Prejudice is a nasty word – no educated person would tolerate bias based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or dozens of other individual differentiations. It’s still OK to make fun of nerds, though. (Q: Do you know how to tell when a nerd likes you? A: He looks at your feet when he talks to you.) Anderegg digs into that prejudice with this book. He finds that its roots run surprisingly deep in American culture, and that its branches and leaves cast real shadows on America’s future.

Remember Ichabod Crane and the legend of Sleepy Hollow? Ichabod, the town schoolmaster, dresses badly and looks funny. Brom, his nemesis, is popular, handsome, strong, and uneducated. In the end, Ichabod loses the girl, Brom gets her, Brom runs Ichabod out of town, and at least some of the townsfolk decide as a result that book learning would only harm their children. Fast forward almost two hundred years to the “Math is Hard” Barbie doll, stopping at presidential elections with educated losers, from Andrew Jackson to Al Gore. In most other popular cultures, the smart guy is also the athletic, happy, romantic, handsome, and well-liked one. In the US, the intellectual guy in the typical movie is none of those – and “transcends” his role only if he abandons it.

As a clinical child pyschologist, Anderegg explores some of the reasons why children might pick on those who do well academically. Whatever the reasons, children in grade school use “nerd” as an epithet that has real power to hurt, whether any one calling or called that has a strong idea of what it means. By seventh grade or so, the kids’ herding instinct is also a hurting instinct. Despite the demonstrated irratoinality of being “popular,” kids will do anything to avoid being unpopular – and being a nerd is the easiest and perhaps most fixable way to be unpopular. If a kid is determined to avoid academic success, you can bet they’ll succeed in avoiding it. By high school, the non-nerds have already given up literally years of exploration and education in math and physical sciences. Only the rarest among high school students can overcome that and go on to college and a career in technology.

And people wonder why more PE majors graduate college than EE majors do. Well-meaning economic incentives come years too late to unravel the prejudices laid down earlier. If the math nerd is the one who never gets laid (regardless of whether anyone else does), would a $100 reward for acing algebra attract many high schoolers? Do the math.

Anderegg offers a few postive suggestions for parents of potential outcasts. Very often, even doting parents don’t realize the power of kids’ peer pressure, and a few innocuous aids to fitting in will go a long way. He also claims back Asperger’s as a strictly defined medical term – as something present only if it debilitates the individual, not as a casual excuse or insult for someone whose focus isn’t where the speaker’s is. Without the shrillness of a nerd pride activist, Anderegg shows clearly why nerd prejudice has such far-reaching implications.

– wiredweird

Holy crap….Insects are going to take over the world at some point.

So this article about horrifying bugs  is not from a reputable source like Science, or a textbook or even a website that claims to know things about science….nope its from cracked…yeah the hilarious ridiculous cracked. At first I thought they were just messing with me, but then I started checking on their facts and national geographic confirms the craziness http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1012_051012_hornet_video.html.

I got nothing else to say about this, just do yourself a favor and check it out, you will be very happy that all you have to worry about is the occasional cockroach.

Evolution Vs. Creationism, Ethanol Vs. Eletric Powered cars, Stem Cells Vs. Err No Stem Cells, Its a Battle Royal

So many political issues have come up recently that are science based,  it is honestly hard to keep track of them all.  So to help further confound the masses and especially the politicians many people are joining together, myself included to sign the petition for a Scientific Debate among the presidential candidates.  And while I know that this debate will probably never occur, mainly because the leading Republican candidate doesn’t believe in evolution, I am hoping one day people will see the importance of such a debate and give it its rightful due.

Science is becoming more and more a game of played by political pundits, they seem to have the answers with no real background research or questioning.  Often times this turns science into a terrible black and white game of rigidity that never bodes well for scientific questions.  Many of these rigid decisions interfere and manipulate science in horrible ways, and as our country begins to ramp down its scientific methods many other countries have begun to ramp up their interest in science.  Many other countries have thus continued to move upwards in the scientific world while for the past 8 years our country has been progressively un-progressive.  Therefore I believe that a science debate is something that not only should be held this year, but probably should be held every presidential election so that we can find out who plans on giving more money to research, how candidates plan on stopping global warming, what will be done to remove our dependency on natural resources, why the hell can’t we utilize embryonic stem cells, and even why creationism needs to be taught alongside evolution.  I know we that nobody is going to agree on everything, however I sure would like to know where my leaders stand before I step into that ballot box.

And as for my opinion, I believe in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and am all for teaching it right along side creationism.  Just as long as they make sure to explain how global warming is directly effected by the shrinking number of pirates.

Kryptonite exists and there are 30,000 wild parakeets in London.

It comes as no surprise that each year science advances itself in ways that the previous generation would have once only dreamed.  A cocktail of creativity, curiosity and some well-padded governmentally funded wallets, continues feeding the feverish minds of scientists across the globe to discover new ways to do old things.

