Carl gets an award!

Congrats to Carl Zimmer!:
[Via Bad Astronomy]

My fellow Hive Overmind blogger Carl Zimmer just won the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Kavli Science Journalism Award for writing in large newspaper, specifically the New York Times.

Yay!

Carl Zimmer won in the large newspaper category for a trio of articles he wrote for The New York Times on aspects of genetics and evolution. “I sometimes feel a little embarrassed that I like to write articles about the kinds of basic questions my kids ask me,” Zimmer said. “For the three stories I submitted, the questions were, “What’s a virus?” “What’s a gene?” and “Why do fireflies flash?” I had a marvelous time talking with scientists about the complex answers to those simple questions, and now, thanks to this award, I don’t have to feel at all embarrassed.” Zimmer previously won in the online category in 2004.

And he shouldn’t be embarrassed, because it’s exactly those kinds of questions that should be written about! Engaging the public is what more scientists should do, and if they did it as well as Carl the world would be a better place.

[More]

This is great news. Carl is one of the journalists who is not only a great writer but does an extremely good job connecting the world of science with the world the average person inhabits.

However, he has another trait that is even rarer. He makes science interesting to scientists.

Science writing can be very hard. Not only must one be able to synthesize work that one is not necessarily proficient in, one must also make it all worth reading. But what Carl so often does is to also capture why the science is interesting. He presents the excitement of the work in ways that can resonate well with other scientists. He does a wonderful job of exposing the human behind the science.

That is why Carl’s blog, The Loom, has been on my RSS aggregator since we were both writing blogs at Corante. (You can see some of my blogposts at my old Corante blog, Living Code, in the categories at the left)

Technorati Tags: Science, Web 2.0

Bugs in the stomach

from Wikipedia

Helicobacter pylori’s unconventional role in health and disease.:
[Via PLoS Pathogens]
Related Articles

Helicobacter pylori’s unconventional role in health and disease.

PLoS Pathog. 2009 Oct;5(10):e1000544

Authors: Dorer MS, Talarico S, Salama NR

The discovery of a bacterium, Helicobacter pylori, that is resident in the human stomach and causes chronic disease (peptic ulcer and gastric cancer) was radical on many levels. Whereas the mouth and the colon were both known to host a large number of microorganisms, collectively referred to as the microbiome, the stomach was thought to be a virtual Sahara desert for microbes because of its high acidity. We now know that H. pylori is one of many species of bacteria that live in the stomach, although H. pylori seems to dominate this community. H. pylori does not behave as a classical bacterial pathogen: disease is not solely mediated by production of toxins, although certain H. pylori genes, including those that encode exotoxins, increase the risk of disease development. Instead, disease seems to result from a complex interaction between the bacterium, the host, and the environment. Furthermore, H. pylori was the first bacterium observed to behave as a carcinogen. The innate and adaptive immune defenses of the host, combined with factors in the environment of the stomach, apparently drive a continuously high rate of genomic variation in H. pylori. Studies of this genetic diversity in strains isolated from various locations across the globe show that H. pylori has coevolved with humans throughout our history. This long association has given rise not only to disease, but also to possible protective effects, particularly with respect to diseases of the esophagus. Given this complex relationship with human health, eradication of H. pylori in nonsymptomatic individuals may not be the best course of action. The story of H. pylori teaches us to look more deeply at our resident microbiome and the complexity of its interactions, both in this complex population and within our own tissues, to gain a better understanding of health and disease.

[More]

We are used to thinking about bacteria on our skin, in our mouths or in our intestines. However the ability for bacteria to not only live in the acid of our stomachs but to also cause disease was a huge paradigm shift for researchers.

Helicobacter pylori is just such an organism. The researchers (Marshall and Warren) that demonstrated that this organism was responsible for stomach ulcers not only one the Nobel prize but also took part in one the the great examples of self-experimentation in modern history.

In order to demonstrate that Helicobacter was responsible, Marshall drank a beaker of the bacteria. He became very ill within a few days and the presence of the bacteria was found in his stomach. A course of antibiotics not only reduced his gastritis but also removed the bacteria.

