Just A Theory

Well, we’re less than a week into 2009 and already the Darwinmania has begun. This week Radio 4 present a season of all things Darwin, to celebrate the 200th anniversary of his birth this year. Amongst other programmes on the great man’s life and work is Dear Darwin, a five-part series broadcast every day this week at 3.45pm, which allows five modern-day scientists to write a letter to Darwin to tell him about the impact of his work.

The first episode today featured Dr Craig Venter, who popped up in TIME magazine’s top 10 scientific discoveries of 2008 for his work towards creating artificial life. He is most well known as being one of the researchers to first map the human genome.

Dr. Venter uses his letter to tell Darwin about the discovery of DNA, and how ideas from the Origin of Species can now be confirmed with modern genetic analysis. Looking at the similarities between human and chimpanzee DNA (which I talked about a couple of days ago), it is very clear that we must share a common ancestor as Darwin predicted. Dr. Venter tells him that we differ from the chimps by only 5-6% of our DNA - and some large stretches by only a little over 1%.

Darwin has clearly been a huge inspiration to Dr. Venter. He tells of following in Darwin’s footsteps on a voyage similar to that of the Beagle, but the goal of his expedition was to look for micro-organisms that would have been invisible to Darwin with the tools available at the time. The ocean provides an unimaginable bounty for the interested explorer; 1 million bacteria and 10 million viruses are to be found in every litre of sea water.

The letter also touches on the discovery of oil, and the effect that it has had on our world. Many of the species that were alive in Darwin’s day are now extinct, in part due to industrialisation. Now, Dr. Venter says, we must take control of evolution if we are to solve the problems of climate change, and engineer bacteria to suck up all our waste CO₂.

At its heart, the programme has quite a nice idea. I’m sure Darwin would be amazed at the work that has been done today as a result of his natural selection. Unfortunately however, it doesn’t really make great radio! Dr. Venter’s voice is rather monotone, and uninterrupted for the entire course of the programme. As a letter, that’s how it has to work I guess, but I was glad that it only lasted 15 minutes!

If I haven’t put you off, here is the obligatory iPlayer link, and as I said above the other episodes will be every day this week on Radio 4, at 3.45pm.

I’ve just read a piece by Richard Dawkins about the possibility of a “hybridisation between a human and a chimpanzee”, and how such a creation could effect our world. It was originally published on Edge.org as part of their What will change everything? series. I saw it on the Guardian, where you’ll also find some other comments. Here are mine:

Dawkins makes the very true point that, currently at least, the division between humans and animals is an absolute. He uses the example of pro-lifers, who in actuality are pro-human-life - after all, “Abortion clinic bombers are not known for their veganism”. In some way, humans are seen as completely separate from other animals, perhaps simply because we are the ones making the distinction.

This idea, however, runs completely counter to evolutionary theory. Go back far enough in the evolutionary chain, and you will find a female who was mother to two offspring. One would eventually lead to humans like you and me, and the other to modern day chimps.

Dawkins thinks that a “practical demonstration” would change everything, and presents four possible scenarios that would challenge the status quo:

1. The discovery of a long lost tribe of Homo erectus. Unlikely, given our extensive knowledge of the world.
2. Successful hybridisation between a human and a chimpanzee, described by “a distinguished biologist” as “the most immoral scientific experiment he could imagine”.
3. A chimera, creating in a lab and consisting of an equal number of human and chimp cells. Chimeras, named for the mythical creature, are made by physically mixing the cells of two different species. Human/mouse chimeras are already being created as part of normal genetics research, but are destroyed long before they develop beyond a bundle of cells
4. We know the full human and chimpanzee genomes. It wouldn’t be too difficult to look at the two and create a sort of “average” genome, though using this genome to create a living organism would be much more difficult. Dawkins believes it will be possible during the lifetimes of those alive today.

Dawkins doesn’t make it clear either way if he would support any of these endeavours, merely stating that it “would require further thought”. For myself, although I find the concept of such a hybrid to be inescapably interesting, I hope never to see such a being created.

The reason is simple: the feelings of the poor creature itself, if it were capable of human emotion. A hybrid would either spend its entire life in secret captivity, doomed to a lab-bound existence, or else if exposed to the world it would be subject to an endless media frenzy and calls for its destruction. Either would sheer misery.

Science can give us wonderful solutions to seemingly impossible questions about the world, but there are some questions that should not be answered. I feel that this is one of them.

…0! Happy New Year! Sorry if you’re a bit confused due to the reverse chronological nature of blogging, but I’m actually finishing the countdown of the previous post from moments earlier. How exciting. Well, let’s see in the new year with some predictions of what 2009 holds for science. The Telegraph spoke to some leading scientists to find out what’s in store.

Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal and Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics and Master of Trinity College at the University of Cambridge (phew, deep breath) points out that it is both 400 years since Galileo first wielded his telescope, as well as Darwin’s bicentennial. I expect we’ll see a little competition between these two scientific greats in 2009, but Rees hopes that we will gain answers to a question “equally interesting to astronomers and to Darwinians” - is there life on other planets? In 2009 the search for exoplanets will continue, and Rees hopes that we will figure out where we should be looking.

The editor of New Scientist, Roger Highfield, expects that commercial space travel will be big in 2009, with Virgin Galactic beginning their test flights. The space agencies of the US, Russia and the rest will also be looking to increase our knowledge of the heavens, with missions to Mars and the launching of telescopes on the cards. Highfield also looks forward to the publication of the Neanderthal genome, the relaunch of the LHC, and the 40th anniversary of the moon landing.

Colin Pillinger, Head of Planetary and Space Sciences at the Open University, thinks that the credit crunch will scupper any space-based plans, and that most of the year will be spent looking back at past achievements. Pessimistic perhaps, but we shall see. Baroness Greenfield, Director of the Royal Institution, is a little more positive, hoping to see advances in the field of neurodegeneration, including treatments for brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

Professor Sir John Bell, President of the Academy of Medical Sciences also hopes to see further cures by searching for genetic links using the human genome project. Finally, science minister Lord Drayson had a rather dull and on message prediction:

“My predication for 2009 is that the Government will continue to invest in science despite the global economic downturn.”

Only time will tell. If you’re still not quite ready to let 2008 go, have a crack at the Guardian’s Science Quiz 2008. I’m afraid to say I scored a measly 10 out of 20! Other than that, all I have left to say is happy 2009!

Sense About Science, an independent charitable trust set up to promote science in public, has released its third annual “celebrity audit”. The document details the claims of those in the public eye in relation to science, and highlights that celebs all too often don’t have their facts straight. Whether you like it or not, celebrities hold power in our society, so we should really encourage them to get their science right.

During the US presidential campaign I praised both Obama and McCain for their views on science, but it seems that they have both linked the MMR vaccine with autism - a big no-no. Despite the controversy around the vaccine, it has been shown again and again to be safe. Obama said of autism:

“Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.”

