Feeds:
Posts
Comments

One of the biggest scientific conferences each year is Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology (ISMB), put on by the International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB). I had the pleasure of attending the conference in Toronto last year, meeting many familiar names in person and collaborating with a number of them to microblog the sessions. That latter activity was so successful that it caught the eyes of the conference organizers, and we were able to publish a paper in PLoS Computational Biology summarizing the conference.

Even better, the ISCB is embracing microblogging from the outset this year at its ISMB meeting in Stockholm, which is starting this weekend and will run until July 2. They will be auto-generating threads for each talk in the FriendFeed room for live coverage and open commentary and are advertising that fact prominently on the website for those interested in blogging the event. Their actions are in stark contrast to those of Cold Spring Harbor, who recently updated their policies to require bloggers and twitterers to register with CSH beforehand and get advance permission from each presenter they plan on covering.

Now that blogging, microblogging, and even twittering is becoming more commonplace, it behooves conference organizers to have an official policy. Even one that is restrictive is better than no policy, which can result in an awkward backlash when people on both sides are caught unawares. Clearly there is no one-size-fits-all approach, but for conferences that do not deal with sensitive material, an open and even actively encouraging stance such as the ISCB’s is certainly liberating for those of us who are drawn to these kinds of activities.

So if you can’t attend ISMB this year for whatever reason, you (and I) are in luck. They’re freely providing the next best thing – live microblogging and a searchable archive of posts (through FriendFeed). Even if you’ll be physically attending, your experience will be arguably better if you follow the FriendFeed room. Because there’s only one of you, but there are also many others like you.

So check it out, whether you’re there or not, and if you’re there, contribute a post or two! If you’re not there, you can still participate by commenting and asking questions. That’s the beauty of it – the benefits go both ways!

Life after grad school…

… isn’t all that different. Yet. I’m sure it will change a lot once I actually start work in The Real World, but for now, I’m still going to be spending most of my days in the lab doing a lot of the same things. Only now, people occasionally call me “Dr.”, which is strange because it’s true.

With my parents and my advisor after receiving my diploma

With my parents and my advisor post-diploma

I consider myself very fortunate to have a fantastic job lined up, but not everyone is so lucky:

It's a tough time to graduate

It's a tough time to graduate

Still, everyone seemed happy:

w00t! Graduation!!

w00t! Graduation!!

I’m not much for presents, but I’m very excited about the two very useful graduation gifts I received – a snazzy Canon SD 1200 from Chris (I’ve been camera-less for a couple years; expect to see many more photos on this blog starting now) and a KitchenAid stand mixer from some pretty awesome friends (no more blisters from mixing dough by hand!):

IMG_0239 IMG_0139

Then, as expected, I took the next week off. My family was in town, so we went on a hike in Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, which is nestled on the west side of the Santa Cruz mountains between Hwy 92, Hwy 1, and Skyline. We took the Whittemore Gulch trail up to the North Ridge trail because it sounded like it would offer diverse terrain along with great views in a reasonable hike (~ 4.5 mi roundtrip), and, indeed, it did not disappoint.

View towards the Pacific from the North Ridge trail

View towards the Pacific from the North Ridge trail

My mom especially wanted to see banana slugs. Well, it must have been just after spawning season, because we saw more banana slugs than we could count, from babies an inch long to adults almost as long as my forearm. We even saw one actively chomping away at some green leaves. There were also a couple snakes, mice, butterflies, and plenty of wildflowers to keep our senses engaged.

IMG_0141 IMG_0143 IMG_0149 IMG_0150 IMG_0146 IMG_0154

On Tuesday, we drove up to Napa for an afternoon of wine tasting, visiting Folie a Deux/Napa Cellars, Saddleback Cellars, and Mumm Napa, where we bought two bottles of a unique sparkling Pinot Noir. Despite having lived here for 5 years, I’d never gone to Napa before this trip.

IMG_0176 IMG_0182 IMG_0196

Chris and I headed off to visit his parents in Ashland (just over the border in Oregon) the next day. We took the scenic route out of Napa but spent most of the drive on I-5. I’d driven north on I-5 once before (to Seattle) but for some reason didn’t remember Mt. Shasta. I must have been sleeping because Shasta isn’t a mountain you quickly forget!

