Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

Global Warming Paradox?

Monday, March 3rd, 2008

– Truth is scarier than fiction sometimes. An article like this makes me want to bump the “We Are Toast” indicator up a couple of notches.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

By John Tierney

If only the masses could understand the science of global warming, they’d be alarmed, right? Wrong, according to the surprising results of a survey of Americans published in the journal Risk Analysis by researchers at Texas A&M University.

After asking a national sample of more than 1,000 Americans how much they knew about global warming and how they felt about it, the researchers report that respondents who are better-informed about global warming “both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming.” Another unexpected result: “Respondents who showed a great deal of confidence that scientists understand global warming and climate change showed significantly less concern for the risks of global warming than did those who have lower trust in scientists.”

The researchers offer several possible explanations for this apparent paradox. Paul Kellstedt, the lead author and a professor of political science at Texas A&M, told me that previous researchers found that a campaign to increase public understanding of genetically modified foods didn’t lessen public fears, and that more widespread “scientific understanding” of research on embryos actually diminished support for that research. “What those two studies show, and what ours does, too,” he said, “is that more information given to the mass public does not automatically translate into more support for what are (in the public’s mind) controversial areas of scientific research. In fact, more information, in all three cases, seems to have the opposite effect, creating opposition to the research area in question.”

It’s also possible that the better-informed people were being more realistic when they said didn’t feel personally responsible for global warming. As the researchers note in the paper:

Global warming is an extreme collective action dilemma, with the actions of one person having a negligible effect in the aggregate. Informed persons appear to realize this objective fact. Therefore, informed persons can be highly concerned and reasonably pessimistic about their ability to change climate outcomes.

More…

– This article is from the NY Times and they insist that folks have an ID and a PW in order to read their stuff. You can get these for free just by signing up. However, a friend of mine suggests the website bugmenot.com :arrow: as an alternative to having to do these annoying sign ups. Check it out. Thx Bruce S. for the tip.

This Is Your Brain On Jazz: Researchers Use MRI To Study Spontaneity, Creativity

Thursday, February 28th, 2008

– Several of my friends are Jazz Aficionados.   Some jazz I enjoy but much of it is a mystery to me.   But, I see from this article that they are probably onto something.

– – – – – – – – – –

A pair of Johns Hopkins and government scientists have discovered that when jazz musicians improvise, their brains turn off areas linked to self-censoring and inhibition, and turn on those that let self-expression flow.

The joint research, using functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, and musician volunteers from the Johns Hopkins University’s Peabody Institute, sheds light on the creative improvisation that artists and non-artists use in everyday life, the investigators say.

It appears, they conclude, that jazz musicians create their unique improvised riffs by turning off inhibition and turning up creativity.

The scientists from the University’s School of Medicine and the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communications Disorders describe their curiosity about the possible neurological underpinnings of  the almost trance-like state jazz artists enter during spontaneous improvisation.

More…

Birth defects warning sparks row

Wednesday, February 13th, 2008

A minister who warned about birth defects among children of first cousin marriages in Britain’s Asian community has sparked anger among critics.

Phil Woolas said health workers were aware such marriages were creating increased risk of genetic problems.

The claims infuriated the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC) which called on the prime minister to “sack him”.

MPAC spokesman Asghar Bukhari said Mr Woolas’ comments “verged on Islamophobia”.

Mr Woolas, an environment minister who represents ethnically-diverse Oldham East and Saddleworth, risked sparking a major row after warning the issue was “the elephant in the room”, Mr Bukhari said.

Expert analysis

Mr Woolas said cultural sensitivities made the issue of birth defects difficult to address.

The former race relations minister told the Sunday Times: “If you have a child with your cousin the likelihood is there’ll be a genetic problem.

“The issue we need to debate is first cousin marriages, whereby a lot of arranged marriages are with first cousins, and that produces lots of genetic problems in terms of disability [in children].”

Mr Woolas stressed the marriages, which are legal in the UK, were a cultural, not a religious, issue and confined mainly to families originating in rural Pakistan.

