Neuro musing

So, I just finished a 6-week summer class, Neuroscience. First, let me recommend not taking this as a summer course (imagine having to read six science chapters in one week, write two discussion posts, respond to at least one of someone else's, plus two short essays. Also there's two tests and a 5-10 page paper in those 6 weeks). Let me also not recommend doing it on-line. It was much more fun when I took it as an undergrad. However, I did learn some things, like all the weird diseases that they talk about on House (for example, I now know most of the tell-tale symptom's of Cushings disease). Also, I know why one might need a lumbar puncture, and what levels of molecules and antibodies should be in the serum, as well as what abnormal numbers are indicative of different symptomatic/disease states (Such as meningitis vs. multiple sclerosis). So, overall, I can be a more informed tv-watcher.
Go me!



However, perhaps one of my favorite moments of reading (which I did lots and lots and lots of in the past six weeks) was when I ran across the structure named the "nucleus reticularis gigantocellularis" (see above picture). I mean, who got away with that? And, just so you know, it has subsequently been renamed the "medullary reticular formation." I guess the first name didn't sound scientific enough for somebody.

Some Quotes

Okay, so it's coming to the end of the semester, and apparently the people who write textbooks seem to think no one is going to read the last chapters. So they throw sentences in there that really probably should not have been put in there. Or maybe it was just late when the publisher was reviewing it, and they decided not to review the last chapter, or whatever, what do I know about book publishing? Anyway, here's the quotes:

“We use intelligence to structure our environment so that we can succeed with less intelligence. Our brains make the world smart so we can be dumb in peace!”
- Andy Clark, 1997. Being There, MIT Press

“As a general rule, graphics packages offer sets of colors that are recommended for producing a particular overall look for your presentation. We suggest that you choose a particular set, and use exactly those colors, rather than designing your own combination. The color combination that you select are, with all due respect, likely to be awful, no matter what your drunken friends think.”
- Taken from “Presentation of Results” Quinn, G. and Keough, M. 2003. Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

“If ‘good design’ were evidence of a kindly, omnipotent designer, would ‘inferior design’ be evidence of an unkind, incompetent, or handicapped designer?”
- Futuyma, D. 2005. Evolution. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc.

Because

- Because I wrote this really huge thing for work today that involved one case, and had papers spread all over my desk that kept getting themselves confused, and I was scared that someone was going to sneeze on them...
- Because I just finished a 13-page draft of my Biometry (statistics for biologists) final paper, in which I had many layers of paper and math and paper and math and thinking, in which I was afraid someone might sneeze on my brain...

- Because it's Friday, and I need some serenity, and I took this picture and I like it, and it's nice to live 10 minutes from a free state park where you can take your dogs hiking when you want to.

Why it's fun to be a Biologist

Because you get to read (and write) sentences like this "A long-standing enigma in evolutionary biology is the widespread occurence of sex, in spite of its twofold cost" (Galvani 2003). I assume, of course, that the "costs" are the energy expenditures required to maintain two separate sexes and find mates in order to produce offspring, plus not being able to pass on all of your genes (where as asexual organisms don't have to worry about those things). Now, before I take all the fun out of sex, sexual organisms do have genetic recombination, so they give their offspring more chances of surviving in more diverse environments . Some organisms are hermaphroditic, so they can self-fertilize. Also, studies seem to indicate that parthenogenic lineages have reduced chances of extinction (perhaps due to the adaptibility thing mentioned earlier). Plus, the genetic recombination that occurs during meiosis in sexually-reproducing organisms helps create offspring with not quite all the mutations of mommy and daddy combined (just some). Whereas, if you produce asexually, your kids are getting all of your mutations, good or bad. Anyway, I think that's more than two, so I'll stop now. If you want to read the article (which is really about virus mutation and virulence in humans, also interesting), go here.

