Finding Amelia Earhart's Plane: New TIGHAR Expedition

The Internet doesn't think very highly of Amelia Earhart. As a girl I was fortunate enough to do school projects on some great female role models. One that stands out in my memory was Amelia Earhart. Learning about great women helped form my conviction at an early age that women have as much to offer the world as men. I loved Amelia Earhart for what she represented to me: defiance, adventure and mystery. Reading this article in the Telegraph, and checking out the comments where she is called a "dumb woman" and "foolish" made me pause. The commenters also slam the effort to find out what happened to her based on the Telegraph's claim that the expedition is "backed" by the U.S. Navy. 

The article is about The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery's (TIGHAR) planned trip this July to try to located the remains of Earhart's Lockheed Electra aircraft. I've written before about TIGHAR and their efforts to find enough evidence to conclude that Earhart landed, and later died on the island of Nikumaroro in the Republic of Kiribati. According to some of the commenters finding out what happened to Earhart isn't worth the effort. Some say because she was an idiot flying when she did and some say it isn't worth it because of the money. Many of the commenters are up in arms that the Navy is "backing" the project on the grounds that the economy is still down and this is a stupid thing to spend money on. 

I was surprised to see the Telegraph headline, "US Navy prepares mission to solve riddle of Amelia Earhart's death" knowing that the TIGHAR expedition to find the plane was planned for this summer. When you read the Telegraph's article, you can see that the expedition they are talking about is the one by TIGHAR. Now, TIGHAR is funded by contributions not federal money. It is not getting your tax payer dollars. I know this, because I googled. Having written about them before I went back to the TIGHAR website to see what they had to say about their alleged joint mission with the Navy. 

This is what I found (pulled directly from their website) bolding is mine:

"As with previous TIGHAR expeditions, funding for this search is being raise entirely through contributions from private citizens, foundations and corporations. Lockheed Marting is leaidng a growing family of corporate sponsors. TIGHAR's long-time sponsor FedEx is aboard with a major contribution in shipping services, and we are proud to announce that in addition to helping sponsor our expedition, Discovery Channel is producing a television special to air later this year documenting the search.  

Underwater operations will be conducted for TIGHAR by Phoenix International, the U.S. Navy's primary contractor for deep ocean search and recovery. We'll sail from Honolulu July 2nd - the 75th anniversary of the Earhart disappearance. TIGHAR is deeply appreciative of the expressions of support voiced by Secretary Clinton, Secretary LaHood, Secretary Lambourne, Assistant Secretary Campbell, and Dr. Ballard."

The U.S. Navy is not paying for TIGHAR's expedition to try to locate Earhart's plane. They say it themselves on their website, they are funded by private and corporate donations. The announcement by the State Department that they support and are backing the expedition is just that - a statement. The terms "support" and "backing" automatically make one think money. I thought money when I read the Telegraph's headline and article. But in this case "support" and "backing" comes in the form of verbal acknowledgement and a few nice press pictures, not oodles of taxpayer dollars. It also probably helped get Phoenix International onboard to do the actual mapping/search, but they are going to be paid out of TIGHAR's coffers.

Still, Earhart is just a stupid woman got herself killed by taking off on a poorly planned trip right? Even if all those commenters up in arms about their money going to something they think is silly have been mislead by the article there are still those that think Earhart doesn't matter. I like the idea of going out there to try to figure out what really happened to Earhart because there is historic and social value to knowing how her story ended. She is an important figure in aviation history, women's history, and United States history. She mattered. She mattered in her time, and for girls like me who read about her in books and start to believe that they can truly do anything with their life she still matters. 

It isn't a secret that I find Earhart inspiring. I've posted about her twice before this. Seeing her called dumb and foolish for trying to fly around the world annoys me. She took a risk, and she paid for it with her life. You mean to tell me no man has ever done that? She knew she could fail in her journey. She took off anyway. Was it a good choice? No. She made a bad choice, but the key word there is choice. She was a female aviator in the 1930's who took her own life in her hands, she made choices. I admire Earhart because she lived her life in a way that gave her the ability to choose for herself. So I do support TIGHAR's effort to find the plane and some conclusive evidence about what happened to her. I'm glad the State Department supports it too. I'm also glad that the funding is private, I think that is how it should be. Shame on the Telegraph for printing something so misleading. 

If all I had to do was go to the TIGHAR website to find out how the State Department and Navy were involved in the expedition, there is no reason the Telegraph shouldn't have done the same. Rather than making this a story about Earhart, the Telegraph article made this a story about government spending and waste. That isn't the story at all. I would much rather have seen some real coverage of Earhart - the good and the bad - leading up to the 75th anniversary of her disappearance. 

Lessons From Neil deGrasse Tyson

On the day I attended the last college class of my higher education experience, I also attended a talk given by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. For me, it was my commencement. I've made the decision not to walk at graduation for a number of reasons chief among them that none of my colleagues are walking and it didn't make sense to me to do it alone. So I won't be getting the cap, gown, prominent speaker send off typical for most people who complete a Master's degree. Still, the University of Wisconsin-Madison gave me a great parting gift. The opportunity to sit at my favorite place on campus surrounded by other students on a gorgeous day and listen to a person whom I have admired for years talk about the future is the best goodbye I could have asked for.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist (please don't ask me to explain astrophysics further than saying it is physics in space) at the American Museum of Natural History but he is also an author, speaker, host, and even a meme. You might have seen him on the Colbert Report or the Daily Show throwing down some truth and clarity. He is eloquent, funny and honestly one of the people I admire most in the field of science communication. He pulls no punches, while still being extremely passionate about space and all the other STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields.

The talk, which took place 5/10/12 on the Terrace here at UW-Madison, started with Tyson talking about the role science plays (or lack thereof) in our culture. He used the example of money, by asking us which scientists appear on U.S. currency. The answer is none. You can make the argument that Benjamin Franklin was a scientist, but his experiments are not what is highlighted on the $100 bill. He is there for his political achievements. This is just an example of the way as a culture we have not placed a strong emphasis on science.

