Stories tagged scientific method
Evolution MegaLab launches evolution mega-study
in Life Science, Scientific Inquiry, and Biological Populations Change Over Time
Banded snail
Courtesy mer de glaceRegular folks across Europe are being asked to take part in what’s being touted as one of the largest studies of evolution ever done.
Evolution MegaLab is requesting people living in the United Kingdom and the European continent to check the snail population in their areas and report their findings to the MegaLab website. The research study which was just launched by The Open University, will end six months from now and hopefully show how changes in climate and predation have affected the snail population over a relatively short span of time. Project researchers are specifically interested in two banded snail species, Cepaea hortensis and Cepaea nemoralis.
“Banded snails wear their genes on their backs,” said Professor Jonathan Silvertown of The Open University. “Their colors and banding patterns are marvelously varied – but the darker shell types are more common in woodland, where the background color is brown, while in grass banded snails tend to be lighter-colored, yellow and stripier. These differences are thought to have evolved over time because they provide camouflage from thrushes, which like to eat the snails.”
“However, there has been a big decrease in the numbers of song thrushes in some places over the last 30 years and we’d like the public to help us to find out whether, with fewer predators about, the different snail types are less faithful to their particular habitats.”
As this video explains, it’s fairly easy to distinguish one snail species from the other. The edge of the shell opening (known as the lip) is white on C. horntensis, and brown (or black) on C. nemoralis. The species come in three different colors, yellow, pink, and brown, and can display three different styles of banding: no bands, single band (mid-band), or many bands. These variations in coloring and banding help the snails survive in the environments they happen to be living and the MegaLab researchers are interested in how recent changes in climate and predator populations have changed the snails’ appearances.
Everything the public needs to participate in the study can be found at the MegaLab website, including instructions and downloadable documents to help gather data. Observers are asked to look for snails in their areas, record specifics characteristics about what they find, and then report the findings to the Evolution MegaLab site. The collected data will then be compared with historical records to see if any noticeable evolutionary changes have taken place. The site cautions that only adult snails should be studied and recorded as many of the snails’ specific characteristics are missing in the juvenile or infant stages of the animals.
Kids in the UK are already showing interest. Here’s a cute video documenting one group’s efforts to help gather data.
For now the banded snail observation project, which is supported by the Royal Society and British Council, is limited to the United Kingdom and Europe but who knows, maybe a similar project will be started up in the United States.
LINKS
Story at The Open University site
Video of Cepaea nemoralis taking a long walk
Tags : 
Certifiable: Photographic proof that JGordon is indeed nuts.
Courtesy jimrenaud (with adaption by Mark Ryan)Amateur scientist and part-time Science Museum of Minnesota employee, Mark Ryan, announced today that Buzz contributor JGordon is totally insane. Ryan said his conclusion is based mainly on JGordon's recent post regarding a Russian vodka pipeline, but also admitted that some of JG's previous blog postings were involved in the study.
"All the evidence seems to point to the fact that the guy's not playing with a full bag of jacks," Ryan said.
JGordon (Gordonoseus fruitloopius) is a species of humanoid that exists mostly in the Blogosphere and is rarely seen in nature, although there have been some unsubstantiated sightings of the creature loitering in front of museum vending machines. But even then it's not easy to know for sure if it's the real JGordon or a cleverly disguised extraterrestrial wingnut.
The results of Ryan's study appear in today's issue of Science Buzz.
The underlining truth about science
There is this chart that we found, and it's quite interesting. It breaks down the process of science in general. This chart also help you understand how the world connects, once you put it in a certain order by the chart. It goes from a broad idea and once you hover over it it goes into detail. For example a teenager had to create a lab and not a clue what is expected of it, so then she can locate the chart and see testing ideas. which then lead to the other processes and provide her with her needs for the lab... . Below is the website and check it out!
A display on adult stem cells, here at the SMM: In fact, this exhibit features Catherine Verfaillie herself. (Good looking out, BK)
Courtesy bryankennedyFollowing the results of an evaluation by a panel of experts at the University of Minnesota, the magazine New Scientist published an article last week announcing that some of the data used in a groundbreaking study on adult stem cells had been falsified.
The study, performed at the University of Minnesota under the supervision of Catherine Verfaillie, is part of a line of research that seemed to indicate that adult stem cells, taken from bone marrow, are pluripotent—that is that they have the potential to develop into any type of cell. Previously, only embryonic stem cells were thought to be pluripotent, and Verfaillie’s research looked like it could eventually offer an alternative to the ethically complicated use of embryonic cells for research (which requires the destruction of an embryo).
