All posts by erin

Daffodil Organs

Good Writing, My Personal Life, ,

Today is the first day of March, ushering in what (I desperately hope) is the spring season. To celebrate March and spring I wanted to share the article, “Oxford scientists say trumpets in daffodils are ‘new organ’.” Daffodils are one of my favorite flowers, and their arrival also marks the end of winter’s cold so I’m posting about them today as a form of wishful thinking.

The trumpet (gold) and petals (pale yellow) Source: Wikimedia Commons
The trumpet (gold) and petals (pale yellow)
Source: Wikimedia Commons

Daffodils are unique among flowers because they have five parts (called organs) instead of the typical four. The four parts all flowers have are the sepals, petals, stamens, and carpals. The fifth part that daffodils have is called the trumpet, or corona. Researchers have struggled in the past to determine what the trumpet is, typically lumping it in with the petals.

But now, researchers from the University of Oxford (UK) have determined that the trumpet is not a part of the petals, and is its own unique organ. The researchers discovered this by studying the flowers as they formed, and dissecting the bulbs to see how the different parts of the flower developed. In daffodils, the four main parts that all flowers have develop at the same time, while the trumpet is formed later. Because of this difference in development times, the researchers concluded that the trumpet is distinct from the other four organs.

For a little article about the classification of parts of a daffodil, I really like this story. The article has some interesting background and quotes that put the finding in context. This is a fun science article, and the next time I see daffodils, I’ll be sure to check out the trumpet-petal difference. Fingers crossed I’ll see daffodils (and spring!) sometime soon.

Defining & Finding the Higgs Boson Particle

BioTechnology, Blame the Media

I know that I love on the BBC quite a bit, I make no bones about it being my preferred source for daily science news coverage. However, the article “LHC has two years to find Higgs” is an unfortunate departure from the BBC‘s typically stellar science coverage.

The article caught my attention because I’m already familiar with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) a particle collider operating underground along the France/Switzerland border. A particle collider takes protons (a small part of an atom), runs them around at speeds close to the speed of light, and crashes the particles into each other. Hence the name, particle (the protons) collider (the smashing them together part.)

The other part of the BBC article’s title that caught my eye was “Higgs” which refers to the Higgs Boson Particle. The Higgs is a theoretical particle – meaning that it is a particle that physicists THINK exists, but they don’t actually know for sure, it might not exist at all. In trying to understand the universe and what gives all matter mass, physicists have come up with several theories.

One of these theories is the Standard Model – which is based on the existence of the Higgs. If it exists the Higgs would explain how particles get mass. The LHC is looking for the Higgs by analyzing the teraelectronvolts (TeV – a measurement of energy) that would be emitted by the process through which particles get mass. The LHC should be able to detect the TeV of the Higgs – if it exists.

Part of one LHC tunnel. Source: Wikimedia Commons

I realize that the BBC’s article is clearly an update piece about ongoing research, but it just glosses over some very important explanations about the LHC and the Higgs. If I didn’t know that LHC was a particle collider or that the Higgs is a theoretical particle I would have no idea what this article is about from the title. Even as you go through the body of the article, there is no background information. To say that particle physics is complicated is an understatement. All the more reason why this article needs background information to make it understandable. As it is, this article is not appropriate for lay audiences.

The timely component of this article, or the reason why an update on the LHC is needed, is that researchers have announced that if the Higgs isn’t detected by the end of 2012 they will conclude that the particle does not exist. If the Higgs doesn’t exist then the Standard Model is not the way by which the universe is organized, meaning researchers would have to re-define their understanding of sub-atomic physics.

This is a news worthy update, however I feel like the reporter didn’t do the story justice. Even the quotes do nothing to explain what LHC is, what the Higgs is, or what the significance of its existence or non-existence would be. I have a particular problem with the paragraph:
“According to Professor Tom LeCompte of the Argonne National Laboratory, US, who works at the LHC: “The most likely place for the Higgs to be is in a very good place for us to discover it in the next two years.”

I have no idea what this quote means. “The most likely place for the Higgs to be is in a very good place…” What? My best guess is that the scientist is trying to say that research at LHC has progressed to the point that if the Higgs isn’t detected in two more years, it doesn’t exist. But obviously, that is NOT what he actually said.

This is a prime example of a quote that shouldn’t have been used. Rather than just using the confusing quote the reporter could have asked the source to clarify or say what they meant in a different way. The reporter could also have paraphrased what the researcher was trying to say. Just because an intelligent and successful scientist makes a statement, doesn’t mean that statement is gold. As a writer you have to decide what quotes add to the story, and what quotes are just confusing. You shouldn’t put in quotes just to have quotes.

I realize that this is just a short article and it isn’t trying to do an in depth analysis of the LHC, the Higgs, or particle physics, but that doesn’t mean that background information and good quotes should go out the window. This topic is particularly complex and nuanced, and I’ve struggled to provide a decent explanation here – but just because something is hard doesn’t mean you don’t have to even TRY to explain it clearly.

I think the BBC article could have been a lot better if more effort was put into trying to at least define the LHC and the Higgs for the reader. After all, the reader isn’t going to care that some particle might not exist if you don’t explain what that particle is and why it matters.

If you want to learn more about the LHC, I can’t help but recommend the following video. I still get a kick out of watching physicists try to rap and dance. You will find the explanation of the Higgs in the video far more complex than mine. Physics is out of my realm of comfortable understanding – but I gave it a shot and tried to keep it as basic as possible.

Animal Cognition & The Genius Parrot

Grad School, Zoology
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

Grad School, Public Perceptions, Zoology

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.

Thunder Thighs

Good Writing, My Personal Life, New Research

Perusing the BBC today, the headline “Dinosaur had thunder thighs” leapt off the page and made me laugh, so I couldn’t help but share it here. Coming from a background where I was in a sorority as an undergraduate, I can assure you that when someone dropped the term “thunder thighs” they were not talking about dinosaur muscles. But this is a case of scientists having a sense of humor, using the term to name a new dinosaur species.

The species is a sauropod, a type of dinosaur characterized by their long necks and tails. According to the researchers, the fossilized hip bone is larger than the hips in other similar species. This along with the unique shape of the hip socket which shows a large space for muscles to connect, led the researchers to conclude that B. mcintoshi would have had powerful legs capable of delivering strong kicks.
A representation of some long necked sauropods.
Source: Wikimedia Commons

The dinosaur species is technically called Brontomerus mcintoshi from the Greek bronto for thunder and meros for thigh. Leading to the common name, thunder thighs. The researchers from University College London who discovered the significance of the fossilized remains (which are fragmentary, but enough to draw conclusions) named the species the way they did because it would have had extremely powerful and muscular legs.

The fossils date back to the Early Cretaceous Period, and are estimated at 110 million years old. The finds were uncovered in the Hotel Mesa Quarry in Grand County, Utah. The site is known to have been scoured by fossil hunters, leaving researchers to speculate whether other interesting finds (like thunder thighs) may have been carried off to private collections.

I like the BBC’s coverage of this scientific find so much, because they had fun with the name of the species, but not so much as to dilute the importance of the find. The article is detailed and (I think) does a good job of explaining what is significant about the species and the location where it was uncovered. If nothing else, the title alone is clearly a success because it got me to read the entire article.

It is important to note that the bones were discovered in the 1990’s and stored at the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, but the significance of the hip bone wasn’t discovered until Dr. Mike Taylor from University College London evaluated them in 2007. Results of this study were published recently in the journal Acta Palaeontologica Polonica.