All posts by erin

Revising Taxonomy

Conservation, Genetics, New Research, Public Perceptions, Science History

Very few people in the United States give a damn about the Egyptian Jackal. While I have nothing to offer as proof of this, I stand by my hunch that this specific canid isn’t high on the list of most popular animals, because really, who has even heard of it before? (I hadn’t until today…)

Golden Jackal. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Why then should people care that genomic analysis has revealed that the Egyptian Jackal is actually a wolf, not a jackal at all? Well, because even if you don’t find the power of genomic analysis fascinating (like I do) this revision of current taxonomy (the classification of species based on how they are related to each other) is a great example of how science is a fluid thing that continually changes as new things are discovered. I think that understanding how even accepted scientific information can change is a hurdle that many people have to clear before they can really start to follow science in the news.

For years, the Egyptian Jackal (Canis aureus lupaster) was believed to be a subspecies of the Golden Jackal (both species that call parts of Africa home.) Researchers from the University of Oslo (Norway) noticed physiological differences (ie: differences in the way it looked) between Egyptian Jackals and other Golden Jackals, which led them to pursue a genetic analysis.

Sequencing the Egyptian Jackal’s genome has shown that it is a closer evolutionary relative to wolves found in India and the Himalayas (even to the United States’ Grey Wolf) than to Golden Jackals. Revising the taxonomy could have important impacts on conservation efforts. If Canis aureus lupaster (now renamed the African Wolf — and the only wolf now known to live in Africa) is a distinct species, an evaluation needs to be done to see how many members of this species there are, to determine if it is endangered.

I like this story because its a great example of how scientists are constantly revising accepted information the more they learn. However, I think when you tell people that science is constantly changing it is important to distinguish between making a revision and being flat out wrong. Scientists weren’t just wrong in their taxonomy. The Egyptian Jackal/African Wolf is a canid, so that part of the taxonomy was and still is correct. The genetic analysis enabled research to put the species into an even more specific category.

So when we say that science changes, we mean that it gets more specific and thus more accurate. But that doesn’t mean that the scientists who came before had everything all wrong. Often when scientists revise information their predecessors/colleagues were close, but didn’t have the necessary tools to learn enough to get things exactly right. There is always more that scientists can learn, and as they do, they fine tune, which is the case with the Jackal/Wolf taxonomy.

For more on the Jackal/Wolf revision, the research paper was published in PLoS One.

Can Journalists Be Celebrities?

Public Perceptions, State of Journalism

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the distinction between television news personalities, and print/internet journalists. I feel pretty strongly that being a TV news anchor, doesn’t necessarily make you a journalist. But then what does make someone a journalist?

With the “sudden” departure of liberal commentator Keith Olbermann from MSNBC’s program Countdown last week, I think the issue of journalists as television personalities, and ultimately as celebrities has been brought into the spotlight. Olbermann has been in trouble with the network for donating to liberal political campaigns, which would be a big no-no for a journalist because it would be a clear violation of the need to be unbiased. But Olbermann has never been unbiased. He has always made his affiliations clear, so does the fundamental journalistic quality of trying to be fair go out the window? If we don’t hold him to journalistic standards, does he then become nothing more than just a television star?
Where do we draw the line between Matt Lauer and Anderson Cooper? Are they both journalists? Are neither of them journalists? How does being on television make someone different from a print journalist? How many print journalists do you know by name? If I had to guess, I’d say not that many. I ask these questions because I think there are important distinctions between journalists that people need to be aware of. But at the same time, I’m not sure that I can quantify what it is that makes or discounts someone from being a journalist. 
When I think about television journalism, I automatically think that Anderson Cooper is more legitimate than your typical nightly news anchor. But is this just a reflection of the way he is displayed on TV? Is he really a journalist in the sense that he develops stories, cultivates sources, does the digging and background research necessary to make a story? Or does he send an intern off to do the real journalism and then just read the cue cards? I certainly don’t know how Cooper operates, but I think its important to consider why he seems so much more like a journalist than the people who read the news every night on television. 
Print journalists are rarely as recognizable as television personalities. Does that make print journalism more legitimate? For whatever reason, I feel a bias against people on television. If someone wants to be a television star, I don’t consider that the same as wanting to be a journalist. But why can’t a journalist also be a television star? What is it about TV that somehow cheapens what may very well be outstanding journalism?
Perhaps it is nothing more than the difference between an editorial and an article. But then why do the people who read the news on television (which would count as articles) not seem like journalists, when someone like Cooper who can easily cross into the realm of editorial seems legitimate? Especially when the Olbermann’s of the world, who are clearly editorialists, have so obviously crossed the line between journalist and television talking head. 
I’m not sure. But as I figure out what kind of journalist I want to be, and how I want to direct my career, it is definitely something that I’m thinking about. 
Some background on the Olbermann/MSNBC split:

Animals On The Black Market

Environment, Past Articles, Zoology

I’ve been thinking a lot about how humans use animals due to the readings I was assigned for my zoology class for next week. I like to think that my position on the use of animals is somewhat middle of the road. I believe in animal research, in work animals (like a sheep dog), and I do eat meat. BUT, I am a firm believer in protecting animal welfare and conducting all animal related activities in a humane way.

Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes).
Source: Wikimedia Commons

I bring up animal welfare, because I saw an article in the BBC today about a huge raid on suspected illegal animal traders conducted by Gabon’s ministries of water, forestry, and defense. The government agencies weren’t able to save any live animals, but they found enough evidence (heads, hands, skins, etc) to charge the five suspects with poaching.

According to the World Wildlife Federation, the raid resulted in the largest haul of dismembered animals in Central Africa in the last decade. Included in the seizure were parts (I know, awful) of a gorilla, at least 15 chimpanzees (probably several more if the parts came from different animals), 12 leopards, a lion, five elephants, and several snakes.

I feel like animal poaching is the type of issue that can be easy for people to ignore because we associate it with being a far away problem, it can be easy for us to forget about. I realize that there are some cultures that hunt and eat these animals – but selling them for exorbitant prices on the black market, when killing them is illegal in the first place is a problem.

About a year ago I wrote an article for BioTechniques about a new method to track animal poaching using genetic analysis of poached animals. Genetics Cracks Down On Animal Trafficking focuses on animals poached in Nigeria and Cameroon, but it is still an interesting way to crack down on illegal animal trafficking.

Blogging Experiments

Grad School

This semester for my long form journalism class (J880) with Deb Blum, everyone is going to be blogging in their speciality. I considered creating a specific blog just for the class, but I really like Science Decoded and I felt like if I was trying to keep up with a second blog, this one would fall to the wayside.

So, that being said there will definitely be some changes to my posts for the next few months. I want to keep the casual and personal feel that this blog has, but I’m only going to do personal posts if they are related to my work or school. I’m also going to be putting up lengthier posts with more background research in them, as opposed to my current standard of short posts filled with my own commentary.

Hopefully I can keep up a cohesive feel while I’m experimenting with different styles and types of posts. I’ll probably differentiate posts for class vs. regular daily posts in some way. I think using the blog for class should be fun to get more traffic to this site, and help me try to develop Science Decoded into a way to market myself.

To Test, Or Not To Test: A Regulatory Question

Genetics, Public Perceptions, Sequencing

My internship with BioTechniques dumped me headfirst into the world of genome sequencing. One of the hottest (and by that I mean most talked about, funded, and hyped up) biotechnology fields, genome sequencing has a lot of power. The media loves genome sequencing because it attracts a lot of public interest, so its no wonder the technology is a headline maker.

For those who are unfamiliar with the term, genome sequencing is a process by which a machine takes a sample of your DNA (from saliva or blood) and “reads” it by identifying the nucleotide bases (Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, or Thymine) that make up your personal DNA sequence. By comparing this sequence to the human draft sequence (a previously “read” and studied human DNA strand) researchers can tell if anything in your DNA sequence is out of place, indicating a chance for genetic disease.

I tried looking into personal genome sequencing companies for an article for my J800 class last semester. While I did come up with an article eventually, I decided not to pitch it on the grounds that none of the personal genome sequencing companies would make a representative available to talk to me, therefore my article was slightly off kilter. Apparently, no one wants to bother with helping a student, and if you don’t have a definite place to publish you just aren’t important enough for the corporate world to give a damn.

But, I still find personal genomics incredibly interesting, which is why the New York Times article Heavy Doses of DNA Data, With Few Side Effects caught my eye. The article takes a look at research from the Scripps Translational Science Institute that shows that people who pay money to have their genome analyzed often did nothing with the data, and even when the results indicated a higher risk for disease people didn’t feel any extra anxiety.

The results are interesting because they go against what you would think the common reaction to obtaining your genetic data would be. There has been controversy about public access to genetic information on the grounds that people won’t understand it and will thus act rashly or misunderstand their results. The new research shows that most people either didn’t do anything with the information they obtained, or consulted a medical professional before acting.

The new research doesn’t close the door on the issues surrounding personal genomics by any means. The idea that the technology and service should be regulated, and by who, and how strictly are all still prominent concerns. However, the study could serve to help policy makers decide how to regulate the industry.