Sorry Mr President-Elect, you may be the saviour of the world, but that’s just not good enough. Continuing in America, Scientologist wacko Tom Cruise hit out against psychiatry in a video leaked to the internet:

“Psychiatry doesn’t work. [...] When you study the effects it’s a crime against humanity.”

This is despite the millions of people helped by psychiatry. Really, when you release movies like Mission Impossible III, I don’t think you have any right to throw the phrase “crime against humanity” around lightly…

Over in the UK, it seems our celebrity chefs have been doing their parts to muddy the scientific waters. Nigella Lawson has been supporting the Mind Meal, said by the charity Mind to help people with mental health problems. The Domestic Goddess said:

“The Mind Meal is an excellent idea - good, simple food that can help you to feel different about life”

Dietitian Catherine Collins suggests that the “specialist allergy foods and expensive ingredients” are “an unnecessary expense”, and not worth promoting.

Meanwhile, Delia Smith wants to cut out sugar from our nation’s diet in order to curb obesity. In contrast, Lisa Miles, senior nutrition scientist at the British Nutrition Foundation says that sugar is actually an important part of a balanced diet, and is found naturally in foods such as fruit and milk. She also says that the causes of obesity are “much more complex”.

Sense About Science suggest that any celebrities looking for scientific advice would do well to call them first. I don’t think we should discourage famous people from speaking out on science, but I do think they should know what they’re talking about!

I hope you’ve had an enjoyable day so far. By now (if you’re anything like me) you’ve stuffed yourself full of turkey and all the trimmings, and have crawled to the sofa to doze until Doctor Who comes on. Just what is it about a full Christmas dinner that can make you so sleepy?

Gobble gobble. Yum.

Well, yesterday I decided to find out. Sorry to break the fourth wall of blogging, but as I said I’m currently lying on the sofa. Through the magic of technology, I’m posting from the past. Still, if you’re doing the same and have a laptop perched atop your full belly, perhaps you’ll enjoy a bit of science.

After doing some extensive research (i.e. hitting up Google) I found this article from Scientific American last year. It seems that turkey contains tryptophan, a naturally occurring amino acid that can be used by the body to produce serotonin. This neurotransmitter has been shown to play a role in sleep.

That’s not the whole story, however. Serotonin levels aren’t necessarily boosted by eating turkey, because the bird contains many other amino acids besides tryptophan, which happens to be the least present in each forkful. All these amino acids try to crowd into the brain at once, transported by special proteins across the blood-brain barrier. Poor little tryptophan can’t even get a look in.

It’s suggested that dessert is the real sleepy culprit, as the sugar in such treats causes insulin to be produced in order to allow the absorption of amino acids. Tryptophan is unaffected by insulin however, allowing it to slip more easier into the brain and start the production of serotonin.

Thing is, (and before I get angry comments, I know that personal anecdotes are not very scientific!) in my house we’re normally so stuffed that we forgo dessert until much later in the day. I’m still very sleepy, however. What gives?

It could simply be the sheer volume of food ingested. It has been suggested that a stretching of the small intestine and a stomach full of fat and protein both can cause sleepiness. Also, with more blood rushing to you digestive system to fuel the work there, less is available for the muscles and brain to keep you active.

Finally, there’s one more culprit: alcohol. I won’t say no to a few drinks with Christmas dinner, and after a bit of tipple it’s very easy to lean back into a comfy chair and fall asleep. So, have another drink, relax, and enjoy the rest of your day!

Now call me a cynic if you like, but when I read a story about a blind man navigating a maze that he cannot see my bullshit meter immediatly starts to tingle. As it happens, I’m right - to a certain extent at least.

The news is that man known anonymously as TN has successfully walked along a corridor full of obstacles, despite having been left blind by a series of strokes. This phenomenon is known as “blindsight”, the strange ability of some blind people to perceive objects that they cannot actually see.

Now, as I understand it, there is nothing physically wrong with TN’s eyes. Rather, his brain has been damaged in such a way that he can no longer control vision. He had already been noted to react to people’s facial expressions, so something must be getting through. Clearly, TN experiences a very different form of blindness compared to those who have sustained damage to their eyes.

I’m not suggesting TN is faking his blindness in any way - he really is genuinely blind. I would compare his condition to a digital camera with a broken screen. Such a camera can still take pictures, but with out a screen to view them on the camera is effectively ‘blind’. Contrast this with a camera that has a working screen, but a broken lense, and you can see the distinction I’m making here. What TN’s brain has effectively done is find a USB cable to hook it up to his brain and allow him to view the pictures - even if he doesn’t actively realise.

Why does this distinction matter? It’s all in the way these stories are reported. ‘Blind man can see’ is a very newsworthy story, but it is also cruel to misrepresent the facts to those with a different kind of blindness to TN. With that in mind, let’s see how the mainstream media reported the findings.

• Blind man demonstrates ‘blindsight’ phenomenon by navigating obstacle course - The Times
• Blind man astounds scientists after negotiating obstacle course using extra ’sense’ - The Daily Mail
• Blind man navigates maze - BBC (this link also includes a video of TN navigating the maze)
• Blind man amazes scientists with his ability to detect objects he cannot see - The Guardian

For once, they’ve actually all done pretty well. Each story makes it more or less clear that TN’s blindness is due to brain damage, and that his eyes are still fully functional. They all also include a quote from the study leader, Professor Beatrice de Gelder, who makes it pretty clear what’s going on:

“This is absolutely the first study of this ability in humans.

“We see what humans can do, even with no awareness of seeing or any intentional avoidance of obstacles. It shows us the importance of these evolutionarily ancient visual paths. They contribute more than we think they do for us to function in the real world.”

So, Merry Christmas guys; you all receive a Just A Theory “Getting It Right” badge of approval. Try and keep it up in 2009!

Oh all right then, a better sense of taste. This is just one of many revelations emerging from a Danish study which also found that one in three schoolchildren prefer soft drinks which are not sweet, and 70% of them like fish. Ok, it’s hardly world-changing science, but I’m more interested in the way the results were collected. The study was a joint effort between Danish Science Communication, The Faculty of Life Sciences (LIFE) at University of Copenhagen, and 8,900 Danish schoolchildren.

Rather than just being willing volunteers for the study, the kids were active participants in the research, as part of the Danish natural science festival. Schools were sent kits of taster samples and instructions on how to conduct experiments, the goal of which were to measure the ability of children to identify sweet and sour tastes of various concentrations in order to establish which they prefer and how many tastebuds they have.

Bodil Allesen-Holm, was head of the project and is in charge of the Sensory Laboratory at the Department of Food Science at LIFE. He was particularly impressed with the way the children carried out their investigations:

“What is most surprising is that the results are so clear and of such a high quality,

“The trends are very clear in all the answers from the many primary and secondary schools; the pupils and teachers have been very thorough and accurate.”

As for the results themselves it seems that although boys and girls have roughly the same number of taste buds, the girls are better at recognising tastes, with boys requiring an average of around 10% more sourness and 20% more sweetness to detect the taste. The researchers suggest that the food interest should take these findings into account, and develop more varied foods in order to accommodate different (wait for it…) tastes.

