree early on and evolved its own complexity. Thus there were three groups simultaneously evolving greater and greater complexity.

    Then, Bacteria and Archaea grew up in population sizes. Instead of small pockets somewhere in the ocean, now bacteria and archaea occupied every spot on Earth in huge numbers. Large population size makes natural selection very strong. Greater complexity is not fit, thus it is selected against. Thus, the originally complex bacteria and archaea became simpler over time – they turned into lean, mean evolving machines that we see today – the dominant life forms on our planet throughout its history. They lost introns, they lost organelles, and lost many complicated enzymatic pathways, each species reducing its genome and strongly specializing for one particular niche.

    On the other hand, Eukarya did not grow in numbers as much. The population sizes remained small, thus the selection against complexity was relaxed – the eukaryotes were free to evolve away from the Left Wall. They increased in complexity, engulfing other microorganisms that later became mitochondria and chloroplasts.

    Thus, though we, for egocentric reasons, like to think of greater complexity as being better than being simple, the Big Story of the evolution of life on Earth is that of simplification. Natural selection harshly eliminated organisms that experimented with greater complexity – the Eukarya being the exception: an evolutionary accident that happened due to their existence in small, isolated populations in which selection against complexity is relaxed.

    Bacteria

    Bacteria are small, single-celled organisms with no internal structures or organelles. Bacteria may have cell walls on the surface of their cell membranes, and may have evolved cilia or flagella for locomotion. The DNA is usually organized in a single circular chromosome. Some bacteria congregate into colonies or chains, while in other species each cell lives on its own.

    In the laboratory, bacteria can be easily separated into two major groups by the way their cell walls get stained by a particular stain into Gram positive (purple stain) and Gram negative (red stain) bacteria. By shape, bacteria are divided into cocci (spherical cells), bacilli (rod-like shapes) and spirilli (thread-like or worm-like cells).

    Bacteria are capable of sensing their environment and responding to it – i.e., they are capable of exhibiting behavior. Bacteria are also capable of communicating with each other – for instance, they can sense how many of them are present in a particular place and they can all change their behavior once the population size reaches a certain threshold – this kind of sensing is called quorum sensing.

    Many bacteria are serious pathogens of plants and animals (including humans). Others are important decomposers of dead plants and animals, thus playing important roles in the ecology of the planet. Yet others are symbionts – living in mutualistic relationships with other organisms, e.g., with plants and animals.

    Deinococcus radiodurans is one famous bacterium. It thrives inside nuclear reactors. Of course, our reactors are a very recent innovations, so the scientists were puzzled for a long time as to what natural environment selected these organisms to be able to survive in such a harsh environment. It turns out that dehydration (drying-out) has the same effects on the DNA as does radioactivity – fragmenting and tearing-up of pieces of the DNA molecule. Deinococcus evolved especially fast and accurate mechanisms for DNA repair. Bioengineering projects are underway to genetically engineer these bacteria in such a way that they can be used to clean up radioactive spills and digest nuclear waste.

    The inside of out digestive tract provides a home for numerous microorganisms. The best way to think about out “intestinal flora” is in terms of an ecosystem. We acquire it at the moment of birth and build it up with the bacteria we get from the environment – mostly from our parents. The bacterial populations in the intestine go through stages of building an ecosystem, similarly to the secondary succession. If, due to disease or due to use of potent antibiotics, the balance of the ecosystem is disrupted, it may recover through phases akin to primary succession.

    Experiments with completely internally sterile animals (mostly pigs and rabbits) demonstrated that we rely on our intestinal bacteria for some of our normal functions, e.g., digestion of some food components, including vitamins. In many ways, after millions of years of evolution, our internal bacteria have become an essential part of who we are, and there is now a push for sequencing the complete genome of our bacterial flora and to include that information in the Human Genome. The composition of the bacterial ecosystem in out guts can affect the way we respond to disease, or even if we are going to get fat or not, thus there is much recent research on individual variation of the intestinal flora between human individuals, so-called “poo print” (yes, scientists do have a sense of humor).

    Archaea

    Archaea may have been the first life forms on the Earth. Today, they tend to occupy niches that no other organisms can. Thus, they are found living inside the rocks miles under the surface, they are found in extremely cold and extremely hot environments, in very salty, very acidic and very alkaline environments as well. The hot water of the Old Faithful geyser in Yellowstone national park are inhabited by a species of Archaea. They are difficult to study as they die in normal conditions in the laboratory – room temperature, neutral pH etc.

