Stories tagged Heredity
Warmer climate accelerates evolution in mammals
in Life Science, Cells, Diversity of Organisms, Heredity, and Biological Populations Change Over Time
Warmer climate boosts evolution: Okay, so iguanas aren't mammals, and I doubt Charles Darwin ever visited Sloppy Joe's in Key West, Florida, but the graphic still illustrates the point.
Courtesy Apollo13Ma (background photo), public domain and Mark RyanA study out of New Zealand says a warmer climate speeds up molecular evolution in mammals. The concept isn’t exactly a new one. Scientists have known that a warmer environment increases the pace of microevolution for other types of life, such as some plants and marine animals, but evidence that it affects mammals – which are warm-blooded (meaning their temperature is regulated internally) – has not been observed before.
Lead researcher, Len Gillman from Auckland University of Technology, said the result of the study was “unexpected”.
""We have previously found a similar result for plant species and other groups have seen it in marine animals. But since these are 'ectotherms' - their body temperature is controlled directly by the environment - everyone assumed that the effect was caused by climate altering their metabolic rate.""
Since DNA can potentially mutate each time a cell divides into two copies of itself, the faster (and more often) these divisions take place, the more chances advantageous mutations will be passed onto subsequent generations, and the faster microevolution takes place.
Gillman and his crew traced and compared small genetic changes in 130 pairs of related species that lived in different latitudes, focusing on a single gene in each pair. They then compared the gene against that of a common ancestor, and were able to determine which of the two mammals’ DNA had mutated (microevolved) more rapidly. The changes were small-scale, but the species living in the more tropical environment showed a faster pace in its level of molecular evolution.
The results of the study appear in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
LINKS
Discover magazine story
BBC story
More about evolution
Tags : Matthias Buchinger: The (astounding) Little Man from Nuremburg
in Life Science, Diversity of Organisms, Heredity, Historic Perspectives, and Human Organism
Self-portrait by Matthias Buchinger: The forward-most curls on Buchinger's left shoulder near his collar are magnified on the right to show the inscribed hidden biblical text.
Courtesy Public domain via WikipediaI recently (and literally) stumbled upon a web page about this remarkable man from the 17th century. His name was Matthias Buchinger, and despite being born without hands, legs or thighs, this guy managed to live a full and amazing life with no less than 4 wives (!?), and fathering something like 11-14 children depending on the source. But even more incredible was how - despite his severe physical deformations - Buchinger was able to rise above Nature’s challenges and become an accomplished musician, inventor, artist, model-in-a-bottle builder, and magician.
Born in Anspach, Germany in 1674, he was the youngest of nine children, and became widely known as “The Little Man from Nuremburg” performing his feats of wonder across much of Great Britain and Europe. Buchinger was only 29 inches tall, and for hands had "two excrescences which grew from his shoulder-blades, like fingers without nails" but his skills in magic, marksmanship, and music were legendary. He played several musical instruments, some of which he invented himself, was accomplished at skittles (bowling), and could dance a hornpipe as well as anyone. He was also a talented calligrapher. His engraving skills are evident by the self-portrait to the right. Hidden within his curls are seven psalms and the Lord’s Prayer written in tiny letters. Buchinger lived much of his adult life in England and Ireland, and performed before King George and many of Europe’s royalty. He died in Cork, Ireland in 1732.
I don’t know about you but I find Buchinger quite inspiring. You can read more about this human marvel in the links below.
Matthias Buchinger
More about Matthias Buchinger
And yet another site
It will be a brutal fight: No one should expect to emerge unchaffed.
Courtesy Joe ShlabotnikFor years now, members of the robust camp of biologists—paleontologists in particular—arguing that birds evolved directly from dinosaurs have kneeled on the thighs and arms of paleontologists who believe that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, slapped their scrawny bellies pink, and rubbed dirt and grass in their bifocaled faces. And it was only right—the birds from dino people are bigger, and their veiny biceps ripple with the science of a substantial fossil record, while the clammy palms and toast-rack ribcages of the alternate theory paleontologists positively reek of onions and contrary opinions for the sake of argument. It’s only natural.
