Category Archives: Uncategorized

Hiding Beneath our Noses: A New Subspecies of Goshawk

Could there be a new subspecies of bird hiding beneath our noses?

Researchers at the University of British Columbia (UBC) have recently discovered a new subspecies of Northern Goshawks  living on Haida Gwaii.  They looked at DNA of Northern Goshawks and found the birds on Haida Gwaii were different from those found anywhere else. This stunning discovery will help improve current policy and conservation efforts for these endangered birds.

Courtesy: Flickr | Photo Credit: Aleksander Cocek | A Northern Goshawk.

Northern Goshawks are native to British Columbia. These medium sized birds have sharp beaks, large talons, and live in British Columbia’s (BC) mature forests.  They are birds of prey and feed on other birds, small mammals, and even insects.  To learn more about these amazing birds, check out this interesting Scie 300 Podcast.

For decades, the birds along the coast have been seen as one species.  However, recent evidence suggests the birds on Haida Gwaii, an island archipelago off the coast of central BC, may be a subspecies of their own.  Kenneth Askelson is one of the researchers behind this study.  Kenneth explained the 433 samples they had was one of the largest collections of its kind and relied on contributions from museums and collectors.  “To collect all these samples by hand would have taken 30 years,” he explained.  Kenneth and his team analyzed the genetic samples and found differences not found in samples from other locations.

Goshawks numbers have been falling around the province, and the species along the coast is officially listed as endangered. There may only be about 1200 of these birds left in BC.  The population on Haida Gwaii is even smaller and estimated to have only 50 individuals. This small population is also at risk of inbreeding. Inbreeding is when closely related birds mate with each other. This can produce children that are more susceptible to changes in the environment or have genetic defects. It is not known for sure why these birds have remained isolated for so long.

Courtesy: Flickr | Photo Credit: Nick Goodrum | A Northern Goshawk spreads its wings.

This begs the question, are we doing enough? Human population growth has caused many species around the globe to disappear, and many more are at the verge of disappearing.  The Goshawk is seen as an important indicator of forest health. If the Goshawk species is struggling, the forest may also be struggling.  Current efforts to prevent further loss of this species include the creation of Wildlife Habitat Areas. The government of BC hopes to have 90 such areas set up by 2020, with many of these being created on Haida Gwaii.

However, effective conservation depends on knowing where species live and the  issues they face.  Mr. Askelson prides himself on, “being someone who can provide the most information to make the best management decisions possible.”  This study will help policy makers make informed decisions that could save the Haida Gwaii Goshawks from disappearing.

Goshawks are pretty cool, aren’t they? Check out this short video for more information.

 

 

-Sukhman Bhuller, Farhan Muhib, Janet Lee

A Tiny Planet Far Away Reveals Insight Towards Planet Formation

A tiny, primordial, and bizarre-looking planet at the edge of our solar system could hold the key to understanding how Earth came to exist.

On New Year’s Day, 2019, almost 13 years after its launch, NASA’s New Horizons space probe flew by a tiny planet, 2014 MU69, around 7 billion kilometers away. MU69, nicknamed Ultima Thule, is an object in the Kuiper Belt, an asteroid belt located beyond the orbit of Neptune. Ultima Thule is the most distant object in the solar system ever visited by a spacecraft.

Here is a video with more info regarding the  New Horizons

Dr. Brett Gladman, a planetary astronomer from the University of British Columbia, studied MU69 in his recent paper. Dr. Gladman with his team estimated the density of the impacted craters on MU69 and confirmed the actual density with the images taken by the New Horizons space probe.

Here is a podcast containing the interview with Dr. Gladman.

Using this information, they were able to confirm the size distribution of the Kuiper Belt. They were able to deduct the size distribution from the impacted craters because of the collisions that occur in the Kuiper belt. The collisions leave a dent on MU69 and from there, objects that were not observable through a telescope from the earth can be indirectly observed through looking at the impact craters they have created on the surface of MU69.

The results of this experiment are that MU69 looks exactly the same as it did 4.5 billion years ago. The MU69 in the Kuiper belt barely had any crater impacts despite being formed for 4.5 billion years. This indicates that there were barely any collisions with other objects. This confirms that the objects in the Kuiper belt are very spread out.

With this newly obtained information, the astronomers are able to place a constraint on current planetary accretional models (planet formation models) as this should be the destination of all planet creation model. This is a big step forward observationally as a constraint on the theoretical understanding of how you make a planet, or at least the initial building blocks of planets.

