Letting Down Science

I recall one day, while working on my Masters degree back in the 1980s at the Freshwater Institute (a research centre for the federal department of Fisheries and Oceans), noticing a piece of paper taped to a hall wall. When I took a closer look I saw it was a research application created by some bureaucrat down in the basement of the institute.  One line had been circled in black marker and read "Expected Results."  Scrawled over the rest of the form, in thick black marker, was "If I knew what the results were going to be, I wouldn't need to do the experiment!"  There may have been an expletive tossed in there somewhere.  The author of that scrawl was Dr. David Schindler, now Professor Emiterus at the University of Alberta, and a world leader in freshwater biology.  

That piece of paper was a lesson I never forgot.  It emphasized the difference between those who engage in science for the process of discovery, and those who use science as a loose means to an end.

The New York Times today reports on the case of Dr. Joseph Beiderman, a child psychologist at Harvard.  Dr. Beiderman received 1.6 million dollars in consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies between 2000 and 2007.  His research relating to the use of anti-psychotic drugs in young children is currently being investigated by both Harvard and the US National Institute of Health.  One fact that came up during his deposition reminded me of that piece of paper taped to the wall more than 20 years ago.

It seems that Dr. Biederman had given presentations to drug companies telling them what his results were going to be before he started clinical trials.   Apparently this made sense to both the drug companies and Dr. Biederman.

All I can say is that Dr. Biederman is no Dave Schindler.

Hat tip: Page Donaldson

Photo Credit: Me.

The Feathers are Flying

The link between dinosaurs and birds was established back in the 1860s when fossils of the distinctly dinosaur and bird-like Archopteryx turned up in some German shale quarries.  Many biologists today argue that all modern birds should be considered dinosaurs.  It is an argument that makes sense.

However, it was only much more recently (15-20 years) that fossils collected in China were discovered that suggested that feathers were quite common within a larger group of dinosaurs, the theropods.  I was able to see some of these fossils when visiting Brisbane, Australia, where they were on loan from China, back in 2004.  This group of dinosaurs includes the velociraptors and Tyrannosaurus rex of Jurassic Park movie fame.  It seems the movie was just a few years behind the discovery.

Now however, feathers, or at least what seem likely to be feathers have turned up in an entirely different lineage of dinosaurs, the ornithosaurs (includes the Triceratops).  This was just reported by Hai-Lu You and colleagues in the journal Science.  Shown above is an artists reconstruction of what these newly discovered dinosaurs, Tianyulong confuciusi, may have looked like.  This suggests that either feathers evolved more than once in different lineages of dinosaurs or that the earliest ancestors of the dinosaurs had feathers.  It certainly creates a challenge for artists and museums with respect to how dinosaurs should be shown.

The feathers will undoubtedly be flying at the next international paleontology meeting.

Artist credit: L-D Xing.

Minister Clarifies Stand on Evolution. Not!

In an interview for the Globe and Mail, published Tuesday, the federal Minister for Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, refused to answer a question about evolution.  When asked if he believed in evolution he responded, "I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate."

But the question wasn't about religion, it was about evolution.  Clearly, the minister doesn't see the difference.

 

By the end of Tuesday, someone had obviously spoken to the minister about the matter.  In an interview with CTV News he now states that he does believe in evolution.  Does he?  

Here is how he framed it,"We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it is to the intensity of the sun, whether it is to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it is running shoes or high heels, of course we are evolving to our environment."

Minister Goodyear is talking about what is called phenotypic plasticity, the physiological accommodation to stressors from environment within an individual (Note: phenotypes are measurable characterisitics of an organism, e.g., eye colour, blood type or bone density).  This is not evolution.  Unfortunately, it seems that Jane Taber, who interviewed Minister Goodyear for CTV did not know this either because she failed to follow-up, or at least no follow-up is reported.  

Evolution is the process by which gene frequencies within populations change through time. It gives rise to new phenotypes, new species, and whole new assemblages of organisms.  It isn't a knee problem that arises from wearing the wrong shoes that lasts until a new pair of shoes are purchased. 

Like so many politicians, Gary Goodyear has decided that words mean what he wants them to mean.  I am doubting that this matter will remain "clarified" for very long.

Photo Credit: Sean Kilpatrick, The Canandian Press, Globe and Mail (on-line), March 17, 2009.

Dolphin Bubble Rings

It seems that a couple of years ago a few dolphins, mostly female, began to blow bubble rings at Sea World in Orlando.  Once started this behaviour has spread to others.

At first I wondered if this was a carefully crafted hoax as the rings seem so improbable.  Not so, this is genuine and has been the subject of one scientific publication.

I have not been able to find a good explanation of the physics of the rings.  It would seem reasonable that they depend upon the air spinning to maintain their structural integrity.  I am not sure if a vortex is also required in the surrounding water.  They are rising when left to themselves although the camera angles make this difficult to see. 

Enjoy the video.

Video Credit: Chiajungchi, YouTube. Dec.16, 2007.  Musics "No one is alone in the woods" (John Williams). Boston Pops.

Obesity and What Doesn't Matter

Since the recognition of the existence of  macronutrients, (carbohydrates, proteins, and fats) by William Prout (1785-1850) in 1827, their role in human nutrition and obesity has been hotly debated.  James Salisbury (1823-1905) took this information and started one of the first fad diets with his belief that human health was improved by a diet of chopped steak (Salisbury steak) and coffee.  John Kellogg (1852-1943) , in turn, ran health farms advocating a vegetarian diet with enemas.  He started the Kelloggs cereal empire.

Since the days of Salisbury and Kellogg little has changed.  Arguments still go back and forth over the health benefits of relative amounts of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats in the diet and their role in obesity. Most of these debates have little to do with science so perhaps a new study that helps to clarify the science of this issue will have little impact.  Still, we might hope. 

Frank Sachs and colleagues have just completed a two year study following 811 subjects needing to lose weight.  They were randomly placed on one of four diets in which the relative amount of macronutrients varied.  Their findings were that none of the diets led to a significant difference in weight loss.  

The conclusion.  In dieting it isn't what you eat but how much that matters.

Reference: Sachs FM, and others. 2009.  Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein and carbohydrates. New England Journal of Medicine 360(9): 859-873.

Photo Credit:  JMH649: Wikipedia Commons.  Computed Tomography (CT) transverse scan of obese (right) and non-obese abdomen.

A Sky Less Blue

Astronomers have been complaining for a long time about the dimming of the night sky.  Light pollution from increasingly bright urban centres has been diminishing the ability of ground based telescopes to view the sky.  During the great blackout on August 14th, 2003, when most of the eastern seaboard in Canada and the United States went dark, the first thing most people noticed were the stars.

I'm not sure it occurred to anyone that something similar might be happening to the daytime sky, but apparently so.  Wang and colleagues have just published a new study in the journal Science showing that air pollution is scattering light particles making the clear daytime blue sky, less blue.

I recall a whimsical reference in Douglas Adam's "Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy," to a super-intelligent shade of the colour blue.  Our blue skies no longer seem so intelligent.

Shown above is a simulation of the affect achieved by combining the sky of San Francisco with pollution levels evident in southeast Asia.  

Reference: Wang K, and others. 2009. Clear sky visibility has decreased over lanPublish Postd globally from 1973-2007. Science 323 (5921)

Photo Credit: Brandon Keim (Wired Science) with direction from K Wang.