In the science news this week, launch success for Solar Dynamics Observatory, a leading scientist hits out at ‘Mickey Mouse’ degrees, discord on the new set of principles for scientific advice, the new altitude diet and finally.... what stops us throwing caution to the wind.
Bright Ideas
An Atlas rocket containing the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) has successfully launched this week following a failed attempt last Wednesday due to high winds.
The SDO’s mission is being undertaken to send back detailed images of the Sun to explain variation in its activity, which can disrupt satellite, communication, and power systems on Earth.
A primary objective of the mission is to uncover the inner workings of the solar dynamo that generates the Sun's magnetic field.
The UK has an importance presence in this mission, by providing the camera detectors that underpin two of SDO's instruments.
Furthermore, part of the team interpreting the observatory's data will be made up of British solar physicists.
The Solar Dynamics Observatory cost £545m will study the Sun for at least five years.
Its three remote sensing instruments are:
• Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager: to study the motions and magnetic fields at the Sun's surface
• Atmospheric Imaging Assembly: to image the corona.
• Extreme Ultraviolet Variability (EUV) Experiment: to measure the Sun's energy output
Read more at the BBC --------------------------------------
A degree of anger.
With university budgets under serious pressure in the media this week, Dr Richard Pike, chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry has hit out at government funding for "Mickey Mouse" degrees instead of science courses as reported in the Guardian.
Among those listed as diverting money away from the sciences included degrees in celebrity journalism, drama combined with waste management, and international football business management, which, according to Pike should be "kicked into touch".
There are already concerns that additional cuts of £449m to higher education this year, could force science courses, which are listed as among the most expensive to run, to close.
Dr Pike said in the Guardian this week that "Funding for the sciences should be ring fenced so that, in effect, it becomes a more dominant component. This is not a question of pleading a special case. Such a move is essential if we are all to enjoy the lifestyle we have become accustomed to, and ensure that we are prepared for the changes that will affect us all in the future. --------------------------------------
Independence Frey.
In the wake of Alan Johnson's decision to sack David Nutt, subsequently dubbed ‘Nuttgate’ the science community have developed a clear set of principles that they would like ministers to abide by when dealing with scientific advice.
This cause has been picked up by the minister for science and innovation, Lord Drayson, but the government have since redrafted the principles and according to New Scientist, have “put in a phrase that required scientific advisers and ministers to reach "shared positions" and maintain "mutual trust", which runs against the lessons we have learned from the Phillips inquiry into the BSE crisis.”
Apparently the originators of the principles are disappointed that instead of reaffirming its commitment to independent scientific advice the government have instead created more uncertainty in the relationship between ministers and advisers.
One suggestion supported by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee is that alongside the strong code of practice for scientific advisers there should also be a strong version of the principles incorporated into the Ministerial Code, which every minister has to sign up to.
New Scientist warns that “in the run-up to the election, all political parties need to come out strongly in support of the principles of independent scientific advice being incorporated into the Ministerial Code.”
------------------------------------
High and Mighty
The state of Colorado has the lowest rates of obesity in the USA and a team of researchers from Germany think they know why- it’s the mountains!
Apparently being at a higher altitude where the oxygen is thinner can have a variety of effects on your body that can all facilitate weight loss. Less oxygen causes the heart to work harder to keep the supply stable and therefore speeds up the metabolic rate and burns more energy.
Furthermore, a loss of appetite is also associated with altitude, meaning a lower calorie intake for the residents of the mountainous state.
To test this theory, the team from Munich enlisted 20 obese men and sent them to an environmental research station close to the top of Germany’s highest peak for a week and monitored the effects.
Their daily movements were recorded by a pedometer before they ascended the mountain, so when they got there, they didn’t take any more steps than their daily average in the interests of fairness to the study.
What's more, they were allowed to eat as much as they liked, the same as they would in the normal daily routine.
As well as attempting to recreate the normal conditions of their daily lives, the researchers took blood samples from the subjects to monitor hormones associated with appetite and obesity.
At the end of the week, the men had lost an average of 1.5 kg from their 105kg mean weight. On top of this, the men’s blood pressure had dropped and there was a rise in the levels of hormone leptin, which usually increases with a rise in food intake.
The main critique of this research, however, is the lack of a control group and the possibility that the men may have purposefully eaten less food because they were being monitored. ------------------------------------
And finally......
A risky business. A research study based at Caltech and part funded by the Welcome Trust has uncovered the part of the brain that regulates loss aversion and inhibits us throwing caution to the wind.
Two almond nut-shaped tissue clusters called the amygdala are thought to be responsible for making us avoid making reckless decisions and has been previously linked with feelings and perceptions of fear and the ability to empathise. It is also suggested that they evolved to increase our levels of caution about the possibility of losing food or other valued possessions.
The basis for these new assertions comes from studying two female patients who had suffered rare amygdala injuries and ‘displayed an unusual disregard for how much they stood to lose when taking part in a gambling game’ according to the Telegraph.
The brain damaged subjects demonstrated a lack of cautionary instinct when compared with 12 healthy individuals playing a game where the chances of losing money affected the participants' willingness to gamble.
Using a simple coin toss game with 50/50 odds of winning, but varying buy-ins and jackpots the desire to take risks was measured. The healthy volunteers exercised much more caution when the buy-in was higher and the payout was smaller in proportion, yet the brain damaged participants showed little regard for the prospect of a lower rate of return for the same level of risk.
According to the study, ‘even when the amount they could lose outweighed the amount they could win, they chose to gamble.’
search this section
Please note that we cannot accept responsibility for content of external sites.
To receive a weekly Science News Digest alert, register here.