Google + Magazines = Moogle?

Earlier this week, Google added a large collection of magazines to their already extensive Book Search catalogue. Of particular interest for the scientifically inclined is the entirety of Popular Science magazine, right back to the first issue published in May 1872. If nothing else, it’s quite fun watching the cover design evolve over the decades. You can also check out the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which for much of its history featured the Doomsday Clock on the cover.

No, you can’t call him Batman

Researchers at Purdue University in Indiana are auctioning the chance to name a newly discovered bat. The winner of the bid (which will start at $250,000) gains the scientific naming rights to a species of bat found recently in a Central American forest. Proceeds will be used to fund environmental research in education at the university, and in the animal’s country of origin.

Dr John Bickham, professor of forestry and natural resources at Purdue and discoverer of the bat, is being cagey about the exact location of its habitat, but the winner of the auction will be invited on an expedition to the area with Dr Bickham. They better have a serious name, however:

“We want this to be a serious thing. Anyone willing to put up this kind of money would probably not do so just to be flippant,” said Dr Bickham. “In science, we name species after someone who we wish to honour. We want to find someone who’s passionate about the environment and issues of biodiversity. This is about doing something meaningful.”

Watch the chocs at Christmas - dark will fill you up quicker

Everyone loves a bit of chocolate, but at Christmas it’s easy to over do it. Over at the Faculty of Life Sciences (LIFE) at the University of Copenhagen, they’ve found that dark chocolate may be the solution. Scientists at the Department of Human Nutrition got 16 young men to fast for 12 hours, then offered them 100g of chocolate. One session used milk, and another later on on used dark.

Two and a half hours after the chocolate feast, participants were offered as much pizza as they liked, and instructed to eat until full. It turns out that in the dark chocolate session, they ate 15% less pizza, and reported feeling less like eating sweet, salty or fatty foods.

Dark chocolate has already been shown to have health benefits over milk, what with its healthier fatty acids and antioxidants, but it seems it could now also stop you from overeating. It probably is still to hard to resist that second helping of stuffing, however…

TIME magazine, as part of their “Top 10 Everything of 2008″ series have released the ten most impressive scientific discoveries of the year. “Discoveries” might be stretching it a bit for some of the entries - accomplishments, perhaps? Semantics aside, let’s have a look at the list:

1. Large Hadron Collider

No surprises here. The LHC was the biggest thing in science for most of the year, with extensive coverage in the mainstream media. Even here at Just A Theory I’ve written quite a bit on everyone’s favourite particle accelerator. Unfortunately, there won’t be any discoveries made at CERN for a while yet - a helium leak soon after it was started means the collider won’t be up and running again until sometime next June.

2. The North Pole of Mars

Well, we already knew it was there, but this year in May NASA’s Phoenix probe landed in Mar’s far northern region. No signs of life were found, but we now have further confirmation that Mars was once a wet planet, much like our own Earth.

3. Creating Life

Geneticist J. Craig Venter, instrumental in mapping the human genome, wrote the genetic code for an entirely new type of bacterium, Mycoplasma laboratorium. He and his team put together 582,000 base pairs that make up the genetic information of the new species. Next, this DNA must be inserted into a living bacterium to see if it can take over, effectively creating artificial life.

4. China Soars into Space

The world’s biggest country made new strides into space this year, with the first Chinese spacewalk spacewalk. Pretty impressive, since it’s only their third mission in a space programme that began in 2003.

5. More Gorillas in the Mist

For once, some good news on animal conservation. It turns out that previous estimates of the number of western lowland gorillas were too low, and the Republic of Congo is now thought to contain 125,000 gorillas - twice as many as previously thought.

6. Brave New Worlds

The discovery of extrasolar solar planets continued at a rapid pace this year, with 45 new worlds announced in June by Swiss astronomer Michel Mayor. Later on in November, we got the first ever pictures of planets around another star thank’s to good ol’ Hubble.

7. The Power of Invisibility

Scientists at Berkeley, University of California, announced the invention of an invisibility cloak. Nanotechnology and metamaterials make it possible for an object to completely vanish, but don’t expect your own cloak soon - it’s far from ready to be practical yet.

8. Cenozoic Park?

In Novemeber, biochemistry professor Steven Schuster of Penn State University revealed 80% of the genome of the ancient woolly mammoth, painstakingly recovered using fossilised hair. This lead to speculation we might one day be cloning the furry creatures - has no one seen Jurassic Park?!

9. Can You Spell Science?

Between 1979 and 2006, the percentage of science literacy in adults has doubled to 17%. It’s not that great news though - according to the survey by the University of Michigan, a quarter of the US population count as “civic scientifically literate”. In other words, three in four adults will struggle to understand science stories printed in the media - I wonder if that includes this blog?!

10. First Family

Finally, we have the discovery of the first “nuclear family”. In Saxony-Anhalt in central Germany, a 4,600-year-old grave was discovered to contain the remains of an adult male and female, and two boys aged 8 to 9 and 4 to 5. DNA evidence confirmed their relationships: they are indeed the First Family.

Fear, that is. A study out of Stony Brook University in New York State has found that people can unconsciously detect stress of fear in others by smelling a chemical pheromone released in sweat.

Dr Lillianne Mujica-Parodi and her team enlisted 20 first-time skydivers to aid them in their research. Strapping absorbent pads to the participants armpits, the team collected the sweat from before and during the jump. As a control, sweat was also collected as the participants ran on a treadmill for the same length of time and at the same time of day as the jump.

The sweat was then mixed with air and given to volunteers to breathe in (yuck!). At the same time their brains were scanned, and the results showed that the amygdala and hypothalamus, which are brain regions associated with fear, were more active in people who breathed in sweat from the skydive. They weren’t able to actively distinguish between the two types of sweat, however. Mujica-Parodi wrote in a conference presentation last year:

“We demonstrate here the first direct evidence for a human alarm pheromone … Our findings indicate that there may be a hidden biological component to human social dynamics, in which emotional stress is, quite literally, ‘contagious’.”

She could not give any further comment however, as the study is currently under peer-review for publication in a scientific journal.

The research was funded by the US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, suggesting a possible military application, perhaps causing fear in enemy troops. DARPA has denied any such plans, and says it will not be funding further research in the field.

Shell I never

A photo from the Boer War has revealed that a tortoise named Jonathan is one of the world’s oldest living animals, at age 176.

Jonathan in 1900, aged around 70, on the island of St Helena

It’s crazy to think that this tortoise was born in 1832. The same year saw the birth of Lewis Carroll (author of Alice in Wonderland) and the death of the mathematician Évariste Galois, whose pioneering work in group theory ended when he was killed in a duel. Of course, Jonathan has no connection to this events, but still - he’s pretty damn old.