Tyson then went into talking about the history of the U.S. interest in space exploration. He said that historically there are three reasons why people invest a lot of money in a risky exploration: fear of death, promise of economic return, and praise for royalty and deities. If you look at the U.S. push to get to the moon we were acting under #1 fear of death. Our investment in NASA and the space program had everything to do with the Russians and the Cold War. When the communist threat was gone, the space program started to decline. I think Tyson really drove home this point when he said that if the Chinese decided to declare that they were building military bases on Mars the U.S. would get ourselves on Mars within 10 months. We could if we wanted to, we just don't invest in the necessary programs. We need to feel threatened before we actually do anything, how very American of us.

After going through the history of the space program, Tyson started talking about the economy and why investment in space and science overall can help. People in general seem to have this impression that NASA gets a big chunk of the federal budget, but Tyson pointed out that if NASA actually got what people think it gets NASA would be rolling in it. The perception of the budget is pretty skewed. What I love most about Tyson is that he says things that just make sense. When talking about innovation he said that the way you keep jobs in the U.S. is by making things that no one else can. Well, duh. But then where is the big push to invest in innovation? We aren't doing ourselves any favors by not trying to invent. Perhaps my favorite line from his talk (which was full of quotable one-liners) was "If the dinosaurs had had a space program, you can bet they would have used it" basically about how to save us from ourselves.

Seeing a speaker like Neil deGrasse Tyson meant a lot to me. He lived up to the hype. I was impressed with the caliber of his ideas in addition to his stage presence and the great dynamic he developed with the audience. All of us sitting there, the sea of students strewn on the concrete in front of the stage, get to walk away from this year at UW-Madison having heard from a man who is without a doubt one of the biggest bad asses in science communication. I mean he paused at one point to tweet his own talk (@neiltyson) that takes some cojones and an awesome sense of humor. It was a great experience, and I can't wait to read Tyson's new book!

Also you should watch this because well, it is astounding:

Am I Science?

Scientists don't really wear white lab coats. They usually don't stand in front of old cabinets full of glass jars and beakers containing a rainbow of colored liquids. Unless someone has had an unfortunate bunsen burner accident it is unlikely that there is smoke wafting through the lab, or beakers bubbling over with a frothy white foam. If these images are what come to mind when you think of scientist, you need an update. It isn't your fault, either.

Taking pictures or video to accompany my stories, I've had to ask myself how can I make a shot look more...sciencey? In the media we do a great disservice to scientists every time we stick them in the white coat peering into a microscope. Not that scientists don't peer into microscopes, they do. But the stereotype has been allowed to run roughshod over every scientific discipline to the point where people barely recognize scientists who don't fit the stereotype. Most scientists don't fit the stereotype. But I've still dragged interviewees around a building until I find a suitable science looking backdrop. We all do it, and we need to stop.

Could you name a scientist? Seriously, do you know one? Heard of one? A single one? Can you name anyone actively engaged in research in the United States or around the globe? Do you realize that billions of your tax dollars pay for research, and you may very well not be able to name a single scientist other than your local meteorologist, or if you're lucky (and a child of my generation) Bill Nye the Science Guy? I'm not trying to scold anyone here. I'm also not playing high and mighty. I can't really name any importance finance and economic people, and they are important. So please don't take this as me preaching. All of us could stand to be a little more aware of the fields we don't work in directly. I'm plugging science and scientists here because, well, thats what I do. If someone wants to school me in finance, please do. I could use the lessons.

Anyway, I realize that not everyone loves science, but a huge chunk of money is devoted to research each year, don't you want to know who gets it? The name Francis Collins should mean something to you. It may or may not, but for those who don't know he is the Director of the National Institutes of Health. The NIH is the largest research funding organization in the United States. It has a fiscal year 2012 budget of more than $31 billion. But the people that are actually getting this money are largely out of the public eye. Why is that? I don't have an answer exactly, but I can promise you it isn't because scientists are boring.

We need to change the way we think about scientists. This is already happening in the science community itself where there are a lot of scientists who don't want to be seen as lame. Even Collins has participated in some stereotype busting by posing for a magazine spread with Joe Perry from the band Aerosmith a few years back (Collins does play guitar himself) for a project called Rock Stars of Science. But even the best intentioned stereotype busting isn't going to go anywhere if the only people paying attention to it are other scientists, science writers, and members of the public who already like science. We need to get the message to the people who still picture Doc Brown from Back to the Future when they think of a scientist. That being said, there are a lot of people involved with and working on correcting the stereotype. I wanted to take a moment to bring your attention to just one example, called I Am Science.

I Am Science started as a hashtag on Twitter (#iamscience). First suggested by marine biologist and science writer Kevin Zelnio, the hashtag was used to mark stories shared by scientists about the path they took to attaining their careers. It became obvious immediately that scientists are a wonderfully diverse group, finding their passion by any number of different paths. Scientists are people too. People with different backgrounds, and different interests. Sometimes wildly different interests, doing very different things but all of it is still science. They are all science.

I like I Am Science because it started with a Tweet, because it reflects the desire for scientists to try to share who they are failures and struggles included, and because it shatters the crazy mad scientist stereotype. To learn more about I Am Science read this wonderful post by Zelnio on Deep Sea News, check out the Tumblr he created to store all the tweets, if you are so inclined support I Am Science on Kickstarter (they've reached their goal, but can still use donations!) and watch this video.

The video was created by Mindy Weisberger and uses the song "Wicked Twisted Road" by Reckless Kelly. I hope all of this has inspired you to learn more about scientists. Look up people researching in the areas you find most interesting. Read their books. Attend their speeches or talks. Bust some stereotypes.

The Final Countdown (Part I) The Blog

Well Wisconsin, here we are. Stranded in the middle of another midwest winter, staring down my last semester of grad school. Yes, the last semester. It's the final countdown people. Just 16 weeks stand between me and my Master's degree. Two years ago when I decided to pack up and leave behind everyone I knew to chase this crazy science writing dream across the country it felt like I was facing a mountain of a task. But day by day, my time in Wisconsin has chipped away, leaving me asking... how did I get here?

