the warmth of other suns

Here's something for you to contemplate this 4/20:

Flora that would appear black or grey to human eyes could have evolved on planets orbiting dim "red dwarf" stars, according to unpublished research that is being presented at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales.

This would enable plants to absorb more light to photosynthesise, using their star's light to convert carbon dioxide into organic compounds.

(whole story here)

It's good to be reminded that we consider the "visible" portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (red-violet) is entirely a function of our visual systems, and the selection pressure under which they evolved (particularly the ability to see well in the green band, the middle of our range) which is itself entirely a function of the particular light output of our particular sun in this remote portion of our particular galaxy.

Life evolving under a different sun could have photosynthetic organisms optimized to extract energy from a different part of the spectrum, and creatures with visual systems tuned to the corresponding "colors". And really, I only put "colors" in quotes because we would be unable to experience them as colors; those organisms would experience them as colors that we are literally incapable of even imagining.

I'm sure there's a metaphor here, but I forgot what it is.

(via Slog)

raining oil / from a lacerated sky

I do not believe that it is raining oil. This isn't my area of science (at all) but I did take a few chemistry classes in my day...

Many petroleum products are highly volatile, and almost certainly will enter/have entered the water cycle as a result of the spill in the gulf. It wouldn't surprise me at all if certain hydrocarbons and other nasty bits do show up (in very low amounts) in precipitation (though it would more likely fall somewhere east of the spill area along the gulf stream.)

Crude oil, on the other hand, is very heavy and viscous. It doesn't evaporate in bulk (at least under the atmospheric conditions found on this planet). I could maybe see it becoming sufficiently emulsified (think whisking oil and vinegar together to make salad dressing) as it becomes dispersed that very, very tiny droplets might hitch a ride up into the atmosphere on water. But I don't think it would have the opportunity to precipitate and fall to earth recognizably as "oil rain".

I will stop short of saying this is impossible--I'm not qualified to say that--but I definitely think this falls into the category of extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence.

More likely, this is a greasy parking lot after a dry spell.

senate votes to oppress minority drug users only 18 times more than others

I guess this is what passes for liberalization of drug laws in the United States:

After more than a decade of debates, hearings and lobbying, the Senate has passed a bill to change the punishment for possession of crack cocaine.

The bill had strong support from both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. While the current law punishes crack users 100 times more heavily than powder cocaine users, the new Senate bill brings the 100-to-1 ratio down to 18-to-1.

What really got to me when I heard this on the radio this morning was the post hoc justification for this atrocious policy on the part of drug warriors:

Congress enacted these rules in the early 1990s, when crack was ravaging urban communities. In those days, Reggie Walton worked on drug policy in the first Bush administration. Back then he supported the sentencing disparity, but now he is a federal judge in Washington and feels differently.

"We believed it was a different chemical substance. [emphasis added] We now know that's not the case," Walton said. "The reality is that crack cocaine and powder cocaine are the same chemical substance."

What, they didn't have analytical chemistry all the way back in the 1990s?

Look, making crack from powdered cocaine ain't a big mystery, folks. In fact, it's so easy, even a crackhead can do it! The end product consists of two major chemical constituents: 1) cocaine and 2) sodium bicarbonate (aka baking soda). Separation and analysis of these molecules could be accomplished in a high school chemistry lab, never mind the fine professionals at the DEA.

Either Judge Walton is seriously misremembering the context in which this policy (which he has subsequently testified before Congress about) was made, or the policy was made without any serious inquiry as to the actual nature of this drug they rushed to legislate on. Come to think of it, I'm not sure which is worse. (Or more likely.)

lancet paper linking autism to vaccines retracted

Formally, the journal states that the paper was retracted because claims "...that children were "consecutively referred" and that investigations were "approved" by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false," though I can't help but think that no one else has been able to replicate their findings might have a little bit to do with it as well.

BTW (and I had to look this up myself), "consecutively referred" means that patients are included in the study as they come in, not selected for sampling by the researchers. In other words, this is a roundabout way of accusing the authors of cherry-picking their subjects, something that is particularly problematic when you are claiming to find a causal link between two things after the fact. To put it mildly.

Now, as I've said before...go vaccinate your rugrats!

norman borlaug, 1914-2009

If I were going to nominate someone for the title of Greatest Human Being Who Ever Lived, I think I would be hard-pressed to come up with a better candidate that Dr. Norman Borlaug, who died yesterday at age 95.