LHC still broken, but not broke

Poor Large Hadron Collider. You just don’t seem to be able to catch a break. It seems that when the particle accelerator leaked helium earlier in the year, the damage was quite extensive. Repair costs will be almost £14m, and the LHC won’t be ready to turn back on until next summer.

Now, £14m isn’t much compared to the £4.4 billion it cost to build in the first place (yes, £4.4 billion, not million as The Telegraph is reporting…) but it’s still a fair chunk of change. LHC haters shouldn’t have to worry about the begging bowl being passed their way however, as CERN hope to meet the costs within their existing budget.

£250m for training new scientists

The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), the UK’s funding body for science and engineering, has pledged £250m to invest in training the scientists and engineers of the future.

The money will allow the creation of 44 training centres across the country, and give funding to more then 2,000 PhD students. Lord Drayson, the Minister for Science and Innovation, was enthusiastic about the centres:

“Britain faces many challenges in the 21st Century and needs scientists and engineers with the right skills to find answers to these challenges, build a strong economy and keep us globally competitive,” he said.

“This is an exciting, innovative approach to training young researchers and will help build a better future for Britain.”

It’s nice to see that even in these times of economic woe, scientists aren’t being forgotten!

A couple of months ago I wondered whether we were seeing a new development in science communication; namely scientific rapping. First there was the Large Hadron Collider Rap, which was then followed by the Astrobiology Rap. Alas, it seems that no further offerings have emerged.

All is not lost, however, as it seems we have a new form of communication: dance. A while ago, the journal Science put out a call for scientists around the world to share their Ph.D research in the form of interpretive dance - an unusual request, I grant you, but one that has resulted in some interesting compositions.

Prizes were awarded in four categories: Graduate Students, Postdocs, Professors, and Popular Choice. I’ve embedded the videos for you below; see what you make of them and then click through to the article to find out what they’re all about. Warning: I may have purposely miss-categorised this post to confuse you!

Graduate Students

Postdocs

Professors

Popular Choice

We’ve got another one…

It’s the latest in a series of creepy animals! I’m not sure if it’s the Blair Witch style camerawork, or the fact that its tentacles are so long that the continue down to the bowels of the earth, but the Magnapinna squid is possibly the worst of the bunch.

No, no, NO, DON'T EAT ME!!!!!

One of Magnapinna’s strangest features is that it appears to have elbows. Elbows, I ask you! We actually don’t know very much about ol’Magnapinna, and this video wasn’t captured by a team of biologists. In fact, it was oil company Shell who found the strange creature as they searched for new sources of fuel, two and a half kilometers underwater. So don’t worry, it’s not close enough to get you…yet.

Do cars have personalities?

I’m sure you’ve all noticed that the front end of cars often look like faces. Now, researchers at Florida State University have confirmed this to be true - and not only do we ascribe facial features to cars, we also give them personalities.

In a study published in the December issue of the journal Human Nature, 40 people we asked to view 3D computer reconstructions and printed images of 38 cars. A third of participants saw a human or animal face in at least 90% of the cars. They were also asked to rate each car on 19 personality traits such as dominance, maturity, gender and friendliness. It seems that people generally agreed in their ratings, suggest a universal way of reading faces.

Cars viewed as “powerful” had elongated hoods, pronounced lower bodies relative, and more angular headlights reminiscent of a frown. On the other end of the scale, those seen as submissive had headlights with their upper edge relatively close to the middle, and higher sides, suggesting a smile. It seems that even in inanimate objects, we can’t help but see a face.

Polar bear in lack-of-penis shocker

Oh, this is a very silly story, but I just couldn’t help myself. It seems that Japanese zoo keepers have made an interesting discovery: Tsuyoshi, a four-year-old, 200 kg, polar bear isn’t quite the stud they were expecting. The bear was introduced to a female at the Kushiro Municipal Zoo in the hope that the pair would mate, but it turns out there was a slight problem: Tsuyoshi is a she-bear.

“We thought he was a male, so we never had any doubts as we took care of him,” said Masako Inoue.

“But one day we realized that the two bears urinate in the same way, and we thought, is that how males do it? And once we started to look at things that way, we weren’t quite so sure.”

It seems it’s not unusual to confuse the gender of a polar bear, as their long hair can make it difficult to properly identify them, especially when they are young. Poor Tsuyoshi has been living as a boy ever since the tender age of three months.

For now, the Zoo plans to talk to others in the area, to see what to do about the breeding plan. I’d suggest that Tsuyoshi might not be as helpful as they thought…

A while ago I wrote about the record breaking 100 metre dash of Usain Bolt at this year’s Olympic games. Video analysis by a group of Norwegian scientists suggested that Bolt’s 9.69 seconds record could possibly be brought down to 9.55 seconds. Now, Mark Denny of Stanford University (a keen marathon runner) has revealed that 9.48 seconds might be with in future athletes’ grasp.

In a paper published yesterday in the The Journal of Experimental Biology, Denny analyses the locomotion of three species: dogs, horses and humans. Using historical data from races dating back to the 1920s for greyhounds and the 19th century for racehorses and human athletes, he was able to construct a statistical model of each species’ performance.

The results suggest that the speed of dogs and horses is no longer increasing. Horses reached their peak sometime in the early 1970s, whilst man’s best friend hit top speed slightly earlier in the late 60s. Predictions for an absolute maximum speed only show around a 1% increase on the current speed for both species.

When it comes to humans however, it seems that there are still gains to be made - at least, for men. Denny’s findings show that women may have already very nearly reached their limit, but they could potentially reach a time of 10.19 seconds for the 100 metre dash one day. Male athletes have slightly better news - an increase of 0.23 m/s over Bolt’s speed would allow a 9.48 seconds record.

Turning now to marathon runners, between 2min7s and 4min23s could be cut off the current world record held by Haile Gebrselassie, who two months ago to they day beat his own record with a time of 2h3m59s. For women, Paula Radcliffe’s record of 2h15min25s is very close to Denny’s prediction of 2h12min41s. He believes that female marathon runners may be the first to approach his theoretical limit, and looks forward to putting his models to the test.

For all his calculations however, Denny says we still don’t know what physiological factors limit the speed of a runner. Hopefully, further work will find out exactly what the limits of human locomotion are. The paper also raises important questions about the future of racing, and whether artificial improvements such as drugs or genetic modification could (and indeed should) be used to push performance even further.

Early this week the Natural History Museum launched a new project in the hopes of engaging future bio-scientists. The Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) will allow members of the public to take part in scientific surveys in their local area - even in their own back gardens.

The first of these surveys kicks off in March 2009, and will see people up and down the country hunting for earthworms. For such a common feature of gardens everywhere, surprisingly little is known about the wriggly creatures and the soil that makes their home.

You can reserve your survey pack at the OPAL website. It will contain a guide to performing the survey, along with a chart of common earthworm types for easy identification. Results can will be entered on to the website and instantly be added to an interactive map, where you’ll be able to view other people’s findings as well. It’s mostly aimed at schools and community groups, but individuals can register as well.

