Coffee Addiction Hardwired?

Is caffeine addiction in our genes? Maybe. Researchers at Virginia University found a gene that may be responsible for caffeine consumption or at least possibly the ability to metabolize more caffeine.

Gaming Science

Ever wish you could dabble in some microbiology? (h/t MSNBC) An intriguing new game from Carnegie Mellon University called EteRNA lets you design your own RNA sequences. I think it's especially cool that it appears to be intentionally aimed at non-scientists. Probably if you work with RNA for a living this will be less appealing to you. But if you'd like to improve your understanding of RNA and have an interest in biology and science this might just be your bag.

 

Wikipedia informs me some viruses use RNA instead of DNA as their genetic material which was how I first learned about RNA at an old job I've mine. I know you scientists are wondering what they teach kids in high school biology these days. I'll guess I'll say not much that it took an odd job for me to be exposed to it, or at least to the point where I remembered vaguely what it was. So hopefully that's one effect of games like this: exposing more non-scientists to theories and concepts in a fun and colorful way. Enjoy!

They're more like guidelines anyways

Government scientists need to know their studies and results will not be sidelined or put them in danger of losing their jobs. Many are complaining now they they are being treated much the same as they were more than two years ago by managers and in a way that fit right in with an administration that was largely anti-science. Scientists and even Republicans are disappointed that the scientific integrity regulations that were supposed to be released last year are still a work in progress. At this point, it would likely be better to have some framework in place even if it's incomplete. I'll admit seeing Georgia Representative Paul Brown (R) ranking Republican on the science oversight committee speak in favor of releasing these guidelines as well as positively about independent scientific peer-reviewed research is heartening. Though I'm suspicious at any Republican's motives when they speak in favor of something I feel like would get them kicked out of the Tea Party, he sounded genuine and of course the need is genuine.

 

I was almost surprised to hear a snipped from this interview with Obama last week where he spoke about the "must haves" vs the "nice to haves" in the government's budget. It's hard to remember he's pro-science these days. I know most of that is the fault of the economy but it still seems like a leap of faith.

Obama: You know, when — when families sit around the kitchen table, they say to themselves, what are the things we have to have? College education for our kids. Paying our mortgage. Getting the roof repaired. A new boiler. What are the things that would be nice to have? A vacation. Eating out. Some new clothes. And if they can afford it, they'd buy things that they'd like to have. But the first thing they do is take care of the things that we have to have.

And under that category, I'd put things like research and development, education, making sure that we're sending our kids to college, rebuilding our infrastructure to compete on the 21st century, making sure that this country is safe.

And I'd like to think the administration knows the difference between federal regulations that protect independent research and oversight that hinders creativity and originality. Earlier in the summer of 2010 an institute created the first self-replicating bacteria cell with a synthetic genome. Though the scientific merits of that development were argued, a Presidential Commission of bioethics looked into the matter to decide what kind of oversight might be necessary in creating biological organisms of this kind in the future. On the 16th of December they made eighteen recommendations around five major points. But in its conclusion the commission recommended self regulation noting that the risks were few and vigilant scientists could be sure to monitor one another as this field develops.

I think that's a good middle road but hope the long expected government regulations on scientific integrity are soon released because while we don't want to micromanage scientific results we do want to make sure researchers are protected.

What About the Boys

This probably makes me a bitch, but I don't like mansplaining with my coffee. Even if it's from a woman. I'm not sure why I started watching the video over at Machines Like Us. It's offered with no commentary, so it's hard to say what the poster's intent was. But the video coming from the American Enterprise Institute should have clued me into its being a load of crap since the rest of their videos are all libertarian mumbo jumbo about how taxes are what's wrong with this country. I really wish our elected representatives had to take an up or down vote on a public option and those that voted no wouldn't receive healthcare from the government. If they're so sure it's a bad idea, I'm sure they won't mind buying their healthcare on the "private market" like they suggest for the rest of us.

 

But this doesn't have anything to do with healthcare. This is all about why aren't there more female scientists? The video is snippets from some panel mostly with Christina Hoff Summers who thinks women choose to go into other fields even if they are equally apt because other fields are more fulfilling. She's also the author of a bunch of bullshit books about how there's a "war on men" (like the war on Christmas right?). I agree with some of her concerns, but achieving parity between the genders in college attendance is not something I'm going to freak out about. Does this really mean fewer men are going to college now or just more women? We didn't worry about it in the 1950s when there were way fewer men, so why start a national movement to freak out about a few percentage lower men attending some colleges now? And anyways, her goals are all wrong. It's not because we've "forgotten" about the menfolk or that we're rigging the system in favor of women. It's because while women are making gains, inner-city and poor men are losing ground. So this is hardly a gender thing so much as a class thing. And I agree we should make more of an effort to support inner-city and disadvantaged youths, male or female. But reaching out the olive branch to the middle class, educated white men who read her books or follow her bullshit is going to gain us nothing in further educating anybody.

