inkycircus

The science of schmooze

I accidentally went along to an event last night that turned out to be quite the party. I volunteered to help a colleague man a stand at some science media thingy wotsit at the Royal Society, so turned up in my usual work uniform of jeans and MEC fleece ready to be in charge of the projector. What can I say, I'm a web geek not a fashionista. Anyway, along I went to the Royal Soc, and discovered that it was the Daily Telegraph's 'Scientists Meet the Media', the foremost science/media event of the year, and the dress code was 'lounge suits'. Cue a room full of the great and the good of Science Communication in Britain, in suits and swanky dresses, consuming champagne by the bucket-load. I did some schmoozing (despite my unprepossessing outfit) but I find that such a mortifying pursuit that I soon gave up and spent the evening eating delicious nibbles and star spotting. There were plenty of famous faces, but I was personally rather impressed to see Johnny Ball, Professor Steve Jones, and the god of natural history himself, Sir David, all chatting away together. Fun times. Next time I'll definitely have to make more of an effort with my outfit...

PS - You can tell the event was a swanky one from the napkin, I've never even seen a napkin printed up like this before...

I know it's a cliche but...

WE'D BE BETTER OFF WITH THIS FROG PRINCE. HE'S DEFINITELY GREEN. PHOTO: GOZDEO)

I can't help but be disgusted by Prince Charles today. I'm not violently against having a monarchy, I know they're expensive and silly but so what. There are plenty of sillier and more expensive things in this world, and tourists seem to like them. However, when they are screaming hypocrites I lose my benevolence and get angry.

Of the whole bunch, Prince Charles is one of the more annoying. He fancies himself as a bit of a green freak, obviously in the hope to make us all forget that he's a lazy rich boy with a valet who puts toothpaste on his toothbrush for him every night. Fair dos, saving the environment is a noble cause. But why the hairy hell has he just FLOWN to the US to accept an award for being so eco friendly? With his wife. On an outrageous jolly. It's astounding. Then the daft pompous arse has the temerity to make some ghastly joke to show how amusing and self-aware he is to criticism. Here's the joke in full: "I must warn you at the beginning that I am in fact a video recording. I have only made a virtual flight across the Atlantic and am virtually half dead and only virtually royal. I am a mere hologramatic visitor from cyberspace who could not be more flattered and honoured to be receiving this award." Augh. And then he expects us to forgive his shameless one-finger salute to the environment by saying it's ok as he took a scheduled BA flight to America rather than hiring a private jet.

This is what he said in his acceptance speech at Harvard: "Every passing year has seen further evidence emerge of the damage we are doing to this poor old planet, the only one we've got so far... that sustains life in such a miraculous and well-ordered way". He also said mankind was unlikely to stop damaging the planet until there was a change of outlook. Change of outlook, eh? Like, maybe, I dunno, NOT flying half way round the world for 2 days to accept an award? Just a suggestion.

Via BBC News.

The basic scientific principles of gay sheep

It's Saturday morning here in the 'couv, and I am enjoying a rather 21st century hobby, reading the "papers" on line. I never seem to have the time to read as widely as I'd like during the week. Usually, I save those moments of pleasurable brain-break for dooce, gofugyourself, amalah and violentacres.

So imagine my surprise when I find out that the amazing gay sheep story has completely passed me by. The story goes: (as recounted in a hindsight kind of piece at the New York Times) that Dr. Charles Roselli at Oregon State University studies the brain structures and hormone environments that lead to  homosexual rams, who make up about 8% of the population. He did some experiments with hormone levels in utero, others where they just look at their behavior and mate choice selection, and then some where the rams are killed to allow the researchers to analyze brain structure. It's basic science - this dude just wants to understand what makes sheep gay.

But PETA got wind of the research and decided that Roselli was an animal killer trying to "cure" homosexuality in people. The Sunday Times printed a massively error-filled feature article, which seems to have been written directly from the PETA press release. From the get go the authors jump on the eugenics train and get experts to weigh in on how very bad bad bad that would be. Including gay tennis player Martina Navratilova (here is the link but the story has mysteriously disappeared...) Ben Goldacre of the Guardian nicely sums up the factual scientific errors about the tests they performed, the results etc. Similar corrections made in the above NYTimes piece.

Now I have a couple of thoughts. Firstly, since when is PETA involved in gay rights? Are they just stirring up a PC hoo-ha to get out their animal killer hatred? Secondly, are the gay rights people really, actually, upset about this piece, keeping in mind that it was scientists like Roselli who uncovered the genetic basis for homosexuality, substantiating ideas that people are gay by birth, not by choice and helping do away with the notion that you can "unchoose"/cure homosexuality?

Also in the New York Times piece, PETA says they were justified in attacking Roselli's sentiments based on a quote from a press release: The release quoted Dr. Roselli as saying that the research “also has broader implications for understanding the development and control of sexual motivation and mate selection across mammalian species, including humans.”