IMG_0212 IMG_0220 IMG_0225 IMG_0235c

We spent two and a half days in Ashland, walking around town, chilling with some furry friends, hiking, and watching a lot of shows. Ashland is known for its lively theater scene, and we saw no fewer than three shows while we were there, each at a different venue: “Don Quixote”, “The Music Man”, and “The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee”. All were quite good, and each was funnier than the last. “Spelling Bee” was at the Cabaret; being a dinner theater in a converted church, it was a very intimate setting with the tiny stage right up against the first row of tables and a lot of engagement with the audience. “Don Quixote” was held in the Elizabethan theater, which recalls the theaters from Shakespeare’s time.

IMG_0251 IMG_0256

On our last full day there, we hiked to the summit of Pilot Rock with Chris’s parents. Despite being in their 60’s, they outhiked and outclimbed me both to the top and back to the bottom, scrambling up and down over the rocks like mountain goats. I hope I have half that energy and courage when I’m their age!

View of the summit from the trailhead

View of Pilot Rock from the trailhead

The view over the valley from near the top

The view from near the top

At the base of the summit

The base of the summit

Not for the faint of heart

Not for the faint of heart

On top of the world

On top of the world

Stopping to smell the flowers

Stopping to smell the flowers...

Lots of flowers

... lots of flowers

IMG_0288

And there it is — the thrill of victory and the view from the top is why we risk life and limb (ok, maybe only I felt that way…) to get up there.

Now it’s back to the grind for another week, and then I’m off for another week for a tournament near Boston, visiting friends in Boston and on Bainbridge Island, WA, and then another tournament near Seattle. Expect copious photodocumentation now that I have a camera I can take with me everywhere!

I was perhaps too glib in my previous post, summing up science as “observe, hypothesize, test, conclude, rehypothesize, ad infinitum”. As others have pointed out, this is way too simplistic, and the actual process of science involves much more at each of those steps, and does not necessarily proceed in that order. There is a lot of background reading, a lot of exploratory research, a lot of collaboration and discussion with other scientists, and a fair amount of serendipity. All of this forms a convoluted path with many false starts, loop backs, and open-ended branches.

From Understanding Science website (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/)

From Understanding Science website (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/)

A very excellent resource called “Understanding Science” describes the process of science clearly and in great detail, and includes some great sections on scientific publications, the social side of science, the benefits of science, and science and media/policy. Now that is a great example of science communication!

Elyse over at SkepChick has an excellent open letter to frightened parents:

Dear Parents,

If you have not made the decision to vaccinate your child, I urge you to make that decision now. Immunity from painful, disfiguring, and sometimes even deadly diseases is not a gift you should withhold from your child. Your child is, undoubtedly, the greatest love of your life… a love so great that it was unfathomable until you experienced it. And I know that you want to and need to do everything in your power to protect him or her. Which is precisely why you’re hesitant to vaccinate.

I understand. As parents, we all understand. Vaccines have received almost nothing but bad press over the last few years. Even the good press seems to come with all kinds of asterisks and disclaimers. But let me remind you of something: the press is not concerned with accuracy, they are concerned with readership. Sensationalistic and scary stories grab readers’ attention. It’s why your evening news begins with murders, shots fired, child abductions and fatal car accidents. That’s not to say scary always means untrue, but it should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism…

Read the whole thing – there’s lots of good stuff in there, and weightier, as she writes from a place I haven’t yet been. When I eventually have children of my own, I’ll make sure to keep her words in mind.

As the daughter of two scientists, it never occurred to me growing up that science as a profession or a method of inquiry could be controversial. How else were we to discover life-saving treatments, develop better technologies, or advance our understanding of the natural world? I took for granted the fact that science is the foundation of modern civilization and makes improved standards of living for more people possible.

