The Martian Trailer

Linking this mainly because of the quote "I am going to science the Sh*t out of this". Definitely need to try and use that one at work today.
I'd probably urge people who haven't read the book to avoid the trailer though as it essentially spells out the entire plot in 3 minutes. I'll get around to doing a review of the book as it has Biology sh*t in it.

Pint of Science 2015!

I'm out of hibernation to let you know that the Pint of Science festival will be upon us all from the 18th May. Combining two of my favourite things - science and beer!
Events are occurring all over the world so have a look to see if there's anything happening in your area.

Last year was a lot of fun so I decided to get involved with the Bristol group again. As you can see, there are a wide-range of topics being covered so there's hopefully something for everyone.
I might be biased but let me draw your attention to some talks I'm involved in this year. I decided to go outside my comfort zone and help with talks not solely focused on biology. Part of the reason for this was that I was jealous of not being able to see  talks that caught my attention last year. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't like my own field but I often find the other disciplines more curious - especially for general consumption (I'm not a physicist or material scientist!). So by getting involved in the Planet Earth talks, I knew I'd get to see something different.

On Monday 18th May, we have "Extreme Earth", where we have two experts discussing Volcanoes and Earthquakes. Why does molten rock come out of the earth in the first place? Are we any closer to accurately predicting "big" earthquakes? These are just some of the questions the speakers are hoping to answer. No one likes Mondays. so this is the perfect excuse to brighten the day - along with a great excuse to have a drink.

Tuesday's "Really Wild Show" promises to be an eye-opener on many levels. I have to admit I'm not a fan of wasps but it looks like Dr Seirian Sumner may be able to convince me they are anti-heroes if her tease of "Monarchies, Rebellions and wasps with ideas above their station" is any indication of the presentation itself. Then we have a talk that should put Wally/Waldo to shame as Professor Innes Cuthill discusses animal camouflage, how it works and how we can use it for art and military purposes. I've seen some of these slides and they look excellent - I really can't wait to hear them being discussed in full.

The final night on Wednesday is "climate change" - something we hear about a lot but often with a focus on the politics rather than the science. These talks will discuss the science of global warming and how studying previous climate change (the Earth has never been static with regards to climate) can inform future events and uncertainties.

So if you have time next week, we'd be happy to entertain you and if, for some reason, these talks don't win you over feel free to check out some of the other themes and talks on offer. I can see the benefits of mixing and matching topics too!

Plug over, back to getting everything ready.

Control Freak

A BBC documentary with controls! Always worth highlighting!

The truth about...your medicine cabinet

A one hour documentary looking at the effectiveness of over-the-counter drugs in the UK.
There were several demonstrations looking into the effectiveness of cough medicines (just use honey and lemon) and indigestion treatments (they work but watch what/how you eat) but the control experiment in question was looking at deep heat vs cold creams for muscle injury/recovery. They were actually looking at whether ice vs warm baths help aid muscle recovery (of current interest to me as I have a jogging-related muscle problem)

To do this the presenter had 15 people do the same assault course. 5 of them took a 15 minute hot bath and another 5 took a 15 minute ice-cold bath. Then they followed them over the next few days measuring different factors for assessing muscle pain/recovery. The key thing was that the remaining 5 people didn't take a hot or cold bath after exercise.
The results highlighted the importance of the negative control as hot and cold treatments had virtually the same effect. Those who didn't use either showed significantly poorer recovery. If the negative control had looked the same as the hot/cold treatments we could have concluded neither treatment has an effect but now we know hot/cold treatment is better than nothing!

It's not the perfect experimental set up but I think for a TV show this is the right level and the results hopefully showed casual viewers why the control was important.

The presenter hosted an episode on sugar vs protein diets with his identical twin last year so he clearly likes to get the concept of controls across. Although it seems his twin wasn't taking part in the experiments this time. I guess they decided a higher "n" value was more important than controlling for genetic variance :P


The show itself was surprisingly quite interesting It was somewhat disturbing how many ailments are focused on treating the symptoms when adjusting your diet would prevent them happening in the first place eg diet can solve the need for vitamin supplements and indigestion remedies. It does concern me how we (and I know I'm guilty of it) look for an easy fix rather than a long term beneficial solution. Stubborness, I guess.

Biology on the Box

A round up of some Biology shout-outs on TV

Episode 5 of "Fortitude" name-checked PCR several times, as well as making claims like "the DNA never lies". I guess it doesn't if there's no cross-contamination. We also got to see a gilson pipette, which is always a joy. They also claimed that it takes 7 years for every atom in our body to be replaced - although a quick google suggests there's a huge variation in the time it takes for that to happen.
An earlier episode mentioned "Apex" predators too so the writer of the show clearly reads or watches popular science documentaries/journals.

