Inside of each of us is an innate ability to quickly decipher numerical differences between groups  – the number of people waiting in checkout line 1 vs. checkout line 2 – and use this information to our advantage (e.g. picking the shorter line). Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and the Kennedy Krieger Institute have discovered a link between this primal “approximate number” sense and the degree to which individuals are skilled at higher-level, abstract math skills.

In a study of 14 year-olds, the researchers found that the ability to quickly identify differences in the number of colored dots on a slide was positively correlated with the teenager’s ability on a range of standardized math tests – going all the way back to Kindergarten. In other words, if you can quickly decide if there are more yellow or blue dots on a slide, you are more likely to be strong in math.

The study, however, raises a number of important questions: does one’s approximate number sense change as you develop from an infant to young adult? Can it be improved with training (quantity of training or quality of training)? From a brain “wiring” perspective, how does the approximate number sense interact with the abstract, higher-level math sense? Does the correlation hold for a larger sample of teenagers, from different cultures and different parts of the globe? The answers to these questions may eventually shape how early math courses are taught.

Interested in testing your “approximate number” sense? The NYT article has a link to a version of the test.

Original Article

Chicago Mayor Richard Daly pledged last week that the City of Chicago would take significant steps to lower its carbon footprint.  For starters, the City Council is expected to consider changes to its building codes to require better insulation and more efficient heating and cooling systems in residences and businesses.  The city also plans to promote alternative energy (including solar energy installations at city-owned buildings) and increased use of public transportation.  Two coal-fired power plants will close or significantly reduce their emissions by 2017. By 2050, the City’s goal is to reduce carbon emissions to one-fifth of 1990 levels.

The article goes on to note that the average winter temperature in Chicago has risen 4 degrees since 1980.  While such a drastic temperature change in such a short time is likely to reflect both natural temperature variations and warming due to greenhouse gas emissions, there is little doubt that human activities are warming the planet.

The Mayor’s press release can be found at the City of Chicago’s website.  The Environmental Protection Agency’s climate change website looks at the science, health effects, economic, and policy issues surrounding climate change.  The New York Times also has a nice site.

Original Article

This New York Times article describes the “chic” trend in at-home custom genome scans. For $399 and a little spit, the California-based company 23 and me will survey your genes, providing you a long list of supposed health predispositions and risks, in addition to genetic information about “…food preferences, eye color, athletic ability and other traits.”

The prospect of being able to peek at your genes and perhaps learn a little something about your inner workings is admittedly enticing. But there are some real concerns with the type of broad-scale genetic testing that companies like 23 and me offer – concerns that the companies don’t exactly address up front. First off, there’s real uncertainty over whether the results you receive are “clinically valid.” That is, whether the tests actually tell you what they are supposed to tell you. Many of the so-called links between genes and diseases have not been fully worked out yet. What researchers have learned thus far is that common diseases like diabetes and heart disease are caused by a genetic predisposition and important non-genetic factors: the kinds of food you eat, the amount you exercise, and the lifestyle you live. There’s also the issue of test usefulness – would it really make a difference to you if you found out that your genes put you at a 4% increased risk of diabetes?  The much, much bigger risk is not eating healthy and lying around on the couch.

This is not to say that genes can’t make make powerful predictions about risk for disease.  In some cases the answer is certainly yes.  But we are in the very early stages of figuring out how genes and our environment – together – shape our health. One needs to be on guard for companies looking to make a buck off of otherwise healthy people’s genetic curiosity.

There are other concerns as well – how will you receive news about a potentially life-threatening condition?  Will you be falsely reassured if you are overweight but do not carry the “diabetes genes?” Was the test accurate?  Could the results impact my life insurance policy?  Will my family members view me differently?

And about that alleged genetic test for athletic ability? Hmmm.  I’d love to see the scientific data on that one.

Original Article

While the title is a bit misleading – we’re not talking about a fully functional bionic eye – researchers at Northwestern University and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have developed a camera that could conceivably function as the light sensor in an artificial eye. The Northwestern team was led by civil and environmental engineering professor Yonggang Huang.  The work was reported in a recent issue of the journal Nature.  There’s also a video on the National Science Foundation’s website.

What makes this feat notable is that Huang’s team is the first to figure out how to make a hemispherical camera – one in which the light sensor’s shape mimics the curvature of a sphere. Until now, light sensors have been made using rigid, planar (flat) materials that cannot be formed in the shape of a sphere.  If you’ve ever tried to gift-wrap a baseball without any wrinkles in the paper, you know what I mean.

A fully functional bionic eye using this technology is still quite a ways off, though.  One has to tackle the not-so-small problem of figuring out how to interface the sensor with the brain – involving more than a million neurons that carry electrical signals from the back of the eye to the brain.

More immediately, though, the eye-like camera has several distinct advantages over the old, planar technology.  Images taken with an eye-like camera will be brighter and distortion-free.

If you’re interested in how animal eyes evolved, there’s a nice article and video on the PBS website.