I mean, we have fossil impressions of feathers on dinosaurs, analogous bones and body-structures in birds and theropod dinosaurs (theropods, again, are two-legged meat-eaters, like T-Rex, velociraptor, etc.), similar bird-dinosaur proteins (take a look at that last link—Liza listed a bunch of other stories in that post)… the list goes on. Some paleontologists pretty much consider birds to be dinosaurs themselves (little dinos that never went extinct). The book is closed. It’s not even fun beating up on those other paleontologists anymore, because… what’s the point? You wouldn’t beat up on a worm, would you?
Ah, but these worms may have gotten their hands on something soft in this fight, and they’re about to give it a twist…
Check it out—like a hammer from nowhere, or sudden and blatant disregard for the no-scratching rule, the birds-didn’t-evolve-from-dinosaurs people have a new weapon, and they’re back on their feet.
Before we go on, I’m just going to emphasize something real quick here: nobody is saying that birds didn’t evolve, or that they didn’t evolve from something very different from birds as we know them. The question is, from what did birds first evolve, and when?
See, the winning theory is that some theropod dinosaurs began getting smaller and more birdlike in the Jurassic period (with a couple interesting exceptions eventually getting bigger and more birdlike later on, but that’s a different story.) These dinosaurs got little, and feathery, and probably started living in trees, and adapted to leaping, gliding, and eventually flying. By the late Jurassic, we have the archaeopteryx, a feathered, toothed, clawed, and bony-tailed flying machine. By the Cretaceous, there are plenty of pretty normal-looking birds around. Easy-peasy, and there are all those fossils I mentioned before.
“Oh yeah?” say the other paleontologists, “Well what about… this?!” And with that, they flick the back of their hand into the crotch of the unsuspecting bird-dino scientists.
“What are you… aaaaaaahh….” They ask.
Birds, say the alternate theory dudes, don’t have the right legs to be descended from dinosaurs. It’s so obvious, even jerks like you should have seen it.
See, birds need to breath lots of air to be able to fly (it’s hard, I’ve tried). To breath more efficiently, birds have air-sacs in addition lungs. Running all over their bodies (even in their bones) the air-sacs help pump lots of air through the birds' respiratory systems. Fossilized bones appear to show the presence of air sacs in some dinosaur species, too, and this has been seen as further evidence for the bird dinosaur link.
The new argument doesn’t dispute that everybody loves air-sacs. It points out that birds can only move their legs in a very limited way, to keep from collapsing some of their air-sacs when they breath. Birds’ femurs (their thigh bones) are largely fixed—when they walk or run, most of the movement comes from their lower legs. All other walking and running animals—including dinosaurs—have moveable thighs.
This difference, some scientists believe, is great enough that fixed-legged birds couldn’t have evolved from moving-legged dinosaurs. They might have evolved alongside dinosaurs, sharing a common ancestor, possibly one of the thecodonts. Thecodonts were dinosaur-like (but definitely not dinosaurs) and they lived during the Triassic period. Some thecodonts evolved into dinosaurs, and the group died off by the end of the Triassic.
“That’s… all?” says mainstream paleontology, straightening up and cracking its knuckles. “Someone is about to get slapped.”
“…Hiss!” say the other guys, squaring their Gollum-like shoulders.
Until I know a little more about the research, I think I have to side with the traditional birds evolved from dinosaurs argument. The alternative theory folks point out that birds are found much earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have evolved from, but it seems to me that that’s more of a problem of overlap than of a gap—couldn’t later bird-like dinosaurs just be the descendants of the dinosaur-to-bird transitional species? It’s not as if anyone thinks that we look at individuals in the fossil record and say, “ok, you evolved from this one, which evolved from this one” etc. If birds didn’t evolved from dinosaurs like the ones we find from the Cretaceous, then we’re left with a huge gap between thecodonts and archaeopteryx and his pals. And it would have to be some pre-dinosaur thecodont, because I feel like the independent evolution of air-sacs, feathers, and everything else in both lines would be a little too much convergent evolution otherwise.
Plus… I’m not clear on why dinosaurs couldn’t have just evolved to have a fixed leg later on, when they needed more efficient respiratory systems for flying. Their mode of locomotion would have necessarily been changing anyway…
“Hiss!!”
Interesting, though, right?