My recent forays into blogging, however, have shown me that nearly everything is debated, even things that should not even seem debatable. Evolution is one of them, and, apparently, so is vaccination. My open letter to Oprah sparked an unexpected flurry of responses from many scientists, parents, and concerned citizens, giving me a taste of the kind of “discussions” people have on issues near and dear to them. I realized that people on both sides genuinely care about improving health, but also that productive conversation is elusive when the assumptions and objects of trust are different.

Needless to say, I trust those who use the scientific method to probe and learn about the world. Science is an iterative cycle in which we observe phenomena, make testable hypotheses concerning the phenomena, devise experiments to test these hypotheses, evaluate and draw conclusions from the results using rigorous statistical analysis, and form new hypotheses based on our improved understanding. The experiments, including controls, should be devised to help ensure that 1) the procedures we’re using to gather data are doing what they’re supposed to be doing, and 2) other hypotheses or explanations aren’t responsible for the outcome we observe.

There is inherent uncertainty built into this process – for one thing, we can’t definitively rule out all other possibilities because there are, in theory, infinitely many possibilities (but only a few that are reasonable). Then there is the fact that science can never disprove anything, it can only collect evidence supporting a hypothesis or not. If twenty independent and methodologically sound studies all produce the same finding and no other studies show the opposite, we are confident that the finding is accurate. But all it would take is a few studies (again, independent and sound) showing the opposite to make us modify our confidence. As more studies accumulate, the weight of the evidence usually tilts definitively towards one side or the other, and this – the accumulation of evidence – is what should form the basis for technology development, policy, and future science.

It was clear from the comments under my letter to Oprah post that some people distrust the government and “big pharma” – conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen in this regard. But a more disconcerting undercurrent in the anti-vaccination movement is the replacement of science with celebrity and of evidence with anecdote. Sometimes flagrant falsehoods are peddled in an attempt to shock parents into reacting, while scientific studies are ignored or discounted (Val Jones over at Science-based Medicine responds to many of the claims made in McCarthy’s recent video). At some point, people decide that they prefer the famous, charismatic figure with the compelling story over dispassionate experts wielding cold scientific evidence.

Clearly, many people are inclined to believe celebrity voices over trained professionals whose jobs are to improve public health, provide medical care, or study biological or clinical phenomena. An article published just yesterday in PLoS Biology sums things up far better than I can:

… simply relating the facts of science isn’t enough. No matter that the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that climate change is real, or that vaccines don’t cause autism. When scientists find themselves just one more voice in a sea of “opinions” about a complex scientific issue, misinformation takes on a life of its own.

Instead of vaccines, which have hundreds of years of development and as many studies supporting their safety and efficacy, anti-vaccine proponents like Jenny McCarthy recommend alternative therapies like chelation, yeast elimination treatments, and health supplements – by and large treatments that have either been shown to have no effect (at least on autism), harmful effects, or have not  been studied in a rigorous manner because they are not required to be evaluated by the FDA. Why would people trust someone like McCarthy over the collective voice of hundreds of medical experts for medical advice?

McCarthy emerged as a hero for some parents by telling her story. Personal stories resonate most with those who see trust in experts as a risk in itself—a possibility whenever people must grapple with science-based decisions that affect them, whether they’re asked to make sacrifices to help curb global warming or vaccinate their kids for public health.

The truth is that, by and large, humans are emotional creatures. We tend to attribute motive, agency, or cause and effect even when it is unwarranted, especially if it reaffirms a view we hold. We desire explanations for events and the uncertainty built into the scientific process offers little comfort. As mentioned previously, it is impossible to disprove something, but when many independent studies find the same, then it makes sense to act as if it were so, supported by the weight of increasing evidence. To do otherwise would be illogical and impractical.

So how are we to handle anti-science sentiment, and respond to its application in areas of high public significance? Do we debate those spreading misinformation directly? Paul Offit, inventor of a rotavirus vaccine and advocate for vaccination cautions against it.

“Every story has a hero, victim, and villain,” he explains. “McCarthy is the hero, her child is the victim—and that leaves one role for you.”

If not direct confrontation, then what? Better education, for starters, will go a long way. A more science-literate public will be better-equipped to evaluate pseudo-scientific claims and make rational decisions with regards to health. But science must also learn to communicate, to reach those with minimal scientific training especially. We need to talk to people, not at them. Spin narratives, not data. The data will still be there, but we need to provide an enticing gateway through what can otherwise feel like a wall.

