Bio Job Blog : Bio Jobs : Biotechnology Jobs : Biopharmaceutical Jobs : Bioscience, Biotech Jobs : Bio Job Blog : Biocareer : Bio-Business Training, Biotechnology Training : Jobs in Biology : Internships in Biology : Internships in Biotechnology

Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809. Many societies and institutions annually celebrate the anniversary of his birth by hosting a Darwin Day to celebrate his theory (dare I say it) of evolution. Typically, these celebrations are held at universities, museums and schools in parts of the US where evolution is embraced and taught. While laudable, these celebrations are akin to “preaching to the choir”—everybody involved already believes in evolution!

Jory P. Weintraub education director at the Evolutionary Synthesis Center in Durham North Carolina also realized this and decided to organize a scientific road trip—in name of scientific outreach and promoting science literacy—to bring Darwin’s theory of evolution to places where creation is alive, well and taught in many schools! Unlike many other scientists, Weintraub understood that safely sitting behind a desk in a science-friendly environment lamenting the lack of science literacy in the US isn’t going to cut it any longer. To that end, he convinced seven intrepid PhD scientists to take Darwin’s message on the road and present workshops on evolution in a variety of creationism-friendly, rural school districts in Virginia, Iowa, Montana, and Nebraska

Initially, some members of the team we worried about potential clashes between religious conservatives and themselves. Nevertheless, these team members overcame these fears and Darwin’s traveling road show became a reality. In the end, 19 schools agreed to host the scientists but negotiating the terms of the visits wasn’t always easy. For example, a Virginia High School principal sent out permission slips to parents to allow students to attend. Further, an Iowa museum director only publicized the workshop to teachers rather than the public to avoid raising the ire of its conservative Christian community. Generally speaking, the workshops appeared to be conflict free and surprisingly were well received by students and teachers who participated!

Sadly, despite incontrovertible proof that evolution is real, creationism is still taught in many schools throughout the US. Moreover, a new study found that few of the nation’s biology teachers tell students that evolution forms the foundation of modern biological sciences. In light of these findings, is it any wonder why the US may be lacking in global science competitiveness?

There is no question that Weintraub and his team ought to be lauded for their efforts “to boldly go where no scientists have gone before.” That said; if we truly want to promote science literacy and improve American science education, then more scientists ought to get out from behind their desks (and out of their laboratories) to literally take their science to the American public.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Educating!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I came of age in the late 60s and early 70s and the women’s movement was in full swing. Other men and I worked hard to ensure that future generations of women were treated equally and have the same rights and opportunities as their male counterparts. However, some of the earlier and more radical members of the moment believed that society should be genderless and that there were no differences between the sexes. While that notion was intellectually, emotionally and psychologically appealing, nobody can deny that there aren’t obvious, anatomical, hormonal and genetic differences between human males and females. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that women behave differently than men and visa versa (of course in biology there are always exceptions).

Over the years, researchers have determined that differences in female and male behavior can be attributed to a variety of things including physiological environmental, enculturative factors. Like it or not, behavioral differences between men and women have been ascribed to hormonal differences and fluctuations. For example, it is commonly accepted that higher levels of testosterone in men are thought to be responsible for male aggressive behavior whereas in women small amounts of testosterone enhance female libido. With this in mind, a new study published last week in PNAS suggests that testosterone may also play a role in a woman’s ability to trust or distrust others: most notably men.

The study was conducted by a group of Dutch researchers at the Utrecht University. Twenty-four women participated in the double-blind study over two days. On the first day, half of the women were given a dose of testosterone under their tongue, while the other received a placebo; the treatments were switched on the second day so that each participant experienced both treatments. 

After the testosterone treatment, the researchers administered a facial trustworthiness task, in which each subject was shown a series of human faces and asked to assess how trustworthy the person in the image is. Economic exchange tasks, which are usually employed in similar experiments, were not used because of the possible confounding effects of testosterone on risk-taking and reward-seeking behavior. By administering mood tests and asking participants to guess which treatment they had received on either day, the researchers reduced the likelihood that either subjective preconceptions or mood changes may have affected the outcome.

The results of the study showed that women who received testosterone were less trusting than those who received the placebo. Moreover, the study revealed that “naturally distrustful” women were affected less by testosterone as compared with “more trusting” females where hormone-induced effects were the greatest. These findings led the researchers to postulate that the trust-reducing effect of testosterone may be adaptive and especially advantageous for less-socially aware women. For example, when competition is high and resources scarce, highly trusting women may be at greater risk for being cheated or taken advantage of and might benefit from a little jolt of testosterone-induced distrustfulness.

Interesting, female levels of testosterone have been observed to peak right around ovulation. Evolutionarily, it makes complete sense that a woman’s libido (remember testosterone stimulates this) would be highest at the time that she is most likely to conceive. However, the results from the Dutch study suggest that testosterone-induced distrustfulness may actually push potential mates away (and possibly explain why there are so many discerning women out there). 

This led Nicholas Wade, the New York Times reporter who wrote a piece on the study to quip: “So guys, you knew women were complex, but it is even worse than you thought: at the moment you are most desired, you are least trusted.” Women—go figure!