 

Where does she get off talking about women in science anyways? She has an unspecified BA and a doctorate in philosophy. So she's been in the folds of academia and liberal arts her entire life. Maybe when she gets a job in a math or science career or talks to more than one woman in the scientific field without holding her preconceived notions I'll give a damn about her.

 

Her ignorance is further amplified when she suggests there's a severe shortage of scientists and engineers in this country and that it's the NSF's responsibility to recruit people, both men and women (though I assume she means men since women choose to do other things). I guess she doesn't know about all the hoardes of scientists and engineers that are out of work right now. How there are all these PhDs in science who can't find jobs or have to live separately from their families or take extremely low pay just to keep working supposed to contend with even more people competing for the same low number of jobs. I mean if she's even part libertarian she should know that if there's a market demand for these jobs, people will go into these careers. If we start creating companies that produce things and need scientists and engineers, people will start training in that instead of becoming lawyers or working on wall street.

 

Luckily for my blood pressure, someone sent me this article from 2006, Male Scientist Writes of Life as Female Scientist. Dr. Ben Barres is a neurobiologist who was once a woman and is now a man.

After he underwent a sex change nine years ago at the age of 42, Barres recalled, another scientist who was unaware of it was heard to say, "Ben Barres gave a great seminar today, but then his work is much better than his sister's."

And as a female undergraduate at MIT, Barres once solved a difficult math problem that stumped many male classmates, only to be told by a professor: "Your boyfriend must have solved it for you."

"By far," Barres wrote, "the main difference I have noticed is that people who don't know I am transgendered treat me with much more respect" than when he was a woman. "I can even complete a whole sentence without being interrupted by a man."

Barres underwent a lot of criticism for writing on gender differences, or lack thereof, and even though most of his writings focus on studies and data people assume he is taking things "too personally."

Some of those who argue against him tried to bring up a handful of studies again, the typical ones that argue that a man performs better at the highest echelons in math than women even though on the average, men and women perform about the same. Or other studies that suggest women are better at "verbal" things and men at computation. One of Barre's colleagues, Dr. Spelke, responded to the interview and has argued against making conclusions from such data that would imply genetic differences between male and female brains. Coming back to Ms. Sommers and her hackneyed theory that women "choose" to go into other fields and that is why they are absent, I love the quote from Dr. Spelke:

"You won't see a Chinese face or an Indian face in 19th-century science," she said. "It would have been tempting to apply this same pattern of statistical reasoning and say, there must be something about European genes that give rise to greater mathematical talent than Asian genes."

"I think we want to step back and ask, why is it that almost all Nobel Prize winners are men today?" she concluded. "The answer to that question may be the same reason why all the great scientists in Florence were Christian."

So non-Christian scientists or Chinese scientists in the 19th century European theatre probably just chose to do something else, something more fulfilling, right Sommers?

Ravens:Writing Desks, Plumbers:Scientists

Or why did you bring a one shot harpoon to a triton fight? Can't you let the sea people just live in peace? Okay so the picture is non-related (but cute, right? The joys of squid legos).

 

I can't stop thinking about this post, Why Plumbing Ain't Science, over at Machines Like Us by Massimo Pigliucci. The author starts the argument from this point:

And of course the title of this entry is a reference to Jerry Coyne's occasional remark that there is no substantial difference between plumbing and science because plumbers test hypotheses based on empirical evidence.

Pigliucci tries to argue that in fact plumbers are not scientists. That there is a difference. And of course I agree. But I think there's something lacking in the argument. The author first states that just because a profession uses empirical evidence and reasoning does not make it science because this would apply to almost anything we as humans do or the daily choices we make in our lives. Then there's this:

What separates science from other human activities is, I suggest, its extremely more refined methods, its sociological structure, and its historical context. Let's start with the point about the method. If plumbing really was a "science" in any interesting sense then it would be baffling that we force wannabe scientists to go through years of college, years of graduate school, and years of postdoc, to do something essentially analogous to fixing your bathroom. Ah, you might object, but the amount of technical knowledge necessary to become a biologist is much higher than that necessary to become a plumber. True, but if you think that all that young scientists learn, especially in graduate school and during their postdoc is more facts, you have never been in a real science lab.