Speaking of documentaries, there was a great repeat of BBC4's "rise of the continents" hosted by Ian Stewart. I missed it the first time around but it was a real gem as each episode was dedicated to a continent (Australia, Africa, Americas and Eurasia) and charted its history. There were loads of things I'd never heard of - such as cratons and Stewart is able to explain things simply without being patronising (although the director unfortunately insisted on having "sherlock"-style thought process/montages). But what does this have to do with biology, I hear you ask? Well, the neat thing about the show is that it linked continental events with evolution such as whales evolving thanks to a shallow sea that once existed in North West Africa. Or how India meeting Asia resulted in the extinction of 50% of the planet's species. There were quite a few others and it highlighted how tightly the environment affects life on the planet - something we'd do well to remember!

The last one doesn't really have anything to do with biology but the partial eclipse in the UK was fun to watch (albeit indirectly thanks to the fear mongering/are people really that stupid of staring at it). It still always strikes me as an incredible co-incidence how on a planet that contains the only known life capable of appreciating it - just happens to have a moon that is the right size/distance from the sun to cause an eclipse. The odds must be minuscule. Maybe the universe just wanted to be appreciated? So, it had nothing to do with biology but it was nice to see people being interested in science indirectly. I suspect most just wanted a selfie or get caught up in the hype but I figure most people will have at least asked what an eclipse was and maybe some of them watched the entertaining "stargazing live" show and learnt quite a bit more. Small steps :)
They had a great segment pointing out that even if astrology worked then it's a month out of date and some people are actually born in the ignored 13th zodiac sign - Ophiucus. I like it when science tries to beat mysticism with its own logic. If you want to check your star sign try it here. Turns out I'm really a Pisces which suits me far better - in fact I'm convinced Astrology is based in fact. Better check what I'm supposed to do for the rest of the weekend.

Tribyd Theory

I'm getting the science equivalent of nails down a chalk-board every time I hear/read the "three parent babies". Even "three person" winds me up a little bit but at least it isn't quite as emotive. I can see why the media has gone with that option as it is attention-grabbing and sort of works as a summary.

The problem is that I think it conjures up the wrong picture of it being an evenly split contribution from the three individuals and it's bait for conservative types who worry that the "traditional family unit will be destroyed" along with the laziest negative argument ever of "it isn't natural". I'll throw in my "I'm not a mitochondrial geneticist expert" disclaimer but mitochondrial DNA is a separate entity from our genomic DNA (it was probably a different organism billions of years ago), so while the DNA from Sperm and egg are shared 50:50 the mitochondrial DNA always (but not always because - nature isn't as conservative as some want to believe) comes from your mother. By the logic being applied in news headlines this means that the father is always the weaker contributor, genetically speaking. Maybe I'm not giving mitochondria it's due but I don't see them as that much different from the human microbiome (the huge number of micro-organisms that exist in our bodies). They are also largely inherited from your mother (pick them up during birth, from breast feeding and skin contact) but can also maybe pick them up from other people early in life. So you could have lots of "parents".

As for whether the technology should be used, I think a really important thing to remember is that most people aren't going to go for this type of fertility treatment unless they have a strong medical reason for doing so. It's not like Jessica Ennis is donating her mitochondria - although maybe that would make the UK more energetic? I can imagine the worst thing that could happen from this procedure is that it will screw up Mitochondrial lineage studies as the mitochondria may have come from a different person than the genomic mother.

Decoding Annie Parker Review - "BRCA1ng bad"

Decoding Annie Parker is a film about the discovery of the BRCA1 gene and its role in breast cancer.
Here's the trailer.

I was drawn to the film as I thought there may be a good chance of science being represented fairly accurately on film. The problem is that the film isn't really focused on the science. I can understand the reluctance to make a film solely about the science as it's easier to get drama out of a cancer patient and her family (which most people can sadly relate to) than out of research (less people can relate to it). So unfortunately the film is 90% family drama, which is fine if you like that kind of thing but it was all a bit "hallmark" channel for me. The cast is surprisingly good in the sense several of them have broke out since 2013 so there's that.

In terms of the science the thing I approved of most was the fact that it took them a long time to complete the research. It was long even by research standards (16 years). As opposed to the hollywood version which would have been "Annie Parker goes to the Dr in the morning, scientist takes a blood sample, they look at it in 3D under a microscope (or ideally an interactive projection), discover the gene, raise some antibdodies against it in the afternoon, inject her with the antibodies and her cancer is cured by the evening.