Some people estimate that Borlaug's development of high-yield crops is responsible for saving a billion people from starvation in south Asia alone. And yet I doubt his passing will generate 1/100th of the attention that pop stars and career politicians do.

"life here, began out there"

Well, maybe.

But scientists have confirmed that there are amino acids on comets. Which is pretty cool, and suggests that other organic materials found in meteorites may very well have originated off-planet (i.e., they weren't merely contaminated when they slammed into the earth.)

(you are here)

This is pretty freaking awesome:



Pretty amazing how vast the universe is, what with it only being about 6000 years old and all...

the fda's plan to kill smokers faster

I have a lot of problems with the FDA, both in terms of its scope and how poorly it tends to execute its duties (which it should be said is largely the result of an overly broad mandate and inadequate funding to fulfill it.) But setting aside the manifold institutional problems with the agency, it's kind of silly that tobacco has enjoyed the legal status of "non-drug" for the decades since we've all known better. So on its face, I don't really have a problem with giving the FDA authority to regulate it.

However...

The manner in which the FDA is very likely to go about exercising this authority is going to be (with apologies to Dan Ariely) predictably irrational. Specifically, they are going to mandate lower nicotine content in cigarettes.

This is predicated on the (correct) assumption that nicotine is the ingredient responsible for initiating and reinforcing chronic use (I dislike the term "addiction"). In principle, this might make new smokers less likely to acquire a chronic habit.

However, it will almost certainly have a very different effect on the millions of people currently smoking: they will smoke more cigarettes, inhale more frequently and more deeply, and hold the smoke in their lungs longer. Manipulation of nicotine levels has been shown to have these effects in study after study: smokers modify their smoking behavior to maintain nicotine concentrations in their body. This goes both ways. What the strategy of mandating lower nicotine content ignores is that if you wanted to actually make a safer cigarette (a project that the public health establishment stubbornly and negligently refuses to contemplate), you would put more nicotine in it, not less, because then smokers will be exposed to much less of the tar, smoke, and ~4500 chemicals in cigarette smoke, all of which are more harmful than nicotine itself.

It's been argued that Phillip Morris is supporting FDA regulation because their market share will make them better positioned than their smaller competitors to deal with the impact of regulation on their business. This is almost certainly true. But I would also argue that they realize their best customers are about to get even better.

some thoughts on swine flu

--No one in public health has anything to gain by being the guy/gal who said "this probably won't be a big deal". That is to say, no one has ever been given a commendation for accurately predicting a non-event, but many careers have ended because "they didn't see the signs". On the other hand, if they end up overestimating the scale and deadliness of this thing, they get to say that being cautious worked...and may very well be correct in saying so.

--Mortality rates in Mexico may be inflated, because utilization of health services there is much lower than here. There could be many mild cases of H1N1 that have not been reported at all, because they never went to the doctor. You can bet anyone with a sore throat and a mild fever in the U.S. (a combination of symptoms I routinely tough out 1-2 times a year) will be running to Urgent Care.

--I'm not terribly concerned. That said, I'm glad I don't have to fly anywhere any time soon (and wish my wife didn't have to), and I wouldn't go to Mexico right now.

speaking of remote versus proximate risk...

The courts have finally caught up with the science on the (non-existant) link between vaccines and autism. Hooray science!

Now go vaccinate your rugrats.

Writing an NIH grant is like writing a masters' thesis and doing the worst tax return you ever had to do--at the same time.

hm

A man who arguably contributed more to modern neuroscience--and certainly to the neurobiology of memory--than any other single person died this week.

He did not have tenure, a lab, a grant, or even a PhD. But his students number in the thousands.

You can read more about him here.

weird, but cool

There's a single-cell organism the size of a grape. It's called Gromia sphaerica. If they are easy to cultivate and transfect, that'd be one hell of model organism...I'm pretty sure even my clumsy hands could do a patch clamp on a grape...

mccain and obama on basic research

My intention was to post Sens. McCain's and Obama's answers to the following question in their entireties, and without comment except perhaps to emphasize excerpts of what each candidate actually said.