But he also told the paper: “If you talk to any primary care worker they will tell you that levels of disability among the… Pakistani population are higher than the general population. And everybody knows it’s caused by first cousin marriage.”

“Awareness does need to be raised but we are very aware of the sensitivities,” he added, pointing out that many of the people involved were the products of such marriages.

More…

Why bird flu has been kept at bay

Saturday, February 9th, 2008

– This is good news. Perhaps the idea that we are only one or two small mutations away from Bird Flu evolving so it can jump from human to human is incorrect.

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

Scientists say they have identified a key reason why bird flu has so far not posed a widespread menace to humans.

So far, the H5N1 strain has mainly infected birds and poultry workers, but experts fear the virus could mutate to pass easily from human to human.

However, Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that to enter human respiratory cells the virus must first pick a very specific type of lock.

The study appears in the journal Nature Biotechnology.

The researchers say their discovery may help scientists better monitor changes in H5N1 – and find better ways to fight it.

Flu viruses attack by binding sugar chains, called glycans, that line the airways and lungs.

Latching on

The chemical linkages between the sugar molecules in these chains differ between humans and birds.

Until now it has been assumed that bird flu viruses would be adapt to humans simply by acquiring mutations that enable them to attach to the human types.

But Dr Ram Sasisekharan and colleagues found this step depends on the shape assumed by the flexible sugar chains rather than the type of linkage.

Bird flu viruses currently require cone-shaped glycans to infect birds, so the umbrella shape found in humans has protected most of us from avian flu.

More…

Date with Extinction

Friday, February 8th, 2008

For a thousand years before people settled in
New Zealand, a small alien predator may have been
undermining the islands’ seabird populations.

Our yellow Zodiac bobbed across the choppy sea and made its way slowly through the clouds of seabirds that wheeled and soared around us. Albatross, cape pigeons, diving petrels, mollymawks, mottled petrels, and sooty shearwaters all took their turns skimming our bow wave for fish. In the distance my boat mates and I could see the final stop on our sub-Antarctic tour: the Snares Islands, about 130 miles south of New Zealand’s South Island. The chorus of screeching birds drowned out our rumbling boat motor, and even from several miles away we could smell the acrid white guano that coats much of the Snares’s rocky coasts. During the summer breeding season the Snares, whose entire area totals not much more than one and a quarter square miles, are home to more than 6 million seabirds—as many as nest along the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland combined.

Today in the New Zealand archipelago, such dense seabird colonies persist only on small offshore islands, but at one time much of the coastline of the North and South Islands (by far New Zealand’s two largest islands, commonly called the mainland) would have been equally pungent and raucous. New Zealand once supported one of the most diverse seabird faunas in the world; the country was particularly rich in species of petrels. Nowadays those populations have crashed, and many species have been extirpated on the mainland. One can only imagine what it must have been like for ancient Polynesian seafarers reaching the shores of uninhabited New Zealand. The archipelago, no doubt a welcome sight after months of arduous ocean sailing in a double-hulled canoe, would also have presented a far different scene from that of most of New Zealand today.

But did these colonizers encounter a truly pristine environment? It would be easy to “round up the usual suspects” and blame the loss of so many species from the mainland on the encroachments of civilization. But in reality, the early Polynesian settlers were not responsible for the destruction of many of the seabird populations. Even before people settled this southern land, other visitors may have already irrevocably altered the New Zealand environment.

Those earlier arrivals on the New Zealand mainland were Pacific rats (Rattus exulans), or kiore, as they are called in the Maori language. It has been known for almost a decade that these small stowaways helped drive some of the native bird species from the mainland, or, in some cases, to outright extinction. According to the standard account of the invasion, the rats arrived in New Zealand between 800 and 1,000 years ago, in the canoes of the first Polynesian settlers. But in 1996, Richard Holdaway, an independent extinction biologist, presented evidence that the rodents first made landfall perhaps a thousand years earlier. That date has called into question the entire sequence of prehistoric events that shaped New Zealand—and, not surprisingly, has fueled much debate in New Zealand about the strength and validity of Holdaway’s evidence.