Roselli goes onto say that he HAD to say stuff about applications and implications because that is how grants get funded. Here I feel pretty sorry for him. I have heard so very very many scientists talk about basic science with a sigh - it is the basic science, guided merely by questions and hypotheses, not by problems to solve, that end up leading to so many good product, drugs, technologies. "You never know where fundamental understanding will lead,"  Nobel prize winner Harry Kroto once told me. He discovered carbon60 or buckyballs in the mid 80s. Since then, chemists and engineers have been working furiously to use fullerene chemistry (buckyballs and their family members) to build armor, improve electronics, deliver drugs...all sorts of things. Same could be said for DNA fingerprinting. Alec Jeffreys was just screwing around with some bits of variable DNA - he never thought his research would redefine crime-fighting.

Kroto summed up the problem between media and science relations quite well: "The real problem that you have," Kroto told me on the phone last summer, "is that it’s very difficult to be interested in what interests a scientist. People only want to know what this science will do for them. That’s a bit of a problem. Journalists need to explain that scientists are fascinated by sort of nitting gritty puzzles. When they make the breakthroughs and solve the puzzles, out comes something unexpectedly valuable."

At the end of the New York Times article, the author quotes a University of Pennsylvania psychiatrist and bioethicist who basically says Roselli deserved this attention: "By discussing the human implications of the research, even in a somewhat careful way, Dr. Roselli “opened the door” to the reaction, Dr. Wolpe said, and “he has to take responsibility for the public response.”"

Sorry, but what a crock of shit. No one opens the door to their research being reported erroneously. The majority of the public reaction was based upon mis-information and media frenzy. As scientists are ever more pushed to justify their research for the good of humanity, society..whatever...we are checking them into boxes they just can't find their way out of. Sometimes they just don't know where their research is leading them. And that can be good. Though discovering new information always holds the promise that the information will be used unscrupulously, it is no reason to stop people from researching. And certainly no reason to stop them from talking about it.

Sunshine on my forearms makes me happy......

(PHOTO: Niels Timmer)

Vancouver was enjoying a brief respite from the recent torrents of winter (snow storms, wind storms, slush and gray gray skies), with a bought of lovely strong sunshine. Which I did my best to enjoy.

Standing there in the sun (yet still buttoned up to the nose) I couldn't help but think about our dear friend vitamin D (methinks my ponderings were also brought about by last night's episode of Men in Trees, where they refer to Seasonal Affective Disorder..yes, yes, that's the Vancouver-filmed, Alaskan-set show starring former lesbian Anne Heche, who just left her hubby for the show's hunky Canadian leading man. I digress).

Now we've talked about vitamin D here before. I suppose it's one of my pet topics (mostly because it gives me a reason to shun sunscreen). In as few words as possible: vitamin D is synthesized in our skin through a reaction with ultraviolet light. A severe lack of vitamin D leads to rickets, a disease of chronically weak and brittle bones, because the compound is necessary for proper calcium absorption. In the 1930s the US government started to fortify milk with vitamin D and the rickets disappeared. But a lack of vitamin D has been associated with increased levels of prostate, breast and colon cancer, among other diseases. The versatile vitamin does more than just cement bones, it's also integral to proper cell growth and regulation....

Those with the big brains are currently battling out what the "right" does of vitamin D is - especially now that we of the western world rarely toil outside in the sunshine anymore. Today the standard is 400 International Units, though some aruge that it *should* be 2,000 IUs. The skin cancer people are all - "in the summer months, you can get enough vitamin from just 5 to 15 minutes of bare face, forearms and legs."

Which just left me wondering (again as I stood buttoned up to the nose and wrists)..how many people have you seen with bare legs and forearms sunning themselves around this time of year?

When cholesterol and zebrafish collide

Cholesterol is evil, right? Wrong. Taking cholesterol supplements while pregnant could cut down on the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome on the unborn child. The idea should really be to stop pregnant mums drinking alcohol rather than coming up with a handy supplement that will let them do so. But if you can't stop them, or they just can't stop themselves, they might be more likely to take a pill that might help protect their child from a lifetime of disadvantage.

This discovery was actually made in zebrafish not humans, but the scientists believe it should be transferable because the zebrafish and humans share the same set of proteins that control early development. One of these proteins is deliciously called Sonic The Hedgehog (SHH), which is vital in the development of the face, head, heart and limbs, all danger zones for FAS. SHH is only active when it's bound to cholesterol, and alcohol affects cholesterol levels. So providing cholesterol supplements boosts the SHH, which helps to ensure normal growth.

More from New Scientist. (Zebra photo in absence of zebrafish photo: NEDBENJ)

Sounds that make you go ew

I THINK THIS SIGN IS MEANT TO SIGNIFY A WATER FOUNTAIN, BUT IT REALLY DOES LOOK LIKE A 'BE SICK HERE' SIGN. AND IT'S INFINITELY NICER THAN IF I'D POSTED A PHOTO OF ACTUAL PUKE, DON'T YOU THINK? (PHOTO: SEEDPIX)

Dr Trevor Cox, professor of acoustic engineering at Salford University, we salute you. To spend a whole year listening to disgusting noises to prove which is the most awful? That's dedication to science. At his website Sound 101, Dr Cox asked volunteers to listen to a selection of sounds and work out which was the worst. Among the 30-strong list was nails on a blackboard, the wail of a baby, a microphone screech, a dentist's drill, bad violin playing,a dog yapping and someone puking in a bucket. The vomiting is astonishingly realistic, it's not at all suprising that it topped the poll as most repulsive noise.

