Category: Grad School

Tales From My Twitter

I did it. Took the plunge. Succumbed to the peer pressure. I joined twitter. I think I was inspired by the BronxZoosCobra. One of two things will now happen: I will come to regret it, or I will become addicted. Maybe I’ll get more twitter followers than blog followers (not that I don’t love the seven of you immensely.) Here goes my shameless plug: http://twitter.com/ErinPodolak

Fun fact, within 20 minutes of joining twitter, my first follower became Sea World. Nothing against Sea World, I’m just not sure what their interest says about me. Do they follow every person who claims to be a science writer? Or did I just do something special to garner their attention? Fellow science writers, please advise.

***
Update 4/8/11 – Six days on twitter, and I’ve lost Sea World as a follower. Sad day. I guess my tweets weren’t of interest to them after all. But I do have 10 whole followers, putting my twitter prowess ahead of my blogging prowess by three.

Update 4/18/11 – Complete and total obsession has taken hold. Twitter has bested Facebook in the struggle for my two-second attention span, and I am overwhelmed by the wealth of information I didn’t realize was being traded everyday. I have made it to 22 followers, only five of whom I actually happen to know. I have been Re-Tweeted by the Canadian Research Office – much to my amazement. I am both humbled and nervous about what my tweets will say about me. In my worst nightmare my budding career is brought down by using the wrong #hashtag and offending someone I never even knew existed. Perhaps I am taking my life on the internet far too seriously. It may be time to back slowly away from the laptop.

Advice from Sheri Fink

While this semester of grad school has been somewhat challenging, today I got the opportunity to enjoy one of grad school’s biggest perks: access to amazing writers and resources. Pulitzer Prize winner Sheri Fink spoke at UW today, and while I wasn’t able to attend her talk because I was in class, I was still able to meet her this morning and discuss my work and career thus far. 

Sheri Fink’s article The Deadly Choices at Memorial is a great piece of investigative journalism that takes an in-depth look at how a lack of emergency preparedness led to unnecessary death at Memorial Medical Center in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. The article won the Pulitzer Prize and had an impact on the establishment of new guidelines for how emergencies should be handled. 
At 13,000 words the article is very long, but very compelling. It raises important questions about what should be done in an emergency, but also makes you question what you would do if you were in the situation the Doctor’s and Nurses at Memorial Medical Center found themselves in. The answers aren’t as clear cut as you might think, even when you are sure of what is right and what is wrong.
The opportunity to meet and talk to a writer of her caliber is something I’m sure I wouldn’t have if I wasn’t back in school. She was wonderful to talk to because she really seemed interested in where I am in my career and what I hope to accomplish. As I was explaining myself she stopped me and told me that I was being too humble. She told me that I was an expert in science communication and I should own it.
I tend not to think of myself as an expert in anything, but with a Bachelor’s in science writing, one year of professional experience, and now half of my Master’s program under my belt I can say that I’m an expert in science communication. I hesitate to make a statement like that because it makes it seem as though I have nothing else to learn. I always feel like there is more that I can learn and ways that I can improve. Working with the sciences, I’ve found a willingness to learn to be a critical component to writing good articles.
Right now I’m more comfortable with “expert in training,” but maybe once I finish grad school I’ll be more comfortable owning the title of expert outright. Regardless I appreciated her encouragement, it was a good pick me up. 

History Remains a Mystery: DNA Can’t Confirm Remains Are Amelia Earhart

I use Science Decoded for class and have assignments that require me to post in certain ways. This week I’m ATTEMPTING to write in a diamond structure (writers will know it but that means really specific- big issue- really specific.) I’m going to try to do so by tackling Amelia Earhart and the role of DNA analysis in identifying her possible remains, a subject I previously mentioned in the post What Happened to Amelia Earhart?

Today she is the topic of book reports, the namesake of streets, schools and scholarships, and even the subject of a major motion picture starring actress Hilary Swank. But in 1937 when she decided to fly around the world, Amelia Earhart – famous though she was – was also something unheard of at the time. She was a woman shattering convention – simply because she wanted to.
Amelia Earhart broke her first world record at the age of 24 on October 22, 1922 when she flew her airplane to an altitude of 14,000ft. The highest altitude then recorded for a female pilot. By April 8, 1931 she would beat her own record soaring to 18,415ft. She set four records for speed from 1930-1933, and in 1932 she was the first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean, five years to the day after Charles Lindberg first accomplished the feat. She wrote a book about the trip called “For the Fun of It.”
Earhart became a champion for women’s rights by being an outspoken female figure in a male dominated field. In 1932 she helped form, and was elected president of the Ninety Nines a club for women aviators.

According to the website operated by the estate of the famous aviator, Amelia Earhart is quoted as having said, “One of my favorite phobias is that girls, especially those whose tastes aren’t routine, often don’t get a fair break. It has come down through the generations, an inheritance of age-old customs which produced the corollary that women are bred to timidity.”