But even more, Holdaway has hypothesized that a rat-generated crash in island bird populations could have led to “a cascade of damage” and even to a change in the nearshore oceanic food web: seabird colonies generate a prodigious quantity of guano, which can form a kind of organic bridge between sea and shore, enriching soil and promoting plant growth. If the seabird populations crashed, Holdaway argues, so did this bridge. The islands would have lost a major source of nutrients. If Holdaway is right, the rats had accidentally landed on a choke point of the ecosystem, causing a ripple effect that went far beyond the destruction of seabirds.

Thanks to their remoteness—New Zealand lies 1,200 miles east of its nearest neighbor, Australia—the North and South Islands faced the onslaught of invaders considerably later than did many other islands around the globe. But just as they have on Hawaii and Guam, alien species that were suddenly introduced onto the islands have had devastating effects. New Zealand birds were particularly at risk, because they had evolved for millennia in the absence of mammalian predators (indeed, the only land mammals of prehistoric New Zealand were three species of ground-feeding bats). Many of the native birds were flightless and seminocturnal, making them easy prey for the rats and the eleven other introduced species of predatory mammals that eventually prospered in the archipelago. Even seabirds were vulnerable; though they can spend months of each year at sea, many of them nest in ground burrows and are helpless against terrestrial threats.

More…

New Zealand Sweet Stakes

Friday, February 8th, 2008

Natural History, May, 2001 by Laura Sessions

Sugar was a shared resource in a forest community until a greedy newcomer moved in.

Biologist E. O. Wilson has called invertebrates “little things that run the world,” because of their numbers, variety, and influence on larger organisms and even entire ecosystems. New Zealand is home to “little things” that, while each only a few millimeters long, have benignly modified about 250 million acres of the country’s beech forests. Known as sooty beech scale insects, these agents turn the resources of the beech trees into a substance crucial to their own survival and to that of other forest dwellers, from fungi to birds. The association of the insects and the trees is an ancient one, and the expansive food web in which they are actors was, until recently, intact.

Sooty beech scale insects (Ultracoelostoma assimile and U. brittini) are sap suckers, or homopterans, that grow in the furrowed bark off our species of southern beech trees (Nothofagus) in New Zealand. During its complex life cycle, the beech scale insect goes through several developmental stages called instars. The females pass through four stages, the males five. Second- and third-instar females insert their long mouthparts into the cells of a beech’s phloem–the tissues that carry nutrients through the tree–and suck up sugars. After satisfying their appetites, they excrete the excess sap and wastes through a waxy anal tube. A sweet liquid, called honeydew, accumulates one drop at a time at the tip of this tube, which looks like a thin white thread.

Homopterans are common and widespread. Most of the world’s 33,000 species produce honeydew, but few can match the beech scale’s enormous and constant output of the substance. In the Northern Hemisphere, honeydew producers such as aphids are active only seasonally, but beech scale insects draw off and convert energy from beech trees year-round, and they do so copiously during the austral summer. From January to April, the tree trunks in a southern beech forest often shimmer with a thick coat of honeydew, and the droplets’ heady, sweet smell fills the air.

In some forests, ten and a half square feet of tree trunk (think of the top of an average card table) may support as many as 2,000 scale insects. More than 40 percent of the food the trees have produced through photosynthesis may be lost to sooty beech scale insects. These beeches do not appear to be harmed, although for most plants, losses of much less than 40 percent of their energy reserves would be insupportable. Currently, scientists can only guess how the trees are able to withstand such a drain, but various theories are being explored. Possibly only the more vigorous and faster-growing beech trees are tapped by beech scale insects. Fallen drops may recycle sugars to the soil and thence to trees, or the insects may promote extra photosynthesis in host trees.

More…

Ice: A Catalyst for Life in the Universe?

Monday, February 4th, 2008

The unusual properties of frozen water may have been the ticket that made life possible. Over the decades, several notable scientists have began to suspect that life on Earth did not evolve in a warm primordial soup, but in ice—at temperatures that few living things can now tolerate. The very laws of chemistry may have actually favored ice, says Jeffrey Bada, at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. “We’ve been arguing for a long time,” he says, “that cold conditions make much more sense, chemically, than warm conditions.”