Unfortunately, other scientists had trouble replicating Verfaillie’s results, which were published in the journal Nature. New Scientist began examining the research done by Verfaillie and her team, and found that key images in the research appeared several times in papers for different experiments, and, in the case of a related study in the publication Blood, were used twice in the same paper, but had been visually altered slightly, and flipped 180 degrees. New Scientist reported their findings to the University, which began a formal investigation of the matter.
The University just recently completed the investigation, and found that data in the blood article had indeed been falsified (the images in particular), by a former PhD student of Verfaillies’, Morayma Reyes. The University and Catherine Verfaillie have asked Blood to redact the study.
Verfaillie has stated that she was unaware of the problems with the published study, and while she didn’t believe that the data was deliberately falsified, she takes ultimate responsibility for the errors.
Reyes, who now works as an assistant professor at the University of Washington, denies that the images represent deliberately altered data, and blames the errors on inadequate supervision and training. She claims that she had neither the equipment (photo editing software) nor knowledge required to alter the images. The differences in the reoccurring images were likely the result of the inadvertent use of the image adjusting tools built into lab equipment, she says, and the duplication of a figure within the Blood paper was accidental. Reyes also feels that she has been treated unfairly by the University, and that the expert panel in the investigation demonstrated a clear “lack of expertise” in the field of stem cell biology.
Reyes’ full position can be read here. The University’s response can be found here.
The altered images, Reyes asserts, shouldn’t change the results of the paper, but the whole incident brings up some interesting issues on the process of vetting science. While the errors in the paper never should have made it past Verfaillie and the rest of her team, the process of peer review should have caught them anyway. Generally, before research is published in a scientific journal, the editors select several scientists in the particular field of the paper to evaluate and comment (often anonymously) on the paper. The review panel is meant to confirm that the methodology of the experiments and the interpretation of the results are sound. Research can then be recommended (or not) for publication.
Publishing research essentially formally submits it to the scientific community, and it’s common for other scientists to attempt to attempt to replicate experiments, especially if a study makes particularly striking claims (like adult stem cells being pluripotent). The work of other scientists in replicating results is, obviously, essential to the scientific method—in this case is was what finally drew attention to some of the irregularities in Verfaillie’s team’s work.
Reproducibility can be a tricky thing, though—difficulty in repeating results doesn’t necessarily mean that they aren’t reproducible. (Here’s a good article on repeating and reproducing results.) But the problems in reproducing these results drew attention to the questionable data, which brought up another aspect of scientific vetting: the University’s investigation into academic misconduct. If the problems with reproducibility seem to come from data being changed, added, or omitted to strengthen a conclusion, then there could be a serious problem. This sort of misconduct undermines scientific progress, and can call into question the reputation of the institution it came out of and the validity of other research performed there. And if Morayma Reyes seems a little extra defensive in her letter, it’s understandable, because being accused of academic is a big deal, and no good for your career and future work.
The subject of the research further complicates the situation—this isn’t the first time issues of academic dishonesty have come up with regards to stem cell research. In 2006, a Korean scientist’s claims that he had cloned human embryos (thereby eliminating the need to destroy new embryos for stem cells) turned out to be based on lies. There’s a fear that the potentially huge medical payoff of stem cell research, as well as the ethical debate surrounding the use of human embryonic stem cells, could lead to science that is less than completely thorough, or even situations like the Korean controversy. And that’s bad for science in general. There’s also the thought that errors that are unintentional (as may be the case with Reyes’ images) could be the result of “pathological science,” where results are steered in a particular direction by scientists because of “subjective effects, wishful thinking, or threshold interactions.” It doesn’t have the same ethical problems, but pathological results aren’t a whole lot better for science than straight-out misconduct, but it’s a serious potential pitfall with the benefits of stem cell research waiting out there.
So there you go. It looks like things are, for the most part, being handled appropriately in this situation, but it’s an interesting window into scientific process.
Any thoughts? Does it seem like the vetting process of science is lacking in some way? Or is it maybe too thorough? Professor Reyes, I imagine, would argue that too much has been made of this situation, and there are many who argue that the process of peer review limits the communication and dissemination of scientific ideas.
Or, even better, does it seem like I got something wrong here?
Let’s have it, Buzzketeers.