What do y’all think? Is this ridiculous? Or are we too attached to the mainstream model of bird evolution that we’re unable to keep an open mind to new ideas?
Dinos of a feather: New fossil discoveries throw the origin of feathers into confusion. Or possibly Confucian.
Courtesy treehouse1977
Science has known for a while that birds evolved from dinosaurs. We’ve discussed this before on Science Buzz, particularly here and here.
Now a new fossil has emerged from China that is complicating the picture. Tianyulong confuciusi was a small, two-legged plant-eater that lived in northeastern China about 130 million years ago. Its recently-discovered fossil included clear signs of feathers. This is nothing unusual—lots of dino fossils, especially from this part of China, have feathers.
What is unusual is that Tianyulong is not related to any previously known feather-bearing dinosaur. Not even remotely. All previously know dino feathers come from theropods, the two-legged meat-eaters like T. rex. Tianyulong was a type of hadrosaur—sometimes known as a “duck-billed dinosaur.” And the last time hadrosaurs and theropods shared a common ancestor was 230 million years ago!
This discovery raises several intriguing possibilities:
1. Perhaps feathers evolved very early in dinosaur history, far earlier than we now suspect. If the very first dinosaurs had feathers, then all other dinosaurs could inherit them, even after the various branches of the dino family tree split up and went their separate ways. But if that’s true, then why have we not found feathers on more dino skeletons?
2. Perhaps feathers evolved twice—once in the theropods, and once in the hadrosaurs. That would be pretty unusual. Right now, there seems to be no information on whether these new feathers are very similar to previously-known feathers, or completely different.
3. One thing has always bugged me about the whole bird-dino link. All dinosaurs fall into two major groups: those with hips shaped like those found in modern lizards, and those with hips shaped like those found in modern birds. But all the previous bird-like features, including feathers, come from the lizard-hipped group. Seems odd to me that nature would evolve bird-like hips twice. Maybe—just maybe—birds evolved from the bird-hipped dinosaurs.
Now, there’s tons of other evidence besides just hips to link birds to theropods, so nobody is going to be re-writing the bird family tree any time soon. All we can do is keep our eyes peeled for more interesting discoveries.
The Long and Short of Human Toes
in Heredity, Biological Populations Change Over Time, and Human Organism
Are these the toes of royalty, or just a marathon runner?
Courtesy jameiah
Ever look down at your feet and wonder why your toes look and move the way they do? You might even have heard the myth that having a second toe longer than your first (something orthopaedic surgeon Dudley Morton dubbed Morton's Toe) means you are more likely to be a criminal, or part of a royal family.
While having toes of different lengths (some longer or shorter than others) is completely normal, some people are so concerned about the size and shape of their toes that they get them shortened by a cosmetic surgeon. Other people need surgery on their toes and feet because the shape makes walking painful.
We all have toes of slightly different shapes and sizes, but did you know that human beings as a whole have comparatively shorter toes than most primates, including our closest relative, the chimpanzee? Compare us to other animals like cats and dogs, and you'll notice that their toes are REALLY short compared to the rest of their paws. What's going on here?
The researchers behind a new paper about the evolution of human toes think that the answer to why humans evolved such short toes might be related to long-distance running. According to researchers, having shorter toes - along with a number of other adaptations - probably gave our ancestors an edge when it came to endurance running, which was necessary to kill and eat large animals. This article from Wired Science explains:
"...many modern anatomical features make sense in the context of savannah marathons. Achilles tendons act as springs to store energy. Our hind limbs have extra-large joints. Our buttocks muscles are perfect for stabilization, as are regions of the brain uniquely sensitive to the physical pitching generated by the motion of running. Toes may belong to this class of adaptations."
I've never been able to run a marathon, but this is still pretty cool news. Now, you might be asking yourself what will happen over time to the shape of human toes now that we no longer have to run down our dinner? According to toe researcher Campbell Rolian, "that's generally a question you could ask about many features of the human anatomy," said Rolian. Because it isn't required to push off, he said, "There's talk about whether the pinkie toe is eventually going to disappear."
Not the pinkie toe?! That one is my favorite.