    Though some Archaea have been found to live inside our bodies, not a single one has, so far, been identified as a pathogen. Only very recently (i.e., last few weeks) has it been shown that one Archaean does have an effect on our health – not as a pathogen but as an enabler. It can migrate into roots of our teeth and set up colonies there. It then changes the environment in the tooth in such a way that it becomes conducive to the immigration and reproduction of a pathogenic bacterium than can then attack the tooth.

    Protista

    Protists are an artificial group of organisms – every eukaryote that cannot be classified as a plant, a fungus or an animal is placed in this category. Thus, the number of species of protists is very large and the diversity of shapes, sizes and types of metabolism is enormous.

    Some protists are microscopic unicellular organisms, like the Silver Slipper (Paramecium), while others are multicellular and quite large (e.g, sea kelp). Some protists, e.g., cellular slime molds, have a single-celled and a multi-celled phase of their life-cycle.

    Even some of the unicellular protists can be quite large – an Acetabularia (‘mermaid’s wineglass’, see picture) cell is about 5 cm long, thus perfectly visible to the human eye. Most protists reproduce regularly by asexual processes, e.g., fission or budding, utilizing sexual reproduction (e.g., conjugation, which is gene-swapping) only in times of stress. Some protists are surrounded only by a plasma membrane, while some others form shells of silica (glass) around themselves. Some protists have flagella or cilia, while some others move by pseudopodia (false legs – ameboid movement).

    Traditionally, protists have been artificially subdivided into three basic groups according to their metabolism: protists capable of photosynthesis (autotrophs) are called Algae, heterotrophs are called Protozoa, while the absorbers are Fungus-like protists. According to morphology, protists have been divided into about 15 phyla, grouped into six major groups. New molecular techniques are thoroughly changing the taxonomy and systematics of Protista. One group, the Green Algae, has recently been moved out of Protista and into the Kingdom Plantae. Another group, the Choanoflaggelata, has been moved to the Kingdom Animalia as they are most closely related to sponges.

    Some protists are parasites that cause human diseases. Most well-known of those are Plasmodium (malaria), various species of Trypanosoma (sleeping sickness, leischmaniasis and Chagas Disease) and Giardia (Hiker’s Diarrhea). Dinoflagellates live on the surface of the ocean and are almost as important for absorption of CO2 and production of O2 as are forests on land.

    Plants

    Plants are terrestrial, multicellular organisms capable of photosynthesis (though some species have secondarily moved back into the aquatic environment or lost the ability to photosynthesize). There are about 300,000 species of plants on Earth today. They are divided into two broad categories: non-vascular and vascular plants. Mosses, liverworths and some other smaller groups are non-vascular plants. All other plants are vascular, meaning that they possess systems of tubes and canals that are used to transports water and nutrients from root to stem and leaves, and from leaves back to the root. Those tubes and canals are called phloem and xylem.

    Of the vascular plants, some reproduce by forming spores, while others produce seed. Seedless vascular plants that produce spores are, among others, ferns and horsetails. Seeds are produced by two large groups: Gymnosperms (e.g., conifers) and Angiosperms (flowering plants).

    An important evolutionary trend in plants was a gradual reduction of the haploid portion of the life-cycle (gametophyte) and simultaneous rise to dominance of the diploid portion – the sporophyte. In mosses, for instance, almost all of the plant is haploid, except for the diploid spores developing at the very tip of the stem. In flowering plants, e.g., trees, almost all of the plant’s cells are diploid (just like in us), while the flowers contain male and female gametes (pollen and egg).

    Fungi

    Fungi can be unicellular (e.g., some yeasts and molds) or multicellular (e.g, mushrooms). Molecular data show that fungi are more closely related to animals than plants. Fungi are heterotrophs that obtain nutrients from the soil by secreting enzymes into the substrate and absorbing the digested materials. They cannot photosynthesize. Fungi are composed of hyphae, which are thin long filaments. A mass of hyphae is called the mycelium which can build large structures like mushrooms. Spores are the means of reproduction and are formed by sexual or asexual processes.

    Fungi tend to enter into symbiotic relationships with other organisms. Some of those relationships are parasitic, as in our own fungal diseases. Other relationships are mutualistic, e.g., lychens, mycorrhizae and endophytes. Lichens are a mutualistic association between a fungus and a photosynthesizer, usually a green algae. Mycorrhizae form mutualistic associations between the fungi and plant roots (e.g., alfalfa). Endophytes are plants that have fungi living inside them in intercellular spaces and may provide protection against herbivores by producing toxins.