I think that it's a red herring to look at number of years in education as some sort of marker for how scientific or how advanced something is. More important is that biology training tends to be extremely theoretical while plumbing is very hands on and practical. Past undergrad and graduate classes however graduate and doctorate training as well as postdocs tend to be more like an apprenticeship and therefore, I think, very similar to the way a plumber might be trained. You learn the experimental techniquies of your lab much the same way a plumber learns from hir company or mentor. Much of it you learn on the job and much of it you teach yourself from papers/tech manuals. I grant you biology is still much more complicated and involves a much heavier theoretically basis but I think looking at the initial training in each career is a bit misleading.

 

Second, science is a particular type of social activity, certainly as conceived and practiced today. It has a complex — and necessary — structure of peer review, edited journals, funding agencies, academic positions, laboratories, and so on. Of course science has not always been practiced this way (see my next point about history), but a good argument can be made that it has evolved into a mature discipline precisely when these sort of social structures came to be implemented. Indeed, philosopher Helen Longino has made a very good case that modern science is a quintessential example of social knowledge. If you were stranded on a deserted island, you could discover things by means of conjectures and refutations — to use Popper's famous phrase — but you wouldn't be doing "science" because, among other things, there would be no peer group to check on your potentially crazy ideas about the nature of the universe (remember that neurobiological research shows the human brain being incredibly good at rationalizing, more than at rational thinking).

I'm not sure having a laboratory and a peer reviewed journal should automatically qualify anything for science. This seems a very tenure-track-centric point of view where published papers are the way science is advanced. I think we all have our own ideas what "science" is. It's not incredibly clear what makes it an all inclusive category though. Or opinions vary. I think lumping it all in and trying to separate it as a field from other fields is dangerous.

Science is a multi-billion dollar industry, which means that it matters very much who can claim to be doing "science."

I think it's pretty misleading to lump all of science in as a "multi-billion dollar industry." People don't go into math or physics to become millionaires. I gather the author means more along the lines of medical science or pharmaceuticals. And that's fine, but it's sort of like saying "[building stuff] is a multi-billion dollar industry, which means that it matters very much who [we let build stuff]." It's not the individuals doing science or not doing science so much as how we make sure these things are safe or proven when we release them to the public. We have an FDA that verifies drugs work as proposed and in theory does not allow drug manufacturers to make claims beyond proof. But the same could be said for car manufacturers. We have safety ratings for our cars and design goes into them to be safe as well as the government verifies things like the horsepower or miles per gallon that the manufacturer claims. Does that make car manufacturing/engineering design scientific? I think so.

 

And we dismiss plumbers because they don't design plumbing components, they are the technicians who install them in your house or troubleshoot. But we don't reserve the title of science from them because there's no "Plumbing Science" journal out there. Their day to day work is using their expertise to install equipment and try to fix your problem. Looked at in that sense, it's not so drastically different from a medical doctor, right? Not all medical doctors do research, and many might approach a problem with a patient the same way as a plumber. Investigate what they can, find the problem, try the proven methods to fix the problem, be more creative and test other methods if that doesn't fix the problem. But you wouldn't say a doctor is not scientific, would you? Is it his knowledge of physiology vs a plumber's lack of knowledge of physics and water flow?

 

I guess I'm trying to say, the act of plumbing is not science. But then doctors, or myself as an engineer, don't always "do science" on a daily basis. We are practitioners. But I doubt people would say our fields are not science. The reason we don't expect more training from our plumbers could be both because it is not necessary or because it is not as crucial. But in my mind they aren't radically different from "scientific" technicans working in science labs across the country. I think the difference is a doctor or engineer occasionally does science. There is occasion where a new component must be designed or evidence must be tested or a controlled study must be conducted. And I bet there are plumbers out there who do science. Just not most plumbers. Blue collar careers don't always lend themselves to the time and creativity necessary to be more than just a practitioner. And holding ourselves up as "scientific" is useful when we're making sure quack medicine men don't trick people into accepting subpar treatments or when we require people to prove the claims they make. But I think it's harmful if we overlook certain professions as not being scientific. Because as a whole, we want our society to be more scientific. We want more hobbyists and creative people who look beyond their day job and develop. So whatever definition we make for science should be sure to uphold its ethically high standards without excluding creative and investigative people.