The BBC recently compiled a list of the “100 Things We Didn’t Know Last Year“, which interests me in the way that I can hear my grandfather’s voice in my head saying, “When I was your age, we didn’t have microwaves, or televisions!  We had to walk to school, in ten inches of snow, uphill…both ways!” 

What do YOU know now that you didn’t know at this time last year?  Tell me, oh three people that read this blog.  I’m interested.

From my standpoint:

1) Styrofoam cups change the taste of vodka martinis

2) XM Radio has a 90’s station that regularly plays “Informer” and “Ice Ice Baby”.  It is the.  best.  station.  EVER.

3) Brooklyn is the new New York.

4) Appendixes are fickle, fragile little things that hurt real bad to have removed…but the drugs they put you on won’t let you remember any of it.

5) Although there are probably many things you don’t necessarily want to hear your hair stylist say while he or she is in the act of styling your hair, I have to believe that the two things at the top of that list are “oops” and “we’ll be done in one sec, right after I tease the back of your hair and douse it with aerosol hairspray.”

Top 10 New Organisms of 2007

Yep its pretty much exactly what you think it is, no…no, not newly discovered organisms.  Oh I guess than no its exactly what you don’t think it is.  Its the other kind of new organism, the genetically engineered kind.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/12/YE_10_organisms

Being a scientist at heart I am not positive how I feel about this type of manipulation being proliferated into such wide usage.  Genetic engineering is one of the most interesting and possibly advantageous sciences being researched at the moment.  And because of this I am partially in love with the science aspect of the research, but maybe more in love with the possibilities that this type of manipulation can acheive.  What possibilities you ask…Well the possibilities range from the ability remove greenhouse gases with plants, the ability to create new fuel through bacteria, the ability to have bacteria breakdown oil spills quicker, to allow quicker research by having bacteria identify certain chemicals, the ability to create stronger crops that can be grown in impoverished areas of the world, and even the ability to help cure diseases in humans before they occur.

However, with all of the good that is ultimately possible, just scratching the surface of this issue can bring out raging arguments from all sides about the advantages and disadvantages of utilizing genetic engineering.  In fact the genetic engineering debate has already raged widely on the issue of crops.  On one hand many new lines of plant can be created that can grow larger, live longer, resist insect attack, and help vaccinate those that ingest them.  Thus allowing for the ability to grow crops in places where they have never been grown before thus feeding hungry people who before could not grow enough to sustain life.  Also this allows for the creation of better quality foods that have more nutrients and can help our bodies in many ways.

On the other hand, this opens up a array of possibilities that are hard to imagine sitting at ones desk.  The first being danger to the rest of the environment.  Every living thing around us has carefully evolved to coexist with the rest of its close counterparts, by throwing new organisms into the environment catastrophic events can occur to alter the surroundings.  For example the spread of the Zebra Mussel has created altered environments that disrupt ecosystems, out compete other animals for food, and cause damage to human made boats, harbors, and even power plants.  This introduction is similar to what is possible when we bring in new plants or animals with genetic updates that make them stronger and able to proliferate better.  Other potential problems with genetically engineered plants, that we have yet to put a finger on, are safety issues with humans.  We are still unsure how these items may effect our bodies in the long run, if their is any effect at all.

So if all that can be said about plants, now what do we say when it is done to animals….. Well this raises many other questions, one of the biggest is how far and when does something like this stop?  What choices must we make on a moral level?  At some point does this mean that we can begin to design our own kin?

Once we have crossed from necessary modifications that help us as a people to modifications done simply for aesthetics have we taken this too far? Does the fact that we have already gotten to that point make a difference…..

hmmmmm…biodiversity

This article in NYTimes inspired a little slowfood rant. Slowfood is a group trying to preserve various aspects of traditional food practices. Basically, as the name implies, they are anti-fast food. But there is much more to it: supporting local farmers, healthy eating, taking pleasure from the entire process of food,  and a general respect for what we put into our bodies.

There is much to be said on the politics, economics, philosophy, etc. of this organization. Being a science blog, there is also a lot about biodiversity, dietary health, environment, genetically modified species, etc.

Dinosaurs, aka god’s trickery….

A couple days back scientists announced the discovery of what could be called a paleontologists (wet) dream.  It was the discovery of a dinosaur mummy containing bone, skin tissue and possibly organs and muscles.  A find like this is a once in a lifetime for any archaeologist and is something that could turn every fossil collector, natural history museum curator, and manic dinosaur fanatic on their heads.  Every dinosaur bone structure you’ve seen at every natural history museum you have been to, is at most 15% real dinosaur bones from the same skeleton.  The rest of the bones are not even that, they are castings of other bones collected from other dinosaurs, and in some cases they are bones from completely different dino skeletons. The discovery of the in tact dinosaur mummy will end up, potentially, showing us that we have put many dinosaurs together incorrectly.  Their are still some bones that we simply don’t know where or how they attach to the skeleton of many dinosaurs.  It may also show us that we have underestimated the actual size of many of these beasts, preliminary CT scans have already shown that we may be placing the vertebrae of many large dinosaurs incorrectly.  At most museums these vertebrae are stacked together but the CT scans of this mummy show a 1 centimeter spacing, which may not be a lot on the surface, but could potentially effect the whole animal in an exponential way.