Since I can't resist, let us ruminate on that with a little interlude from the Talking Heads:

Now that that's over, back to talking about grad school. I've decided to run a series of posts this semester, under the title The Final Countdown to reflect on this experience. As I head toward graduation, and the conclusion of my life in Madison, I want to take the time to pull it all apart and examine the good and the bad. Today, I want to do some thinking about Science Decoded, and what having a blog to chronicle this time has meant to me. Each month I hope to talk about something different, leading up to graduation in May. 

This blog started when I made my move to Wisconsin and has played an integral role in my life here. It is my distraction when I'm bored, my place to publish my work, share what I've learned, and on multiple occasions served as a class assignment. Science Decoded was recently featured in Scientific American's Incubator blog (along with many more distinguished clips from my colleagues here at UW!) and it really got me thinking about how important this blog has become to me. One of the best things about the Internet is being able to carve out your own little piece, to share what you think is important, to have a voice. 

I've always wanted Science Decoded to be a place where people just have access to scientific ideas that aren't complicated and pompous, because science itself isn't highfalutin. I've always found the beauty in science to be its simplicity, but that can get lost so quickly. A good friend recently told me that what he liked about this blog was that I write the way I talk. I had been wondering if I should change the tone I use on here to something more professional, since it has been getting a higher profile lately, but my friend's comment inspired me to keep things the way they are. He told me that he likes the way I lure people in with anecdotes and asides about what I think about each topic, with a generally innocent tone but in the end smack you with the point. 

That description made me laugh, but I was also relieved to know that I do get the point across (or at least in there, somewhere). Everything I write on here does have a purpose, even the polar bear posts, and I was worried that the reason behind each post was getting lost. But, all I've ever wanted was to get people thinking, and if I'm doing that, then I'm happy with what this blog has become.

I'd love to know what more people think about this blog. I've said over and over that I have no idea who reads this or why, but I'd love to find out. If there are things I could do differently, if there are things I can keep doing -- let me know! Regardless, I intend to keep blogging. I know I was slacking during the month I was in New Jersey for the holidays (but honestly, it was a crazy time). That doesn't mean I've given up on Science Decoded or that even when grad school ends I'll throw in the towel. This blog means far more to me than just a class assignment. Now that I've carved my corner out in the Internet, I have no intention of giving it up. 

Covering The Wisconsin Science Festival

In my integrated media and storytelling class this semester our first project was to cover an event using pictures and audio, and combine it into a slideshow. I chose the first Wisconsin Science Festival at the Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery.

I had some upload problems trying to convert from a SoundSlides project into something uploadable but I finally got there. I edited the pictures in Photoshop and iPhoto, and edited the audio using Audacity. I lost a lot of photo quality in the conversion, but please watch and let me know what you think. This was my first foray into multi-media so any feedback would be much appreciated.

Godspeed, Atlantis

via Geekosystem

I wanted to make sure to post some pictures and the video of the final launch of the space shuttle Atlantis. This past Friday July 8th at 11:29 am the last American space shuttle to travel to space left on its final journey. The 135 shuttle flight, and the 33rd for Atlantis, the flight marks the end of the entire space shuttle program. The YouTube video can't be embedded, but you can watch it here on the NASA YouTube channel and here are also a few pictures to highlight some of the great moments:

Getting ready! via Geekosystem

Firing up the engines! via Geekosystem

Liftoff! via Geekosystem

There she goes! via Geekosystem

Atlantis, flight STS-135, is commanded by Chris Ferguson, and will take fellow crewmates Pilot Doug Hurley, and Mission Specialists Sandy Magnus and Rex Walheim to the International Space Station. The launch took place at NASA's Kennedy Space Center. The 12-day mission will bring the Raffaello multi-purpose logistics module with more than 8,000 pounds of supplies and space parts to the space station to sustain it after the last space shuttle is retired.

On a personal level I find it amazing that the space shuttle program is over. I have never known a time in my life where Americans were not traveling to space. When I was little the first thing I ever wanted to be was an astronaut. It shocks me that astronaut isn't really a job anymore, at least not at NASA. Sure, there are other countries that will still be traveling to and from the International Space Station (Russia and China) but its just not the same as having an American space program. 

I appreciate the need to focus on new frontiers in space and wanting to move in a new direction, but I am pretty disappointed that there isn't a successor to the space shuttle program already lined up. I think its dangerous to give up our hold on space travel and research to focus on programs and initiatives that don't really exist yet. I'm worried that space exploration will become another casualty of a lack of vision, appreciation, and long term planning that seems to plague this country. Especially if the proposed budget for NASA which I wrote about over on Geekosystem ($2 billion in cuts!) is any indication of what the future holds. 

I wish that I had appreciated the space shuttle program more while it was running. How many shuttle launches have you watched? How much do you know about what the shuttle program accomplished? Honestly, I can hang my head in shame and say not many and not much. Its too late to lament what we've already lost, but I think we can see the end of the space shuttle program as a warning to take more interest in some of the amazing research programs the government funds. If we don't show the government that these things matter to us, we're going to lose them all. 

So Godspeed Atlantis, the launch was amazing and as an American I am so proud of the shuttle program  and our astronauts. I've felt for a long time that there are simply no heroes anymore, but for the six-year-old in me that wanted nothing more than to go to outer space I think our astronauts are the real deal.

South Sudan Gets Its Independence

I know it isn't really a science topic, but I have to have a follow-up post about what happened this week in Sudan. I've written before about the conflict in Sudan and the efforts to split the region into two distinct countries, but it has finally happened. The South Sudan has been recognized globally as its own independent country. This is a huge deal.

via Carleton University

I became interested (or at least more informed) about the Sudan after reading and blogging about Dave Eggers' What Is The What, and I started following the movement for independence, which became another post. Last I wrote about the Sudan, the people in the south were being polled to see if they would favor a split into two countries. They needed a 60% turn out for the vote to count. They got 99%.

