Category Archives: General

Good Science! Bad Science?

Posted on February 16, 2011 by | Comments Off on Good Science! Bad Science?

Scientific literacy is a big part of science education; the ability to recognize pseudoscientific beliefs from scientific facts and theories is essential for science students. photo credits: openparachute.wordpress.com

In an attempt to retrieve interesting blogging topics, I spent part of my weekend scouting through scientific magazines (mostly on-line but also in prints). And it was awful.

First try, I found a newspaper article describing a link between global warming and skin cancer. According to this article, since global warming increases the earth’s average temperature, it affects the cloud formation at the poles, which in turn interacts with the ozone layer and increases the size of the ozone hole, which allows more UV radiation and may explain the increase cases in skin cancer reported in the US and Europe. For a while, I searched for the sources they cited, but to no avail. It turns out, they were citing from a draft from WMO (World Meteorological Organization) that is not yet released to the public. Thus, there wasn’t a way to verify the information. In addition, the author’s name was not specified.

In retrospect, this article can be easily identified as BAD SCIENCE. However, in the mist of my excitement on that tired bus ride home, the science sounded great. I even convinced myself that I to buy more sunscreen for this summer (to prevent damage from the extra UV rays). My point is, scientific babbles can appear anywhere and everywhere and at a time when we are least expecting.

Identifying GOOD SCIENCE

According to the library resources available here, and through our course blog, we can evaluate our readings using AACCOP.

A-   AUTHOR or SOURCE

A responsible scientist will stand behind him/her article, and be backed by a notable organization.

A-   ACCURACY

Good science is always falsifiable. Find the source of the information, and verify it for yourself.

C –CURRENCY

Science is always advancing; what was true ten years ago might now be obsolete.

C –COVERAGE

Is the research completed or only in progress? A hypothesis may only be a “guess” until the final conclusion.

O –OBJECTIVITY

Sometimes enthusiasm can cloud one’s good judgement. A scientist should present the research with disinterestedness.

P  -PURPOSE

Could there be a hidden agenda? Are the scientist hired by a neutral party? Or by the pharmaceutical companies themselves?

Lastly, just remember, we should always approach findings with a healthy dose of curiosity and skepticism. Good luck for everyone doing research!

Comments Off on Good Science! Bad Science?

Posted in Course Reflections, General, Science Communication

Tagged ,

Alzheimer’s Disease

Posted on February 16, 2011 by | Comments Off on Alzheimer’s Disease

A recent clinical trial on the hit show “Grey’s Anatomy” that was being conducted to find the cure to Alzheimer’s inspired me to write this blog post because I really don’t know much about this disease other than the fact that patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s suffer from dementia and therefore, wanted to know more about the causes of this disease.

Alzheimer’s is a “progressive and degenerative disease” and is the most common form of dementia. The name for this disease comes from the doctor who first identified the disease: Dr. Alois Alzheimer. According to his research there are two main features to this disease: Plaques and Tangles

Plaques are made of a protein already consisting within the brain called A-beta. A patient with Alzheimer’s generally has more of this protein that accumulates in the brain. They accumulate in such high numbers that it makes it difficult for the enzymes in the brain whose job is to get rid of this protein overwhelming the whole system. Over time as they accumulate they condense into plaques that are toxic.  Researchers believe that these A-beta proteins somehow change the genetic code of the tau protein thereby promoting development of “Tangles”.

Tangles as mentioned before are made of tau protein. These are located in the nerve cells and perform key duties such as self-repair of the nervous system as well as maintaining a transport system within the nerve cells. However after these are modified by the A-beta protein they tend to pile up and create tangles. By creating these tangles the transport system of the cells is disrupted and therefore the cell dies.

The toxic plaques along with the tangles leads to the slow degeneration of cells in the brain, thereby causing the brain to shrink as seen in the following picture.

"Normal Aged brain vs Alzheimer's patient"

I hope to look into more research that has been done on the purpose of the A-beta protein as well as other further research into how doctors might proceed to deal with this disease in the future. Until then I will direct you to the following link that has more information on Alzheimer’s Disease.

http://www.alzheimer.ca/english/

Comments Off on Alzheimer’s Disease

Posted in Biological Sciences, General, Issues in Science, Science Communication, Science in the News, Uncategorized

That Lovin’ Feeling

Posted on February 11, 2011 by | 1 comment

On Monday next week, the theme will be all about love. 

This feeling of love has been tied to more then just getting that butterfly sensation in your stomach. Love can now be described at a neurochemical level. Research  is explaining love thanks to a little chemical called dopamine.