The OPAL project has been awarded £11.7 million by the Big Lottery Fund, in order to encourage people to spend more time outdoors and exploring their local environments. Future surveys will cover air, water, biodiversity and climate. My home away from home, Imperial College, will be collecting the data gathered during the project and present it for publication in 2012. These will take the form of a formal scientific report and a more accessible format for those who took part.

So, if you fancy hunting for worms and doing a bit of science, reserve your survey pack and be ready to get your hands dirty!

Four months without a heart

In what is really an amazing story, D’Zhana Simmons, a 14-year-old girl from South Carolina, USA, spent 118 days hooked up to a machine that kept her blood flowing - because her heart had been removed. It is believed that this is the first time such a young person has been kept alive this long without a heart.

On July 2nd of this year Ms Simmons underwent a heart transplant operation at Miami’s Holtz Children’s Hospital, but the operation was unsuccessfully and the new organ had to be removed. Artificial substitute heart chambers were implanted and hooked up to two blood pumps, until she was was strong enough to have another, successful, transplant.

Unfortunately, doctors believe that her troubles are not over yet. Although her prognosis, is good, there is a 50% chance she will need another new heart before she turns 30.

Live longer and prosper

Increased amounts of telomerase, a naturally forming protein, in the body could prevent cells from dying and extend your lifespan, according to a team at the Spanish National Cancer Centre in Madrid.

Telomerase protects a cell’s chromosomes, but as we age and cell division activity increases this protection can get worn out, causing cells to die. By increasing natural levels of telomerase, scientists hope to stop this from happening.

The theory was tested with genetically engineered mice, whose bodies produced 10 times the normal levels of the protein, and as a result lived 50% longer than normal mice. Lead researcher, Maria Blasco, was optimistic but cautious about the results:

“You can delay the ageing of mice and increase their lifespan,” she said.

“(But)I think it is very hard to extrapolate data from mouse ageing to human ageing.”

One problem to overcome is that telomerase can lead to increased risk of cancer, but Dr Blasco believe that this could be overcome by combining the treatment with cancer drugs.

Lost in space

NASA has lost one of its astronauts aboard the International Space Station - but thankfully, it’s not one of the human crew. One of two spiders that were launched into orbit on the Endeavour last week has gone for its very own spacewalk.

After finding it absent from its tank, NASA managers insisted that the spider was not lost; it just couldn’t be found. So says Kirk Shireman, NASA’s deputy space station programme manager:

“We don’t believe that it’s escaped the overall payload enclosure,

“I’m sure we’ll find him spinning a web sometime here in the next few days.”

Efforts to search for the spider in its neighbour’s tank have been scuppered, because the poor creature is so confused by the zero-gravity environment that it has filled it with a dense web, making any search difficult.

The two arachnids had been sent into space by the University of Colorado, who hoped to answer schoolchildren’s questions about spider webs in space. It’s clearly a very sticky issue.

Gratuitous cultural reference time: The Clangers. This children’s animation featured space mice who communicated through a series of whistling noises. Well, so what?

A piece of research on “Sine-Wave Speech” has been doing the rounds on the internet recently. It’s actually nothing new, but you know how it is; one site posts a link, another picks it up, and before you know it we’re all talking about the Sudanese man who was forced to marry a goat again. I swear, that story seems to crop up around once a month on the BBC’s “most read” list. Surely everyone has seen it by now?

Sorry, tangents. Back to The Clangers and sine-wave speech. SWS degrades an audio recording to the point of being unrecognisable - in fact, the result sounds much like The Clangers. Unlike these strange creatures however, SWS can be understood if you first listen to the original audio recording, and then the SWS version (a number of examples are found on the webpage). As if by magic, the sentence will “pop-out” of the previously incomprehensible beeps and boops.

Researchers believe this is an example of “perceptual insight”, as your brain learns to process the unusual sounds into something you can understand. If you listen to a few of the examples, you might find that you can actually interpret the SWS without having to listen to the “clean” version first. It’s a pretty cool effect - and who knows, maybe if you listen hard enough you’ll be able to understand The Clangers.

Spanish surgeons have performed the worlds first transplant using a tissue-engineered organ. A windpipe grown from the patients own stem-cells was transplanted allowing the medical team to return 30-year-old Claudia Castillo to perfect health. Without the procedure, she would have lost a lung due to tuberculosis. Five months later, she is able to lead a normal life once more.

Scientists in Bristol grew the organ for transplant, tailoring it to Ms Castillo’s immune system. This means that the transplant is also the first to not require anti-rejection drugs. They began with a donor windpipe, or trachea, and then used chemicals to wash away any traces of the original cells, leaving only a framework of fibrous protein. Adult stem cells, which can be grown into many other types of cells, were taken from her bone marrow, and encouraged to grow on the framework which was placed inside a rotating bio reactor.

In conjunction with cells from her original organ, these cells coated the new trachea in just four days, ready to be implanted. Professor Paolo Macchiarini of the Hospital Clínic of Barcelona performed the operation last June:

“I was very much afraid. Before this, we had been doing this work only on pigs.

“But as soon as the donor trachea came out of the bioreactor it was a very positive surprise.”

He was not the only one to be afraid. As is understandable with a never-before performed procedure, the patient had some nerves as well:

“I was scared. I had the illness for four years and in January they told me they had to operate,” said Ms Castillo.

“He told me that it was a trial that had never been carried out before and that this would be the first in the world.”

The resounding success of the operation put all fears to rest, however. Ms Castillo encourages the team to continue the work, and help others in the same way as her. Professor Martin Birchall, who helped grow the new trachea and is professor of surgery at the University of Bristol, certainly plans to. He believes that in 20 years time, nearly any organ for transplant could be grown in this way:

“This will represent a huge step change in surgery.

“Surgeons can now start to see and understand the potential for adult stem cells and tissue engineering to radically improve their ability to treat patients with serious diseases.”

The phrase “google-fu” is used by some as a description of one’s ability to efficiently use the famous search engine, but it’s not to be confused with the recently released Google Flu.

Google have used their gigantic databases of search terms to come up with something quite interesting: predicting levels of flu activity in the United States. By aggregating data on flu-related searches, the search giant was able to get accurate results up to two weeks faster than the Epidemiology and Prevention Branch of the Influenza Division at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Google's flu predictions match the CDC's surprisingly well.

By speeding up predictions, Google can provide an early warning system for influenza outbreaks. The CDC report that each year in America, 200,000 people are hospitalized from flu complications and about 36,000 people die from the disease - although these is some debate about these figures. In an early version of a paper that has been accepted for publication in the journal Nature, Google researchers state:

Up-to-date influenza estimates may enable public health officials and health professionals to better respond to seasonal epidemics. If a particular region experiences an early, sharp increase in ILI physician visits, it may be possible to focus additional resources on that region to identify the etiology of the outbreak, providing extra vaccine capacity or raising local media awareness as necessary.