The new country is roughly the size of Texas, and will become the U.N.'s 193 country. The capital is the city of Juba, which is where ceremonies formally recognizing the country were held last week. The new nation has significant oil resources, which in a previous post I said were something to watch. Revenues from oil could greatly help the country get off the ground, however the south is still reliant on the north to transport oil, and conflicts over this resource could still occur.

Independence for South Sudan comes on the heels of a civil war that took over two million lives and raged for more than two decades between the north (including the region of Darfur) and the south. The regions have distinct religious ties with the north mainly Muslim, and the south Christian. I think a moment like this, where so many people have a renewed hope of having peaceful prosperous lives is so important to stop and think about.

If you want to know more about the South Sudan, this is a useful website. Here are also some links to media coverage of the split in Sudan:
U.S. Welcomes Birth of New Nation, South Sudan (CBS News)
Let's Celebrate The South Sudan and Nurture A New Country (The Guardian)
In Southern Sudan, New National Begins From Scratch (NPR)
South Sudanese Celebrate The Birth Of Their Nation (CNN)

The Skinny On Sunscreen: Understanding the Regulations

I haven't always loved sitting out in the sun, and I've been a very reluctant convert to the beach. But I've slowly come around to loving the time I get to spend relaxing in the sunshine with a good book. Particularly this summer after the long winter where I would go days without even venturing outside I'm loving the warm weather. But I'm also the kind of person that turns lobster red after more than a few minutes of soaking in the sun's rays.

Being so fair comes at a cost, and I'm in the dermatologist's office almost every six months. I would say I'm pretty vigilant about getting my moles checked and watching out for any signs of skin cancer.  I've had maybe a dozen moles removed, many of which had to be re-done after coming back with questionable test results. Being so aware of the risks that I'm taking when I step out in the sun has made me the self-proclaimed queen of sunscreen. My friends love their SPF 4, and mock me and my SPF 55 quite a lot - but aside from choosing the high numbers, I've realized that I don't actually know all that much about sunscreen.

Ocean City, MD on my summer vacation!

New regulations released by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last month, explain a lot about what sunscreen can, and even more important what it can not do. Sunscreen regulations in the US hadn't been updated in more than 30 years, so we were long overdue for an overhaul. Starting next year, sunscreens will be broken into two categories, those that protect against skin cancer and those that don't. My friends with their SPF 4... they aren't getting any protection against skin cancer with an SPF that low. The new regulations will also require companies to cut out advertising and claims that promote longer durability (waterproof of sweatproof) or that make inflated claims about their ability to protect users from sun damage.

According to this article in Scientific American, the new regulations (if they are followed accurately) have the potential to reduce skin cancer rates in the US. Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is responsible for 90% of non-melanoma skin cancers, which affect one out of every five Americans. UV radiation is also responsible for 65% of melanoma, which kills approximately 8,700 people a year. Skin cancer is such a prevalent problem, but will the new regulations actually make a difference?

I think as long as people know what to look for, they'll be able to choose the right sunscreen. The FDA's new regulations really focus on how sunscreen products are labelled, and I think that they will make it easier for people to make the right choices. The thing to look for on sunscreen bottles is "broad spectrum". Under the new rules the only products that can claim to be broad spectrum will protect against both UVA and UVB rays. Sunscreen that can not be called broad spectrum, or that has an SPF lower than 15 will have to carry a warning label that says explicitly that it does not protect against skin cancer or premature skin aging from skin cancer.

Both UVA and UVB rays can cause long term skin damage, but UVB rays are the main culprit when it comes to that lobster red sunburn. SPF is a reflection of a sunscreens' ability to protect against UVB rays which is really just a reflection of sunburn protection. Currently, lotions that only protect against UVB rays can have a very high SPF, but that doesn't mean they are any better at protecting you from skin cancer because the UVA rays are still not being blocked. Under the new regulations it will be much clearer what really protects you against both UVA and UVB rays.

More of the beach in Ocean City, MD

Under the new regulations, sunscreen manufacturers will be required to be more specific with their claims. For instance the term sunblock, won't be allowed because there is NO sunscreen that can block the sun's rays completely. There is also NO sunscreen that stays completely on the body when exposed to water, so none of them are waterproof or sweatproof.

The other big news in the FDA's sunscreen regulations? My SPF 55 is no better than SPF 50. In fact, any number higher than 50 is just making a trumped up claim. So that SPF 100 is not actually doing more for you than lower numbered sunscreens. This is because there is no evidence that suggests that SPF's higher than 50 actually protect people more. But that doesn't mean that all SPF's are the same. Different SPF's protect you in the sun for different amounts of time. So say I start to burn after 10 minutes with no sunscreen, and I put on SPF 15, the time it takes me to burn will be extended by a 15, so I'll have 150 minutes before I turn into a tomato.

After getting several bad sunburns while wearing sunscreen, I became aware of the need to re-apply. Even if you don't go in water, the chemical components in sunscreen break down over time and lose their efficiency. Putting on sunscreen at the beginning of the day just doesn't cut it. So, under the new regulations, the FDA recommends re-applying sunscreen every two hours, and after going in the water or toweling off.

Basically the new regulations make it easier to enjoy a day in the sun without the painful sunburn and dangerous skin damage that can go hand in hand with summer vacations by making it easier to choose an effective sunscreen. The things to look for? Broad spectrum, between SPF 15 and 50, and that all sunscreens have to be re-applied every two hours. If you keep these things in mind you can greatly reduce your risk of dangerous skin cancers.

Sunscreen regulations were greatly in need of a revision, and I for one (speaking for the fair people of the word) am very glad to finally know exactly what I need to do to protect myself in the sun.

Scientists Can Be Thought Provoking AND Fun

Scientists can use the knowledge they have to be both moving and thought provoking, but also be charming and clever, getting a few chuckles out of whoever is listening. Case in point: Neil deGrasse Tyson. For those who don't know, Tyson is an astrophysicist and he is awesome. 

On the intersection of science and religion:

On why the Onion deserves a Pulitzer Prize:

Wisconsin's Place in the History of Animal Research

I decided to apply to graduate school at the University of Wisconsin-Madison at the recommendation of my undergraduate advisor. I honestly wasn't thrilled with the idea of coming to the midwest. I had never really considered what the cheese state was like before I applied - as a strictly east coast girl it was so far removed from everything in my life I couldn't even imagine living here. But, when the college admission chips fell where they did, it was obvious to me that UW Madison was the clear first choice for grad school.