Source: Wired Science
Evolutionary trees like the one Charles Darwin scribbled to illustrate his epiphany are still used today to help biologists understand and communicate the diversity of life. Like Darwin and his contemporaries, today’s evolutionary biologists are part of an ongoing effort to figure out how Earth's many species are related. As new tools help biologists to analyze evolutionary relationships, the tree of life changes and grows ever more complex.
How will biologists today and in the future to organize all of this information? No one knows for sure - but a number of computer scientists and software designers are taking a crack at it! In collaboration with biologists designers are creating programs that will allow researchers to share and search through enormous amounts of taxonomical information. Some programs, like UC Davis's paloverde, take cues from familiar web tools like WIkipedia and Google Earth, allowing users to search the tree of life from various perspectives and distances.
Beyond making research more accessible to scientists and the public, software tools like this will help scientists around the world work together in new ways - developing new medicines to treat constantly evolving diseases, new products and processes that take into account changing ecosystems, and to understand biodiversity on a local and global scale.
The potential of these tools is as big as the imagination of the designers and engineers behind them - what kind of tool would you create to help organize the tree of life?
Friday Relationship Extravaganza!
in Earth and Space Science, Diversity of Organisms, Interdependence of Life, Heredity, and Human Organism
Into flow charts?: This is a flow chart of a relationship. Start at the bioluminescent spike, and end at the parasitic gonads.
Courtesy steev-oIt’s Friday (T.G.I.F.), Buzzketeers, and you all know what that means. That’s right, it’s time for the Science Buzz Friday Relationship Extravaganza! (S.B.F.R.E.)
I know how much y’all like relationships, and how much you like talking about them, so it’s only natural that you clicked on the S.B.F.R.E. so quickly. But that’s not all! See, here at the S.B.F.R.E., “relationship” is also a code word for… S-E-X! Oh, naughtiest of naughties! It’s a red-letter day! Relationships and S-E-X-ual science… y’all had better sit down.
Seriously, sit down. Make yourselves comfortable. Now, I want y’all to know that this is a safe space, and we should be free to say whatever we’re feeling. Good, good… I think we’re about ready to start.
So… I understand that you feel like he has some real problems in communicating his feelings?
Why do you think that is?
No, I’m sorry, let’s let him finish—we’ll all have a chance to talk, and it’s his turn right now.
OK. I think I see what you’re saying. How do you want him to communicate? What do you wish he would say to you?
And how does that make you feel? Is that something you can do? OK… Why do you think you’re not being listened to?
I see.
Well, let’s look at it this way: at least y’all aren’t anglerfish. You know anglerfish, right, Buzzketeers? Anglerfish include those awful deep sea fish, with the big eyes, and teeth all over the place, and a glowing spike sticking out of their awful, lumpy heads. You know what I’m talking about. You saw those pictures, and then learned that they were only a few inches long, but were still kind of grossed out. And maybe some holier-than-thou biologist type pointed out to you that they weren’t gross, they were just fish that had made some spectacular adaptations to their environment, and were just living their lives like every other animal.
Well, don’t worry, you were right in the first place: angler fish really are awful and gross.
See, when they first discovered these creepy anglerfish, scientists were only finding female specimens. No males at all. So where’s the relationship relationship?
Well, eventually they did find some males, and some remarkable observations were made. The male anglerfish were pretty normal in their youth, but once they reached sexual maturity, their digestive systems degenerate. So they are unable to feed themselves. Naturally, what a mature male needs to do at that point is find a sugar momma. And fast (because, again, they’re starving to death). When the male tracks down a female anglerfish, he bites her, latching on to her body with his teeth. Enzymes in the male then break down its own mouth, as well as the female’s body, so that the two fish fuse together, to the point where they even share blood vessels. A source of sustenance now secured, the male kind of “lets itself go,” if you will. But instead of gaining weight and watching too much TV, the body of the male anglerfish, still fused with the female, degenerates, eventually becoming just a pair of gonads that hang off the female. When the first female anglerfish were discovered, scientists thought that they had parasites hanging off of them. Nope. Those were the remains of male anglerfish.
When the female is ready to release eggs, the gonads sense the change in hormone levels in the blood that still flows to them, and they release sperm, so that the eggs can be fertilized, and more horrible anglerfish can be created.