Google is also keen to reiterate it’s company’s unofficial motto: Don’t be evil. Using search engine data in this way brings up questions about privacy issues, but Google assures its users that they can not be identified from the data used in Google Flu. Which is nice. Now if they could just invent Google Where In The Damn Hell Did I Leave My Keys…

Research published last week in the International Journal of Epidemiology suggests that mothers who drinking “lightly” during pregnancy are not putting their unborn child at risk of behavioural difficulties or cognitive deficits, when compared with children of abstinent mothers. In some cases, light drinking was actually shown to be beneficial, according to lead author Dr Yvonne Kelly of University College London’s Epidemiology & Public Health department:

“The link between heavy drinking during pregnancy and consequent poor behavioural and cognitive outcomes in children is well established. However, very few studies have considered whether light drinking in pregnancy is a risk for behavioural and cognitive problems in children.

“Our research has found that light drinking by pregnant mothers does not increase the risk of behavioural difficulties or cognitive deficits. Indeed, for some behavioural and cognitive outcomes, children born to light drinkers were less likely to have problems compared to children of abstinent mothers, although children born to heavy drinkers were more likely to have problems compared to children of mothers who drank nothing whilst pregnant.”

The study defines light drinking as 1-2 units of alcohol per week or occasion. This confuses me; what counts as an occasion? If a mum-to-be likes to party every day of the week, does this mean that she’s fine as long as she restricts herself to 1-2 units each night? Of course not, so why not just stick to the amount consumed per week?

I worry that this confusion could be spread to pregnant women by the reporting of the story in the mass media. The stated 2 units amounts to a single 175ml glass of wine of around 11% alcohol strength per week. Personally I would consider this “barely” rather than “light” drinking, which to me seems more like two or three glasses of wine week for a total of 4-6 units per week - still well under the recommended limit of 14 units per week for women. I wonder how many women might have a similar interpretation of “light”, and drink too much after reading this story.

The Times were the most cautious in their reporting, with “Drinking alcohol occasionally when pregnant ‘does no harm’“, and in the second paragraph define “occasionally” as “one to two units, or a single drink a week”. You’d be hard pressed to come away from reading their story thinking a bit of a binge would be ok.

Similarly, the BBC said “Light drinking ‘no risk to baby’“, but said that the study defined “light” as “two drinks a week”, not 2 units. The study itself is unclear on this matter, sometimes switching between 2 units and 2 drinks. I can’t think of any reasonably sized serving in which 1 unit = 1 drink. For the calculations to work out, we’re talking a measly 100ml of 10% strength wine. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who defined such a measure as a “drink”.

The Telegraph falls somewhere in the middle with “Pregnant women ‘can drink a small glass of wine a week’” - a decent headline, but they go on to say “Guidelines on what constitutes a unit has since been changed and only a small (125ml) glass of 12% ABV white wine is the equivalent to one unit.” I’m not sure what guidelines they are referring to - one unit is 10ml of pure alcohol, so their example would be (125 * 0.12) / 10 = 1.5 units. In other words, women following the Telegraph’s advice might be at risk of drinking more than 2 units.

Finally, both the Guardian (Light drinking in pregnancy may be good for baby boys, says study) and the Daily Mail (Pregnant women who drink ‘lightly’ could have brighter, better-behaved babies) were perhaps overly optimistic in their reporting of the study, stressing the potential positive benefits. This stance makes for good headlines, but could it mean women don’t think twice before reaching for another glass - after all, it might even be good for the baby!

Ultimately I blame the press release from UCL which went with the headline “Light drinking in pregnancy not bad for children, says UCL study“. Even though the first line immediatly defines the meaning of “light”, it’s just encouraging over-confident reporting by the newspapers. After all, that’s pretty much the point of these press releases - enticing science writers to cover the latest breakthrough. Journalists love an eye-catching headline as much as any reader.

Scientists use very exact language for a reason: if you don’t, it gets you in to trouble. It’s very hard to reproduce someone’s results if their methodology is written like a cook-book (”take a pinch of copper, add a dash of hydrochloric acid…”), so being specific is important. When stories get picked up by the mass media, these specifics are often lost or glossed over - after all, no one really cares how many protons are in a carbon nucleus (for example) other than scientists, right?

The trouble is, when it comes to research such as this, the specifics are pretty important. If your definition of “light” drinking is different to that of the study’s authors, the university press officers, or the newspaper editors, you could be putting your baby at risk. Sometimes it’s ok to dumb down the science, and sometimes it really isn’t.

Hearing about a disease in newspapers and on TV makes people overestimate its severity and the risk of catching it, a study from McMaster University in Canada has found. Diseases such as anthrax and SARS are considered to be more deadly than other similar afflictions with a lower media profile.

“The media tend to focus on rare and dramatic events,” says Meredith Young, one of the study’s lead authors and a graduate student in the Department of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour. “When a certain disease receives repeated coverage in the press, people tend to focus on it and perceive it as a real threat. This raises concerns regarding how people view their own health, how they truly understand disease and how they treat themselves.”

The researchers conducted three experiments in order to discover the effect media reporting can have. In the first, 53 undergraduate psychology students were asked to rate 10 medical conditions for level of seriousness,the likelihood the condition represented a disease, and the chances of someone catching it.

Of the 10 conditions selected for the study, five had a heavy media profile (anthrax, West Nile virus, avian flu, SARS and Lyme disease) whilst the other half were less well known (tularemia, yellow fever, hantavirus, lassa fever and human babesiosis) but chosen to closely match one of the widely reported diseases. The results were a strong correlation between the perceived seriousness of a disease and its media profile.

The team wondered if a more medically knowledgeable study group might show different results. The experiment was repeated with 43 first year medical students, and surprisingly the findings were very similar. It seems that even a more medically oriented person is susceptible to the influence of the media.

Interestingly when more details such as symptoms or method of transmission were provided along with the name of the disease, participants rated high and low profile diseases much closer.

“Another interesting aspect of the study is when we presented factual information about the diseases along with the names of them, the media effect wasn’t nearly as strong,” says Karin Humphreys, one of the study’s authors and assistant professor in the Department of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour. “This suggests that people can overcome the influence of the media when you give them the facts, and so objective reporting is really critical.”

It’s normally football that is known for dramatic challenges against the referee’s decision, but new research out of the University of California, Davis suggests that things may be about to change. A team at The Department of Psychology and the Center for Mind and Brain found that professional tennis referees are more likely to call a ball “out” when it is “in” than vice versa.

The mistake arises because of the way a person’s eyes and brain interpret moving objects. Scientists already know that the people can make mistakes about an objects position, depending on its motion and the motion of other objects in the area. The team decided to look for a real-world example of this phenomena, and settled on tennis due to a new rule allowing players to challenge a referees decision.

If a player makes a challenge and the referee is found to be incorrect, the player is allowed to make further challenges. If the ref was right all along, however, the player is no longer permitted to question their judgement. This means that knowing when a referee is more likely to have made a mistake can give a player the advantage.

