The reason this ad bothered me so much is because the answer was not written upside down on the bottom of the poster, as one might hope. Instead, you have to go to Marbles the Brain Store and ask an associate (which makes sense, from a marketing perspective). So, this past Friday night, I was very excited to happen upon a Marbles in the new wing of Old Orchard Mall in Skokie.

The bad news: I was not at all correct. The good news? The store was packed! On a Friday night! The genius of Marbles is that many of their games and hands-on puzzles are open and available for use on tables throughout the store. It was full of families, teens and couples, learning while playing. Even I was able to redeem myself by pulling apart (and putting back together!) one of those puzzles made of two pieces of interlocked metal.

If your mind is in need of sharpening and you happen to be in the area, I highly recommend checking it out. And this isn’t a shameless sales pitch- I’m in no way affiliated with the store. I just like to see people and their brains having fun together.

Recent studies are turning up mathematical abilities in many different species of animals. Chickens, bees, and of course monkeys have all shown promise in being able to deal with simple mathematical operations, like differentiating between numbers, counting, and summing. The animals are performing math linguistically like we do – they are not physically counting out objects or identifying numbers. Rather, it is some sort of innate ability constituting rough math.

Irene Pepperberg of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology terms this a sort of “number sense,” capable of being learned even in invertebrates. Important to note is that accuracy is not as important for them as it is to us; according to Jessica Cantlon of the University of Rochester, the monkeys don’t mind missing – for them it’s all about the reward. They would rather do the problem quickly and make a mistake and move on than ensure their answer was correct by taking more time. For us, there is a definitive psychological component to our mathematical abilities. We’ve all taken that math test where you think you know how to do the problem but you aren’t quite sure, so you spend too much time on that problem and forget to focus on the rest. We care deeply about the correctness of our math.

The implications of this discovery and research might have profound effects on the education of our children. The suggestion that math ability is built into us biologically suggests that we may be able to introduce math subject matter to children at an earlier age. Since studies have shown that children learn much faster at a young age than when they get older, this has profound importance in an age where math is so important for the future. It also opens up the question to what other skill sets we take for granted as ours alone that may extend to the animal kingdom. What other abilities are built into us as instinct that we have expanded and developed upon? Suddenly, it seems, we aren’t as smart as we thought we were, comparatively speaking, of course. I don’t know about you, but if you can do what this monkey can do, I will be very impressed.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

GFP has the natural property of absorbing invisible ultraviolet light and producing green light – a discovery made in 1961 by Osamu Shimomura (who also shared the 2008 Nobel Award with Roger Tsien and Chalfie).

Chalfie’s “aha” moment, in 1989 at a department seminar, was a recognition that the light-producing properties of GFP could be harnessed as a sort of molecular flashlight.

It works like this: the gene for GFP is inserted alongside a gene, let’s say, that encodes a protein involved in the formation of the neural system. GFP “tags” the protein of interest, allowing it to be followed in real time inside living cells, with UV light as the trigger. It’s an incredibly powerful technique for revealing how and when genes are turned on, and how proteins move inside the cell.

In Chalfie’s case, he uses the tiny soil worm C. elegans as a model for human neuron development. C. elegans and the GFP technique have proven invaluable for studies in areas as diverse as neuroscience, organ development, and cancer.

Below is a nice 10-minute video from BBC News, telling the GFP story. It includes a few clips of live, green worms.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

For the technically inclined, video of Chalfie’s Nobel acceptance speech is here. The 2009 Nobel awards will be given in early October.

For those unfamiliar with Body Worlds, this traveling anatomical exhibit of real human bodies has proven very popular and successful in demystifying our inner workings. It respectfully showcases the elegance of our anatomical structure, and provides visual lessons about the destructive outcomes of smoking and obesity. The smoker’s lung is not pretty.

Kersten’s opening salvo:

If you’re heading to the Mall of America this weekend, you’ll find something new to gawk at, along with the lacy lingerie at Victoria’s Secret and the sea horses at Underwater Adventures. It’s “Bodies … the Exhibition,” a show that features human cadavers.

Really? C’mon. Comparing an aquarium, a human physiology/health exhibit, and scantily-clad Victoria’s Secret models is the beginning of, well, a scantily-clad argument.

She goes on to use terms like “high-falutin’” when describing the exhibit’s educational goals.  She criticizes the choice of location for the exhibit, the Mall of America, as being too commercial (shouldn’t exhibits be held where the people are?). The issue of whether or not the exhibit bodies were procured according to accepted medical standard, raised midway through the article, is a very valid and important concern. Kerstens, however, quickly returns to the crux of her argument:

At “Bodies … the Exhibition,” we sense the danger of a line being crossed. The issues the show raises intersect with many of the important questions we face about the nature of humanity in our scientific age.

In short, she thinks the exhibit is in poor taste and that it markets death as entertainment. I don’t see it that way at all.