This story is one of the great examples of how researchers can go against conventional wisdom. They went up against dogma that people had learned for almost a century. They were originally ignored. They did very good, basic work, published in peer-reviewed journals, changed everyone’s minds and won the Nobel Prize.

Whenever anyone tries to say that there is a conspiracy of researchers preventing the truth from coming out, all I do is think of Marshall and Warren. If you have the data, if you are right, you will overcome any conventional wisdom. That is how science works,

And you could probably win the Nobel Prize and have your career set for life. Wouldn’t you think that some young hotshot out there would try to do just that?

But the key is that they have to have the data. Simply being contrarian will not work.

Technorati Tags: Science

Cassava genome in hand

by Tatters:)
Researchers complete draft genome sequence for cassava:
[Via EurekAlert! - Biology]

(University of Arizona) A $1.3 Million grant from Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will fund the next phase of research that is critical to global food security.

[More]

The cassava is a very important foodstuff. However, it requires a tremendous amount of processing and does not keep well.

Having its gene sequence will be very helpful in developing varieties that are more useful. With so many sequencing technologies out there all looking for a convenient way to demonstrate their worth, I expect we will see a lot more of these sorts of sequencing projects.

Technorati Tags: Science

Vito, you’re still blocking

by Yury Cortés
The New York Times Columnist Who’s Helping To Ruin The Future [Monday Hate]
[Via io9]

Why is John Tierney so skeptical, and yet so gullible? The New York Times’ science columnist is one of the most vocal global-warming doubters in the media, but when it comes to Ray Kurzweil’s Singularity and geo-hacking, he’s suddenly wide-eyed.

People often lump Tierney together with George Will, as global-warming doubters at major newspapers who use somewhat specious arguments to downplay the scientific consensus that we’re slow-cooking our planet. But Tierney’s position as the Times’ science columnist gives him more authority than Will’s as a random TV pundit. But also, the thing I find fascinating about Tierney is that even as he goes to great lengths to paint the evidence about global warming as mere hype, he’s also eager to buy into the hype whenever there’s a claim that new technology will deliver us to a beautiful future, without having to make any hard choices. It’s hard not to believe the two things are related.

Reading Tierney’s columns and blog posts on global warming, a few things become clear. He’s a global warming skeptic, rather than an out-and-out denier. (In one blog post, he says he believes there’s “some risk” that global warming will be a danger.) But he’s given tons of exposure and legitimacy to outright deniers, including some groups with ties to the oil industry. And he’s done a lot to paint the scientific consensus on global warming as pure hype and conformism.

In Tierney’s world, the reason the majority of scientists agree that global warming is a worsening crisis is dick-measuring. In a column on Obama’s science advisor, John Holdren, Tierney spends most of the column quoting Roger Pielke, a climate researcher who’s been one of the most vocal critics of the idea that the polar ice caps are melting. According to Pielke, scientists present conclusions about global warming as definitive not because the data supports them, but just to boost their own “authority in the political debate” and tarnish their opponents.

[More]

I have noticed this also. People who dispute climate change but accept all sorts of ‘woo’ with very little scientific underpinnings.

Here he ignores a lot of hard data to follow along with one of those ‘theories’ that posits exponential curves continuing forever. That is a fun thought experiment but there is nothing to believe that this particular curve will continue.

But it sure is fun speculating. And that is what attracts some people where actually dealing with real science does not. Science tends to abhor pure speculation because it has to deal with reality.

We saw the same thing in Superfreakonomics, where fun speculation with geoengineering was touted more than the hard facts of climate change. It is the old Tinkerbell Effect, where if we just beleive hard enough,the World, I mean Tink, will get better.

We all know about wishes, horses and beggars. Trying to ignore the hard thoughts of realty with the wistful joys of speculation is not a way to fix things. It just stifles our real efforts to find solutions. It makes for fun comedy but not for good policy. I think someone is blocking their true feelings about the Tattaglia Fami…, I mean climate change.

[Listening to: Something in the Way (Live) from the album "MTV Unplugged in New York: Nirvana" by Nirvana]