There are two kinds of mistake a tennis referee can make. As the ball flies towards the edge of the court, the referee must carefully observe where it lands. If it’s behind or on the line - even by a tiny fraction - then the ball counts as in. When the referee judges a ball to be out when it was actually in, this is known as a “predicted” error, whilst a ball judged to be in when actually it was out is called an “unpredicted” error.

If a referee was completely unbiased, we would expect them to make both kinds of errors equally. After all they’re only human, and a few mistakes here and there are not to be unexpected. By analysing 4,457 tennis points randomly drawn from Wimbledon 2007 the scientists discovered 83 referee errors, and observed that 70 of the errors reported the ball in being shifted in the direction of the ball’s motion, a predicted error. In other words, referees are calling the ball out instead of in much more than the other way round.

This suggests that players should challenge close-calls as often as possible, because the referee is more likely to have made a mistake. On the other hand, if a player believes the ref has erroneously called a ball in then they should keep quiet - because there’s only a small chance that they’re right! The authors suggest that ideally every shot in a tennis match should be objectively reviewed by instant replay - but given that this is unlikely, the adoption of clay courts (on which balls leave marks) as used by the French could solve the problem all together.

Does your name decide where you work?

When I first read the press release that psychologists in Belgium have discovered that a person’s initials have a link to the company they work for, my immediate thought was “yeah, whatever.” I thought that the conclusion had probably come about because some letters in the alphabet are more common than others, so a Mr E was more likely to work for E Inc. simply because there are more “E”s floating about than any other letter.

On reading the actual paper however, I can’t fault their methodology. It really does seem that a persons name can unconsciously effect their choice of work place. The phenomena is known as the name-letter effect, and has been demonstrated in other areas, for example a Jack is more likely to live in Jacksonville than in Philadelphia. It just goes to show that whilst scepticism is healthy, it’s not always right!

Now you seem them, now you don’t

The Daily Mail have some wonderful pictures of camouflaged animals. Yes, it’s a bit of a fluff piece, but they’re really quite something. My personal favourite is this one:

I'm not telling you what it is, you'll have to guess!

It came from outer space

A couple of weeks ago, The University of Western Ontario Meteor Group caught a falling meteor on camera. The team of astronomers are now looking for local residents who might have seen meteorites break off and crash to Earth.

The meteor streaks across the sky in this time-lapse image

Videos of the meteor are available online. I’ve never managed to see one of these space rocks in real life, so it’s pretty cool to be able to catch one on film.

Last night Channel 4 broadcast Extraordinary Animals in the Womb, a sequel to last years plain-old Animals in the Womb, in which the reproductive process of dolphins, elephants and dogs were investigated in detail. This time it’s the turn of sharks, penguins, kangaroos and wasps.

Using a combination of real footage, computer generated imagery, and good ol’ fashioned models, the film tracks the baby animals from conception to birth. The effect is stunning; you feel like you’ve somehow gained x-ray vision and the ability to see directly into the animals’ wombs.

The animals really are extraordinary. They might well have chosen to call the documentary “Aren’t Animals Pretty Damn Amazing?” - that’s how I felt as I watched. We learn that male sharks shoot “sperm bullets” into the female to impregnate her, and the fetuses eat their unborn brothers and sisters in order to survive in the womb. Kangaroos leave the womb after just a few weeks gestation and crawl up to their mothers pouch, where they will suckle for 6 months as they continue to develop. The male penguin incubates the egg, not the female, who must return to the sea after the stress of laying.

The fascinating facts pour thick and fast, but it’s never too much to take in. What some might find too much, however, is the parasitical wasp. This nasty little creature lays its eggs in an unsuspecting caterpillar, and when the larvae develop they eat their way out of the poor thing whilst it is still alive. It’s a genuine “watching through your fingers” moment. What’s worse, a “biological weapon” in the form of a virus originating from the wasp’s DNA rewrites the caterpillars brain, and it actually sticks around to help it’s unwelcome guests as they transform in cocoons.

As the program tells us, when Charles Darwin found out the lifecycle of these wasps, it shook his belief in a benevolent God. They were also (unsurprisingly) the inspiration for the movie Alien. The narrator is quick to point out however that “nature is morally blind”, and these reproduction strategies exist simply because “they work”.

Initially the film roars along, with “24″ style transitions between the four species’ storylines (sorry, no Jack Bauer though) and intriguing hooks that keep bringing you back for more after the ad breaks. Unfortunately, past the hour mark I began to feel things were a little dragged out - a shame, as I thoroughly enjoyed it for the most part.

It’s available to watch online until November 20th, so if you have a spare hour or so, I definitely recommended it. Just be prepared for a slightly meandering ending, and watch out for parasitical wasps!

Now that’s what I call a sticky situation

The world’s longest stick insect has been discovered in the rainforests of Borneo. A member of the species Phobaeticus chani, the specimen measures 56.6cm, beating the previous record holder Phobaeticus serratipes by over a centimetre.

As you might imagine, it looks like a stick.

If you want to check it out for yourself, it will soon go on display in the Creepy Crawlies exhibition at the Natural History Museum.

‘Perfect shower’ is far from it

Yet another “formula for” story, with “scientists” developing a “mathematical formula” for the perfect shower. Apparently “The balance of privacy, pressure, time and temperature in the shower all need to be carefully moderated to create the perfect shower experience.”

The “research” was of course sponsored by someone - surprise surprise, a shower manufacturer. Neuropsychologist Dr David Lewis of Mindlab International had some nonsense to spout which I won’t bother repeating here.

You know what the worse thing is? They didn’t even include the bloody “formula” in their press release.

What does space smell like? Steak, apparantly

News about the aroma of space is doing the rounds at the moment. Supposedly NASA have hired fragrance firm Omega Ingredients to recreate the smell of space, to help astronaut training feel more realistic. Right…

Astronauts de-suiting after a space walk have reported “particular odours”, such as fried steak and hot metal. Surprisingly, the Sun is alone in reporting that this is most likely “non-scents”, with Sir PatricK Moore weighing in:

“These odours may have come from astronauts’ suits or spaceships. The vacuum of space is unlikely to have its own scent. It is more likely to be reacting to man-made equipment. There is nothing in space and nothingness cannot really have a smell.

“Boys or girls attempting to go to space because they think there is fried steak flying about might be disappointed.”

That looks pretty hot

And finally, some beautiful pictures of the sun (our star, not the newspaper discussed above, that is), perfect for brightening up any cold autumn morning. Enjoy.

If yesterday you had a few too many drinks, it might be time to hit up Google. Scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles have found that for older web users, searching the internet activates the parts of the brain in charge of decision-making and complex reasoning.

Stretching your mind is important as you get older. As the brain ages changes such as reduced cell activity take place - and as we saw yesterday, the brain shrinks by a suggested 1.9% each decade. In the past people have used crosswords and other brainteasers to sharpen their mental abilities, but with advances in modern technology scientists are now investigating alternatives.