Source: Wikimedia Commons
Earhart was the first person to fly solo from Los Angeles to Mexico City, the first person to fly from Mexico City to Newark nonstop, and the first person to fly across the Red Sea to India. Not just the first woman. She was the first PERSON to complete these milestone trips.

Having accomplished all of this it is no surprise that on June 1, 1937 when she was 39-years-old Earhart set out to become the first woman to fly around the world. She almost succeeded. On June 29th, Earhart and navigator Fred Noonan arrived in Lae, New Guinea with only 7,000 miles of the trip left. On July 2nd Earhart and Noonan took off for their next checkpoint at Howland Island. 
It is here that the story of a strong female aviator, a role model for men and women alike becomes a mystery. She was sucked into the vortex of the Bermuda triangle. She flew to Rio to live a life of secrecy. She was abducted by aliens. Although the theories about why Earhart never arrived at Howland Island are many, truly no one knows what happened to her, Noonan, or their twin engine Lockheed Electra airplane. Although the most likely scenario is that Earhart and Noonan were unable to find Howland Island and then ran out of fuel.

With clouds obscuring the stars, Noonan’s ability to navigate would have been heavily compromised. The failure of their radio transmissions would have left Earhart and Noonan unable to ask for help. Landing in the ocean or on one of the South Pacific’s islands may or may not have killed the aviator. She was declared dead, but some say she could have survived the landing and lived for awhile as a castaway. This theory was buoyed in 2010 by the discovery of three bone fragments that might be a human finger on Nikumaroro (formerly known as Gardner Island) in the Republic of Kiribati.

It was on Nikumaroro in 1940 that a British Naval officer found 13 bones including a skull believed to belong to a castaway. The bones were sent to Fiji for analysis where they were later misplaced. A connection was never made to Earhart because at the time the bones were analyzed and believed to belong to a man. American officials were never officially notified of the discovery.


The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) took up the mystery of what happened to Earhart and Noonan and the possibility that the 1940 Nikumaroro bones were either the aviator or her navigator in 1988. An analysis of records from Fiji conducted by TIGHAR forensic anthropologists based on new computerized technology indicate that the initial analysis was wrong and the remains belonged to a white female.
TIGHAR conducted new searches of the island in 2001, 2007 and 2010. The search in 2010 turned up the three bone fragments, reportedly in the same area that the original 13 misplaced bones were found. TIGHAR recruited the help of Cecil Lewis of the University of Oklahoma’s Molecular Anthropology Laboratories to analyze the bone fragments. Last week TIGHAR announced that Lewis’ findings were inconclusive. It is possible that the bones are a human finger bone, but bones could also belong to a sea turtle. Other organisms like birds and fish have been ruled out due to the structure of the bone.
Nikumaroro Map. Source: Flickr.

The initial test for the presence of human mitochondrial DNA conducted by Lewis was positive, but subsequent tests did not replicate that result. Because the process of extracting DNA damages the bone, further attempts to determine the bone’s origin would use up the rest of the sample. Doing so would make independent replication – a crucial part of the scientific process in which other scientists conduct the same experiment to make sure that the results are valid – an impossibility.

A mitochondrial DNA profile on Earhart has been compiled from a female relative. Mitochondria are an organelle – a small part of a cell. Mitochondria are involved in creating energy to power the cell. Unlike the rest of the cell, mitochondria contain DNA that is directly passed between mother and child, meaning that it is the same for all individuals on the maternal side of the family lineage.
TIGHAR has decided to shelve the DNA testing of the 2010 Nikumaroro bone fragments to ensure that in the future when DNA analysis technology improves to the point where less material is needed to discover if the bones are human (and if they are Earhart’s) there will still be enough of the bones left to test. But, when the bone is able to be tested for human DNA, the mitochondrial DNA profile of Earhart will be used to confirm if the bones are hers.
Other artifacts recovered from the Nikumaroro site (including what may be fecal matter, a freckle cream jar, and evidence of meals being cooked) are still being analyzed for direct evidence of Earhart or Noonan. Another expedition to Nikumaroro is scheduled for the summer of 2012 – to mark the 75th anniversary of Earhart’s flight and disappearance. The new expedition will focus on finding the remains of her Lockheed Electra, believed to be deep down on the slope of the reef on the Island’s west end.
The identification of Earhart’s remains (if they are hers) would be a triumph of scientific technology. As her story becomes intertwined with science, it becomes ever more ironic that Earhart didn’t view the information gathered from her flights as science. “I lay no claim to advancing scientific data other than advancing flying knowledge,” she said. “I can only say that I do it because I want to.”
If Earhart has a scientific legacy it is not to be found in her bones. Earhart believed women should never stop trying to excel in fields dominated by men. She busted the boys club of aviation, and paved the way for women to do the same in other fields. Female scientists who have broken into their own boys club, and penetrated the historically male dominated research fields embody Earhart’s determination to succeed.
Whether or not science will one day be able to tell if Earhart met her end on Nikumaroro Island, her legacy to science, and all of society, is in encouraging women to break with convention.
“Now and then women should do for themselves what men have already done – occasionally what men have not done – thereby establishing themselves as persons, and perhaps encouraging other women toward greater independence of through and action. Some such consideration was a contributing reason for my wanting to do what I so much wanted to do.”