Dopamine neurones account for less than 1% of the total neuronal population in the brain, but have great effect on its function (Mardeson, 2006). It is involved in the control of movement and the modivation for reward. Deficiency in this neurotransmitter is tied to such diseases as Parkinsons ( Mardeson, 2006).

Dopamine has also been found to be relevant to the social pairing of males and females in long and short term relationships (Curtis et al, 2006). I have friends who talk about how their relationships have changed from fun and amazing to boring and dull. It amazes me that such a transition could be due to a lack of dopamine stimulation. But fear not, this isn’t the outcome for every relationship. Discovery News has reported on a study done by Arthur Aron (a social neuroscientist at Stony Brook University in New York) and his colleagues who have found that people in long term relationships who are madly in love are not lying and that this feeling can last!

The study took 17 people who felt that they were in long term loving relationships. MRI brain-scans were done while they looked at photos of their lover and of strangers (who had similar features). Their scans were similar to those of  recently fallen in love people by having a high activity in the region of the brain which processes dopamine. There was also high activity in regions related to pair-bonding and attachment.Also when comparing scans of people in long term relationships who did not rate their feeling of love as highly as to those who do, had lower levels of activity in the dopamine processing portion of the brain. This little neurotransmitter has powerful affects on our emotions, feelings and relationships. Could a little boost in producing dopamine keep us all on clould 9?

So when you give a Valentine’s Day card this Monday, that feeling you get may not be so fleeting!

  • 1.Marsden, C. A. (2006). Dopamine: The rewarding years. British Journal of Pharmacology, 147(S1), S136-S144. doi:10.1038/sj.bjp.0706473
  • 2.Curtis, J. T., Liu, Y., Wang, Z., & Aragona, B. J. (2006). Dopamine and monogamy. Brain Research, 1126(1), 76-90. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.07.126

1 Comment

Posted in Biological Sciences, Fun!, General, Science in the News, Uncategorized

Tagged , ,

Network Neutrality: An Essential Ingredient for Continued Internet Innovation

Posted on January 28, 2011 by | 2 comments

From the boardroom to the legislature, an important policy debate is taking place. Even though it has the potential to fundamentally reshape nearly every aspect of our modern digital lives: how we connect, communicate and entertain ourselves, the public remains woefully misinformed. The debate is over Network Neutrality, and the related issues of packet prioritization and usage-based billing. In recent years, ISPs who have traditionally just provided network-access have become increasingly interested in “value-added” services, such as internet-telephony or IPTV. Rather than having these services compete on merit, many ISPs have decided to degrade the network performance of competing offerings, prioritize their-own traffic, and to limit monthly bandwidth. Net-neutrality is the opposite of all that. It is a network design principle mandating that all packets, or parcels of data, should be treated equally, sent or received on a first come first service basis.  A carrier should not be allowed to prioritize traffic.

I was reading an article on Google News the other day (Internet groups criticize CRTC bandwidth ruling) and upon browsing through the comments was struck by the misinformation I saw.  Network carriers such as Bell Canada (TSX:BCE) and Verizon (NYSE:VZ) have somewhat successfully argued that these network-management techniques are required to justify investment in expanded infrastructure, with John Thorne, deputy general counsel for Verizon being quoted as saying that: “The network builders are spending a fortune constructing and maintaining the networks that Google intends to ride on with nothing but cheap servers.”  The debate has been manipulated so that the battle for bandwidth looks appears to be pitting the everyday citizen trying to access their email and the college student down the block using P2P programs 24/7. While arguments such as this have some merit, they are for the most part facetious, have severe long-term consequences and from a public policy point of view not well thought out.

Part of what has made the internet-era so incredible is the dynamism that comes from enabling anyone with a great idea to reach the entire world. Take a moment and think about how the web has changed your life for the better.  Think of the products and services you use most often. Now imagine a world without them. Let’s say your ISP, which has an IPTV service, has decided to cap your monthly download limit and charge overage fees, while allowing you to access their IPTV services for no extra charge. Companies like Netflix and YouTube just couldn’t compete.  They’d be priced out of the market.  Or what if large incumbents could pay for priority access; services such as Skype might be given a lower priority then your ISP’s VOIP service. You forgo Skype not because it’s an inferior product but because its call quality has purposefully been degraded. For these reasons, amongst others, it is essential that the public be well informed about the facts surrounding network neutrality and how this seemingly trivial policy debate has the potential to dramatically alter the world’s economic landscape for decades to come.

YouTube Preview Image

2 Comments

Posted in General, Issues in Science, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,