All we need now is evidence of Mothra

Researchers have uncovered evidence of a giant sea scorpion; a fossilized claw that is so large, the creature that it belonged to would’ve been 2 metres long–longer than humans are tall.  The fossil record has provided evidence of other super-sized bugs, but this new scorpion would be the biggest found to date. 

It’s believed it lived about 400 million years ago, along with other really large arachnids and insects; organisms that died out in an epic evolutionary struggle with armoured fish.  At least, that’s what the paleontologists say. 

The timing of this discovery is a bit coincidental for me, personally, as I have just finished reading Dan Brown’s Deception Point.  So, an article about giant sea bugs immediately caught my attention.  And if you don’t know what I’m talking about, here’s the first (and probably only) book recommendation to appear on this blog:  Read Deception Point by Dan Brown, it’s good.

Critiquing the communication of science

I wanted to write about research from my alma mater; research examining links between brain function and memory.  I was excited when I first found this press release from the communications staff at The University of Western Ontario announcing that UWO researchers will have their work published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS, he, he… get it?). 

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. 

Clay cures

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. 

Gay Worms!

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.     

Research on the cutting edge

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.   

The sunny side of brain research

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?

Of the smallest concern

The Project for Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars commissioned a poll that found the average American doesn’t really know what’s going on in the nanotechnology field.  It immediately occurred to me the best way to get the word out on these nano-advances was to write about some here.

First off, nano is just a metric prefix.  Most people are aware of kilo-, centi-, milli- in common measures of mass or distance.  Just like a millimetre is 1/1,000th of a metre, a nanometre is 1/1, 000, 000, 000th of a metre–very short.  A bond between two atoms is on the order of 0.1 – 0.3 nm.  So, when you are working on the nano-scale you are working with individual molecules or small assemblies of molecules that range from a few to several hundred nanometres in size.

Now, the big thing many people working in the field like to talk about is the potential for nanocomputers, where individual molecules are used to carry out the computing functions instead of the currently microscopic components of your computer today.  I think that’s kind of lame.

Personally, I think the potential for nanoparticles to deliver drugs is much more exciting.  For instance, in a recent report, researchers at the University of Texas write that by attaching insulin-containing liposomes (it’s like a small bag made of fat carrying insulin) to a blood sugar-sensing protein called concanavalin, this nanostructure can mimic the function of the pancreas.  They call it a smart particle, and it works because when it encounters glucose in the blood, the liposomes are replaced on the protein by the glucose and the insulin inside the liposomes is then released.  So, the more glucose there is in the blood, the more insulin gets released.

This study demonstrates that such a system works in rats, although they haven’t developed a version that could be put into clinical trials on humans as of yet.  Still, the potential benefits for diabetics would be enormous, inhaling a dose of these nanostructures daily replacing the multiple pricks and needles of blood testing and insulin injections.

And medically engineered nanoparticles can be used to do more than regulate doses of pharmaceuticals.  Earlier this year, researchers at enGene Inc. presented results from their studies aimed at using nanoparticles to introduce the insulin gene to patients with juvenile diabetes.  Using this technology, the gene is incoporated into specific cells in the stomach that would then take over the insulin production.  This treatment would eliminate the need for injections and would be more responsive to the spikes in blood sugar levels that occur after eating a meal.

So, now if some polling agency phones up and asks if you know of any applications of nanotechnology, you can say that you most certainly do!

Follow the money

The most instructive part of my time in journalism school was the first six weeks of print training.  During this time, the instructor who probably taught me the most about journalism and writing was Paul Benedetti.  One thing he didn’t teach me, however, was how to make money as a writer.  Apparently, a good way to do this is to write an “article” for a “magazine” published by the gas company; at least that’s what Paul did.

In the Fall/Winter 2007 edition of Besthings magazine, Paul writes about Ontario’s 20 year energy plan and the critical role natural gas will play in that process.  However, I was a little skeptical after reading the following line:

“And natural gas burns much cleaner, releases far less carbon dioxide and produces significantly less nitrogen oxide emissions and polluting elements than its counterparts, coal and oil.”

Now, the problem isn’t that this is necessarily untrue, but is it the whole truth?  They are blanket statements without any numbers to give you a frame of reference.  For instance, burning natural gas releases less carbon dioxide; does that mean that if you burn an equal mass of coal and natural gas you will get less CO2 from the natural gas? 

Fortunately, the Union of Concerned Scientists has an informative website where I turned to get some answers.  Turns out, natural gas produces 43 percent less carbon dioxide emissions per unit of electricity generated than does coal.  This statement leaves no room for questions or skepticism because they specifically relate the amount of carbon dioxide produced to the amount of electricity generated.

Since replacing a coal-fired electricity generation facility with one fueled by natural gas would actually result in a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, some may suggest my skepticism was misplaced.  Hogwash, I say!

Whenever you are faced with such generalized statements it is important to know exactly what is being claimed.  Take ethanol, for example.  One molecule of ethanol, when burned, produces two molecules of CO2.  Octane, when burned, produces eight molecules of CO2 — 4 times as much.  Someone might take that information and state that burning ethanol produces less carbon dioxide than octane.

However, on a per molecule basis, octane produces about 4 times the heat than does ethanol.  Clearly, simply burning ethanol in place of octane for the same purpose is not going to be as advantageous from a CO2 emissions perspective as the information in the preceding paragraph implies.  

Of course, I simply used the heats of combustion in my calculations and gasoline is also comprised of more components than just octane (a lot more!).  To really compare the CO2 emissions from ethanol to those from gasoline, it’s best to measure the carbon dioxide released per unit of energy produced.  It demonstrates how very specific the information needs to be before you really learn anything from it. 

I remember Paul lecturing our class on the importance of keeping your B.S. detector on when a source is presenting you with scientific facts.  That’s good advice for everyone, especially considering how many competing interests are trying to spin scientific data in their favour.

An Ice-Free Arctic?

The earth is warming, and the arctic is really feeling it.  Some would say it’s a bad thing.  Others would say, well, it’s still a bad thing but not as bad as previously thought, at least temporarily.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, we have already reached a new low for sea-ice extent in the arctic breaking the previous record set in 2005.  The actual area of ice in the arctic has also reached a new low, according to researchers out of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign while German researchers say the ice thickness is decreasing as well.

Alternatively, it seems the warming of the arctic is providing increasing area for vegetation to grow as the permafrost retreats.  While it was predicted thawing peatlands found in Canada and Siberia would lead to massive amounts of methane being generated by soil bacteria, new research suggests the increase in carbon consumption by the new vegetation would more than offset the amount of methane released.  However, it’s clearly too good to last.  Once the ground starts to dry up, the mosses and other water-loving plants of the peatlands will be replaced by plants better adapted to the drier climate, and these plants won’t consume nearly as much carbon.  

All in all, the future of the arctic is looking pretty bleak, especially from the perspective of the polar bear.  Or the Canadian taxpayer; if the Northwest Passage wasn’t opening up, we wouldn’t be wasting $7 billion on armed ice-breakers and a deep water military port to defend our claim.