Care and feeding of a liver

Bioengineered livers might soon be within our grasp. Researchers at the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center (could that name be any longer?) have grown human liver cells into small, working livers. It's early yet, but the next step is animal studies to make sure these miniature livers continue to function like real livers. I already talked about a researcher who was engineering an artifical kidney he had hoped to par down to implantable size from the now room sized working artifical kidney. It's interesting to see the paths of research take both strictly biological and also technologically assembled forms. I think with diversity in development we are more likely to see huge leaps in science on this front and not be far from a Star Trek-esque world where many internal organs can be replaced with the proper machines.

 

And for those wondering, you can get your own plush organs (as seen in adorable photo) here at I Heart Guts.

Deathmatch: Scientists vs Engineers

Is engineering a science? Is science sometimes engineering? Some British guy thinks cutbacks in government spending is going to cause a rift between scientists and engineers who will continue to argue over who does better work or deserves more funding than the other. Well, I can't tell if he's really British or not, but with a name like Colin Macilwain you'd sure think he is. I can't really tell who's side he's on, or what the point is. Maybe he's blaming UK engineers for throwing the first stone via a letter from the VC of the Royal Academy of Engineering that science does not directly lead to technology. The implication being, I suppose, that engineering does.

 

But then Macilwain goes on to defend the lack of respect he sees engineers getting and aknowledges where engineering has the edge in output. Though his argument seems mainly to support the science side, stating that "state programmes that concentrate on applied work — such as the European Commission's Framework Programme — tend to be more politicized, less meritocratic and less efficient than science programmes such as those of the US National Science Foundation." In wikipedia, crap like that would be followed with a citation needed comment. Because he mentions how engineers in academia have it even harder than engineers in industry (who supposedly "have other things to think about, such as their superior pay, company cars and career opportunities." Where the heck is my superior pay? Company car? What the heck is that?) I'm guessing he's an engineer in academia. And what's an engineer in academia anyways? A scientist that is better paid than his colleagues?

 

My point is, I don't think this is going to be the dog fight he seems to want it to be. Scientists and engineers are basically on the same side. If there's some argument over public funding it's because as societies we just don't value knowledge like we used to, and there's going to be some struggle along the way. But honestly, everyone wants the same thing. And more honestly, you need both. Sometimes academia leads industry, and sometimes it is the other way around. There's no "better" method. Since when is an engineer not a scientist? And since when does a scientist never engineer? I feel like Maria in Metropolis suggesting head and hands both need each other. I don't think it works as a justification for capitalism, but I do think it works for the betterment of society and technology.

What do you want to be when you grow up?

DamnGoodTechnician has a great post up over at LabSpaces on how she got into science, what she wanted to do as a kid, and the path inbetween. Maybe I identify with it so much because engineering was similarly circumstantial for me. I wasn't one of those kids who knew I wanted to be an engineer from an early age. Some of my classmates like to talk to me about how they always liked taking stuff apart or playing with Legos (seriously, who didn't like playing with Legos?) It can be almost intimidating to work amongst these people, and reminds me a little of Mike the Mad Biologist's musings on Is Science a Job or a Calling? 

 

As a little kid I wanted to be a ScientistExplorer, whatever that was. I suppose in my mind it was like Indiana Jones wandering jungles and doing whatever scientists did. I wanted to be active. Maybe work with animals. I must have overlooked my paralyzing fear of insects and spiders. Later on the OJ Simpson trial would inspire me to want to become a lawyer, and then a corporate lawyer so I could earn a ton of money without dealing with defense attorneys. After that and into college I wanted to be a diplomat.

 

The fact that I'm almost a Real Engineer (yes Pinocchio) could have gone any number of other ways. I was pretty close to going to nursing school. Sometimes life is not linear. I probably would have been happy in any number of professions, but this is how it all turned out. For now anyways. I'm happy with the path I've chosen, even if work can sometimes frustrate any natural love of engineering or design I have.

 

What about you, dear readers, what inspired you to take your path? Did you always know what you wanted to do?

Snails for Science

I just love this story from the BBC, grandmother/gardener wins amateur scientist contest by proving that snails have a homing instinct.

Some scientists had felt snails might be too simple for a proper homing instinct. The contest from BBC Radio 4 was for amateurs to develop their own scientific experiment and carry out. Some of the runners up were rather impressive as well. From an American perspective, it's almost disappointing we don't have something this clever. The fact that some possibly obscure program on the BBC invites this level of scientific creativity shows how the UK values science education. I keep hoping something will inspire this kind of scientific interest here. You'd think with the recession, and numerous articles extolling the need for more scientists and engineers, that there would be a public push or such things. But for now at least we have learned a little more about snails, and maybe will learn some more as this experiment inspires further study.

Amazing Medical Developments!

Do you have problems checking your email? Do you often forget your underlings' names or feel compelled to make rash decisions? You may have, Executivitess. But don't worry, there's a cure.

