Science News Digest 9th November 2009
In the science news this week, we take a look at the origins of life on earth, the pros and pitfalls of nanoparticles, the rolling dispute between the government and the science community, environmental policy problems in the states and finally.... clever hogs!
Asteroid Pelt.
A new theory on how life started on earth has been revealed in New Scientist this week. Researchers from Brown University in the USA and Tokyo University in Japan have replicated the effects of an asteroid plunging through earth’s atmosphere in a laboratory at the NASA Ames Research Centre, with intriguing results.
There have been a few theories on how organic material found its way onto earth, but until now the idea that it came from comets and asteroids hitting the planet have been rubbished, due to the extreme temperatures the projectiles are exposed to as they pass through the earth’s atmosphere and then the small fact that they are vaporised on impact.
However, during the high speed impact tests carried out by the scientists they confirmed that while the impacts destroy the original organic molecules, they may also help to create new ones.
They simulated the impacts by firing polycarbonate plastic projectiles at 6 kilometres per second at metal targets and as predicted they were vaporised instantly, just as an asteroid would be.
In the following analysis, they found abundant cyanide consisting of a carbon atom bound to a nitrogen atom – formed by chemical reactions between the projectile's carbon and nitrogen in the air.
According to the scientists cyanide compounds are very reactive, so further reactions involving them on early earth could have led to more complex carbon-containing molecules that are important to life being formed.
--------------------------------
Legal Eagles
Legislation brought in during the Bush administration in the United States has left conservationists calling for a change in its definition of ‘endangered’ as it is potentially harmful to the protection of species.
Since the beginning of the Obama administration, scientists have been perplexed by the fact that this legislation wasn’t thrown out as soon as they gained power. Another push for change is on the cards as a scientific analysis on the impact of the rule is released.
The memorandum from the US Department of the Interior made in 2007 regarding the Endangered Species Act is what is in question. In this document, it states that the only area of relevance when protecting the habitats of endangered species is the space that it currently occupies, instead of what they have historically occupied.
Noah Greenwald, director of the Endangered Species Program at the Center for Biological Diversity in Portland, Oregon said; "The memorandum places species at greater risk of extinction and if left in place it will harm species. If your goal is to protect species and to recover them, focusing only on their current range doesn't make any sense,"
In the meantime, Greenwald has been gathered signatures from over 100 researchers demanding that the memorandum is rescinded, while the reports of how this law is affecting particular species around the country start filtering through.
Read more in Nature Magazine
--------------------------------
A Nutts decision?
Following the sacking of Professor David Nutt from the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs, there has been a very public backlash from the science community.
Since then, senior academics have been calling for assurances from the government that it will respect its scientific advisors freedom and independence, and properly consider their advice. Furthermore, they have gone onto endorse a set of principles regarding the treatment of scientific advice, including ‘not using disagreement with government policy as grounds for criticism or dismissal.’ according to the BBC.
Also featuring within these principles is a clause allowing the advisors to speak publically about their work and allowing the expert committees to have their own independent press officers.
Professor Colin Blakemore, a scientific advisory committee chair and former chief executive of the Medical Research Council (MRC) said: "The priority now must be to rebuild the confidence of the scientific community in the way the government, and indeed the opposition parties, treat scientific advice and those who provide it. If the government can sign up to this statement, which essentially summarises commitments that have been made in the past, I hope that we can press the 'reset' button on the relationship."
The latest development is the request by Phil Willis, the chair of the Science and Technology committee to Alan Johnson, Professor Nutt and Professor John Beddington for their accounts and views of the events.
--------------------------------
Nano State
The Guardian reported this week some new research from the University of Bristol that questions the future implications of nanoparticles.
Anything from sunscreen to electronics contain nanoparticles, which are a thousand times smaller than the width of human hair, yet at the moment we know very little about the effects they have on humans at a cellular level.
To test this, the researchers grew a cellular barrier, with human fibrolasts on one side and cobalt-chromium nanoparticles on the other. The dosage of cobalt-chromium was thousands of times higher than it would naturally occur in current products, but even still the results were quite shocking.