That being said, when I arrived in Wisconsin nearly nine months ago, I knew very little about the history of the University I was attending. I knew that UW-Madison was home to an amazing amount of scientific research, but I had no idea how rich the tradition of scientific inquiry really was. I quickly became aware of the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center (WNPRC) and notorious, and immensely important, psychology researcher Harry Harlow.

Those who follow this blog regularly know that I have written a lot of posts this semester inspired by my zoology class on human and animal behavior. It is this class that really got me motivated to learn more about animal research, and in particular UW-Madison's role in animal research. That brought me to two books, both written by Deborah Blum a professor in the journalism school here at UW.

In 1992 Blum won the Pulitzer Prize for a series of articles on the ethical dilemmas posed by primate research. She turned this into the 1994 book The Monkey Wars. I was enthralled by the history of primate research in the United States, and am ashamed to admit how little I knew prior to reading the book. The story of Edward Taub, the Silver Spring Monkeys (named after the site of the lab in Maryland,) and the rise of PETA in 1981 had me riveted. The condensed version of that story is that PETA founder Alex Pacheco volunteered undercover in the lab of Taub, who was conducting neurological experiments on monkeys (severing the nerves to control a limb and then coaxing nerve regeneration.) The monkeys were held in filthy conditions - but there was no legal standard for research animal care at the time. Pacheco took photographs (some admittedly staged) and went to the police to have Taub arrested (which he was - for animal cruelty.)

The majority of events described in the book take place long before I was even born, and I suppose thats why I felt so removed from them. I didn't realize I was taking the idea that animals have rights for granted until I learned about the history of animal research in this country. I knew that people are cruel to animals, but I was blissfully oblivious to the cruelty that was standard in research labs in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's. After finishing Monkey Wars, my blissful respect for science felt somewhat dingy - and I needed more information.

The book I picked up next, to explore the history of animal research and in particular its role in Wisconsin, was Blum's 2002 biography of Harry Harlow, Love at Goon Park. I don't think I had ever heard the name Harry Harlow before moving to Wisconsin - yet his work is something that I reap the benefits of in my daily life. Harlow is both famous and infamous for his "mother love" and "pit of despair" (a catchy term for depression) studies. His research used rhesus macaque babies to show that children need love and social interaction - particularly touch - to function and develop normally, and that being isolated can be the cause of a complete psychological breakdown.

The reason Harlow is so controversial is that the way he studied depression and isolation from one's mother was to psychologically "break" baby monkeys. These were horrible studies. The monkeys were taken away from their mothers and given a variety of fake substitutes to see which the babies would cling to most (warm, cloth, animated mother was the winning surrogate but cold metal mother caused psychological damage to her babies.) For the depression studies the babies were put in isolation cages for 3-6 months at a time, with no interaction at all. The monkeys suffered tremendously. The concept of love as a necessity needed to be proven, to move parental nurturing into the mainstream. But the question remains if it needed to be proven in that way.

Considering that I was surprised by just how awful the United States history of animal research is, you can imagine how shocking I found it that studies were needed to prove that mothers should hug their children. But then again, as Blum so poignantly points out, the scientific standard at the time was to isolate children for health reasons (limit the spread of bacteria & disease.) What seems so obvious to me - that animals should be well taken care of, that children should be hugged - were really revolutions within the scientific community. Looking back we can say how ridiculous it is that such assertions needed to be scientifically proven, but then again think about where we might be if these ideas had never been generally accepted.

This semester has really driven home for me just how much I owe to animals. The idea that my mom would have been condemned as a bad mother for hugging me when I cried were it not for Harry Harlow and his baby rhesus macaques makes me very appreciative of the role of animals in research. I remember so vividly crying on my Mom's shoulder at maybe 4 or 5 years old. I remember the silky salmon colored blouse she was wearing. I remember staining it mercilessly with my tears, but I don't know why I was crying. I do know that all I wanted was to be held, and have my hair stroked and be comforted. I can't imagine my parents keeping me at arm's length.

We owe a lot to the animals who started the social movement that changed the way people parented, and the researcher who brought it all to light for making society take notice; and I had no idea about either before coming to Wisconsin. While I do my fair share of whining about being in the cheese state, my experiences here have opened my mind to a lot of new concepts - particularly with regard to the role animals play in society and how we as humans should regard them.

Hal Herzog, Animal Ethics & the Alien Problem

Last semester I read many more books (thus I did a lot more book reviews) than this semester which has mostly been devoted to academic research papers. But I do have two books that need reading for my zoology class on human and animal behavior with Patricia McConnell.

I finally finished the first of the two assigned books, Hal Herzog's Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat - Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals. I've been reading Herzog's book all semester, so my evaluation of it draws on a slightly disjointed memory but I think I can summarize his main point with two statements:

1. Most people choose not to (or don't know enough to) think about their personal moral philosophy. Not thinking about how we feel about animals is what allows us to love puppies so much while we happily chow down on a Big Mac.
2. Those people who have spent a tremendous amount of time trying to discern their personal moral philosophy about animals either A. remain horribly conflicted or B. Choose a philosophy with regards to the treatment of animals that societal pressures make very difficult to implement (for example, all creatures are equal - if you save an iguana from a burning building instead of a human baby, society is not going to look kindly upon you regardless of your belief that the iguana and the baby are equals)

Herzog's answer to his main question "why is it so hard to think straight about animals?" largely comes down to because you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

The book tries hard to cover a variety of topics that impact the way we feel about animals, some obvious (factory farming, animals in research, hunting) and some less so (cockfights, dog shows, gender roles.) I don't intend to go into his arguments for and against certain behaviors, but to give an example of the kind of analysis he provides I will share the anecdote from his chapter "The moral status of mice," on the use of animals for biological research.