Additionally, the spacious size distribution of the Kuiper belt explains the lack of new planet formation in our solar system since planet formation requires collision of the objects in space. For example, Pluto is thought to have formed closer to the Sun than where Neptune is today, and have gotten stranded rather than being formed in the Kuiper belt.

All in all, space is still a mystery to us and with the advancing technologies, we are able to slowly unveil the mysteries regarding space and the process of planet formation.

The battleground of human genetic engineering

Science, ethics, ideology, and politics all clash fiercely over an innocent-sounding topic: the “designer baby”. This battle has loomed unusually large in the public view after a recent announcement that a Chinese scientist intentionally used a controversial genetic engineering technique on a set of viable human embryos, a global first. There are a number of fascinating perspectives to explore, and this story comes with a sprinkling of geopolitical intrigue as well.

In November of 2018, scientist He Jiankui announced that he had used a burgeoning gene editing tool, CRISPR-Cas9 (or just CRISPR, for short), to genetically modify two twin girls. He claims to have used this tool in an attempt to confer genetic resistance to HIV/AIDS by disabling one particular gene, CCR5. CRISPR, while extremely promising, is still quite poorly tested, and has been proven capable of deleting much larger swaths of genetic material than intended. The main concern is that these deletions could eliminate sections of a cell’s genetic code that are crucial for its normal functions, which could lead to problems such as cancer. There is also a concern that catastrophic errors could be transferred genetically to descendants.

Molecular biologist Ellen Jorgensen explains CRISPR-Cas9’s mechanics and potential.
Source: TED

 

Unsurprisingly, then, He’s announcement was met with widespread backlash from the scientific community. An official investigation showed that He fabricated ethics approvals in order to recruit participants for his experiment, and he was subsequently fired from his university. Because of its dangers, many countries (including China) have prohibited gene editing of human embryos for reproductive purposes.

However, He’s situation may not have been quite what it seems. He has been painted as a rogue agent, pursuing his research in relative secrecy in pursuit of fame or notoriety. His university, the hospital where the edited twins were born, and even his own government denounced his actions. Suspiciously, though, the Washington Post noted that, in an interview with the Associated Press, an executive from that same hospital applauded He’s research on camera, and the university was listed as a sponsor on a copy of the informed consent form He used for his experiment. Furthermore, CCR5, the gene He attempted to modify, is associated with memory and cognition, meaning that the modified twins may exhibit augmented intelligence.

He Jiankui speaking at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing. Source: Iris Tong (Voice of America)

Is it possible that the Chinese government is covertly supporting or encouraging unethical genetic engineering practices? Dr. Gregory Licholai of Yale’s School of Management notes that China has been much quicker than other countries to expedite human trials of CRISPR-enabled cancer treatments, and that China’s regulatory authorities have been “extremely permissive” regarding CRISPR clinical trials.

The genetic modification of humans carries enormous risks and rewards. With enough skill and some good luck, a country that supports early adoption of human gene editing could claim significant health and intellectual advantages over the rest of the world within a generation. Only time will tell if November’s announcement quietly ushered in a new age of geopolitical competition.

— Ricky C.

Will it be a snow day tomorrow?

As many students frantically refreshed the UBC website to see if classes (especially midterms) were cancelled due to the recent snow storms, it became apparent the importance of accurate and early weather forecasting systems. In both Eastern Canada and Vancouver, the powerful winter wind, snow, and freezing temperatures caused power outages, road delays, and many flight cancellations. Many emergency centres and snow action plans were in operation, even before the storm hit. The science used in weather forecasting needs to predict accurately and in advance, so that weather warnings can be communicated to the government and to the public efficiently. Without this technology, millions of dollars of damage can be done and public safety could be put at risk.

The January 2019 Snow Storm in Toronto, Ontario. Wikimedia Commons

A recent published study by Fuqing Zhang in the JAS (Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences) suggests that a 2-week predictability with fair accuracy could be possible in the near future, as compared to a current 10-day period. The increasing ability of supercomputers allow higher resolution models to be made when capturing information from satellites and weather balloons. Conditions that are captured include temperature, pressure, humidity, and wind speed.

A Canadian Radar Weather Station near Vernon BC. Wikimedia Commons

The 2-week period is believed to be the upper limit, as weather patterns follow “The Butterfly Effect“, discovered by Edward Lorenz. Minuscule disruptions, such as a butterfly flapping its wings can eventually snowball into a much bigger tornado far away. Even very tiny differences in starting conditions, over the course of two weeks, can turn into widely varying weather conditions based on the same predicting model. Uncertainty in the conditions observations and in the model can end up leading to a large variation in predicted weather. This makes anything beyond the 2-week period unlikely to be predicted accurately as the uncertainty grows over time.