I don’t know who has it worse here—the female that has to nourish a pair of parasitic testicles (or multiple pairs), or the male, who has to latch on to a female to survive, and then becomes a pair of parasitic testicles. Either way, though, I think you’ll agree that your own messed up relationship seems pretty ideal right now, doesn’t it?
So remember, until the next Science Buzz Friday Relationship Extravaganza, keep your emotions bottled up, and if you’re ever feeling bummed out about things, just think of the never-lonely anglerfish.
Evolution opponents keep hammering away
in Life Science, Diversity of Organisms, Heredity, Biological Populations Change Over Time, and Human Organism
Evolution: Under attack again.
Courtesy Mark RyanDespite recent defeats in the courts, opponents of evolution continue to resort to some of their old tricks, namely attempting to add controversy to the theory where there really is none. It’s an old tactic used by the creationism movement since before the Scopes trial in the 1920’s.
Fortunately, not everyone is falling for it, and progress in the fight is being made. Last week in Texas, the state school board there eliminated restoration of a long-standing rule requiring high school science teachers to teach both “the weaknesses and strengths” of evolution to their pupils. This is good news for evolution, which despite some efforts to discredit it is a strong and well-documented scientific theory with - to date - no viable scientific alternatives.
Many people in Texas, including 800 scientists who signed a petition
against the wording’s inclusion, saw the rule as an attack against a well-founded scientific theory that would open the door for creationism to be taught in the public schools. The vote to restore the rule failed by a narrow 7-7 tie.
"Its removal is a huge step forward," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, Scott leads the fight for teaching evolution in schools, and was present at the board meetings last week in Austin.
Proponents of the “weakness” language tried to make the best of its defeat by pointing to other amendments passed by the board later in the day. The creationist faction again hoped to stir up controversy where there was none by tacking on language that added doubt and debate to such subjects as transitional fossils and common descent, both of which have been well-documented in the fossil record and scientific literature. Hopefully, the additional amendments can be removed when the board meets to finalize the draft text in late March.
Next door, in Louisiana, the legislature enacted a new law for the state Board of Education to “assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories.” The language hints that it covers many scientific theories, but pointedly specifies evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning. Known as the Science Education Act, the measure was signed into law by Governor Bobby Jindal - a creationism supporter - last October.
Another state over, in Mississippi, new legislation introduced by representative Gary Chism uses a larger hammer to pound his anti-evolution point home. It would require textbooks that mention evolution to carry a 200-word disclaimer about the theory being controversial. Here’s some of the text:
"Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations."
It also states:
"The word ‘theory’ has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles,” the opening paragraph of the bill states.”
(Of course, Chism fails to point out which meaning is actually being used.)
"This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered a theory,"
Again, it’s the same old “add controversy where none exists” tactic. Presently, the bill is heading through two committees, and it’d be a shame if such an anti-science law gets passed, because it will only be detrimental to the development of any students who want to make science their career choice.
Back in 1973, evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky titled an essay “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.”
I think he hit the nail right on the head.
LINKS
21st Century Science Coalition
”Eroding Evolution” in Louisiana at NCSE website
Mississippi legislation in Dispatches from the Culture Wars
Creationism defeated in Texas
Viva la evolution! Antibodies show Darwin's theory at work
in Life Science, Cells, Heredity, Biological Populations Change Over Time, and Human Organism
Influenza virus: Negative-stained transmission electron micrograph (TEM) depicting the ultrastructural details of a number of influenza virus particles, or “virions”.
Courtesy pingnews.comEvery time flu season comes around there seems to be concern whether the current flu shot vaccine will be able to stave off the viral attack. That’s because viruses and bacteria have a habit of mutating, which subsequently makes a particular vaccine against them ineffective. So each year the medical profession comes up with a vaccine they think will be an effective counterattack against the invading virus. Our own natural antibodies do something similar.
"We've known for a long time that our antibody-forming system adapts itself to every microbe we encounter," said Gerald Weissmann, M.D. He’s Editor-in-Chief of the FASEB Journal where a new study on the subject appears. “What we didn't understand fully is exactly how this happens,” he added.