Because science is fundamentally a human endeavor, aimed at improving our understanding or enhancing our lives. The more we as a society appreciate and invest in it, the more we will all benefit.

I have a lot to think about after the unexpected outpouring of debate that followed my open letter. I’ve been alternately encouraged to send the letter to be published in larger news venues and to frickin’ do my research before posting anything. Admittedly, there are a lot of things I don’t know about vaccines, or about parenting, having not been in the position yet to make decisions about a child’s health. Watching the debate unfold, however, made it clear that there are some fundamental issues underlying the controversy which go deeper and broader than the discussion on vaccination. I hope to reflect on this in a later post but it will take me some time to get everything down in writing with other obligations pulling at me.

Photo by tekmagika on Flickr

Photo by tekmagika on Flickr

For now, though, it just kind of galls me to see this. After watching a truly flabbergastingly misleading video of hers about the need to purge all toxins (including yeast, wheat and dairy, which are apparently equivalent to marijuana in McCarthy’s strange universe) in favor of “natural supplements” (cue list of commercial vendors), I was surprised to see that she blogged about getting her hair colored, extensively and often. Sure, people get their hair done. Sure, people are hypocritical. But you never want a spokesperson for a cause to do things that suggest they’re not entirely serious about that cause.

I guess this is what one might call a hypocrite. I talk about staying away from toxins, yet I bleach the hell out of my hair every month. It’s tough to avoid everything that is not good for you. Yes, I have given up a lot so far, but I don’t think I can ever let people see me with my original haircolor. Yuck.

I agree that it’s tough to avoid everything that’s not good for you. That’s  why we have priorities, so we can focus on what’s really important. That she goes on the record lambasting so-called toxins and then publicizes the fact that she willingly subjects herself to harsh chemical hair treatments (joking about it all the while) gives me some idea of what her priorities are. And that’s just one of the reasons why people should look elsewhere for medical advice.

An open letter to Oprah

@Oprah, don’t watch show but nice Duke speech. take own advice and make difficult decision to pull support from mccarthy, save lives. kthxbi

And now the long version:

Dear Oprah,

I have to confess, I have never watched more than a few minutes of your show. Probably not the best way to start a letter to you, but I want to be honest. And the truth is, I think you’re making a terrible mistake.

Last weekend, I spent more time listening to and watching you than in the rest of my life combined. My family and I were sitting in the Duke stadium, looking down on the thousands of giddy graduates (including my older brother), the esteemed faculty in their rainbow regalia, and the charming, if a bit over the top, fake castle festooned with flags representing the different academic schools. I had no idea you were the commencement speaker until the student speaker, Robert Paul Jones, pretended to get a cell phone call from Parking & Transportation services about your limo double-parked in front of the chapel.

Having only seen you in short commercial clips and on the cover of your magazine, I wasn’t sure what to expect from your speech. I was pleasantly surprised. You were warm and funny, your voice clear and yet dressed with feeling, and I am sure you meant every word. Over the course of those 20 or 30 minutes, I developed a great respect for you as a talented speaker.

But I couldn’t leave the stadium wholly inspired by you, as I’m sure many others did. To me, it is clear that a significant number of people look up to you, and trust your advice and judgment. That is why it is such a huge mistake for you to endorse Jenny McCarthy with her own show on your network.

Surely you must realize that McCarthy is neither a medical professional nor a scientist. And yet she acts as a spokesperson for the anti-vaccination movement, a movement that directly impacts people’s health. Claims that vaccines are unsafe and cause autism have been refuted time after time, but their allure persists in part because of high-profile champions for ignorance like McCarthy. In fact, ten of the thirteen authors of the paper that sparked the modern anti-vaccination movement retracted the explosive conclusions they made due to insufficient evidence. Furthermore, it is now clear that the study’s main author, Andrew Wakefield, falsified data to support these shaky conclusions.

