The Nobel prize in physiology or medicine has been awarded.
The recepients were, of course, very deserving, and their work is a very good basis for medicine that will one day drastically change the outlook of those with certain medical problems and diseases.
However, I wanted to point out that the ground breaking research was done in England and in Japan, none at any U.S. university. Now, I am not suggesting that ALL breakthroughs must happen at U.S. institutions. I would point out, though, that our university system is still the top in the world with good sums spent on research, and attracting the brightest minds from around the world to come study, but also to contribute to our body of knowledge.
The fact that this research was not done in the U.S. is not disturbing, but the fact that it could not be done in the U.S. because of restrictions on stem cell research IS. Politicians and lobbyists should not be controlling where research goes. It should be up to the scientists and doctors who have ethics committees, and a much, much better understanding of the science behind the research.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Monday, September 10, 2012
Problems Loom for Caribbean Coral Reefs
In fact, according to a report by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), many Caribbean reefs are already in dire straights.
The cause of the the desperate situation for the reefs is management which includes fishing regulations that keep the numbers of fish critical to the health of the reef up. Another cause is climate change which has caused the temperature of the waters to rise, and most reef building organisms have a small range of tolerance for water temperature.
If we can get some sensible regulations in place and enforce regulations, some reefs in other parts of the world have shown a great resilience in their return to health. However, it is extremely
Photo by ThinkP. Creative Commons License. difficult to get these things in order, and it may be too late for the reefs.
Although the reefs in the 60s and 70s had "50-60% live coverage", they are comparing to other reefs today with only around 30% live coverage and considered "relatively intact", with the Caribbean reefs still looking grim with less than 10% live coverage. I believe it is telling that we consider a reef that is 70% dead reflective of something relatively intact. But however they measure it, things are looking very bleak for Caribbean reefs.
National Geographic's Christine Dell'Amore has an article about the report released at the IUCN World Conservation Congress going on in South Korea.
If we can get some sensible regulations in place and enforce regulations, some reefs in other parts of the world have shown a great resilience in their return to health. However, it is extremely
Photo by ThinkP. Creative Commons License. difficult to get these things in order, and it may be too late for the reefs.
Although the reefs in the 60s and 70s had "50-60% live coverage", they are comparing to other reefs today with only around 30% live coverage and considered "relatively intact", with the Caribbean reefs still looking grim with less than 10% live coverage. I believe it is telling that we consider a reef that is 70% dead reflective of something relatively intact. But however they measure it, things are looking very bleak for Caribbean reefs.
National Geographic's Christine Dell'Amore has an article about the report released at the IUCN World Conservation Congress going on in South Korea.
Monday, September 3, 2012
NASA's "Dawn" Spacecraft to Move Along
I really do like NASA.
They impress me with the things they have been able to accomplish with diminishing budgets. From Hubble to the Mars rovers (including the latest one, "Curiosity") and numerous probes that are still out there exploring. Of course their budget gets cut often because of ignorance of how much of the budget they get (or at least the impact of the cuts to NASA to the overall budget) as well as a generally poor understanding of the scientific contributions of NASA. However, I will save that rant for another day.
Today I just wanted to mention NASA's "Dawn" spacecraft which traveled around 5 billion miles and has been examining an asteroid, but will now move along to a dwarf planet called "Ceres".
(picture from article below)
I also wanted to slip from the Science part of this story to the Science Fiction part: You will note that Dawn is powered by twin ion engines.... any Star Wars nerds?? That is what powered the TIE Fighters in the triology (TIE: Twin Ion Engine).
Full Article
They impress me with the things they have been able to accomplish with diminishing budgets. From Hubble to the Mars rovers (including the latest one, "Curiosity") and numerous probes that are still out there exploring. Of course their budget gets cut often because of ignorance of how much of the budget they get (or at least the impact of the cuts to NASA to the overall budget) as well as a generally poor understanding of the scientific contributions of NASA. However, I will save that rant for another day.
Today I just wanted to mention NASA's "Dawn" spacecraft which traveled around 5 billion miles and has been examining an asteroid, but will now move along to a dwarf planet called "Ceres".