Sadly, I find this is not possible, because one candidate's response is so superficial and lacking in substance that I am genuinely at a loss of what to highlight. Really. Nevertheless, the following is worth reading if you are a scientist or someone affected by science (i.e., if you are anyone) and if your vote is still up for grabs.

Question: For many years, Congress has recognized the importance of science and engineering research to realizing our national goals. Given that the next Congress will likely face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in basic research in upcoming budgets?

McCain:

With spending constraints, it will be more important than ever to ensure we are maximizing our investments in basic research and minimizing the bureaucratic requirements that eat away at the money designed for funding scientists and science. Basic research serves as the foundation for many new discoveries and represents a critical investment for the future of the country and the innovations that drive our economy and protect our people. I have supported significant increases in basic research at the National Science Foundation. I also called for a plan developed by our top scientists on how the funding should be utilized. We must ensure that our research is addressing our national needs and taking advantage of new areas of opportunities and that the results of this research can enter the marketplace. We must also ensure that basic research money is allocated to the best science based on quality and peer review, not politics and earmarks.

I am committed to reinvigorating America’s commitment to basic research, and will ensure my administration funds research activities accordingly. I have supported increased funding at DOE, NSF, and NIH for years and will continue to do so. I will continue my commitment to ensure that the funding is properly managed and that the nation's research needs are adequately addressed.

Obama:

Federally supported basic research, aimed at understanding many features of nature— from the size of the universe to subatomic particles, from the chemical reactions that support a living cell to interactions that sustain ecosystems—has been an essential feature of American life for over fifty years. While the outcomes of specific projects are never predictable, basic research has been a reliable source of new knowledge that has fueled important developments in fields ranging from telecommunications to medicine, yielding remarkable rates of economic return and ensuring American leadership in industry, military power, and higher education. I believe that continued investment in fundamental research is essential for ensuring healthier lives, better sources of energy, superior military capacity, and high-wage jobs for our nation’s future.

Yet, today, we are clearly under-investing in research across the spectrum of scientific and engineering disciplines. Federal support for the physical sciences and engineering has been declining as a fraction of GDP for decades, and, after a period of growth of the life sciences, the NIH budget has been steadily losing buying power for the past six years. As a result, our science agencies are often able to support no more than one in ten proposals that they receive, arresting the careers of our young scientists and blocking our ability to pursue many remarkable recent advances. Furthermore, in this environment, scientists are less likely to pursue the risky research that may lead to the most important breakthroughs. Finally, we are reducing support for science at a time when many other nations are increasing it, a situation that already threatens our leadership in many critical areas of science.

This situation is unacceptable. As president, I will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade.

Sustained and predictable increases in research funding will allow the United States to accomplish a great deal. First, we can expand the frontiers of human knowledge. Second, we can provide greater support for high-risk, high-return research and for young scientists at the beginning of their careers. Third, we can harness science and technology to address the “grand challenges” of the 21st century: energy, health, food and water, national security, information technology, and manufacturing capacity.

Does this mean I am voting my own self-interest? You're goddamn right I am. And you should, too.

The candidates' responses to this and other science policy questions can be seen at sciencedebate2008.com.

notes from the underground

Been a little preoccupied with work lately. Yesterday I started filling in a grant application form and I think I had something resembling a panic attack.

Maybe I'm overstating it...this one wasn't too terribly physiological. I've had that response once before, the night I asked [m] to marry me. We were sitting at dinner, and I had The Ring in a box in the breast pocket of my sports coat (hell yes I was wearing a sports coat) and I reached for it. When my hand closed around it I was overcome with a feeling not unlike what I imagine it would be like to be leaning out over the edge of a platform for a bungee jump and at the exact moment you achieve sufficient angular momentum that stepping back is now physically impossible it occurs to you that you don't know whether the other end of the cord is attached to anything. That is to say, the contents of my stomach plunged into my groin, the contents of my groin slammed against my diaphragm, all of the blood in my head departed for parts unknown, and my lungs ceased to function. At this point [m] began to look rather concerned and asked me if I was about to throw up. I hesitated to answer her for fear that opening my mouth might trigger a non-verbal response in the affirmative.

Needless to say, this was not the moment at which I popped the question. That occurred after dessert, coffee, and some deep breathing.

All of this is to say that starting to fill in the grant application wasn't quite that bad...it was merely an overwhelming sense of dread, rather than a physiological manifestation of immediately anticipated death. But still, pretty scary.

