Science on the Edge

I thought that this article that appeared on the news page of the journal Science was an appropriate follow-up to my previous post. Bradley Byrne, a candidate running for the position of Governor of the great state of Alabama, is vehemently denying that he believes in Evolution after being "smeared" in a political ad that's been running for a few days now. The nerve! he responded by saying the following (among much more):

"As a Christian and as a public servant, I have never wavered in my belief that this world and everything in it is a masterpiece created by the hands of God," Byrne wrote. "As a member of the Alabama Board of Education, the record clearly shows that I fought to ensure the teaching of creationism in our school text books. Those who attack me have distorted, twisted and misrepresented my comments and are spewing utter lies to the people of this state." 
 
First, people need to get beyond the idea that somehow believing or not believing in evolution somehow affects his capability of running the state. Second, get in the real world - evolution is a "debate" (it's not really, we just have this inherent need to show two sides to an argument) between SCIENTISTS and crazy people...and since this is a "debate" about SCIENCE, the scientists win!

There isn't really much else to say...sometimes there is only the controversy we've created to seem fair and balanced. The evidence stands for itself...take away all the fossils, take away all the molecular genetic techniques, take away dating techniques, and there's still enough evidence to convince any rational person.

So, again, why should this even figure into a political campaign. The only way it should come in is to point out to the people that you are going to vote for someone who doesn't believe what is right in front of their face.

Just my opinion!

The brilliant man-genius behind xkcd brightened my day this morning with this lovely "comic", so I thought it would be only right to pass it on as it is relevant to the way we(well, not we as in Canadians, but oh well) think about science. Enjoy!

Anyone who has ever had to pick up pinecones and was violently poked in the process knows what a painful experience it can be. Instead of cursing to the heavens, you should blame dinosaurs for the pulsing pain in your hands or feet (I honestly don't even want to think about the excruciating experience of running barefoot and unwittingly stepping on a rogue pinecone).

While most modern conifers produce two distinct types of cones - slender male cones that house pollen, and bulky female cones which house seeds - most ancient cones were about the same size and shape. To answer why this situation might have arisen, Dr. Andrew Leslie of Yale University scoured the world's herbariums (like any good paleobotanist would) in search of fossilized cones. He measured the widths of 70 well-preserved specimens and compared them with the 200 or so living species of conifer. Unsurprisingly, his original observation stood up - female cones have indeed increased in size. But why?



To figure this out a number of factors had to be considered. First was what actually increased in size. Leslie found that it was actually the scales, which are used primarily for protective purposes, that increased dramatically in size. Second was when the shift in size happened. Interestingly, the shift seemed to begin right around the Jurassic period (199-145mya) when many of the largest herbivores (Diplodocus and Barapasaurus) walked the Earth. The long necks of these dinosaur species would have allowed them to graze much higher up on trees than an others before them, in turn putting female cones at risk.



While the pattern of the timing and physiologies of the cones are very striking, Leslie feels as though we shouldn't be so quick to discount small mammal and bird species that may have been inhabiting the upper canopies of these trees. The relatively poor recording of these species in the fossil record makes it a bit more difficult to figure out exactly what was going on in the trees themselves, but hopefully one day we will be able to figure this out!

A new study published in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences seems to have made breakthroughs in the field of alcoholism and addiction research. A group from the Scripps Research Institute led by Dr. Juan Liu injected an RNA molecule into the amygdalas of a group of "alcoholic rats". These rats had been provided with all the free booze that any college attendee would be jealous of for a period of 3 weeks. After the amygdala injection treatment, the researchers found that the rats stopped drinking almost immediately and continued neglecting the alcohol for approximately one week.

The RNA molecule they injected blocks a gene that codes for the production of GABA receptors in the brain. These receptors normally signal emotional responses to certain stimuli. When the authors examined the brains of the rats the found a significant decrease in the presence of genes previously known to be linked with alcoholism in humans. The authors hope that this new RNA injection treatment which they are calling RNA interference may become a viable treatment for alcoholism in humans.