When viruses or other microbes attack us, our body’s defense system goes into action - via evolution - figuring out ways to create antibodies that will successfully neutralize the invader. There’s two ways our bodies do this: either by mutation of a single cell or mutation of a cluster of cells.
New research out of Detroit’s Wayne State University shows how clusters of our cells quickly customize themselves to fight new forms of attacks. It has to do with how our genes code for antibodies. When a RNA polymerase replicates DNA it moves across it like a scanner. If the scan is smooth, a single mutation (or none at all) takes place. But if the RNA is stalled over the DNA then in some cases multiple mutations occur. The process allows for rapid deployment of tailor-made antibodies to attack the invader.
Why is this important? Well, according Weissmann, as our climate warms the ranges of parasites and microbes expand, making more people vulnerable to infectious diseases than they have been in the past.
“Now that we know [how cluster mutations occur], we can begin to find ways to manipulate this process so illnesses can be prevented or made significantly less dangerous."
LINKS
Science Daily report
DNA from the Beginning (good primer)
Explanation of the polymerase chain reaction
Prejudice against the rural poor: Well, sure, but a fictional rural poor. This gentleman is an urban musician who shops at trendy surplus stores, and it's too difficult to tell if his parents are closely related.
Courtesy PoodlefaceWell, Buzzketeers, we’re in the thick of the holiday season now—wading through that sticky caramel center of winter festivities, thigh-deep in a swamp of sweater clad relatives, up to our necks in mixed metaphors…
And, you know what? I hope you dig it. That’s my gift to y’all: the honest wish that you are all enjoying your elbow to elbow time with your closest kin. There’s your non-denominational seasonal gift, everyone, I hope you like it. (Personally I celebrate “Wintermania,” during which my family falls into a Wham!-induced frenzy, and then sacrifices anything to our winter deities. We come out of it with a lot fewer pets and household appliances, but it’s an exciting and high-spirited occasion. But I won’t force my beliefs on you.)
There’s some extra thought behind my gift, though. I mean, I know you’ll like it anyway, but it’s practical too! See, it just might happen that, someday, you’ll be bumping more than elbows with your cousins, and working your way up to that may start with the holiday conviviality. So you’re welcome for my making your life easier.
“What?” you say. “I’m not doing… that… with my cousin!”
Nor should you, sensitive Buzzketeer, nor should you. Necessarily.
But you could. Generally not legally, of course. But it turns out that, genetically, the whole “kissin’ cousins” thing might not be as problematic as you have been lead to believe. So says a new article on population genetics in the journal PLoS Biology.
See, the thing about serious inbreeding with close relatives is that it drains your gene pool—it reduces the variety of genes in your offspring. There are a couple reasons to have a nice assortment of genetic traits in a population. If everyone is the same genetically, then they all have the same genetic vulnerabilities, and something like a specialized disease or an abrupt change in the environment could wipe out the whole group. Also, and here’s the kissin’ cousins problem, a lot of genetic disorders result from having two recessive genes matched up in your DNA. If you just have one recessive gene for a disorder, you won’t develop the disorder, but you could pass that gene on to your kid, and if the kid got another copy of that recessive gene from his or her other parent, the kid would develop the disorder. People get disorders caused by matched recessive genes even when their parents aren’t related at all, but if a recessive gene for a particular disorder runs in a family, the chances that a kid in that family will get the gene from both parents is greatly increased if those parents are related.
That’s the idea, anyway. The folks who published this new article, however, say that, in reality, the chances that the offspring of two cousins will have birth defects (caused by recessive genes pairing up) really isn’t as great as most of us think. Specifically, the odds that two cousins would produce a child with congenital defects are only 1-2% greater than those for the rest of the un-related, child-producing population. Women over 40 have a similar risk of having children with congenital defects, the researchers point out, and there are no laws prohibiting them from having kids, whereas 31 states have laws against cousins being married. Laws like these, they say, aren’t based in solid science and reflect “outmoded prejudices about immigrants and the rural poor.”
So there. Do with your present what you will. Try it on for size, or give it to someone else—you won’t hurt my feelings. Merry Wintermania!
Recent comments
The butt stops here: Obama signs bill toughening cigarette regulations
New Seven Wonders of the World voted in by the world
Donating body to forensic science after death
A swine flu graduation: Hold the handshakes please
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