    Animals

    Animals are multicellular heterotrophs (they do not photosynthesize). They exhibit embryonic development and mostly reproduce sexually. One of the important characteristics of animals is movement. While microorganisms (bacteria, archaea and small protists) can move, large organisms (large protists, plants and fungi) cannot – they are sessile (attached to the substrate). Animals are large organisms that are capable of active movement: swimming, crawling, walking, running, jumping or flying. While some animals are also sessile, at least one phase of their life-cycle (e.g., a larva) is capable of active movement.

    Some of the major transitions in the evolution of animals are evolution of tissues, evolution of symmetry (first radial, later bilateral), evolution of pseudocoelom and coelom, the difference between Protostomes and Deuterostomes, and the evolution of segmentation.

    There are about 37 phyla of animals. Animals can be divided into two sub-Kingdoms: Parazoans and Eumetazoans. Parazoans are choanoflagellates and sponges. They do not have tissues – their cells are randomly organized. A sponge can be pushed through a sieve and all cells get detached from each other during the process, yet they will reconnect and form an intact sponge afterwards. Sponges move by reorganization of the whole body – cells move over each other (pulling the silicate spicules along) and can move as much as 6mm per day. All other animals are Eumetazoans – their cells are organized within proper tissues.

    Parazoans also have no body symmetry. Some phyla of animals (e.g, Cnidaria) have radial symmetry – they are called Radiata. Most phyla of animals – the Bilateria – have bilateral symmetry: the left and the right side of the body are mirror images of each other. In bilaterally symmetrical animals, there is early embryonic determination not juts of up-down axis, but also of front-back axis. Bilateral symmetry gives the animal direction – it moves in one direction, the sensory organs and the mouth tend to be in front, while excretion and reproduction are relegated to the back of the animal.

    Early during development, the cells of the spherical embryo (gastrula) organize into layers. Some animals (Diploblasts) have only two layers: ectoderm on the outside and endoderm on the inside. Most animals (Triploblasts) have evolved a third layer in between – the mesoderm. Ectoderm gives rise to the skin and nervous system. Endoderm gives rise to the intestine and lungs, among else. Mesoderm gives rise to muscles and many other internal organs. Usually, Radiata are Diploblasts, while Bilateria are Triploblasts.

    In more primitive animals, there is no internal body cavity (e.g., flatworms). In others, a cavity forms during the development between the endoderm and mesoderm – it is called pseudocoelom (e.g., nematodes). In most animals, a proper coelom develops between two layers of mesoderm. Our abdominal and chest cavities are parts of our coelom.

    In most phyla of animals, the early embryo divides by spiral cleavage. The blastopore – an opening into the cavity of the blastula- eventually becomes the mouth. These animals are called Protostomes. Protostomes are further divided into two groups: in one group animals grow by adding body mass (e.g., annelids, molluscs and flatworms), while others grow by molting (e.g., nematodes and arthoropods).

    In Echinodermata and Chordata, the embryo divides by radial cleavage. The blastopore becomes the anus. These animals are Deuterostomes.

    Three large phyla of animals – Annelida, Arthropoda and Chordata evolved segmentation, using Hox genes to drive the development of each segment.

    You will HAVE to read the three relevant animal chapters in the textbook to learn more about the following phyla: sponges, cnidarians, annelids, molluscs, arthropods and chordates.

    Phylum Chordata is the one we are most interested in for egocentric reasons – because we are chordates. The phylum consists of some invertebrate groups and the Vertebrata (all other animal phyla are also Invertebrata). The invertebrate chordates are hemichordates (acorn worms), tunicates (Urochordata – sea squirts) and cephalochordates (e.g., the lancelet – Amphioxus, see picture). The larvae of invertebrate chordates are very similar to the larvae of echinoderms, both groups are also Deuterostomes, and recent molecular data confirm close relationship between chordates and echinoderms as well.

    All chordates have, at least at some point during the development, a notochord. The early chordates were aquatic animals. Hagfish and lampreys are two of the most primitive groups of vertebrates. Before the molecular analysis was performed, these two groups were clumped into a single group of Jawless Fish (Agnatha), but have since been split into two separate classes.