I also wanted to slip from the Science part of this story to the Science Fiction part: You will note that Dawn is powered by twin ion engines.... any Star Wars nerds?? That is what powered the TIE Fighters in the triology (TIE: Twin Ion Engine).
Full Article
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Not "Just" a Theory: Science Terminology 101
One of the more frustrating aspects of listening to some politicians and a handful of others when they talk about evolution (in particular, though there are other areas of biology, geology, and physics with which they also have problems) is their poor understanding of (or often dishonesty about) what a scientific theory actually is. I can feel myself wanting to either yell or to weep every time I hear someone say "evolution is just a theory, it's not fact". I have found that many people are confused by certain terms and their meaning as a result of those who intend to confuse or mislead others.
Therefore, consider this post Science Terminology 101: a brief look at terms that people don't get.
Fact: A fact is something that exists, that is reality. In science one may think of a fact as something that is observed. It does not explain anything, it is just a simple truth.
Law: A Law describes a discreet event or action or fact. And that is all it does. Generally, a law can be summarized in a mathematical formula such as the law of gravity:
A law does not explain anything about the event or action, but simply describes what happens. If you drop a stone or a ball or a baby, it accelerates toward the center of the Earth in this way (the law actually says more, and is not limited to things on earth falling, but you get the point). It says nothing about why this happens (to be fair, there is also a Theory of gravity which does explain the why, but let's not confuse the issue here), merely that it does, every time. A thousand or a million or a billion trials will never find something suddenly fall "up" into the sky..
Hypothesis: A hypothesis is a prediction based on prior knowledge. It is not a random guess, but a predicted outcome given what is known about the phenomenon and/or related principals. For example: If I were in the lab, and was about to add a beaker of liquid to a water sample with living algae I could guess that it would make the algae bloom, or die, or turn pink, or sprout wings and turn into butterflies for that matter (though I admit that's a bit of a stretch). However, because I know that the sample of liquid is chlorine bleach, and I know from other lab work and practical experience it's properties, I can make a prediction about the outcome, which is now a hypothesis because I have reason to think this will be the outcome. If a different outcome occurs, then I can discard or modify my hypothesis and have increased my background knowledge about the phenomenon in the process.
Theory: Now we get down to the meat of this post, and the source of so much confusion. It may be helpful to begin by pointing out what a scientific theory is not: A scientific theory is not the same as a "theory" as we use the term colloquially. It is not an opinion or a guess or someone's fanciful idea. A theory generally can't be summarized as a mathematical equation like a law, and indeed, it is not a fact, nor is it a law, and, it will NEVER be either of those things. That is one of the common misunderstandings of the terminology: many think that after sufficient scrutiny, a theory becomes a law, and this is not the case. A theory and a law do not lie on a continuum of certainty. They are different animals altogether. Again, a law simply describes something that happens, and has absolutely no explanatory power, where a theory is an explanation based on many facts, and often several laws. A theory has been tested many times, and is supported by the results of experimentation, and has not been disproven.
Since a theory attempts to explain the "why", it can't be a fact or a law. But make no mistake, when it comes to scientifically explaining why things are the way they are in the natural world, the Theory is the master of the realm.
Speaking specifically on the Theory of Evolution: this theory having been tested so many times, having made so many (correct) predictions, and having mountains of evidence is one of the best supported theories in any science. A huge part of our breakthroughs in medicine, genetics, agriculture, etc. can be attributed to the strength of this Theory. When someone tries to convince you that the Theory of Evolution will be crumbled by some little tidbit of information that they have come up with (but thousands of scientists spanning nearly two hundred years have not thought of), you can bet they are very ignorant, or are trying to mislead you.
It should also be noted, that we have observed evolution take place, and in this way, evolution is also a fact. We have watched it happen (see the definition of Fact above). So when someone says "evolution is just a theory, not a fact", they are being deceptive with half the statement, and wrong about the other.
"Just" a theory? Yeah, a theory it is, and one of the most well supported scientific principles and a keystone of Biology. It's time to drop the tag, or recognize that when someone uses it, they are not conveying the true weight of what a scientific theory is.