We have come close to eradicating life-threatening and crippling illnesses because of vaccines, but are now struggling to prevent outbreaks because of parents’ philosophical beliefs that vaccines are harmful. Realize this: when someone chooses not to vaccinate their child, they aren’t just putting their own child at risk, they are putting everyone else around them at risk. Diseases with vaccines should normally be of little concern even to unprotected individuals due to herd immunity – with the majority of the population immune, unprotected individuals are less likely to come into contact with the pathogen. Unfortunately, herd immunity disintegrates as fewer people are vaccinated, putting everyone who hasn’t yet been vaccinated at greater risk for infection. Now, the rates of infection by diseases for which we have safe and effective vaccines are climbing, thanks to anti-vaccination activists like Jenny McCarthy.

You reach millions of people everyday and your words and endorsements carry an incredible amount of weight. If you say to buy a certain book, people will buy it. If you do a segment on a certain charity, people will contribute. And if you say that what Jenny McCarthy is saying has merit, people will believe you.

As your speech drew to a close on Sunday, you mentioned that you still make difficult decisions from time to time. You told us about a show where you had the exclusive first interview with the author of a prominent book on the Columbine tragedy. Despite days of promos and confirmed broadcast schedules, you decided to cancel the show at the last minute because it had a negative energy, and you didn’t want to be responsible for sending that dark energy out into the world. You didn’t want to be responsible for someone seeing that show, feeling that dark energy, and going out to commit another Columbine. You said that you followed your gut to make the right decision.

Maybe your gut is being silent on this one, so let me speak up on its behalf. You have another decision to make. Pull your support from Jenny McCarthy and her platform of anti-vaccination. Because while the Columbine segment raised the specter of potential future tragedy, anti-vaccination propaganda is causing more and more people – mostly children – to fall sick and die from preventable illness as I write this. Jenny McCarthy could be considered responsible for a significant number of these; you can imagine what might happen if you give her influence over your audience of millions.

So Oprah, I hope you take my letter, and the well-intentioned if sometimes harsh criticisms from many others in the blogosphere, to heart. Because even though I still don’t watch your show, others do, and they listen to you. Probably not the best way to end a letter to you, but I want to be honest.

Yours turly,

Shirley

P.S. My dad – for whom English is his second language – calls you “Op-er-a.” Isn’t that cute?

Update 5/18/09: Due to much reposting on Twitter, Facebook, and other blogs (including Bad Astronomy!), this post already has over 5,000 views! Small potatoes compared to many blogs but it’s a big deal for this one. :) Thank you all for the unexpected, enthusiastic, and civil responses. Now the question is  – what should we do next? What is the best way to leverage whatever momentum we might build to get Oprah to pay attention?

Orac has a lengthy post dissecting Jenny McCarthy’s recent “scientific” video, “Biomedical Treatment 101″.

In this heightened state of alert, I’m doing what I can about swine flu… which is, basically, not much. Because we as individuals can’t do too much about it besides wash our hands, cover our mouths, exercise, eat healthy, and get enough sleep – all things we should be doing more or less regularly anyway. No, I did my part by cooking up a couple of pounds of pork in the best way I (now) know how – Chinese barbecue style.

There’s meaty American barbecue slathered with thick, nostril-clearing sauce. Stripped down Korean barbecue with its more delicate, sweet marinade. And then there’s Chinese barbecue – the best of both worlds. The sauce is thick, but roasted on so that it caramelizes and becomes a part of the meat itself. It is sweet, yet savory; spicy, yet subtle. The flavors of hoisin, soy sauce, rice wine, ginger, and garlic melt together to create an olfactory experience that is enough to make you pause with amazement but not enough to stop you from devouring piece after piece.

I grew up eating what’s known as “char siu” pork (pronounced more like “chao sao” in Mandarin) but it was never something I thought about making at home. I don’t remember my mom ever making it, though she would often make Peking duck, something that seems much more fancy (but really isn’t, apparently). Char siu pork is like meatballs – a comfort food that is as natural in leftovers as it is freshly made. In fact, I was most used to it as the filling for my favorite snack – char siu bao, or sweet barbecue pork buns – or as a topping for noodle soup. But I always had it pre-prepared in those dishes, and never really saw the original roast it came from.