Until next time.....

Good Luck and Good Hunting (for the few cavemen who still exist)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Several weeks ago, I blogged about a growing need to improve the American public’s perception and understanding of the life sciences if the US wants to remain competitive in science and technology. Much to my delight, there was an article this Sunday’s NY Times entitled “Microbes R Us” which explores the evolutionary relationship with bacteria and humans. It was written by Dr. Olivia Judson an evolutionary biologist and author of “Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation: The Definitive Guide to the Evolutionary Biology of Sex,” which was made into a three part television program.

While the evolutionary relationship between bacteria and humans isn’t as titillating as the biology of sex, the article sheds light on the importance of bacteria and how genetic changes in bacteria that normally inhabit the human intestinal track can have a positive impact on human nutrition and health. Many lay people believe that bacteria are “bad” because certain species can cause serious and potentially life threatening diseases. However, the benefits, advantages and uses of bacteria e.g., to make food, antibiotics and other medicines, far outweigh their negative impact on society. 

Articles like the one written by Ms. Judson, offer the public unqique insights into  the amazing and often fascinating world of microbiology. I hope that a few aspiring young scientists read the article and tell all their friends about it!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Reading!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A team of scientists from the UK report in this week’s edition of Nature that they were able to induce the formation of ribonucleotides using ribose, phosphate and the bases adenine, uracil, guanine and cytosine and environmental conditions that may have been present in the early history of the Earth. This had been a fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth.

The results of the study entitled “Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions” provide evidence that self-assembling RNA molecules were likely the first to be formed and were likely the first step in the evolution of life on Earth. According to John Sutherland of the University of Manchester a co-author of the study, “Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry,” said Sutherland. “They’re doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated. It’s like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior. In other words, the origins of life may be much simpler than previously imagined—so much for intelligent design! 

Evolution rocks! Hat tip to Steve Munro.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Experimenting!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It has been a long standing practice of mine to avoid co-mingling science and religious issues in any of the materials that I post online. I have refrained from doing this because I believe that enough tension already exists between religious advocates and scientists.   However, I was unable to control myself today after my wife pointed out two interesting articles in Wednesday’s New York Times.

The first article dealt with Pope Benedict XVI’s views on condom use and HIV transmission in Africa. Yesterday in Cameroon, he publicly said, for the first time, that condoms are not the answer to Africa’s fight against AIDS. Not only did this statement send a collective shiver down the spines of many HIV health workers, clergy working with AIDS patients are divided on the issue. The pope told reporters that “You can’t resolve it with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem.” Apparently, church dogma suggests that fidelity in marriage and abstinence from premarital sex are crucial weapons in the fight against AIDS. There are currently 22 million people in sub-Saharan Africa infected with HIV and three-quarters of all HIV/AIDS deaths occur in the region. Apparently, attempting to be faithful and just saying no doesn’t seem to work in Africa—or anywhere else! The pope’s statement prompted a representative from the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa to say “Instead, his opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans.” Ironically, Africa is the fastest-growing region for the Roman Catholic Church.

The second article reported the results of a study which showed that terminally ill cancer patients who drew comfort from religion were almost three-times as likely to seek aggressive, life-prolonging treatments as compared with less religious patents. Also, the most religious patients were much more likely to ask doctors to do ‘everything possible to keep them alive.’  Study results showed that patients who were devout were three times as likely as less religious patients to be put on a mechanical ventilator to maintain breathing during the last week of life, and they were less likely to do any advance care planning, like signing a do-not-resuscitate order or preparing a living will. The findings prompted one of the study’s authors—it will appear in Wednesday’s Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)—to say “People think that spiritual patients are more likely to say their lives are in God’s hands — ’Let what happens happen’ — but in fact we know they want more aggressive care.” To explain this apparent paradox, the author speculated “To religious people, life is sacred and sanctified and there’s a sense they feel it’s their duty and obligation to stay alive as long as possible.” Alternately, in my opinion it may be that religious people haven’t adequately dealt with the possibility of their demise and are hoping for miracles—medical or religious— to keep them alive because they are deathly (pun intended) afraid of dying? Regardless, aggressive life-prolonging care is expensive, Medicare spends about one-third of its budget on people who are in their last year of life and much of that is spent on patients at the very end of their lives. Moreover, researchers have found that aggressive end-of-live care for terminal patients frequently can lead to a more painful process of dying and greater shock and grief for family members.

One of the few places in the world where the nexus of religion and science is difficult to fathom is the US—one of the most scientifically advanced and religious nations in the world. Several years ago, I met a scientist at a FASBEB Career meeting who, for the first time, was able to successfully articulate to me how science and religion can co-exist in American society (she taught in the South). While I can’t recall her exact words, she said something like “Both science and religion have their purpose and place in society. However, they are belief systems that are not interchangeable. That is why I can believe in God and still fully endorse and embrace evolution. They serve different purposes for me and help me to live my life.” With this in mind, I don’t think that religious dogma should be invoked when it comes to treating patients or inhibiting advances in public health, science and medicine.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link