The following video by Lloyd Treinish shows how weather forecasting systems work and how they can be used to prepare for the weather before they even happen.

Since these weather forecasting models help governments and business to determine how to keep the public safe and minimize financial losses, the science behind it is crucial and early forecasting allows more time to prepare for upcoming weather emergencies. So, if  you’re desperately hoping they cancel that midterm, you can trust that the weather forecast will not let you down.

Christy Lau

Microwaves: Do They Really “Give You Cancer”?

 

“Don’t stand in front of the microwave! You’ll get cancer.” Growing up, we hear this at home repetitively over and over again. In contrast to this widely believed myth however, microwave ovens do not “give cancer” to people. The mechanism that a microwave functions by is not so complex, but the assumptions made around it are questionable.

Much of our world today revolves around convenience. We often see people choosing convenience over cost, quality, conscience, and sometimes even safety. In this context, microwaves are fantastic to use in daily life – the energy efficiency, ease of use, and rapid processing time make them increasingly popular.

But how exactly do microwaves work? This is a question that needs to be addressed before we discuss anything else. Simply put, microwaves produce radiation that is absorbed by water molecules in whatever is inside the microwave. These water molecules then vibrate and produce heat, causing the food to cook. This mechanism is what allows microwave ovens to heat our food in such a short span of time, while the chemical structure of the food components are not altered in any way.

In The Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, a study found that when microwaved, broccoli retained its minerals all except for vitamin C. What does this imply? Nothing much at all. It is actually easy to lose vitamin C in any type of cooking process, because of its volatility. Microwaves are not the only ones at fault. Luckily, we have raw fruits and vegetables that are abundant in vitamin C to compensate for this deficit.

So what about being physically near a microwave when it is functioning and emitting radiation? The fabrication that microwave ovens cause cancer comes from the suggestion that the energy given off by microwaves is enough to damage one’s DNA. However, Peter Valberg found little evidence to support this relationship between microwave exposure and cancer causation in his study conducted in 1997. He concluded against the existence of a relationship, and very few studies have been carried out after Valberg’s review.

Microwave ovens do not destroy all the nutrients in our food, and neither do they literally cause cancer in humans. It has never been proven that microwaves are actually harmful, whether indirectly or directly. It’s time for the public to recognize the stale saying that “microwaves give you cancer” as ignorant and untrue.

– Sarah Choi

Immune Systems in Space

Humans are getting closer to reaching their goal of becoming an inter-planetary species. NASA is under presidential orders to land humans on Mars by 2033.  However, will astronauts be able to survive such a long and grueling journey?  Little is known about the long-term effects of space travel on the human body. A one-way trip would take about seven months and a round trip could take well over three years, but the longest a human has continuously been in space is just over a year. Our bodies have adapted over millions of years to survive on earth and long-term spaceflight could weaken our immune systems, according to recent research led by the University of Arizona.

NK Cells and the Immune System

The immune system helps to fight infections and protect our bodies from illnesses. It is made up of many types of cells, including white blood cells which help destroy invaders and protect against diseases that can make us sick. One of these cells, called the NK (natural killer) cell, is especially important since it is responsible for killing infected/cancerous cells. NK cells are especially important during space travel since the body may be exposed to larger amounts of radiation and there is a possibility of increased cancer risk.

Astronauts in space will not be protected from radiation by Earth’s atmosphere. Courtesy of Wikipedia.

The research team tested the blood of astronauts who had been in space for at least six months and compared these test results to those of healthy individuals on earth. Results were taken before and after spaceflight, and even twice during the flight. What they found was shocking, the NK cells from blood taken during and after spaceflight were about 50% less effective than the NK cells from blood taken before spaceflight. Even blood samples taken 90 days into spaceflight contained NK cells that were much less effective. Richard Simpson, one of the authors of the study explained how NK cell activity decreased; “When we look at the function of the astronaut samples during flight compared to their own samples before they flew, it goes down. When we compare them to controls who stayed on Earth, it still goes down.”

Small Piece of the Puzzle

Safely transporting astronauts to Mars is no small task, and this highlights one of the many challenges faced by engineers and scientists. Problems that we consider small or things we take for granted have to be carefully thought out.  Engineers have to invent solutions for problems that we may not see as problems. It is amazing how many factors are at play and must be accounted for when planning a project of this magnitude. Nevertheless, countless individuals are hard at work tackling numerous problems such as this. Simpson and his team are actively working to find a solution, hoping that a combination of nutrition and fitness can be used to keep NK cells effective. If successful, their hard work will contribute to one of the finest achievements of the human race.