Herzog frames animal research this way: Think of Steven Spielberg's 1982 classic film ET. Remember how close Elliott and ET became, and how heart wrenching it was to see ET go back to his home planet? Well, what if there was a disease destroying the alien's on ET's home planet, and the reason he really came to earth was to scout out organisms of lesser intelligence to test possible remedies on. Elliott's intelligence was far less than ET's. So how would you feel if at the end of the movie, ET kidnapped Elliott and took him back to his home planet to live the rest of his life as the subject of research. It would save millions of aliens. But ET still essentially destroys Elliott's life. Not really a satisfactory ending, I'd say.

So if we don't want ET to kidnap Elliot just because he is of lesser intelligence, then what do we do when humans are like ET and mice are like Elliot? Should we experiment on mice just because they are of lesser intelligence? Previous logic would lead us to say no, we should not experiment on the mice. But yet, I'm still in favor of animal research. Philosophically, I shouldn't be. But there is something about experimenting on a member of my own species that I find morally reprehensible. It is the reason we don't conduct experiments on people in coma's or with mental retardation. But if you are always putting humans first, how can you still treat animals with respect and moral standing?

I'm not here to answer the questions thinking critically about animals pose. Herzog has 280 pages of highly intelligent, moving, and entertaining explanation, and he still doesn't answer most of them. But he will get you thinking about your own behavior, why some animals matter to us more than others, and why humans think the way we do.

It is important for everyone: meat eaters, vegetarians, pet lovers, people who avoid animals, etc. to think about why they feel the way they do about animals. I was surprised by the conflicts in my own way of thinking, and sadly I now fall into column A - thinking critically, but still horribly confused. At least I'm thinking right?

Bronx Zoo Cobra Found On Twitter

Last friday the Bronx Zoo (that would be in New York for those of you unaware) announced that it was missing an Egyptian Cobra (which is poisonous) from its reptile house. According to the zoo, the 20-inch snake is most likely in the vicinity of the building, which was immediately closed off and is being searched.

An Egyptian Cobra. Source: Wikimedia Commons

The missing snake was fodder for late night comics like David Letterman, and has made a media buzz. However, for the skeptics among us who don't buy the zoo's story that the snake didn't escape into the public, there is now a Twitter account that is assuming to chronicle the snake's adventures as it roams Manhattan. Proof that the snake's more than 35,000 followers probably didn't have a whole lot to do with themselves today...but entertaining nonetheless.

Update 3/30/11 - As of 4pm BronxZoosCobra has more than 150,000 followers on Twitter. Glad to see that people can have a sense of humor about something like this.

Update 3/31/11 - At 4pm today the Bronx Zoo announced that the Cobra, which was missing for seven days, was found in a section of the reptile house which was closed to the public. The snake was found coiled in a dark corner, and will "rest" for a few days before being returned to the exhibit.

Knut the Polar Bear Dead At Age Four

Knut as a baby. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Yes, I am posting a memorial piece for a polar bear. Yes, I know that I talk about polar bears too much. But, this really is an interesting case of mysterious death - one that was witnessed by hundreds and has cause an onslaught of media coverage of what may very well be history's most widely read polar bear obituary.

Knut was a polar bear born in captivity in the Berlin Zoo in December of 2006. He gained world wide fame, basically for being so darn cute. He was raised by the zookeepers after being rejected by his mother and was the first polar bear to survive infancy at the Berlin Zoo in 30 years. He died March 19, 2011 in his enclosure at the zoo in front of an estimated 700 viewers. His death has been the subject of worldwide media coverage from the UK's Daily Mail to New York Magazine.

Reports say that the polar bear had a spasm, and was then seen floating in the water in the enclosure before the exhibit was closed off by zoo personnel. Polar bears in captivity have been known to live up to 30 years, and Knut was not known to have any medical problems so his sudden death at age four is mysterious. A necropsy (an autopsy for animals) will be performed to determine what happened to the bear.

Knut a little older. Source: Wikimedia Commons

As far as polar bears go, you couldn't have a bigger celebrity than Knut. He was on the cover of Vanity Fair in 2007, he has been marketed through plush toys and children's books, he was the subject documentary films and even had his name trademarked by the Berlin Zoo. His untimely death even warranted him an obituary in People Magazine's website.

While I don't intend to get sappy about the loss of this animal, I do think it is important to note because Knut succeeded in getting people to feel emotionally invested in animal rights issues and to get people talking about science topics like climate change (and its effects on polar bears). He was a major draw to the Berlin Zoo and the loss of revenue will most certainly be felt. Hopefully the necropsy will be able to determine how he died so that zookeepers can learn something about how to keep animals in captivity healthy.

***
Update 4/1/11 - The Berlin Zoo has released the results of Knut's necropsy. The findings show that the polar bear's official cause of death is drowning, which occurred when he collapsed into the pool in his enclosure. The reason Knut collapsed is still a bit of a mystery. The necropsy showed encephalitis (brain swelling and irritation) most likely caused by a virus, although the exact virus remains to be identified. So far rabies, botulism, and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) have been definitively ruled out as the cause of the brain swelling. The zoo will continue to test Knut's remains to try to identify the virus.

Not Who You Say You Are: Is "Ambush Journalism" A Good Tactic?

From NPR CEO Ron Schiller to Governor of Wisconsin Scott Walker these days no public figure is safe from so called Ambush Journalism. The LA Times recently ran an article on what seems to be an emerging trend - the gathering of information by pretending to be someone else. Essentially, misleading the target of your investigation by not disclosing who you are, or what information you are after and then publishing the video or audio recording.

In the case of Ron Schiller and Scott Walker the public devoured these recordings, causing if nothing else embarrassment and a lot of hoopla. But is this method of trapping people when they think they are off the record effective? The LA Times' James Rainey argues that it isn't, because even though the recordings aren't exactly flattering they are A. easily manipulated and B. don't always produce the intended result.

Rainey calls ambush journalism, "secret recordings and ham acting designed to draw out the worst in others." In the case of Ron Schiller, Rainey (and NPR itself) argues that the tape show the NPR fundraiser towing the line between the organization's journalistic activities and their fundraising activities by insisting that that NPR doesn't bend its coverage to suit financial donors. According to Rainey, the tape succeeded in taking down Schiller because he also made statements about liberals being more intelligent and the Republican party being full of gun-loving extremists.