That changed last weekend, when I suddenly decided I needed to make char siu bao. Ironically, I’m too lazy to drive 45 minutes to the asian market to buy ready-made char siu bao, but not too lazy to go to Safeway down the street and then spend a good 6 hours making the damn things from scratch. So I got a couple recipes to reference for both the bao (buns) and the char siu, and had a good old mashup time of it.

Here’s the eventual recipe I ended up with, adapted from here and here:

For the char siu pork:

  • ~ 3.5 lbs boneless pork shoulder
  • 2-3 cloves garlic, minced
  • ~ 1 T ginger, peeled and minced
  • ~ 1/2 C rice wine or sherry
  • ~ 3/4 C hoisin sauce
  • ~ 1/2 C soy sauce
  • ~ 1/3 C honey
  • a dash of five spice powder

Cut the pork along the grain into long strips 1.5-2 inches wide and about 6-10 inches long. Combine all marinade ingredients, then place with the pork into large ziploc bags. Make sure the pork is coated evenly and then seal, removing as much air as possible from the bags. Marinate in the refrigerator overnight (or at least a few hours).

Place a rack on the lower third of the oven and preheat to 375 deg. Fill a pan (or two, depending on amount of meat) with 1/2 ” water and place a metal rack over it. I used two 9×13″ pans with cooling racks with slats about 1/2″ apart. Arrange the meat strips on the rack(s), reserving the marinade in a small pot.

(I got the roasting times from an Epicurious or Gourmet recipe but I can’t for the life of me find the page again, so here’s my best rememory of it…)

Roast for 15 minutes. Meanwhile, heat the marinade to a simmer for a few minutes, then turn off the heat. Baste the meat with the marinade, then roast for another 15 minutes. Baste the meat generously on both sides, turn meat over, and roast for an additional 20 minutes, basting once or twice in the middle. Turn the oven temp up to 400 deg, baste the meat with the remaining marinade, and roast for about 10 minutes or until caramelized. Place the meat on a cutting board and cover with foil for about 10 minutes. Then allow to cool before slicing or shredding for use in soups, char siu bao, or to eat as is. When you’re done, it should look like this (except try to slice across the grain…):

img_1245

I was pleased with how red the outside of the pork got, since a lot of accounts I read claimed that it was difficult to achieve the vibrant red color you see in the stores. Some recipes had red food coloring, which just seemed weird to me. Thankfully, the visual experience matched the taste and smell I was used to. I’m really rather impressed that my first try at making char siu came out so well!

For the bao, I used this recipe as the base, which includes prepraring the char siu filling as well as the dough for the bao. I modified the filling slightly (still for 24 buns):

  • ~ 1 lb char siu pork, cut into 1/2 cm pieces (err on the side of small)
  • ~ 2 cloves garlic, minced
  • 1/2 a white or yellow onion, minced
  • 1 scallion, minced
  • 1/4 C soy sauce
  • ~ 3 T brown sugar (I only used 2 T but I think it could have been sweeter)
  • ~ 1 T cornstarch dissolved in 2 T water
  • ~ 2 T oil

Heat the oil in a large wok or skillet. Add the garlic, onion, and scallion and saute until soft but not browned. Add the pork and saute for a minute or two. Add the soy sauce, sugar, and cornstarch mixture and saute quickly until glazed. Allow to cool before filling buns.

For the buns, I followed the recipe exactly (note, just up to step 3, then go back to the previous recipe for the filling). Instead of foil wrappers on the bottom, I might try waxed paper next time (not sure how this will stand up to steaming though, so maybe parchment paper?), because the buns are great to freeze and microwave later as a quick snack but removing the foil bottoms is a pain. Here’s the final result:

img_1264 img_1256

Unfortunately, the bao wasn’t exactly what I was hoping for – it was basically the kind of bao you would use for normal bao of the ground pork and chives variety, not the fluffy, soft bao I wanted with my sweet char siu. I think I need to look for a bao recipe that uses milk to achieve that. Then there’s also the other kind of char siu bao – baked, and golden colored, which is the kind I grew up with. I’m pretty sure that’s an egg-based bread.