Render of an astronaut gazing across Mars.  Courtesy of NASA.

 

-Sukhman Bhuller

The technological singularity: Science fiction or science future?

What would happen if we programmed a computer to design a faster, more efficient computer? Well, if all went according to plan, we’d get a faster, more efficient computer. Now, we’ll assign this newly designed computer the same task: improve on your own design. It does so, faster (and more efficiently), and we iterate on this process, accelerating onwards. Towards what? Merely a better computer? Would this iterative design process ever slow down, ever hit a wall? After enough iterations, would we even recognize the hardware and software devised by these ever-increasingly capable systems? As it turns out, these could potentially be some of the most important questions our species will ever ask.

In 1965, Gordon Moore, then CEO of Intel, wrote a paper describing a simple observation: every year, the number of components in an integrated circuit (computer chip) seemed to double. This roughly corresponds to a doubling of performance, as manufacturers can fit twice the “computing power” on the same-sized chip. Ten years later, Moore’s observation remained accurate, and around this same time, an eminent Caltech professor popularized the principle under the title of “Moore’s law”. Although current technology is brushing up against theoretical physical limits of size (there is a theoretical “minimum size” transistor, limited by quantum mechanics), Moore’s law has more-or-less held steady throughout the last four and a half decades.

Moore’s Law, illustrated. Source: Our World in Data

This performance trend represents an exponential increase over time. Exponential change underpins Ray Kurzweil’s “law of accelerating returns” — in the context of technology, accelerating returns mean that the technology improves at a rate proportional to its quality. Does this sound familiar? This is certainly the kind of acceleration we anticipated with computers designing computers. This is what is meant by the concept of a singularity — once the conditions for accelerating returns are met, those advances begin to spiral beyond our understanding, if not our control.

This concept is perhaps most easily applied to artificial intelligence (AI):

Let us suppose that the technological trends most relevant to AI and neurotechnology maintain their accelerating momentum, precipitating the ability to engineer the stuff of mind, to synthesize and manipulate the very machinery of intelligence. At this point, intelligence itself, whether artificial or human, would become subject to the law of accelerating returns, and from here to a technological singularity is but a small leap of faith. — Murray Shanahan, The Technological Singularity, MIT Press

Clearly, there is reason to wade cautiously into these teeming depths. In his excellent TED Talk, the world-renowned AI philosopher Nick Bostrom suggests that, though the advent of machine superintelligence remains decades away, it would be prudent to address its lurking dangers as far in advance as possible.

Source: TED

— Ricky C.

The New and Improved Kilogram

How do we know how much anything weighs? Where does the measurement come from when you use the kitchen scale or the scale in your physics lab? Since 1879, the sole definition of the kilogram was carefully locked away in an underground vault in France, the International Prototype Kilogram (IPK). Starting May of 2019, this tightly stored piece  of platinum and iridium will no longer officially represent the mass of a kilogram. This renewed definition will be more accessible to everyone and remain accurate for the rest of time, demonstrating the importance of this change.The kilogram is one of the base units as part of the International System of Units (SI).

The International Prototype Kilogram, or Le Grand K informally, is the only physical artifact that determines the official mass of one kilogram. However, since it is stowed away under careful protection by the International Committee for Weights and Measures (ICWM). It is hardly accessible and any changes in mass due to scratches or dirt would change the official mass of the kilogram. Even copies made of Le Grand K may not always be exactly accurate.

This prompted the change by the ICWM to a much more accessible and unchanging value based on a fundamental constant, the Planck’s constant. Planck’s constant, or h, like all other fundamental constants of nature remain the same with time and throughout the universe. Planck’s constant relates the smallest energy packet possible to the frequency of that energy packet, and is defined to be 6.626176 x 10^(-34) kilogram meter squared per second. With the kilogram within this constant, the determination of the kilogram can be made much more precisely without needing to compare it with the actual IPK.

To determine the mass with the new definition, a Kibble balance can be used. The Kibble balance is able to weigh mass against an electromagnetic current, making it incredibly accurate and precise.

Shown below is a video from Veritasium working with NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) explaining the new changes for the kilogram and how a kibble balance is used to determine the mass:

For the common household scale, or even anything beyond advanced physics, the new definition of the kilogram will not cause any change in mass. However over time, the required precision for mass in all fields of science will benefit from this change. The importance for consistent and precise measurements in all of science and business are seen.

— Christy Lau