We used to think that "handedness" was a characteristic unique only to humans, but recent research is suggesting that it is present, and possibly even common, in other vertebrate groups. A recent publication in Biology Letters by a group of researchers from Macquarie University in Australia tested for the presence of handedness in 322 birds from 16 parrot species found in Australia. They found that in all but one species (the cockatiel) the eye the birds used to look at their food corresponded to the foot they used to pick it up, and that this relationship was carried on through their lives. In four of the species tested, near exclusivity in handedness (or footedness, I guess) was found, with the Sulfur-crested cockatoo still having no right-handed individuals to speak of. This suggests that the handedness characteristic has become fixed in these populations.

Extreme handedness situations like those found in these parrot populations are some of the only known cases outside of humans (we have about a 90:10 ratio). Some of the previous research done in this research area has shown that handedness in humans reflects the use of one brain hemisphere over the other, a behaviour that scientists call "laterality". The presence in animal species for one limb over the other suggests that an animal's brain function may also be lateralised, with one side of the brain dominating control of certain functional tasks (like picking up food). The researchers believe that the hemisphere of the brain associated with food selection may also be the hemisphere associated with the determination of handedness. It is interesting to note that juvenile parrots will experiment with each foot before settling on one, much like what human children do.

A recent report in the Proceedings of the Royal Society is attempting to explain how 50 million or so birds take to the skies for their annual migrations. Dr. Jakob Mueller and his colleagues trapped individuals from 14 separate European blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla) populations. These small warblers spend their summers in northern Europe and migrate during the winter to southern Europe and northern Africa. When they migrate, the typically diurnal species has no problem flying through the night to get to their destination quickly. This type of "non-typical" behaviour is very common with migrating bird species, with many species changing their activity patterns, social behaviour, diets, and even their physiology.

What the authors did next was search for the gene which was controlling this restless nocturnal behaviour. They targeted four genes and found that one, ADCYAP1, seemed to be responsible for this change in behaviour with a longer form of the gene coding for increased restlessness. They found that the gene codes for a protein, PACAP, which plays a major role in melatonin secretion, metabolism, and feeding patterns. The modification of levels of this protein could be serving as a preparatory mechanism for the long flights that the birds take on during migration.

A number of ornithologists are hailing this paper as a landmark discovery in the field and feel that its implications will be far-reaching. In addition, because DNA sequences that are conserved across species were analyzed, the implications could be stretched to other migratory species. 

What is a food bubble and why should we care? That is the question posed in an article by Alison George on the New Scientist website a couple of days ago. A food bubble is created when populations inflate food production through the unsustainable use of land and/or water resources. And the bursting of food bubbles is something that should concern us all, according to the founder and president of the Earthwatch Institute and the Earth Policy Institute, Lester Brown.

This, in theory, is something that everyone should be familiar with, but unfortunately many of us are not. It's hard enough for us to picture the amount of water we are removing from a visible source, like a lake or river, let alone an underground aquifer. In many regions around the world, food bubbles are getting precariously close to bursting. I won't get into the details here as I think the article puts it perfectly, however, I will echo the final section...what can I/we do about it?

While recycling, being energy conscious, and buying your food locally and organically can all make a difference if we band together, the solution recommended by the authors, and one that is becoming more and more prominent, is to get politically active (and I would add socially active as well). One of the benefits (in theory) of living in a democratic society is that you get a say. I know that my "activity" has diminished over the past few months for various reasons, but this article is just the kick in the pants I needed. I will be back to posting on websites and blogs that I like, sending letters and emails to people in positions of power, and spreading the knowledge to my friends and family.

The last few days have been full of famous birthdays (as Google so conveniently alerts me with their fancy search doodles) - Jules Verne, Thomas Edison, and now Charles Darwin have all celebrated their birthdays (born in 1828, 1847, and 1809 respectively).



“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”

-Charles Darwin