I’ll definitely experiment with both kinds until I get it right, but we’re already almost out of char siu from filling the baos and using some for noodle soup. Guess I’ll need to make more of that again, too. :)

Photo by zizzy on Flickr

Photo by zizzy on Flickr

I’ve been neglecting my blog lately, through no fault of its own. There’s been lots going on, and lots not going on as a result, so I just wanted to post a quick update.

I’m a little over a month away from handing in my dissertation, which means many hours that might have gone towards writing blog posts instead went towards writing the darn thing. Learning LaTeX wasn’t nearly as bad as I thought it would be, especially with a handy Stanford thesis template and some web resources. I just handed a copy of the draft to my committee for comments and hoped for a brief respite to take care of some random bits (like all those appendices, code documentation, etc…).

Of course, my advisor says, “Now that you have nothing to do, why don’t you write a paper?” So now I’m writing a paper… which is probably a good thing, since there does seem to be enough material for a paper, and I might as well write it while I’m in so-called “writing mode”. I have the feeling by the time this is over, though, even Twitter will seem like too much writing!

Most of the rest of the time is spent on activities related to Ultimate, which started up about a month ago. There’s been two tournaments, some practices, various pickup games which are pseudo-mandatory for me, and various workouts to get in shape for the season.

Even with those two things, there’s probably ample time to squeeze in a post or two. But the mental energy isn’t quite there. And maybe it’s also because I still spend a couple hours cooking and get 8-9 hours of sleep most nights. Some things just can’t be sacrificed. Like home made strawberry shortcake with freshly whipped cream. :)

So that’s mostly what I’ve been up to the last couple months. The next month will probably be much the same. And then?

Well, I think it’s official enough now that I can announce it: I’ve accepted an offer to join 23andMe as a scientific curator in late August! I’m very excited about working with them and hopefully will be able to contribute across multiple facets of the company.

The end – and a new beginning – is in sight!

Photo by mariozama on Flickr

Photo by mariozama on Flickr

If you need a cute, unique posterchild for conservation, look no further than the kangaroo rat. Imagine a gerbil rendered in the anime style – huge eyes, disproportionate body, and super talents. Not only can it leap a meter or more in a single bound, it also has special adaptions for thriving in its desert habitat, including highly efficient kidneys and the ability to extract all the water it needs from the seeds it eats. They hop around on their hind legs like kangaroos, using their tails – which can be up to twice as long as their bodies – for balance. Freakish and adorable, what’s not to like?

Turns out that kangaroo rats are also a key component of the desert ecosystem. They clip grass like little lawnmowers and leave the clippings in circular rings surrounding their burrows so that the seeds can cure in the sun. These clippings act as mini-compost piles, enriching the soil beneath them. Their behavior also creates the preferred, low-profile habitat for other desert animals.

Photo by runneralan on Flickr

Now add this to their list of assets: because of their crucial role as a “keystone” species, they help scientists in the Carrizo Plain National Monument area make important land management decisions. To do this, researchers attempt to estimate the size and distribution of the kangaroo rat population. In the old days, they tried physically trapping the animals, or conducting aerial surveys. Neither of these methods was effective or cheap enough to make good management decisions.

Kangaroo rat burrows are visible from space

Kangaroo rat burrows are visible from space

Recently, The Nature Conservancy began working with researchers at the University of California – Berkeley to count kangaroo rat populations using satellite data. The new technology allows them to create accurate, reproducible maps of kangaroo rat “precincts”, taking advantage of the fact that the nearly perfect circles of clippings the animals create are visible from the air. With the better data, scientists can more closely monitor environmental changes through the kangaroo rat population.

Kangaroo rats aren’t the only species going high tech – sheep are sustainably grazing in Argentina with the help of satellite imagery, and weeds can’t hide from satellite sensing in Hells Canyon.

Before I learned about the kangaroo rats, I hadn’t realized how cool “the other Nature” – nature.org – is. They’re doing a lot of interesting things not just in conservation, but also in science education, outreach, and policy. As the satellite example shows, they also value technology. So, of course, they have a blog. :) Check them out!

(Hat tip: Dan O)

Older Posts »