On a completely unrelated note, I calculated on my drive to work this morning that if we could own a modest home outright in a place where we didn't need a car and had no residual debt that we could live quite comfortably (i.e., at more or less our current standard of living) on approximately $30,000 a year. Which between the two of us could probably be managed with a couple of part time jobs that have little or nothing to do with science.

three cheers for sunshine

A couple of months back I briefly mentioned the idea of double-blind peer review as one I found somewhat intriguing. In the linked discussion I wrote the following comment:

I’m in favor of double-blind review (and editors) for a simple reason: the only people that stand to lose from double-blind review are those that benefit from bias of one sort or another currently.

...

As an author, I know I’ve had papers triaged from journals that I just wasn’t “in” with, because they’ve published less careful work in the same area by people with connections to the editorial board.

Shorter this: to be anti-DBR is to be objectively pro-bias.

I still stand by that, but today I've had my first encounter with not only a different "alternative" review process, but in fact the exact opposite: open peer review, which is the practice of Biology Direct.

The reviewers are identified (from the start), and their comments and the authors' responses are included as part of the final publication. As a reader, I find this very, very useful. And the quality of reviewer comments is--perhaps unsurprisingly--quite a bit better than the slapdash style of criticism I find far too common in the (anonymous) peer review process.

graphical grc blogging

laters

I'm off to the ATL tomorrow to witness my sister getting married. So that's pretty exciting.

After that, I'm heading to New England for a Gordon Conference (try to guess which one!) so I don't anticipate much bloggy action for the next week or so.

Go out and play.

21st century phrenology

I think it's all well and good to try and understand the biological basis of homosexuality for the same reasons it's well and good to understand the biological mechanisms of...well, basically everything.

But apropos of my earlier comments about overselling science, I worry about how studies like this can get twisted in the name of politics. The odds of a similar study producing different (or even opposite) results are actually pretty high here. The sample sizes are painfully small in this study, and I would definitely worry about selection biases. For example...how do you recruit a sample of gay males that are truly representative of the population as a whole? Certainly not by finding them through a geographically constrained social network (presumably everybody in the study was located conveniently to the study site.)

My point being that those concerned about gay rights ought not lean too hard on the science that sounds good to them when making an argument about policy, because this strategy is only one journal article away from biting you on the ass. Homosexual people don't deserve equal treatment under the law because they "can't help" their orientation...they deserve it because who you prefer to get your rocks off with is nobody's business but yours and your partner(s)', and has no bearing whatsoever on anything else.

the game

Here is what I really, really don't like about being a researcher in basic (i.e., not clinical or even really translational) biomedical research.

We have to ought to walk a fine line. On the one hand, it is important for us to promote what we do, to make it relevant and accessible to the people that pay for most of our research (i.e., the taxpayers). Generally this follows the formulation of "understanding the basic mechanisms that regulate phenomenon X (my project) is critical to understanding how to diagnose/treat/prevent/eradicate disease Y, which might very well affect someone you know and love."

On the other hand, (and I think this is the hard part, and that many of my colleagues neglect it completely) we ought not trumpet our marginal successes so loudly as to give false hope to people suffering from disease Y right now (or their loved ones). Because a massive breakthrough in cell biology or basic pharmacology or basic neuroscience typically takes decades to be translated into a viable therapeutic, if that happens at all, which it usually doesn't*.

Maybe my temperament is rare in this regard, but I think hope can be a very cruel thing when it has no basis in reality. It's all good grantsmanship and typical academic politicking until someone you care about looks to you for some sliver of hope, and you know damn well you don't have a single thing to offer them. (There are reasons MDs get paid more than us, generally, and they don't have anything to do with whose is bigger.)

Anyway, that's not an experience I really wish on anyone, but it would, I think, put things in a more sensible perspective.

Moreover, I don't think we do ourselves any favors in the long run by overselling our science. People tend to notice when you don't deliver what you've promised them, and eventually they vote accordingly.





*Incidentally, the poor success rate of translational research is a topic on which I am giving some serious thought to writing a scholarly-to-general audience-aimed book. I'm mostly just making that knowledge somewhat public in the hopes that having mentioned it to people might keep me motivated to pursue it. It is a big project. But I do have a killer title figured out.