The process of science is often portrayed as deliberate and successful. However, it's good to remember that discovering things about our natural world can often be trying and full of failure. In an effort to understand how walruses near Greenland migrate, eight of the animals were satellite tagged. Alas, all but one tag has now stopped working or has fallen off its walrus. Track the one remaining walrus.
Last fall I attended a talk by one of the other students at my university (Harvard). He was discussing recent results from a perception experiment he had posted online. He said he had over a thousand subjects. "How long have you had this experiment online," I asked him. "Just over a week," he responded.
"Holy crap!" I thought. There are many experiments I would love to do except they require hundreds or thousands of subjects -- something that just isn't feasible in a traditional laboratory setting. So I started the Visual Cognition Online Laboratory. I am getting respectable traffic after one week, but it's going to take a while before I am getting 1,000 participants per week, which is what I need.
Most experiments, I should say, are surveys. What this grad student and I are doing is putting up actual perception experiments, which are always done in the lab. Most researchers believe you need strong controls in timing, display, etc., in order to do perception experiments. For some, this is true, but there are many you can do online given how much bandwidth there is now. Also, if you have enough subjects, that extra noise will wash out.
If you are interested in trying out one of my experiments, they typically take 5 minutes or less.
Global Warming: NASA photo of Earth taken from Apollo 17
Have you been following the comments in Cari's Buzz Blog post about Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth. I find it interesting that very intelligent people can look at the same data ("truths") and yet totally disagree as to what to accept as reality?
A Global Warming Skeptic Challenge
George Musser on the Scientific American Blog has been moderating a discussion about global warming titled Are You a Global Warming Skeptic? Part IV He started the discussion March 6, 2006 with this statement:
In the comments field, explain which aspects of climate change you don't accept (e.g. you might not think Earth is warming at all, you might not think the warming is due to greenhouse gases, you might not think that the gases are produced by humans, or you might not think warming will cause trouble in the future), what exactly has led you to this conclusion, and -- most important -- what it would take to convince you otherwise. Let's get everything out into the open, so that we can have a real discussion.
The discussion is presented in four parts with hundreds of comments. I am recommending this thread because Musser first listens to, then presents a summary of the skeptics' arguments. I find the fairest way to make up my mind on an issue is to thoroughly understand both sides of the argument. Musser explains how scientists crunch the various data to answer difficult questions. He uses the analogy of examining fingerprints during a crime scene investigation.
Climatologists have maps and time series showing how a boatload of climate variables -- mean temperature, temperature ranges, air pressure, precipitation, and so on -- vary in time and in space, horizontally across the surface and vertically through the atmosphere. These data sets are a gold mine for resolving ambiguity, because the different forcings leave distinct fingerprints. Such patterns make it possible to tease out their relative contributions. Over the years, researchers have considered ever more variables besides temperature and ever more forcings besides greenhouse gases. They have merged spatial and temporal patterns, looked at regional as well as global scales, and developed more sophisticated mathematical tools.
View from the Crime Scene
"Fingerprints" included solar variability, volcanic eruptions, greenhouse gasses, ozone, aeosols, and various generic effects. When climatologists run the fingerprinting analysis for different historical epochs, they find that temperature fluctuations prior to the Industrial Revolution were driven primarily by solar and volcanic forcings. In the early 20th century, natural and anthropogenic forcings seem to contribute equally. From midcentury onwards, greenhouse gases rule(temporal pattern). Since 1979, when continuous satellites observations began, the surface and troposphere have warmed and the stratosphere has cooled(vertical pattern). Pretty much the entire surface has gotten warmer, high latitudes more than lower ones(horizontal pattern). All the oceans have warmed; there isn't the zero-sum game of warming and cooling you'd expect from natural variability(energy variability).
Musser concludes,
"unless I'm missing something, it seems to me that the case for anthropogenic warming is pretty strong...Based on the knowledge we have so far, however, I have to call 'em as I see 'em."
To appreciate the use of critical thinking and scientific method I recommend wading through the four installments of "Are you a global warming skeptic?" Part I (673 words); Part II (2219 words); Part III (2617 words); Part IV (3516 words); and an Appendix
Recent comments
The art of geology
A Zombie Apocalypse Could Actually Happen
A Zombie Apocalypse Could Actually Happen
Evolution: caught in the act!
Subscribe
I want to learn about
Science Buzz is supported by the National Science Foundation.Copyright © Science Museum of Minnesota, 2004-2009, except where noted.
Add a new comment