We here at BioBlöd Labs have been working on developments in the biomedical-technological-venture-capital sciences to help people just like you. We have a patented and FDA approved treatment to make your life better. You probably stay up late at night asking yourself questions like, Am I going to have to fire another secretary? What was that guy's name who gave me that report that I used to impress the shareholders? Why do I have to have the burden of so much responsibility around her and all I get is this huge paycheck? What kind of yacht should I buy this year? Why do my employees working on Saturdays feel the need to call me during my golf game? And what's my daughter's name and who is this lady sleeping next to me?

Yes, it can be overwhelming at times. But medical science has the answer for you. You may feel tired often and have difficulty sleeping. If so, this is definitely the treatment for you. Ask your doctor about it or contact us for the free brochure. The good news is our treatment is a proven and effective method at overcoming Executivitess. You'll be happier. You'll have more time and energy to not play with your children. You'll find yourself able to think more creatively allowing you to finally profit from your totally incompetent employees while you relax and feel better about yourself.

Ask your doctor today.

Stop waiting for everyone to appreciate and respect how important and essential you are. Finally get rid of that guilt over making three hundred times as much as the person who performs an essential function by emptying your wastebasket every day. Don't feel so pressured about all those emails asking for a decision or warning about a potential flaw in the product. These meddlesome little problems and anxieties are behind you.

Ask your doctor today.

Give yourself that extra boost, your golf game really deserves it. Master that placid smile you wore when you purchased last year's Ferrari. It's your right to be happier, less guilt-ridden, and more empowered in your ability to look down upon others. Free yourself from the problems of your past.

Ask your doctor today.

Symptoms may include douchebaggery, selling your soul to Satan in exchange for $0.02 extra shareholder profit, worn out palms from whipping your employees with expensive leather flails, carelessness to the point where you forget some of your relatives are actually normal people too, getting indignant when your employees complain about stagnant wages while you're accepting a mere tripling of your yearly bonus, running out of devious ways to motivate or demotivate your employees and resorting to responding to their complaints with general meaningless phrases like "huh" or "is that so" or "umm"...

Fun and snow in the summertime

I've talked about our icebreakers before and the need to have a presence in the arctic, both scientific and military. I know there are plenty of hippies out there that would like to send a bunch of scientific vessels to these places, give some polar bears hugs, and set up some scientific bases. But frankly that kind of money and research investment doesn't just happen spontaneously. And in the arctic it's worse than in many other places on earth, minus deep ocean exploration. So often the government has to get involved. And no matter your opinion of the military and its place it tends to be a good funding source of scientific exploration.

Now it looks like thanks to budget cuts and economic problems, funding for arctic military programs is on the chopping block. Per Ares, at Aviation Week, we're behind in charts, ships, and don't have a solid plan to get up to speed.

"Decent charts really don't exist," he[Stephen Carmel, senior vice president for maritime services of shipping giant Maersk Line] said, "aids for navigation don't exist, emergency response capability does not exist, so there's things that need to be done before you can really support shipping up there." In general, "there are a lot of things overall that are still far from certain in terms of the practicalities of working" in the Arctic, he concluded.

Now, our old enemies are moving in:

The Russians, meanwhile, with their already large icebreaker fleet have announced plans for more nuclear-powered icebreakers, more ice-capable submarines, and as of 2008, had resumed surface naval patrols in Arctic waters. Moscow has also announced plans to land paratroopers on the North Pole some time this year.

We have two, broken down icebreakers. We are sadly in need of two new ones and nobody wants to fund it. Maybe a new "cold war" fever (literally) will finally inspire us to take the efforts we need to be there. It's not just about shipping and protecting shipping lanes, it's about capable emergency response, security, and scientific endeavors and opportunities that would otherwise be left behind. Knowledge is power. We need charts, plans and the ships and forces necessary to explore and get us there. And we need that to support scientific teams that used to go along on our now, harbor-tethered icebreakers. 

The Engineer's Apprentice

So I was listening to some classical music on the radio the other day, and they played Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony. You know, the one from Fantasia. The one with all the centaurs. (on a side note, apparently the original had some racist elements to it, search youtube for the "uncut" version and you'll see, I don't believe I ever saw the uncut).

To get back to my point...I was thinking what we need is a Fantasia for Science. The same way that colorful little centaurs or dancing mushrooms or dinosaurs made classical music accessible to children for decades to come, we need a similarly splendid "digestible by the masses" scientific cornucopia of media. I don't know what that would be, just something to sink your teeth into.