Animal Cognition & The Genius Parrot

In my previous post Osteoarthritis, Cognition and Animal Healthcare I raised some questions about animal cognition – basically how can we understand what animals know and how they think? In my zoology class we are studying animal cognition, and we watched a really interesting video of Alex the African Grey Parrot, who is famous for the cognitive abilities he demonstrated when asked complex questions. 
Alex died in 2007 (check out his obituary in the New York Times,) but prior to his death he was the subject of very interesting work by Dr. Irene Pepperberg at Brandeis University (she is also an associate researcher at Harvard University) and the subject of her book Alex and Me. Even though it isn’t new research, I wanted to share the video of Alex going through some of the cognition tests, because I hadn’t seen it before, and I was pretty impressed by just how much he knew. 

Since Alex’s death researchers in Pepperberg’s laboratory are working with other parrots. Although, cognitive abilities as extensive as Alex’s haven’t been reported. Alex shows us what parrots are capable of, but I can’t help but wonder if he showed the highest boundary of what parrots can learn and most parrots are not as smart, or if it really is just a matter of training parrots to communicate with us. 

Osteoarthritis, Cognition and Animal Healthcare

As I’ve talked about in previous posts, I’m taking a zoology class this semester on the biology and psychology of human and animal relationships with Patricia McConnell. I’m really enjoying the class so far because it has me thinking more critically about the way humans think about and treat other animals.

Case in point, I read the article Polar Bear Mercedes’ Health Failing mostly because it is about a polar bear (as I’ve proclaimed before, they are my absolute favorite animals and have been since I was a child). I was having a gushy “oh poor polar bear” sort of moment. BUT reading the article made me think a lot about veterinary science and the way that humans take care of the health problems of other animals.

The article is about a specific polar bear in the Highland Wildlife Park in the United Kingdom that has been diagnosed with osteoarthritis. Currently the bear is being treated with painkillers for the condition, which is a degenerative disorder of the joints. Joints are places in the body where bones meet. They are held together with cartilage, tendons and muscles that enable the joint to bend. When an individual has osteoarthritis the cartilage starts to break down, causing the bones to rub directly together. This can cause pain, swelling and stiffness that drastically limits movement as the disease progresses.

At the Bronx Zoo.
Source: Wikipedia Commons

There is no known cure for osteoarthritis (which it should be noted affects many different species, and is very common in humans) but the symptoms can be controlled with painkillers. The condition typically effects older individuals. In the case of the polar bear, the patient is 30 years old which makes her a very old lady as far as polar bears go. Because there is no cure for the condition it is possible that the polar bear will be put down when her condition progresses enough to reduce her quality of life.

I can’t help but wonder how we define quality of life for a polar bear. Even though she is suffering from a condition that also effects humans, we can’t necessarily define the polar bear’s suffering or quality of life the way we would our own. How do veterinarians or zoologists decide when enough is enough for a polar bear? She can’t tell us when she’s tired of living with the disease. Quite frankly assisted suicide isn’t legal in humans, so what is it that makes euthanasia in animals alright? I support trying to limit the pain and suffering of animals that have been brought under human care, but what needs to be considered before deciding that it is time for them to die?

In humans a joint that no longer functions due to damage from osteoarthritis could be replaced with an artificial one made of plastic, metal or cement. That type of invasive surgery wouldn’t be done on other species. Not only are these procedures extremely expensive, they require strenuous physical therapy and rehabilitation to come back from. This is a case where the condition might be the same across species, but the way it is treated is different. Really all they could do to alleviate the bear’s symptoms is treat it with painkillers (which is what they are doing.)

A human joint with osteoarthritis.
Source: NIH-NIAMS photo gallery

It is interesting to consider how the polar bear would deal with the disease in the wild. They certainly wouldn’t have pain killers at their disposal. In this case the polar bear wouldn’t even have made it to old age (and have developed this disease) if it weren’t for human interference. It was rescued after being shot in the wild and brought to a zoo, and later moved to the wildlife park.

These aren’t easy questions. Animal behaviorists are still searching for answers about how much other species are self-aware. The fact is we don’t know how much the polar bear thinks, or what it thinks – about its life or its condition. Even though I don’t have answers, I appreciate my zoology class for getting me to think like this about how humans manage other animal’s health.

If you are interested in animal cognition there is an entire journal dedicated to scientific research being done in the field called (shockingly) Animal Cognition where you can learn more about studies of what and how animals think.