But not all ambush journalism is successful in taking down a target. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has been a media target due to his attack on union bargaining rights and the subsequent protests at the capitol for the last month. Blogger Ian Murphy called Walker in February and claimed to be Republican campaign donor David Koch. Murphy was able to get Walker to admit that he considered planting trouble makers into the crowd of protestors, but they never actually did.

Really all Murphy accomplished was making Walker look arrogant, the phone call hoax just served to get the already over exposed governor into the media even more. All this makes me wonder if trying to trap targets by pretending to be a friend or ally when really you are trying to get them on record saying something incriminating is a good direction for investigative journalism to be heading.

Journalism is supposed to be about transparency. I believe journalists need to admit who they are and their affiliation. Even citizen journalists who intend to gather information and disseminate what they find out need to be honest about who they are. I don't think there is a clear sense of right and wrong when a lie is exposed by a lie. But is there still room for morality and right vs. wrong in journalism these days?

Is the only way to get the "real" story to lie about who you are? I don't think so. I think good investigative journalism, reporting, and writing can turn up the facts and paint a clear picture of a person or issue without having to trick them into saying something incriminating.

Maybe I'm idealistic but I don't think you have to tell lies to get to the truth. I think if there is something incriminating to be found, hitting the books, checking the paper trail and following through with as many sources of possible will turn up the same information you might get out of trapping a target with an audio or video recording. I think ambush journalism is only necessary when we stop putting in the time it takes to be real reporters. If you have to trick people into talking to you - you just aren't creating good journalism.

Violence & Forced Silence in the Evolution vs. Creation Controversy

I'm going to try not to launch into a personal diatribe about why religion and evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive, but please note this post is entirely my opinion - an editorial if you will.

It seriously burns me that so many people insist that the issue of human origin has to be black and white either all science or all religion, completely overlooking the grey area where science and religion could meet if we were willing to see things in a new way. I bring up this up, despite it being undoubtedly controversial, because of this: Imam who believes in evolution retracts statements. Dr. Usama Hasan, a lecturer at Middlesex University in the UK and an Imam at Leyton Mosque in east London has retracted statements in favor of evolution after receiving death threats.

I'm not criticizing Dr. Hasan for saying he thinks he went too far and retracting the statements. But I am criticizing the fact that he was put in the position where he felt he had to. People should be able to disagree about ANY issue, let alone their personally held (even when publicly expressed) religious beliefs without fearing for their life.

According to the BBC's article on the retraction, Dr. Hasan originally made the comments in 2008, but in January 2011 received death threats following a lecture where he re-iterated the ideas. The original opinion piece by Dr. Hasan, which appeared in the Guardian Newspaper, stated that Muslims are in need of an open discourse about creationism and evolution because science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God. This is an argument that is true for any religion, and honestly not one that I find all that extreme. He's just saying we should talk about it.

The following video is of Dr. Hasan trying to explain his beliefs on evolution to a group that heckles him from the start. What strikes me most is when he says to the audience, "disagree if you wish, but please read," he encourages them to learn basic science and gets verbally berated for it.

In the Guardian article Dr. Hasan also says, "One problem is that many Muslims retain the simple picture that God created Adam from clay, much as a potter makes a statue, and then breathed into the lifeless statue and lo! it became a living human. This is a children's madrasa-level understanding and Muslims really have to move on as adults and intellectuals."

Now, I get why he pissed people off with the above statement. No one wants to be called a child for believing as they do. It is incendiary, more incendiary than some of his other claims in favor of evolution. He poked the proverbial sleeping bear with this one. But that doesn't mean the people he offended should be allowed to threaten his life, or should even feel it is their right in the first place to tell him that he deserves to die for his ideas. No one has that right.

As a society we have determined that it is not okay to just kill anyone who doesn't agree with you. Death threats and intimidation are illegal, religiously grounded or otherwise. I think it is honestly a tragedy for society that someone who encourages a peaceful meeting place between science and religion has been in a way silenced by fear.

If we don't question religion, how can we be sure that it is really what we believe? I don't think that blindly following the interpretations of religious texts is the best way to guide your actions through life. Think about your religion. Think about what the texts say. Think about the world in which you live, and what you know to be true about it. Look at the scientific evidence. Give it due consideration. Form an opinion based on all of that, and allow others to disagree with you. If someone wants to believe that science is itself the work of God, let them. It doesn't hurt you, or diminish what you believe.

If we can not express our beliefs, even when critical of the beliefs held by others, then society is not free. Why can't we all just get along, really? Having differing opinions on the origin of humans doesn't hurt anyone socially, economically or otherwise. As a society we COULD just agree to disagree on this issue. But I have no misguided hopes that we someday will.

For a full disclosure of where my personal bias stands on this issue, I identify my own beliefs with the following thinking: "That which is impenetrable to us really exists. Behind the secrets of nature remains something subtle, intangible, inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything we can comprehend is my religion" and "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." -  both are Albert Einstein.  And for good measure: "There is not a righteous man on Earth who does what is right and never sins" - Ecclesiastes 7:20. No one is right all the time. To think so is in itself to challenge religion (at least in this example, Christianity - to which I most closely identify of all the organized religions.)

If EVERYONE whether you believe in Evolution, Creation or something in between could come down off their soap box to admit that maybe the opposing view isn't pure hooey, wouldn't we all be better off? You don't have to sell out your own beliefs or give up on them to admit that another way of thinking might be possible. If only we could all be so highly evolved as to do so....

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.

What's Up Wisconsin? (Protests, That's What)

My adopted state of Wisconsin (don't worry New Jersey, I'll always love you most) is making major headlines this week due to protests against Governor Scott Walker's budget proposal which would essentially tie the hands of the teacher's union (WEAC) while simultaneously requiring state employees to pay a significantly increased amount into their benefits.

While I don't write about politics or education, and I am in fact quite biased on these issues being the daughter of two New Jersey state employees, I still think that it is important to highlight the media coverage being given to these events.

