But, I don’t have a good grasp of what the research actually demonstrates, at least not from the press release. Consider that the writer chose this quote from Professor Kohler to help explain to readers what his research has found:
“Recognition based on familiarity can be contrasted with recognition when we spontaneously conjure up details about the episode in which we encountered the person before, such as where we met the person before and when it happened.”
I can’t think of a more obtuse way of saying memories of a person come from a different place in the brain than the memories of meeting them. Is my paraphrasing an oversimplification? Maybe, but the details that are omitted for simplicity aren’t as important as your central message, which otherwise gets lost in the pursuit of accuracy.
I’d be happy if anyone could provide a clearer statement of what these fellows’ research actually entails. I could ask them myself, but I’m not sure Dr. Kohler would be of much assistance.
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is becoming a serious problem. Over-prescription and improper use of antibiotic drugs is one culprit, though pumping all our livestock full of them may have a role to play as well. New ways to tackle difficult to treat infections are coming from surprising sources; scientists are investigating to French clays that were used as remedies for infections and ulcers long ago to identify what makes them effective in battling bacteria. Since we don’t seem to be curbing our over-dependence on antibiotics, it’s as good an idea as any.
The title just about says it all, doesn’t it? Researchers have been studying microscopic soil worms known as nematodes and have found that through genetic modification they can alter the attraction behaviour of these worms. In this case, they can apparently get hermaphrodite worms to seek out other hermaphrodite worms, and this doesn’t occur naturally since they reproduce asexually.
Clearly, it’s a loaded topic; if the sexual orientation of one organism is genetically determined, what does that mean for other organisms? While in the article lead researcher, Erik Jorgensen, says the results are limited to these worms, he is quoted in the very next paragraph suggesting it might be a common mechanism for sexual orientation that could have been carried over through evolution to more advanced creatures.
I think there’s a good chance there’s a genetic basis for homosexuality in humans, but the argument that if it is so in nematodes, it could be so for humans is weak. The real potential for this research lies in where these findings lead researchers investigating the sexual orientation in all sorts of animals in the future.
As a young boy, I watched many cartoons where good characters fought evil characters. Roughly three quarters of any given episode would involve characters shooting at one another, but they didn’t shoot bullets; they shot laser beams. Red and blue blasts of light making all manner of things blow up, but never actually killing anyone; these cartoons supplied me my first impression of lasers. Ever since, I have considered pretty much anything to do with lasers to be incredibly cool.
So you can imagine how intrigued I was by this study examining how lasers actually work to cut human flesh. Lasers are now widely used in different surgical procedures, but there was a lack of understanding of how the lasers actually managed to cut into flesh. Turns out, there are two mechanisms, depending on the type of laser used.
For longer wavelength, lower energy infrared lasers, they work by actually burning the body’s cells. The intense heat from the laser causes chemical bonds in the cells to rupture, destroying the integrity of the cell. It also has the added benefit of simultaneously cauterizing the wound.
Shorter wavelength, higher energy lasers work by causing micro-explosions that break molecules apart, leading to cell degradation. Each laser pulse creates an electrically charged gas called plasma that collapses at the end of the pulse and the energy released causes a micro-explosion.
This study does more than answer a question that has undoubtedly vexed many a science fiction nerd. Knowing how different lasers work will help determine which type will work best, depending on the procedure and what part of the body the surgeons are working on.
However, despite providing valuable insights into laser surgery, I have my suspicions the genesis of this research was originally inspired by something other than the practicality of the knowledge to be gained.
One of the arguments people use to deny the threat of climate change is to point out that computer models are used to generate predictions of the effects of increasing greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures.
“Models are flawed,” they argue, “we shouldn’t develop policies now to avoid the consequences of climate change when we only have computers providing predictions with high uncertainty telling us what those consequences might be.”
Unfortunately, a recent study seems, at first glance, to support this argument. Computer models are inherently limited in how well they can predict the consequences if rising greenhouse gas emissions result in extreme increases in temperature, it says. Most models predict moderate changes in temperature, and there is greater consensus on how the climate will respond. But, the greater the predicted increase in temperature the greater the variance in the models’ results.
However, the authors of the study point out that since our ability to precisely predict how the climate will react if specific levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are reached, policies should be linked to temperature targets, not emissions levels.
It could be a dangerous argument to make; the results could easily be spun to argue the predicted consequences of climate change are too uncertain for us to be alarmed. I’m not certain the momentum in public support for measures to offset climate change can be maintained if people aren’t convinced the results of doing nothing will be bad–very bad.
Getting people in the Western world to make the necessary lifestyle changes to mitigate or offset climate change is a tall order. Here, in London, Ontario, there was a big stink because a roadway recently re-named to commemorate war veterans was strewn with garbage. We can’t even stop people from throwing garbage out the window of their cars! The tearful Native American man of the infamous commercial would be inconsolable now.
It’s a clear sign you need a really solid argument if you want people to consider an alternative to driving themselves everywhere, let alone any other actions needed to curb emissions.
On top of that, there’s also a call from people truly concerned about climate change to abandon the Kyoto protocol. They don’t have to argue that it’s a failed policy; I think most people can see not much has been achieved in battling emissions. In fact, levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases are accelerating. But, they make a very strong case the real problem with Kyoto is it’s the wrong tool for fixing the problem.
As they point out, the greatest obstacle to moving away from Kyoto is it’ll be a huge political challenge for anyone who endorsed it to now suggest an alternative approach is necessary. Especially since non-signatory nations like the U.S. have already used the “alternative approach” terminology as code for a plan to doing nothing.