Lots of the sounds on the list are just plain annoying rather than dreadful, they only become unbearable if they keep on going for ages and ages. Babies crying is sad if you hear it for a few seconds, hours of it makes you want to kill the wretched child then kill yourself. But 2 seconds of vomiting noise makes my stomach heave. Apparently it was done with watered down baked beans. I knew that when I listened but I still felt queasy. Ew.

More from The Guardian here. Go to the website here and have a listen if you dare.

The Sound of Science

There's an article up at Inkling that is still making me giggle with glee. It's about songs for scientists. I particularly love Ms. Kate Fink's mockery of Coldplay's dubious scientific calculations (brush off your grade 12 physics - do you remember the speeds of sound and light?). It makes me feel mean and warm and fuzzy all over.

And my friend Matt Broersma did the rocking illustration...he has a fine attention to detail (please note the "Beastie Boys" trucker hats).

Sparkling sponges

When it comes to kitchen sponges, I demand a high standard of cleanliness. Somebody leaving the sponge or j-cloth bundled up in the bottom of the sink after washing up will get a ticking off, because if there is one thing gauranteed to annoy me in the kitchen it's a stinky sponge. That, and finishing the ketchup. But that's beside the point.

A bunch of scientists at the University of Florida have found a way to springclean those sponges, using a piece of equipment found in most kitchens.They prepared some truly revolting sponges (soaked in raw e-coli-rich wastewater) and then zapped them in a 'common household' microwave for 2 minutes, and found that 99% of the bacteria, viruses and spores were anihilated. To blast all the beasties on the sponge took a little longer, 4 - 10 minutes, but 2 minutes made a good enough stab at it.

I like the idea of a spotless sponge, but the article at ABC News Australia has left me with a couple of thoughts. Apparently, people often wash their sponges in the dishwasher. This is bizarre. I've sometimes put j-cloths in the washing machine, more often I just put them in boiling soapy water with dettol for a quick stew. Dishwashers? Seriously, who does that? Secondly, and more importantly, if I have a sponge that might be infused with e-coli it's going in the BIN not the microwave...

(PHOTO: VIERDRE)

We graciously request your advice

mmenI don't if y'all have read the Inkling article Anne mentioned below - "A Gap Ad Celebrity Speaks to a Geneticist," written by super cool dude Dave Ng of World's Fair, Science Creative Quarterly, Filter  and author of the McSweeney's article: "The Von Trapp Children Speak to a Geneticist.")

I also don't know if you've perused the comments. The heated, verging on angry comments that touch on the aggravating nature of stereotypes in humor and the inherent sexism in above article/illustration.

I, for one, didn't find the piece to be sexist or offensive. In fact, it didn't even occur to me. I thought we were making fun of celebrities - I mean they ARE today's font of educated opinions. We used to ask experts or politicians their views of current events. Now we ask Paris Hilton how she feels about Iraq and the obesity crisis. We used to ask our doctors what was good for us - now we rely on Sally Field to tell us about Boniva for osteoporosis, those "Happy Feet" penguins to talk about Tamiflu, or Tom Cruise to dispel all those nasty myths about anyone actually NEEDING antidepressants.

Outspoken celebs sometimes say really stupid stuff. The Guardian had a great article based on a new campaign in Britain called Sense about Science, which, among other things, tries to counteract the misinformation spewed out by stars (like milk makes you fat - thanks to vegan Heather Mills McCartney for that completely erroneous statement).

In the end, Dave's story polarized Inkling readers. Some thought it was hilarious. Others found the gender stereotypes to be so negative as to ruin the humor. And because Inkling is still a grand experiment, we wanted to ask....what did you think?

We didn't kill Napoleon after all

HOW DOES IT FEEL THAT YOU WON THE WAR? (PHOTO: FDECOMITE)
Even though millions of people pour through Waterloo station each day, I'd bet many of them would be hard pushed to explain the significance behind the name. It's named after the 1815 Battle of Waterloo, last stand of French ruler Napoleon. This very un-English crowing has not gone unnoticed on the other side of the Channel, the French have several times requested that Waterloo be renamed. They seem think that the name of the station that is the gateway between England and France is insulting rather than simply historic.

Anyway, as well as thinking we're slighting them with our choice of station names, the French also apparently think we poisioned their great leader when he was living in exile in St Helena. This is, apparently, an 'enduring French myth'. Well, let it endure no longer. Wasn't us, guv. According to a team at the University of Texas, Napoleon died of a stomach tumour, and a pretty nasty one at that. To add insult to injury, scientists think that the high concentrations of arsenic found in his hair came not from poisoning but from his excessive use of hair tonic, and that his over-rich diet of the fancy cuisine the French are so proud of may have helped hastened his demise...

Via ABC Australia.