Therefore, consider this post Science Terminology 101: a brief look at terms that people don't get.
Fact: A fact is something that exists, that is reality. In science one may think of a fact as something that is observed. It does not explain anything, it is just a simple truth.
Law: A Law describes a discreet event or action or fact. And that is all it does. Generally, a law can be summarized in a mathematical formula such as the law of gravity:
A law does not explain anything about the event or action, but simply describes what happens. If you drop a stone or a ball or a baby, it accelerates toward the center of the Earth in this way (the law actually says more, and is not limited to things on earth falling, but you get the point). It says nothing about why this happens (to be fair, there is also a Theory of gravity which does explain the why, but let's not confuse the issue here), merely that it does, every time. A thousand or a million or a billion trials will never find something suddenly fall "up" into the sky..
Hypothesis: A hypothesis is a prediction based on prior knowledge. It is not a random guess, but a predicted outcome given what is known about the phenomenon and/or related principals. For example: If I were in the lab, and was about to add a beaker of liquid to a water sample with living algae I could guess that it would make the algae bloom, or die, or turn pink, or sprout wings and turn into butterflies for that matter (though I admit that's a bit of a stretch). However, because I know that the sample of liquid is chlorine bleach, and I know from other lab work and practical experience it's properties, I can make a prediction about the outcome, which is now a hypothesis because I have reason to think this will be the outcome. If a different outcome occurs, then I can discard or modify my hypothesis and have increased my background knowledge about the phenomenon in the process.
Theory: Now we get down to the meat of this post, and the source of so much confusion. It may be helpful to begin by pointing out what a scientific theory is not: A scientific theory is not the same as a "theory" as we use the term colloquially. It is not an opinion or a guess or someone's fanciful idea. A theory generally can't be summarized as a mathematical equation like a law, and indeed, it is not a fact, nor is it a law, and, it will NEVER be either of those things. That is one of the common misunderstandings of the terminology: many think that after sufficient scrutiny, a theory becomes a law, and this is not the case. A theory and a law do not lie on a continuum of certainty. They are different animals altogether. Again, a law simply describes something that happens, and has absolutely no explanatory power, where a theory is an explanation based on many facts, and often several laws. A theory has been tested many times, and is supported by the results of experimentation, and has not been disproven.
Since a theory attempts to explain the "why", it can't be a fact or a law. But make no mistake, when it comes to scientifically explaining why things are the way they are in the natural world, the Theory is the master of the realm.
Speaking specifically on the Theory of Evolution: this theory having been tested so many times, having made so many (correct) predictions, and having mountains of evidence is one of the best supported theories in any science. A huge part of our breakthroughs in medicine, genetics, agriculture, etc. can be attributed to the strength of this Theory. When someone tries to convince you that the Theory of Evolution will be crumbled by some little tidbit of information that they have come up with (but thousands of scientists spanning nearly two hundred years have not thought of), you can bet they are very ignorant, or are trying to mislead you.
It should also be noted, that we have observed evolution take place, and in this way, evolution is also a fact. We have watched it happen (see the definition of Fact above). So when someone says "evolution is just a theory, not a fact", they are being deceptive with half the statement, and wrong about the other.
"Just" a theory? Yeah, a theory it is, and one of the most well supported scientific principles and a keystone of Biology. It's time to drop the tag, or recognize that when someone uses it, they are not conveying the true weight of what a scientific theory is.
A Very Determined Ape
A member of our species' closest relatives gave birth at the age of 42. Ginger the chimpanzee just had her fifth at Chimp Haven, a chimpanzee retirement home.
I would not classify this as extremely bizarre news. After all, chimps are our closest relative as stated above, and it is becoming more common for humans to give birth well into their 40s. For me, the intersting news is that it appears the father of the new chimp is Conan, who has a reputation for being a "ladies ape", and has had three vasectomies!
It seems you can't keep a randy ape...er, down. I was curious about why these procedures were not successful. In humans, the procedure is very effective though I do not have percentages at hand. It could be some physiological difference that makes the procedure less likely to be successful or at least less likely permanent in chimps.