They also tried their best to avoid "eureka" moments although there was one scene of Dr King channelling the spirit of Mendel and scrawling on some family trees and suddenly working it all out. I don't know if that event ever happened so I can't be too critical but it seemed dubious.

The other thing I haven't been able to verify but struck me as highly incongruous was that King's research team remained the same for 16 years. That means they either obtained an amazing set of contracts and/or never published anything else and so left to start their own labs. I'm willing to bet this was for dramatic convenience.

I can't really recommend the film as I'm not that interested in such dramas but I guess it does do a good job of highlighting how long research can take and how the knowledge it obtains can provide comfort even when it doesn't immediately provide a solution. It's also a good example of how anecdotal evidence/knowledge can mesh with scientific hypotheses.

Human universe - are we alone?

I have to admit I was really disappointed with the second episode of Brian Cox's latest trip around the world documentary series but I was glad I gave it another chance. I'm a sucker for anything about the possibility of alien life and this 1 hour documentary summed up the possibility for life out there.
Some spoilers to follow.

 In one sense the numbers are stacked in life's favour with there being billions of potential stars and current data suggesting there are billions of planets that could sustain life. Cox does a good job of explaining why the odds vastly reduce when you consider the possibly unique event of the symbiosis that created eukaryotic life on our planet. He then reduces the odds further by introducing the Fermi paradox which states any intelligent life existing 10 million years prior to us would have fully colonised the galaxy. I guess they could be more adherent to the laws of Star Trek in not interfering or civilizations burn out before they can escape their gravity well.

The show ended well with the sobering thought that if we are the only intelligent beings* out there ** then we have a responsibility to protect this unique situation and to go out there and explore. I particularly like the latter idea (it should also help with preserving other life on earth) of us going out there and colonising (preferably empty planets as opposed to conquering others). I'm a firm believer of humanity having to create its own aliens - give us a few millenia on different planets separated by near impossible distances and we'll eventually evolve into our own Klingons and Ewoks.

Anyway - a solid episode that has me willing to give the remaining episodes a chance.

*Don't worry he acknowledges there's plenty of intelligence on our own planet - something I think we really need to acknowledge. His point was that none of these animals are physically capable of building things (with the exception of primates and possibly the octopus with some minor mutations) that would allow them to communicate beyond the stars.

** He sticks to the Milky way for what I assume is the fact that a) all bets are off when you include the universe (as you multiply the chance by at least 100 billion) and b) the distances between galaxies are vast even if you happened to be next door to an intelligent galaxy.

Biology on TV

Bit of a personal slam from a quote on "the Blacklist"

"anyone working with Cullen is doing so in isolation, illegally and for no good purpose"

As an aside, the show is fun but rarely has much biology in it. If anything it has the most glaring example of "why don't you perform a DNA test?" I can think of. It's like the show exists in a world where paternity testing doesn't exist.
Otherwise the biology is usually in the hands of people who could make billions using their amazing findings legitimately but decide to use them for "EEEVILL" instead. Case in point, the episode I quoted from where a biologist who came up with a cure for a disease decided to use it to blackmail people with as opposed to selling said cure. It would have been a dull episode though,
Another curious example of science was in an episode where [mild spoilers for an episode that aired a year ago] a scientist deliberately infects large groups of people with a disease (which he magically turned into a virally bourne version of a genetic disease) in order to find a person with natural immunity whom he could then study and find a cure. I'd like to see the reaction of the review panel looking at that grant outline!

Your life on Earth

I found this cool feature on the BBC today. Plug in your date of birth and height and you'll get a ton of interesting facts from how much a redwood has grown to how far you've travelled through the Galaxy during your life. There's also some interesting/scary statistics regarding population (which ticks up as you read) and use of resources that really made me think - as well as selfishly worry that it's something that could easily be an issue in my lifetime.
Anyway, I won't spoil it all and let you discover the nuggets of information for yourself.

Personality test for Biologists!

Cell Signalling Technology recently came up with a crafty form of targeted social media advertising in the form of "what kind of protein are you?" If my workplace is anything to go by it has prove quite successful.

I got "Chaperone" - "You are a nurturer, your calm and efficient manner brings organization to an otherwise chaotic situation. People look to you for help with projects and advice."

I think many would differ on that description!

I noticed there weren't that many outcomes so I think the following could be included.

p53 - it's all about you, you're the centre of the universe and love all the attention people give you although deep down you know you don't quite live up to it.