Madison, which is my temporary home while I'm attending UW, is the state capitol of Wisconsin. The protests that have been going on in opposition to the budget (an estimated 20,000 people outside the capitol building, according to CBS News 3) are just steps outside my front door. Classes at the University have been disrupted due to the protests (in addition to schools throughout Wisconsin having to close due to the absence of teachers).

As a grad student I have been privy to at least half a dozen (but I think more) emails about how teachers should act in response to the protests. Grad students are often tapped at TA's or in some cases teach lower level classes, and while I don't teach at UW, many of my colleagues have had to choose whether to show up for class, or throw their support behind the protesters.

When I talk about politics, I try hard not to spout my own views, so I'll just wrap up by giving you some links to check out for more information about the causes of the protests, the details of the proposed budget, how the city of Madison is being effected and how the nation is taking notice.

Reuters: Democratic Lawmakers Leave Wisconsin To Protest Union Curbs 
New York Times: Democrats Missing, Wisconsin Vote on Cuts is Delayed
Politico: The Politics of Education Upended
CNN: State Democrats Absent for Vote as Wisconsin Budget Protests Swell
CBS News: Wisconsin Protests Continue As Dems Leave State to Stall Budget Repair Vote
ABC News: Wisconsin Teachers Protest Ed Budget, Union Cuts
Bloomberg: Public Employee Protests Spread from Wisconsin to Ohio
Huffington Post: Wisconsin Protests: State Police Pursue Democratic Lawmakers Boycotting Vote

This is just an amateur video I snagged off of YouTube, but I think it gives you a good sense of what being in the crowd out here is like.

Finding A Place For Al Jazeera

Chaos has erupted in Egypt this week as protests calling for the removal of the president Hosni Mubarak turned violent. I do not mean to say that the conflict is as simple as pro or anti government groups, I know it is a complex issue. But as a disclaimer, I'm not a political writer, or an international relations writer.

The reason I bring up the conflict in Egypt is because I read a very interesting opinion piece on Al Jazeera English: US viewers seek Al Jazeera Coverage which says that the conflict in Egypt has led to a considerable increase in the number of people from the United States choosing to get their news from Al Jazeera. I think Al Jazeera is a very interesting curveball for the broadcast news industry that we should be watching.  

The article and comments section make the case that other news outlets (MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS) have done a poor job of covering Egypt, while Al Jazeera has excelled. The claim that American coverage is lacking is convincing. More people seem to know that Anderson Cooper, Christiane Amanpour, and Katie Couric were attacked by the protesters than they know about the causes of the conflict (myself included). 

For those who are unfamiliar, Al Jazeera is the dominant news outlet (television and internet) in the middle east, and is popular all over the world. Except here. Cable providers in the United States have largely chosen not to pick up Al Jazeera. Some say this is because the audience isn't interested in Al Jazeera and the cable companies would lose money. Some say that Al Jazeera has been blacklisted for being sympathetic to terrorists. 

But for those who want it, Al Jazeera can be streamed live online which gives many Americans access even if it is not a choice on the television. Al Jazeera has dominated coverage of the situation in Egypt for several reasons, namely because they were already there and they know how to operate in the country. 

I visited the headquarters of Al Jazeera English in Washington D.C. with a college group in 2009. They actually let us in the control room during a live broadcast, and gave us what I consider to be a lot of access to their newsroom. The opinion piece I mentioned above is definitely something to think critically about, and consider the points for and against broadcasting Al Jazeera in the United States. 

The comments section on the article brings up some really great points about how Al Jazeera is seizing the opportunity to play up the "discrimination" against them by American viewers and also how Al Jazeera is a legitimate news source that Americans deserve access to. Internet is good but Americans get their news from the TV, and until Al Jazeera is given a channel the network just isn't going to take hold in the United States.

Check out Al Jazeera's coverage and let me know what you think. I'll be watching to see if the situation in Egypt gives Al Jazeera the momentum it needs for a cable provider in the US to pick up the network. 

From Novelist to Lepidopterist

My first encounter with Vladimir Nabokov was in my high school AP English class. My teacher Mr. Kaplow (author of Me and Orson Welles, which fun fact: is a movie starring High School Musical's Zac Efron) kept a movie poster of Lolita (based on Nabokov's most well known novel) hanging on the classroom wall.

I next encountered Nabokov while working through my undergraduate English major. Due to his Russian roots, Nabokov fit nicely into the course materials for my international literature class. I read his memoir Speak, Memory which talks a lot about Nabokov's interest in lepidoptery, the study of butterflies.

Karner Blue Butterfly. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

I bring up Nabokov and his butterfly hobby because I just read an article on Nabokov's scientific theories in the New York Times.  Nabokov's theories were dismissed by lepidopterists during his lifetime,  but genetic analysis has shown that he was exactly right about the origin of a group of butterflies known as the Polyommatus blues. Nabokov theorized that the butterflies had originated in Asia and come to the United States in waves, but in the 1960's and 1970's no one took him seriously.

Researchers at Harvard University (where Nabokov was curator of lepidoptera at the Museum of Comparative Zoology) decided to do a genetic analysis on the butterflies to test Nabokov's 30-year-old theory. The results showed that Nabokov was right all along, Polyommatus blues are genetically linked to butterflies in Asia. Genetic analysis has also been used to validate Nabokov's hypothesis that Karner Blue Butterflies are a distinct species.

By this point you might be wondering why it matters that this long dead Russian novelist has been vindicated as a legitimate scientist by new technological advances, so I'll get to my point. Nabokov is an example of how members of the scientific community can be quick to dismiss the work of anyone who isn't an expert.

If we hold anyone who does scientific research to the same standard of peer review (analysis by other scientists, and the ability to replicate a study or experiment and get the same results as the original researcher) then even people who don't have their doctorate in a specific science can still contribute new knowledge.

Please note that I'm not advocating that any quack with a theory should be taken seriously by the scientific community. But if promising research or theories are developed by people who might not call science their profession, their value should still be evaluated.

Revising Taxonomy

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.