Full article
I would not classify this as extremely bizarre news. After all, chimps are our closest relative as stated above, and it is becoming more common for humans to give birth well into their 40s. For me, the intersting news is that it appears the father of the new chimp is Conan, who has a reputation for being a "ladies ape", and has had three vasectomies!
It seems you can't keep a randy ape...er, down. I was curious about why these procedures were not successful. In humans, the procedure is very effective though I do not have percentages at hand. It could be some physiological difference that makes the procedure less likely to be successful or at least less likely permanent in chimps.
Full article
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Back to the grind
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Happy DNA Day.
April 25, 1953: Watson and Crick publish their groundbreaking article "Molecular structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid" in the journal Nature.
I like to point out that they did not discover the DNA double helix out of the blue, but built on the work of other scientists which, all together, gave us a much better understanding of how our genes work, and how traits are passed from generation to generation. It had a huge impact on science, particularly biology, and allowed us to make great progress in many areas including medicine, and our knowledge about genetic defects that cause various diseases, and enabled us to create new treatments for many.
So thank you Watson, Crick and every other scientist who helped move us forward in the area of human genetics.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/discovery-of-dna-structure-and-function-watson-397
I like to point out that they did not discover the DNA double helix out of the blue, but built on the work of other scientists which, all together, gave us a much better understanding of how our genes work, and how traits are passed from generation to generation. It had a huge impact on science, particularly biology, and allowed us to make great progress in many areas including medicine, and our knowledge about genetic defects that cause various diseases, and enabled us to create new treatments for many.So thank you Watson, Crick and every other scientist who helped move us forward in the area of human genetics.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/discovery-of-dna-structure-and-function-watson-397
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Cute, Cuddly, Endangered Creature Needs some PR
OK, the title may be a bit misleading from most people's perspective. Afterall, those creatures who are cute and cuddly often do not need nearly the PR of those that many find to be "creepy", and a short YouTube clip of, say, a baby Panda will have purse strings loosening around the globe.
However, biodiversity is a good thing, and hopefully something that the people on an island near Australia will embrace as well as people in general. The story of how this creature survived against the odds, though unclear, is pretty fascinating just as the story of how they were driven to the brink of extinction illustrates the danger of invasive species.
Enjoy, and while you may not wish to snuggle up with one of these little cuties, surely you will still say "awww" when you read how they sleep in couples, the male embracing the female.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/02/24/147367644/six-legged-giant-finds-secret-hideaway-hides-for-80-years
However, biodiversity is a good thing, and hopefully something that the people on an island near Australia will embrace as well as people in general. The story of how this creature survived against the odds, though unclear, is pretty fascinating just as the story of how they were driven to the brink of extinction illustrates the danger of invasive species.
Enjoy, and while you may not wish to snuggle up with one of these little cuties, surely you will still say "awww" when you read how they sleep in couples, the male embracing the female.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/02/24/147367644/six-legged-giant-finds-secret-hideaway-hides-for-80-years
Friday, March 2, 2012
Welcome to the laboratory
The blog has been sitting for long enough with no posts. Partly because of my being so busy with grad school as well as keeping a teacher's long hours, but some has to do with the fact that I have been working on graduate level assignments which generally require a lot of work and proofing and revising to produce a quality product. After doing this long enough, one begins to feel that anything written must undergo this process or it is not ready to publish. This forum will NOT receive the same attention as, say, a research proposal I have worked on for a year now; it is a blog after all. That said, I will try to post some clean and concise posts fairly regularly though the blog will often get "back burnered" because it is not a paid gig.
The blog will contain some posts pertaining to common science lessons or concepts from high school science classes, but I will also write about things I read, science in polics (especially due to this being an election year), other sciencey stuff, and sometimes just whatever happens to fall out of my head.
Enjoy....
The blog will contain some posts pertaining to common science lessons or concepts from high school science classes, but I will also write about things I read, science in polics (especially due to this being an election year), other sciencey stuff, and sometimes just whatever happens to fall out of my head.
Enjoy....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)