    ‘Fish’ is the lay term for several different groups of aquatic vertebrates. The most important classes are cartilagenous fish (Chondrichthyes, e.g., sharks, rays and sturgeons), lobe-finned fish (Sarcopterygii, e.g., gars) and ray-finned fish (Actinopterygii – most fish that you can think of). The latter two of those are also sometimes lumped together and called the bony fish (Teleostei). Chrossopterygii, a once-prominent group of lobe-finned fish that survives today with only one living species (Coelacanth, or Latimeria), is the group that gave rise to ancient amphibians – the first vertebrates to invade the land (check out the Tiktaalik website for more information).

    Amphibians are frogs, toads, salamanders and cecilians. At least one portion of the life-cycle – reproduction and early development – is dependent on water. They have legs for locomotion and lungs for respiration on land.

    Reptilia are a large and diverse class of vertebrates. They include lizards, snakes, tuataras, turtles, tortoises and crocodilians. They have scaly skins that allows them to survive in arid environments. They have evolved an amniotic egg – an egg that contains nutrien-rich yolk and is contained within a leathery shell. Thus, reproduction and development are not dependent on water. Many reptiles live in deserts.

    A now-extinct group of ancient reptiles (therapsyds) gave rise to mammals (class Mammalia) about 220 million years ago. The early mammals were quite large carnivores. However, during the 150 million year reign of the Dinosaurs (another extinct group of reptiles) mammals were constrained to a very small niche – that of nocturnal burrowing insectivores. Only after the demise of Dinosaurs (65 million years ago) could mammals embark on a fast evolutionary radiation that produced groups we know now.

    Birds and mammals are endotherms – they can control (and keep constant) their body temperature by producing the heat in organs like muscles and liver. This is a metabolically expensive strategy that requires these animals to eat very frequently, but gives them speed and stamina and allows these animals to live in every part of the Earth, incuding polar regions. Other vertebrate classes are ectotherms – they gain their heat from the environment and, if they are cold, they are slow and sluggish.

    As it is very difficult for large bodies to lose heat, large reptiles (like dinosaurs), once heated, can retain their body temperature for long periods of time – they are effectively warm-blooded. Some reptiles, notably pythons and iguanas, are capable of producing some of the heat internally. While they cannot keep a constant body temperature, they are capable of some degree of thermoregulation (e.g., becoming somewhat warmer than the external environment). By shivering their muscles, pythons raise their body temperature above ambient and use this heat to incubate their eggs.

    There are about 4500 species of mammals, organized into 19 orders. The defining characteristics of mammals are milk ­producing glands and hair.

    Monotremes (platypus and echidna) are egg-laying mammals. Their mammary glands are not completely evolved yet – the young lick the milk of off mothers hair.

    Marsupials are the pouched mammals (e.g., kangaroo, koala, opossum). The immature newborn offspring crawls up into the pouch and lives inside it until they are large enough to fend for themselves.

    Placental mammals (the remaining 17 orders) have a placenta that nourishes their embryos during development. The new molecular data, coupled with a number of exciting newly-discovered fossils, are changing our understanding of genealogical relationships between different orders of mammals, including our new knowledge about the evolution of whales, the relationship between elephants and hyraxes, between Carnivores and Pinnipedieans (seals, etc.) and between rodents and rabbits.

    The most recent vertebrate class – the birds (Aves) – evolved out of a branch of Dinosaurs. There are 28 orders of bird in 166 families. Two primary characteristics distinguish birds from reptiles: feathers and flight skeleton. Their feathers are modified reptile scales. Feathers are obviously important for flight, but also insulate as birds are endotherms.

    Previously in this series:

    BIO101 – Biology and the Scientific Method
    BIO101 – Cell Structure
    BIO101 – Protein Synthesis: Transcription and Translation
    BIO101: Cell-Cell Interactions
    BIO101 – From One Cell To Two: Cell Division and DNA Replication
    BIO101 – From Two Cells To Many: Cell Differentiation and Embryonic Development
    BIO101 – From Genes To Traits: How Genotype Affects Phenotype
    BIO101 – From Genes To Species: A Primer on Evolution
    BIO101 – What Creatures Do: Animal Behavior
    BIO101 – Organisms In Time and Space: Ecology
    BIO101 – Origin of Biological Diversity
    BIO101 – Evolution of Biological Diversity

    #scio11 – Web 2.0, Public and Private Spaces in the Scientific Community, and Generational Divides in the Practice of Science

    Web 2.0, Public and Private Spaces in the Scientific Community, and Generational Divides in the Practice of Science from NASW on Vimeo.

    This is a recording of a session from ScienceOnline2011, the fifth annual conference on Science and the Web. Join us for the sixth – bigger and better edition – next January at ScienceOnline2012.