I want to be that person

Okay, so it's almost Easter. And I'm in Target, perusing the candy aisle for chocolat, and I see it. A metal lunchbox for making Peep s'mores. Okay, so somebody decided to make something useful out of microwaved Peeps (I guess no toothpicks for jousting). But on the front cover is an image of a Peep holding several sticks over a campfire. And on those sticks are several miniature Peeps. So we have moved to a whole new level in Peep-dom: cannibalistic peeps. Peeps are now roasting other Peeps over campfires for eating between layers of chocolate and graham cracker.
Now, I can see the idea of Peep s'mores. But who came up with that lunchbox design? And who approved it? And who marketed it? And funded it? I want to be those people. Because apparently, they know how to have a good time. Peep torture.

Also, at Target, you can now buy red Peeps. I am not the only one who thinks they look demonic. However, upon discussing this with my supervisor one day, she came up with the suggestion of providing them with candy corn horns. Artist's rendition below.

Why Science is Awesome, Part 2

So I found my zip disc from undergrad Developmental Biology class, and I currently have a computer with a zip drive (what are the odds?), so I decided to put up some pictures, since I think they are further evidence for science being AWESOME. Also, it's just plain fun to have a camera attached to the microscope.

First, we have some polytene chromosomes. These are found in Drosophila flies, the salivary glands of the larvae, to be precise. You have to get the squirmy little buggers, find their salivary glands (using sewing pins as surgical tools), remove them intact (they look rather like clear honeycombs), then dye them, smash them just right, and some other things. Anyway, the "polytene" means the chromosomes are larger than most normal ones, better for looking at under microscopes. Also, they are pretty much alwasy undergoing synapsis, so good for studying.


This is a developing zebra fish. The big circle in the middle is the yolk sac, providing nourishment for the little guy as he develops. When he actually starts to look a little more like a fish, he'll internalize it, until he comes out and starts looking for his own food. Another one is below, a little further along (don't you love the buggy eyes? It reminds me of some Disney characters).



So, that's it. Maybe I'll put the bug-eyed one on the Christmas cards this year...

Taking a Study Break

So, I was writing a paper last weekend for one of my classes. And next thing I know, the mouse stops working. I should note at this point that the puppy was sitting at my feet munching something. Now, I would like to point out that I had just given him a rawhide. Apparently our other dog had taken it away from him, and he felt the need to take it out on my computer (while I was writing a paper). Now, if I had known that he was munching away on things not to be chewed on ("That's not food!" is a common phrase in our household, useful for both canines and children), I would have stopped him. He chewed through three different wires. Luckily they were all low-voltage ones. No power cords for him.

So, here is my question: can dogs detect the amounts of electricity running through those wires? Has anyone tested this? Is there a humane way to test this (without getting PETA on your butt. No, not that one.) So, I ask my husband, who has a degree in electrical and mechanical engineering, if batteries and electrical cords give off the same kind of electricity. He doesn't know. What is the point of having that degree if you don't know the answers to these kinds of questions? What am I supposed to do?

What anyone else in my situation would do: turn to the internet. Luckily, one can always depend on the government. The OTA did a study in 1989 on this very subject. Well, not really. But some of it at least answers some of my questions. First of all, batteries produce DC (direct current) while electricity produces AC (alternating current). This, I feel, is something my husband should have known. Moving on, electricity produces electric fields, which can be detected by some animals (see, I'm not crazy!), including "eels, sharks, and pigeons" (Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, OTA study 1989). Some studies have been done (lots of them with rodents), but they are mostly isolated studies in labs here and there. For instance, studies with rats have indicated that they can detect fields of just over 1 kV/meter (I don't know how or why, so don't ask). Another article I found studied baboons. They found that exposure to a 30-kY/m, 60-Hz electric field (for 12 hours per day, 7 days per week for 6 weeks) resulted in significant change in the social behavior (i.e. stress) of adult male baboons (Papio cynocephalus anubis) (Coelho, Easley, and Rogers 1990). The changes were not there before or after exposure to the electric field, only during. (How closely related to them are we again?)

As yet, I cannot find any studies on dogs (besides electroshock therapy for muscles and things). Future research people! Am I the only one who wants to know these things?