Despite the fact that none of the nanoparticles actually crossed the cellular barrier, they still managed have a severely detrimental effect on the DNA of the fibrolasts ‘via a cascade of biological signals in the intervening cells’ that managed to have ten times more damage to the genetic material as that suffered in control conditions.
The study leader, Patrick Case of the University of Bristol said "We imagined a possibility that, in some way, that material had caused a change in the top cell layer and maybe there's some sort of signalling going on from the top cell to the middle cell to the bottom cell,"
Although it was not the case in this study, in some situations the breaks in genetic material can lead to cancers, so this is a key concern in the continued use of nanotechnology. Interestingly though, the fact that the cobalt-chromium passed through the cellular barrier with such ease also gives potential for new treatments than can cross barriers without us having to cut through them, such as the skull for brain treatments.
--------------------------------
And finally.....
Swine view.
Pigs have finally joined an elite group of animals and proven that the Muppet character Miss Piggy wasn’t as far from the truth as we may have previously thought.
Researchers from the University of Cambridge have discovered that pigs can use mirrors, demonstrating that they are capable of a certain level of self awareness.
To carry out this study, they placed pigs in pens with mirrors and watched their behavior. At first they thought the reflection was another pig and tried to interact with it, however during the 5-hour long sessions, the pigs realized that their own movements were correlating with those in the mirror.
According to the results published in Science NOW, the pigs were quick to put these newfound talents to good use. In a trial carried out in a new test area, the pigs have to solve a riddle using mirrors. A bowl of food was hidden away, but the pigs could see the reflection of it in the mirror, and in under 25 seconds, 7 of the 8 pigs recognized the food’s image in the mirror, went in the other direction and claimed their prize.
Unfortunately further tests to prove their level of self awareness weren’t so fruitful. They had a visible mark placed on them and were placed on front of a mirror again to see how they would respond. However, they ‘paid little attention’ to these marks- possibly because they are usually covered in smudges anyway.
Other species already on this list include elephants, dolphins, magpies, grey parrots, some primates, and of course humans.
Asteroid Pelt.
A new theory on how life started on earth has been revealed in New Scientist this week. Researchers from Brown University in the USA and Tokyo University in Japan have replicated the effects of an asteroid plunging through earth’s atmosphere in a laboratory at the NASA Ames Research Centre, with intriguing results.
There have been a few theories on how organic material found its way onto earth, but until now the idea that it came from comets and asteroids hitting the planet have been rubbished, due to the extreme temperatures the projectiles are exposed to as they pass through the earth’s atmosphere and then the small fact that they are vaporised on impact.
However, during the high speed impact tests carried out by the scientists they confirmed that while the impacts destroy the original organic molecules, they may also help to create new ones.
They simulated the impacts by firing polycarbonate plastic projectiles at 6 kilometres per second at metal targets and as predicted they were vaporised instantly, just as an asteroid would be.
In the following analysis, they found abundant cyanide consisting of a carbon atom bound to a nitrogen atom – formed by chemical reactions between the projectile's carbon and nitrogen in the air.
According to the scientists cyanide compounds are very reactive, so further reactions involving them on early earth could have led to more complex carbon-containing molecules that are important to life being formed.
--------------------------------
Legal Eagles
Legislation brought in during the Bush administration in the United States has left conservationists calling for a change in its definition of ‘endangered’ as it is potentially harmful to the protection of species.
Since the beginning of the Obama administration, scientists have been perplexed by the fact that this legislation wasn’t thrown out as soon as they gained power. Another push for change is on the cards as a scientific analysis on the impact of the rule is released.
The memorandum from the US Department of the Interior made in 2007 regarding the Endangered Species Act is what is in question. In this document, it states that the only area of relevance when protecting the habitats of endangered species is the space that it currently occupies, instead of what they have historically occupied.