Anyway, dinosaurs are cool…

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/12/dino_mummy

This is why chimpanzees are such great commercial and sitcom actors…

Chimps have crazy good working memory. Research by a group in Kyoto, Japan published in Current Biology shows that our closest primate ancestors are braniacs when it comes to temporary information storing and manipulation. If you are a computer scientist, you might call it RAM.

This should be a link to the paper.

Not sure how this works with posting journals etc. So here is a BBC article about it.

The paper itself is pretty easy to get through, but if you just want to see the chimpanzees at work, scroll down to the supplemental data. They have several videos of them doing their thing. Amazing! I dare you to try to keep up.

Questions I want answered: What part of the brain? How does this compare to things like human autistic savants? Or what about the guy in the movie Momento?  Could these be chimp savants or is this average? Did they gain or did we lose in the last 5 million years of evolution? Whichever it is, how did this get selected for by nature?

Thanks Los.

LSD curing alcoholism, Ecstasy curing PTSD, what’s next? Herion curing the common cold?

 A lengthy article in last weekend’s Washington Post Magazine discusses the work of Michael Mithoefer, a psychiatrist at the Medical University of South Carolina who has almost completed the first phase of a clinical study into the use of ecstasy as a therapeutic tool for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Ecstasy (or MDMA) is a psychedelic and a stimulant which acts by inhibiting the reuptake of serotonin, and, to a lesser extent, of dopamine and noradrenaline. It is illegal in most countries (it is classified as a Class A drug in the U.K. and a Schedule I drug in the U.S.), but its popularity as a recreational drug has increased dramatically since the late 1980s.  And by dramatic increase, I envision the wild underground success of DJ Funk and his ghetto house music and it’s effects on 19-year-old ravers throughout the midwest.  But that just my opinion…ahem…moving on.

During the 1950s, research into the use of psychedelics for treatment of various psychiatric conditions was not uncommon, and many therapists believed that the drugs were of great potential benefit. In the early 1960s, however, such studies ceased almost entirely, after widespread recreational use of the substances led to their criminalisation. 

Interestingly, the Washington Post article lays the blame for this dramatic decline in research single-handedly to Timothy Leary, who started off doing serious research into LSD but became the drug’s biggest advocate, and the new-age guru and icon for the LSD counterculture. Ironically, recent historical research has revealed that a number of these early studies showed that LSD is effective in treating alcoholism.

Mithoefer’s study, which is the first of its kind in over 20 years, is sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), a non-profit organization whose proposed 5-year, $5 million plan for research into MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2001.

Following further approval by the Drug Enforcement Administration in 2004, Mithoefer commenced his study in April 2004, by recruiting 21 women who suffered from otherwise untreatable PTSD as a result of rape or other forms of violence.  I guess that’s why this article was particularly interesting to me personally, since my background is in women’s studies with an emphasis in domestic violence.

One of the first patients enrolled in the study was Donna Kilgore, whose case is documented in the Washington Post article. Although the initial results are promising, some PTSD researchers are skeptical, because the data have not yet been analyzed statistically. Others criticize the DEA’s decision to approve the study, as the extent of MDMA’s neurotoxicity is yet to be determined.

Nevertheless, Mithoefer is convinced that Ecstasy is an effective treatment. The first stage of his study is almost complete, with 18 of the 21 patients having undergone double-blind MDMA-assisted psychotherapy sessions. 2 Iraq war veterans, both with PTSD, have already been cleared to take part in the second stage of the study.

Thanks to Mo for the heads-up on this.

Biological Performance Art Hippies – Come on that title has everything

Hey everyone, I have an amazing video. Or at least a video that I
thought was fantastic and for which you all will mock me.

Our teacher showed this to us. He did so in jest. However, I
wonder how many times it was shown to students seriously and to what
age groups. Has anyone seen this in class? Maybe in high school?
Throughout my years in the biological sciences, this was a first for
me.

It was made in 1971 by Robert Alan Weiss from the Department of
Chemistry at UC San Diego. California loves hippies and only there
could such a combination of biochemistry and hippy love take place.

I worry the humor will be lost for anyone who doesn’t remember how
mRNA is translated into proteins by ribosomes. For those people who
don’t remember a key part of the central dogma of biology, just enjoy
the sights and sounds of hippy science.

Teaching today (2007), you would no doubt show a 3D computer
animation. Was performance art in the field the early-70’s equivalent?

One last thing, think about how much time and effort went into this!
The music, the poetry, ~100 performers, costumes, and most
importantly, the dancing.