However, I think it’s a worthwhile read for anyone concerned about climate change. If enough people get the word out about their suggested alternative to Kyoto, who knows, maybe it could motivate people to push for more localized strategies to reduce emissions?
It seems some researchers attempting to investigate the regions of the brain activated when people think of emotional events ran into a bit of a road block. People could recall both positive and negative events from their past, but when it came to imagining their future, the average person is almost incapable of imagining an unpleasant outcome. It’s called the optimism bias, and the researchers instead decided to investigate the regions of the brain that are activated when humans imagine positive events in the future.
The research showed that a brain region known as the anterior cingulate cortex was active when people thought about positive things happening in their futures. That finding correlated nicely with other work showing that this area was not as active in people suffering from depression, who tend to view the world in a more pessimistic light.
Personally, I’d be interested to see if this could shed some light on the brain mechanisms of compulsive gamblers. What other reason could someone possibly find to sit on their ass feeding a slot machine all day than an over-active anterior cingulate cortex helping them imagine a jackpot in their future?
An unfortunate consequence of my being busy tutoring second year organic chemistry students to prepare them for their upcoming exam is that I haven’t had much free time to do much blogging, lately.
One major happening since my last post is that Al Gore has been jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize along with the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). While it may be encouraging that the Nobel committee wants to reinforce the message Gore and the IPCC are trying to get out, it may also, in a sense, be a little premature to award them at this stage.
The problem I see developing out of giving Gore the Nobel Prize is an even greater backlash towards Gore and his message than he already is receiving. In most fields, receiving the Nobel prize increases the credibility and stature of the work of the recipients, but I’m not sure that holds for the peace prize. More than any of the other Nobel awards, the peace prize is perceived as simply a political gesture. And it’s hard to argue that bestowing the honour on Gore and the IPCC is anything but.
More importantly, receiving the Nobel Peace prize doesn’t strengthen the scientific arguments behind the warnings issued by Gore and the IPCC. I don’t know what it will take to make the doubters finally accept that climate change is occurring and it is exacerbated by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, but I’m pretty certain giving Gore the peace prize won’t help to change their minds.
In fact, one reason Gore and the IPCC may not be worthy of the award is that, despite their efforts, there still seems to be widespread skepticism about climate change. Just last week, a man in Britain claimed a moral victory in his case to keep Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, out of highschool classrooms. While schools will be allowed to show the film, the corresponding literature will have to make it perfectly clear that the film is presents a political point of view.
This brings me to an inconvenient admission: I’ve never seen this film. So, anyone reading this who has seen the film, let me know; is it hyperbolic propaganda for an environmentalist agenda or is it a rational discussion of the threat of climate change and what we can do to reduce its impact?
During the current election campaign here in Ontario, the Power Worker’s Union has placed advertisements in the paper saying they have a better plan for generating electricity in Ontario than the current government.
Since that would mean a loss of jobs, the union has come out swinging, arguing Ontario should invest in clean coal technology. Their argument in favour of coal can be found here. I don’t mind that they want to look out for the best interest of their members, and I don’t doubt for a second there are ways to make the burning of coal a cleaner way to generate electricity, but isn’t that really just polishing a turd?
Current clean coal technology may drastically reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions, but it doesn’t do much for the amount of carbon dioxide it produces. And if it weren’t for the growing concern over global warming, there wouldn’t even be an issue about burning coal for electricity.
However, the real problem with the entire discussion is the fact that nobody wants to move beyond burning stuff to generate electricity. It’s so primitive, there has to be a better way! Setting something on fire, to generate heat, to generate steam, to turn a turbine is highly inefficient in energy terms. It doesn’t matter what you burn, it wastes a lot of energy.
I don’t care that coal is cheap and abundant, that shouldn’t prevent us from developing ways to generate electricity that are both cleaner and more efficient from the outset. Our focus shouldn’t be on researching ways to make burning coal a more palatable option, it should be on developing technologies that don’t rely on burning whatever we decide is acceptable to burn, whether it’s coal, gas, garbage or wheat (shouldn’t we be eating that instead?).
What I’d really like to see is solar power being properly developed so it can take it’s rightful place among our electricity-generating options. You have to wonder, if it didn’t compete with the interests of so many powerful organizations like the PWU and coal and gas producers, would it be a part of electricity generation now?
I get a lot of my news from the stories highlighted on the Yahoo! Canada webpage, and this morning a particular headline caught my eye. “Awash in toxic chemicals,” it read. There’s a study recently published in Environmental Research that attributes 25,000 Canadian deaths per year to health issues associated with pollutants. It sounds frightening, which is really its entire purpose.
The study was co-authored by environmental lawyer David Boyd, author of Unnatural Law and now a graduate student at UBC’s Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability (see the UBC press release here). So, it’s written by an environmental crusader with a law degree, leaving it kind of lacking in scientific credibility.
But wait, the other author was Stephen Genuis of the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of Alberta. Dr. Genuis’ area of specialty – obstetrics and gynecology (go to the bottom).
This study is a joke; more an exercise in public relations than a determination of the real health costs associated with pollutants. It’s beyond ridiculous to try and assess how many people are dying from respiratory illnesses, cancer and cardiovascular disease caused by exposure to environmental pollutants all in one fell swoop. The fact that the actual study suggests the number lies between 10,000 and 25,000 tells you all you need to know (what would the error associated with that measurement be?).
There’s nothing to be learned from this study, and like I said in a previous post, it only generates skepticism or chemophobia. On a lighter note, instances of chemophobia can make for an entertaining little news blurb.