Protease - You have a profound effect on everyone you meet - for better or worse. You can release people's true potential or destroy them.

Prion - you hang around in the background feeling like no-one notices you. You'll get the last laugh though as you slowly work you way up to the top, causing others to bend to your will.

Haemoglobin - you are the life of the party, a breath of fresh air. A good motivator of others and able to take a lot of crap off people.

I'm sure there are others feel free to suggest some!

BBC Horizon - Is your brain male or female?

It's one of the classic nature vs nurture questions -  are men and women different due to societal pressures or are there genetic/hormonal factors that allow differences to be observed? The documentary does a good job of presenting evidence from both sides and rather than give us an answer leaves us to judge. The fact the show can't decide whether there's such a thing as a male or female brain renders the title question a bit moot. So you'll be disappointed if you are hoping to get an answer to that. The rest of the show is very interesting though and the parts that stood out for me were;

Showing that monkeys have a gender bias to toys that is the same as in humans. Not sure monkey parents could introduce that bias (although not completely impossible).

Showing that research suggests a correlation between testosterone levels in the womb and the severity of autism. It was also interesting that autism could be seen as extreme "male" behaviour. Women are also exposed to testosterone so can still be autistic but this result also fits the observation that autism is more common in males.

That some of the observed differences in spatial awareness disappear when tested in a way that the subject doesn't see it as a spatial awareness test. This raises two important issues - the tests may have a bias towards a gender and that being told "women can't do X and men can't do Y" can be a self fulfilling prophecy.

That medical treatments may become gender specific. I suspect this one may be skipped over by personalised medicine which is already on the horizon. I guess gender specific medicine could still be a useful stepping stone though.

The one aspect of the show I didn't really enjoy was the male and female presenter format, I can see why there was the temptation to go for that angle but it felt a bit forced having them fall on different sides of the fence. Was that supposed to be a male vs female bias? I also felt one of the presenters was cherry picking the evidence eg refused to accept genetic components for things the other gender is apparently better at but apparently being ok with it when it was their own gender with an advantage. Or maybe that's my gender bias? My sample number of 2 suggests it wasn't.

Usually the answer with these polar explanations is the obvious "a bit of both" and I definitely think that's the case here. With regards to nature we'd be foolish to think the X and Y chromosomes are solely responsible for behaviour, For example if having a Y chromosome is " - 5" for having empathy, there's probably at least "+ 10" for empathy floating around on the other 22  chromosome pairs. this would explain the variety within a gender as well as the fact there are crossovers. Just as personalised medicine will supercede gender-specific medicine, so too will the genome overcome the X and Y chromosomes with regard to behaviour.
In terms of nature; I do think society needs to make a concerted effort to iron out gender stereotypes as the evidence presented in this episode shows how it can make the brain behave accordingly. Far better to convince both genders that they can be ambitious, capable in any discipline and have the full range of emotions than to put either one at a needless disadvantage.

BBC4's "the wonder of Animals"

Chris Packham is back with another science-skewed focus on natural history with his new show "the wonder of animals". Each episode focuses on a species of animal and then looks at the science of how it has become so successful.
The first episode was about Penguins and how their feathers are masters of insulation but can also be used to aid acceleration under water via the release of air bubbles. Another episode claims Foxes can sense magnetic fields for hunting and the science behind bear hibernation is truly fascinating. All of these things have me thinking "how can we use this technology for ourselves?". The muscle-wasting defence in hibernation sounds very useful for incapacitated patients and astronauts. for example.

I think there's still a few episodes left but for those with access to BBC iplayer and like their shows in 30 minute chunks, "the wonder of animals" is well worth a look. Just don't think too much about how this knowledge was obtained - the show neatly avoids that.

Here's a taster

Science Songs

Since getting back from holiday I've been having a nightmare getting a certain type of PCR to work. The most recent head scratching moment was to get a round of PCR that worked perfectly. I immediately ran the same PCR with the same reagents and settings but with the DNA samples I wanted to check. Nothing worked - not even the positive controls that had worked 3 hours earlier.
When an experiment can't be repeated with the same conditions there's only a few explanations;
a) there's something you aren't accounting for so it isn't the "same"
b) you are the variable
c) you are switching universes in between experiments
d) there are science goblins messing with your mind

All of these options reminded me of this song

The chorus is

"There are monsters here
And as you scream it makes no sense
It makes no sense
It makes no sense at all "

That pretty much sums up the last 2 weeks of work for me.

Science Meme/Quote

Straight and to-the-point and worth picturing whenever some non-sensical "science" article turns up online. Good old Carl Sagan.