Noah Greenwald, director of the Endangered Species Program at the Center for Biological Diversity in Portland, Oregon said; "The memorandum places species at greater risk of extinction and if left in place it will harm species. If your goal is to protect species and to recover them, focusing only on their current range doesn't make any sense,"
In the meantime, Greenwald has been gathered signatures from over 100 researchers demanding that the memorandum is rescinded, while the reports of how this law is affecting particular species around the country start filtering through.
Read more in Nature Magazine
--------------------------------
A Nutts decision?
Following the sacking of Professor David Nutt from the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs, there has been a very public backlash from the science community.
Since then, senior academics have been calling for assurances from the government that it will respect its scientific advisors freedom and independence, and properly consider their advice. Furthermore, they have gone onto endorse a set of principles regarding the treatment of scientific advice, including ‘not using disagreement with government policy as grounds for criticism or dismissal.’ according to the BBC.
Also featuring within these principles is a clause allowing the advisors to speak publically about their work and allowing the expert committees to have their own independent press officers.
Professor Colin Blakemore, a scientific advisory committee chair and former chief executive of the Medical Research Council (MRC) said: "The priority now must be to rebuild the confidence of the scientific community in the way the government, and indeed the opposition parties, treat scientific advice and those who provide it. If the government can sign up to this statement, which essentially summarises commitments that have been made in the past, I hope that we can press the 'reset' button on the relationship."
The latest development is the request by Phil Willis, the chair of the Science and Technology committee to Alan Johnson, Professor Nutt and Professor John Beddington for their accounts and views of the events.
--------------------------------
Nano State
The Guardian reported this week some new research from the University of Bristol that questions the future implications of nanoparticles.
Anything from sunscreen to electronics contain nanoparticles, which are a thousand times smaller than the width of human hair, yet at the moment we know very little about the effects they have on humans at a cellular level.
To test this, the researchers grew a cellular barrier, with human fibrolasts on one side and cobalt-chromium nanoparticles on the other. The dosage of cobalt-chromium was thousands of times higher than it would naturally occur in current products, but even still the results were quite shocking.
Despite the fact that none of the nanoparticles actually crossed the cellular barrier, they still managed have a severely detrimental effect on the DNA of the fibrolasts ‘via a cascade of biological signals in the intervening cells’ that managed to have ten times more damage to the genetic material as that suffered in control conditions.
The study leader, Patrick Case of the University of Bristol said "We imagined a possibility that, in some way, that material had caused a change in the top cell layer and maybe there's some sort of signalling going on from the top cell to the middle cell to the bottom cell,"
Although it was not the case in this study, in some situations the breaks in genetic material can lead to cancers, so this is a key concern in the continued use of nanotechnology. Interestingly though, the fact that the cobalt-chromium passed through the cellular barrier with such ease also gives potential for new treatments than can cross barriers without us having to cut through them, such as the skull for brain treatments.
--------------------------------
And finally.....
Swine view.
Pigs have finally joined an elite group of animals and proven that the Muppet character Miss Piggy wasn’t as far from the truth as we may have previously thought.
Researchers from the University of Cambridge have discovered that pigs can use mirrors, demonstrating that they are capable of a certain level of self awareness.
To carry out this study, they placed pigs in pens with mirrors and watched their behavior. At first they thought the reflection was another pig and tried to interact with it, however during the 5-hour long sessions, the pigs realized that their own movements were correlating with those in the mirror.
According to the results published in Science NOW, the pigs were quick to put these newfound talents to good use. In a trial carried out in a new test area, the pigs have to solve a riddle using mirrors. A bowl of food was hidden away, but the pigs could see the reflection of it in the mirror, and in under 25 seconds, 7 of the 8 pigs recognized the food’s image in the mirror, went in the other direction and claimed their prize.
Unfortunately further tests to prove their level of self awareness weren’t so fruitful. They had a visible mark placed on them and were placed on front of a mirror again to see how they would respond. However, they ‘paid little attention’ to these marks- possibly because they are usually covered in smudges anyway.
Other species already on this list include elephants, dolphins, magpies, grey parrots, some primates, and of course humans.
search this section