If Bada and others are correct, it would not only answer how life arose on our planet, but would dramatically change how we search for life in the Solar System and beyond. At that point, our chances of finding life elsewhere may be better than previously understood.

More…

The Monty Hall Problem

Sunday, February 3rd, 2008

The Monty Hall ProblemBack on May 4th of 2007, I wrote a piece entitled “Trust Your Brain?” in which I discussed a problem I called “The Three Box Problem”.

The Three Box problem has been around for awhile and I now know that it is better known as “The Monty Hall Problem”.

Over forty papers and news articles have been published over the years about this little logical conundrum and there’s a nice write up on it on Wikipedia that I didn’t know about when I wrote my original piece.

If you still ‘trust your brain‘ or if you like amazing little puzzles, I suggest you have a look.

– thanks to Rolf A. for this new information

Price Tag Can Change The Way People Experience Wine, Study Shows

Thursday, January 31st, 2008

– Would everyone who thinks they can appreciate the better things in life and who trusts their own brain, please raise your hands?

– Yes, fine. I see that’s most of you. Well, please go on and read this article – you may find it helps you over these impairments.

– And my friends laughed when I told them that sometimes I drank wine-in-a-box.

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

In what will be music to the ears of marketers, the old adage that you get what you pay for really is true when it comes to that most ephemeral of products: bottled wine.A little giggly, you aficionado, you?

According to researchers at the Stanford Graduate School of Business and the California Institute of Technology, if a person is told he or she is tasting two different wines—and that one costs $5 and the other $45 when they are, in fact, the same wine—the part of the brain that experiences pleasure will become more active when the drinker thinks he or she is enjoying the more expensive vintage.

“What we document is that price is not just about inferences of quality, but it can actually affect real quality,” said Baba Shiv, a professor of marketing who co-authored a paper titled “Marketing Actions Can Modulate Neural Representations of Experienced Pleasantness,” published online Jan. 14 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “So, in essence, [price] is changing people’s experiences with a product and, therefore, the outcomes from consuming this product.”

– More (if you can stop laughing at yourself)…

Algorithmic Inelegance

Saturday, January 12th, 2008

Complexity in living things is a product of the lack of direction in evolutionary processes, of the accumulation of fortuitous accidents, rather than the product of design.

by PZ Myers in Seed Magazine

Many years ago, I wrote software to supplement my income, and I know well the satisfaction of writing code, seeing it execute, and seeing functionality unfold on the computer screen. There’s something deeply appealing about making logic manifest and producing tools that do intense computational work for you at the click of a button; there can also be something deeply obsessive about being able to hone software to make it more elegant and efficient and, to the programmer’s eye, more beautiful. The designers of software usually aspire to economy of code, clarity in its operation, and powerful algorithms that, with mathematical and logical beauty, do the work of generating a sophisticated result. We tend to look down on the “kludge,” the clumsy addition to fix a problem, or the brute force approach of working case by case to force a desired result (although, to be sure, I’ve seen enough code to know that the awkward hack is ubiquitous).

Now I’m a full-time developmental biologist, and unsurprisingly, I see similar expectations in myself and in my colleagues. We don’t have the power to design embryos, but we do analyze the “code”—the genetic instructions and the operation of the developmental programs that take the egg from embryo to adult. We look for algorithmic elegance and simple procedures that lead to the impressive complexity of form, and sometimes we see it; there is often a kernel of clean, simple molecular interactions that lay down a framework for the organism. However, what we more often see is the action of the invisible hand of evolution: the evidence of random accidents that have been incorporated into the code, of elaborations built of bricolage, a collage of bits and pieces assembled into a larger structure. Life is a collection of kludges taped together by chance and filtered by selection for functionality; it all works magnificently well, but if you look under the hood you are simultaneously appalled by the sheer inelegance of the molecular gemisch and impressed with the accumulation of complexity.

More… (do read on – this is an excellent piece!)