They study looked at 24 volunteers between the ages of 55 and 76, half of whom had searched the internet before whilst the other half had no experience at all. The participants preformed searches as well as book-reading tasks whilst being scanned with an fMRI, which tracks blood flow in the brain as an indicator of cognitive activity.

All of them showed increased activity during the book-reading task, with the scan showing the use of the language, reading, memory and visual abilities parts of the brain. These are located in the temporal, parietal, occipital regions, along with other areas.

Internet searches, however, highlighted a difference. Whilst all participants appeared to be using the same parts of their brain as during the reading exercises, those with previous web experience showed additional activity in the frontal, temporal and cingulate areas of the brain, which are used in decision-making and complex reasoning.

Dr. Gary Small was chief investigator on the study, and is a professor at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA as well as UCLA’s Parlow-Solomon Chair on Aging. He had this to say on the findings:

“Our most striking finding was that Internet searching appears to engage a greater extent of neural circuitry that is not activated during reading — but only in those with prior Internet experience,”

“The study results are encouraging, that emerging computerized technologies may have physiological effects and potential benefits for middle-aged and older adults,”

“Internet searching engages complicated brain activity, which may help exercise and improve brain function.”

So why does reading on the internet engage your brain more than just curling up with a nice book? It’s because the internet is so vast, a read has to make active choices about what to click on and where to go next. This is where decision-making and reasoning factors in.

Small believes that the less experience internet users weren’t using these parts of their brain because they didn’t fully understand the tasks set to them - a common problem when introduced to something new. He suggest that with more time on the internet, they could show the same level of cognitive function as the more experienced group.

The researchers hope that further studies will look at both the positive and negative effects of emerging technology on an elderly brain.

A study in the latest issue of the Archives of Neurology suggest that - shock horror - drinking alcohol may have detrimental effects on your health.

The research looked at a link between alcohol consumption and brain volume, i.e. does how much you drink effect the size of your grey matter? A group of scientists from Massachusetts and California investigated data recorded from 1,839 participants who had been part of a larger study.

Scientists already know that the size of your brain will decrease naturally as you grow older; it’s estimated that this shrinkage occurs at the rate of 1.9% per decade. Excessive drinking has also been shown to effect cognitive ability, and can lead to Korsakoff syndrome which causes amnesia amongst other effects on the brain. Moderate consumption of alcohol however has been linked to improved mental capacity and a lower risk of Alzheimer disease. This new research hoped to find a link between the two.

Brain volume was measured for each person in the study, and then adjusted to account for natural differences in body size. Participants were also quizzed on their level of alcohol intake, and assigned to one of five groups: abstainers, former drinkers, low (1-7 drinks per week), moderate (8-14 drinks per week), and high (more than 14 drinks per week).

Those who drank more had a smaller relative brain volume. Copyright AMA Publications

“Most participants reported low alcohol consumption, and men were more likely than women to be moderate or heavy drinkers,” say the authors. Women also showed a stronger link between alcohol consumption and brain size, as heavier drinkers had larger reductions than their male counterparts.

One potential pitfall that the researchers suggest is the self-reporting of a participants alcohol consumption. I know when I’m asked how much I drink on a medical form, I tend to knock a few pints off the total! This under-reporting however would actually mean the true association between drinking and brain size is stronger than the link discovered in the study.

Summing up, the authors call for more research. The data used was not originally meant for this purpose so they can’t conclusively say that “DRINKING WILL SHRINK YOUR BRAIN!!!” as the Daily Mail might put it, but they hope to send a message to the public that drinking excessively is bad for your health.

Carol Ann Paul; Rhoda Au; Lisa Fredman; Joseph M. Massaro; Sudha Seshadri; Charles DeCarli; Philip A. Wolf (2008). Association of Alcohol Consumption With Brain Volume in the Framingham Study Archives of Neurology, 65 (10), 1363-1367

The banking crisis is, as ever, pretty big news. Even yesterday the British government dished out another £37 billion of taxpayers money to beleaguered bankers. I’ve written previously on what science communication can learn from business reporting, but a new report from the EU suggests that science still has a lot to learn if it is to grab headlines like the business world.

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (Teeb) has suggested that global economy loses more annually from the erosion of the world’s natural forests than it has from the banking crisis. Yet, I don’t see bankers being told to shove off and retrain as tree surgeons. Pavan Sukhdev was the leader of the study, and told the BBC the scale of the loss:

“It’s not only greater but it’s also continuous, it’s been happening every year, year after year,”

“So whereas Wall Street by various calculations has to date lost, within the financial sector, $1-$1.5 trillion, the reality is that at today’s rate we are losing natural capital at least between $2-$5 trillion every year.”

These losses are calculated by modelling Mother Nature as a service provider. We’re essentially provided with forests “for free”, and they offer services such as absorbing carbon dioxide and so on, but as they fall in to decline the human race has to pick up the bill to cover the shortfall, or simply go without. Either option entails an economic cost. It’s a bit like a bank withdrawing a great mortgage policy and refusing to lend to anyone - either taxpayers have to step in and pay up to get the money flowing again, or people will be unable to borrow money to buy a house.

The question is, if the cost to the global economy is potentially as much as five yearly credit crunches, why aren’t we seeing rainforest bail-out packages? Where are the runs on garden centres, as people try to stock up on saplings? The problem is that dying trees are seen as Somebody Else’s Problem.

If you’ve just been made redundant, your home is being repossessed, and your pension is worth nothing because the stock market has crashed, why should you care if a few trees are hard done by? According to the study, it actually turns out that the people who are worse off are the most effected by the loss of biodiversity, especially in tropical regions where peoples’ livelihoods are more dependant on the forests.

By presenting the loss of natural resources in terms of cold, hard cash, Sukhdev and the other authors of the report hope to make governments and business sit up and take notice:

“Times have changed. Almost three years ago, even two years ago, their eyes would glaze over.

“Today, when I say this, they listen. In fact I get questions asked - so how do you calculate this, how can we monetize it, what can we do about it, why don’t you speak with so and so politician or such and such business.”

Hopefully politicians will be influenced in time to halt the decline of our forests, before the economic pinch is felt.

Those of you who actively follow science news might have been wondering this past week why I hadn’t yet commented on the Nobel Prize announcements. No, I haven’t forgotten in all the course-starting excitement - I just thought it would be more useful to wait until all of the prizes had been announced. Before the results however, a bit of history.

The Nobels have been awarded for over 100 years, with the first prizes given out in 1901. The Swedish chemist Alfred Nobel, wishing to to atone for his inventing dynamite, specified in his will that his fortune should be used as a fund that would celebrate intellectual achievement. He decreed there should be awards given annually to five disciplines: Chemistry, Physics, Physiology or Medicine, and Literature. Later in 1969, a prize for Economics was created in honour of his memory.

I always wondered why there is no Nobel for Mathematics. A story I’ve often heard is that Nobel’s wife cheated on him with a mathematician, but it turns out this story is completely unfounded - for one thing, Nobel was never even married. There is no concrete reason as to why Mathematic