Happigenetics

Here's a link to a promo for the "happigenetics" project. Can't say I have a clue what it's about but it seems curious never-the-less. There's some more info here for those who are curious though.

Besides the great name and the fact I know some of the people involved, I think it's great that scientists are trying to show off their creative sides. To a scientist it's pretty obvious we're creative or we'd never come up with new techniques, find ways around problems or save money/time on experiments. I can see how the rest of the world may think scientists are the antithesis of creativity with regards to artistic endeavours. As this clip shows, that's really not the case and creativity can be applied to various things be it science or art. I'm sure there're a lot of artists out there who could probably come up with some great experiments too.

Pint of Science Bristol 2014 summary

The pint of science festival happened a couple of weeks ago. More than 200 talks over 3 nights in 6 countries. The themes covered life sciences, neuroscience, chemistry, physics and Earth sciences. I'll admit that the most frustrating thing about being an organiser was not being able to see some of the other talks. Life Sciences was excellent (if i say so myself) but I was particularly drawn to some of the non-biology topics mainly because I know a lot less about them. One of the talks was on "morphing materials for cars and planes" which sounded a bit like transformers cool.

As I was at the life Sciences event I thought I'd do a quick overview of the three days.

Movie Science : X-men days of future past

I'm sure I've mentioned it before but the X-men cartoon and comics of the 90s probably bare a lot of the blame for me being a biologist. As such I still have a soft spot for them and was very impressed when I came out of the cinema having watched the latest instalment "Days of Future Past". Yes. I'm a big fan of the original comic storyline as well.

In terms of the science, I just have to accept that "mutant" is a license to do whatever you want, biology and physics be damned and I'm not complaining when it looks so cool. What I did find curious though was a bit of genetics in the film in which a character said they could detect people who could have mutant children or have grandchildren that could be mutants. This got me thinking, the films and comics often refer to a gene called the "x-gene" which seems to be the super awesome gene that results in all the mutant powers. I'm guessing it must be a transcription factor. The fact humans can have mutant children means the mutation is either spontaneous (a random mutation in the parent's germ line) or recessive (the mutant has to have two x-genes to be a mutant). But the grandchildren thing strikes me as odd because if it is recessive then you wouldn't necessarily have to wait an extra generation to get the mutant child. Unless two separate recessive mutant genes are required eg "x-gene" and "Z-gene". This might help explain why the mutants are so rare as well as the major variety in powers (maybe the other Z-gene encodes an epigenetic remodelling factor?).
That or the screenwriters didn't really consider the genetic implications of that sentence. In true Marvel tradition I'm providing a "no-prize" in case they need let off the hook.

If the genetics didn't make any sense on first read, hopefully this diagrams will help. Be warned it gets far too geeky from here on out.

Pint of Science - International

I mentioned a while ago that I'm involved in the Pint of Scientist festival this year. Handling the "Life sciences" section in Bristol (book your tickets now).
I know I have readers from other parts of the world and the website now has sections for USA, France, Australia and Switzerland. So if you live in any of those countries have a click and see what may be on in your area.

I'll try and do some more shameless promotion for the talks I'm involved in although I should probably concentrate on making sure they run smoothly first!

Rick and Morty - Inspirational Science Motivation Speech

Rick and Morty is an excellent new animated sci-fi comedy from the creator of "community". Think of it as this generations' "futurama" but possible even darker. Anyway the show is littered with funny quotes but I quite like this one as a reason for studying science.

Also wise words for any scientists suffering in a relationship :)

Break the cycle, rise up and focus on science!

Pint of Science Festival 19-21 May 2014

A quick plug for this year's "pint of science" festival which will occur at several cities across the UK from the 19th-21st May. Not all is lost for those outside the UK as the event is also occurring in parts of the world (have a look to see if your hometown is involved).

The idea, as far as I'm interpreting it, is to engage the general public (who are allowed to drink) in the relaxed environment of the pub. Hopefully seeing scientists with a pint in their hand will make them (us) seem more human and approachable. Top researchers from the cities in question will entertain and educate ("entucate"?) you with their research and from what I've heard there will be anything from games to comedians in between the talks.

Biology is well represented this year with a "life sciences" and "neuroscience" themed subcategories along with "physical sciences" and "geological sciences" (if biology isn't your bag).

Why the plug? Besides it being a cool event in it's own right, there's also the fact I'm helping organise the Bristol Life Sciences event. Nothing wrong with a little self-promotion, right?

I'll keep you updated where possible and hopefully some of you will turn up to one of the events in your area.