What better way to spark a sense of wonder, amazement, and self reflection on what it means to be human than to present an authentic look at the human form? A particularly thoughtful review of the exhibit is here. Moreover, any exhibit that can bring public discussion about end-of-life issues, altruistic organ donation, and the evils of smoking and obesity is a good thing. That a young adult might be inspired to look further into a career as a nurse, doctor, or scientist is laudable.

Kersten’s not done, though. After some additional rhetoric about science reducing human beings to commodities, she ends her column with a quote from Lutheran bishop and critic Ulrich Fischer:

When taboos along life’s boundaries have been broken, has it not led in the end to man’s assuming power over human life in ways that our limited human abilities should preclude?

The idea that taboos should guide our moral thinking is just plain absurd. It plays on the idea of fear – that which we do not know, accept, or understand is to be avoided, suppressed, or outright banned. Scientific findings often challenge the very essence of our core beliefs (we’re too young to remember the Earth as the center of the universe). Is she insinuating that we regulate science to the point of restricting inquiry?

Had we historically followed this flawed logic – that gut instinct should serve as moral compass – vaccinations would have been outlawed on religious grounds, organ transplants forbidden, and genetic technology that produces nearly all the insulin for those suffering from diabetes banned. And this doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of racism, bigotry, and other reprehensible acts that were justified in the name of “this just isn’t right.”

In some cases we do need limits for how scientific technology is applied, or to whom access is given. It’s a fine balance. The UK’s limits on reproductive technology are a good example of where most agree that the balance works. But in this case, displaying real human bodies, artfully preserved and in an educational setting, is far from denigrating humanity. I would argue the reverse – it celebrates and informs it.

After being placed unconscious, Reynolds remembers hearing a noise and suddenly feeling like she “popped out of the top of her head.” After observing some of the details of her surroundings– the number of doctors, the instruments they were using, and a conversation about the arteries in her groin– she noticed a tunnel and a white light, which appeared around the time doctors lowered her body temperature. She then conversed with her dead uncle and grandmother, who later brought her back to her body. Upon re-entry, she heard “Hotel California” playing in the hospital waiting room.

Afterward, Reynolds assumed she had been hallucinating. After all, her eyelids were taped shut the whole time, and speakers had been placed in her ears that made noises as loud as a plane taking off (these allowed surgeons to monitor her brain stem activity).

However, in a discussion with Spetzler years later, she discovered that her hallucination matched his memory of the actual operation. Michael Sabom, a cardiologist who researches near-death experiences, later examined the details of Reynolds’ account against hospital records. Again, every detail down to the conversation about her arteries, matched.

So how is this possible, when Reynolds couldn’t hear or see? Can a person really be “conscious” outside of their physical body?

According to anesthesiologist Gerald Woerlee, the explanation is fairly simple– anesthesia awareness, a condition in which a person is conscious but cannot move. This is certainly a possibility– around the time Reynolds was operated on, Woerlee estimates patients experienced anesthesia awareness in one in 2000 operations. This theory assumes that the speakers in Reynolds’ ears didn’t fit properly, allowing her to hear the sounds of the room. Or, Woerlee suggests, sounds could be transmitted through the operating table.

However, Spetzler and Sabom counter that Reynolds’ sluggish brain activity for the length of her operation make it very unlikely she could form or retain memories from the experience. This leaves the door open for consciousness independent of the physical brain, at least in their opinions.

So what do you think? I’m interested to know. I’ve been stewing about it all weekend, and I think I have to side with the “there has to be some physical, scientific explanation for this” camp. However, the idea that the essence of “me” isn’t necessarily dependent on the physical “me” is comforting. And the possibility of being greeted by my grandpa upon dying is really a wonderful thought.

On a related note, this story was the final installment of a five-part NPR series on science and spirituality. To check out the others, click here. I recommend it.

In the past two postings I’ve talked about my experience working with the Science Entertainment Exchange, which aims to improve the quality of science in movies and other forms of entertainment by connecting movie and TV people with scientists who have expertise in something related to their story lines. In my last posting, I addressed some creative ways in which scientists and engineers can be helpful in this endeavor. In this posting, I will address how the entertainment industry can further the agenda of scientists and engineers.

Ten years ago, while I was doing my PhD in neuroscience at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, the ABC TV news show “Primetime Live” decided to do an exposé on wasteful government funding of science. Their strategy was to ask the main funding agencies for a list of the titles of currently funded projects and pick the ones that sounded the most “out there.” Since my lab was studying prey capture in weakly-electric fish, the project I was working on got picked. Luckily, the executive producer was well informed about science and after trips to several of the labs, where he found that the selected projects had excellent justifications, they switched the tone of the show. It became about how seemingly strange and obscure basic science projects have led to revolutions in our understanding of everything from genetics to brain plasticity.

Amusingly, it seems like they didn’t tell their main wasteful-spending critic about the shift in tone. Former congressmen Ernest Istook from Oklahoma (a Republican) dismissed each research project in turn. For our project, Sam Donaldson (who’s toupee sits as a reminder of one neglected corner of scientific research) said to Istook: “How electric fish attack their prey, we’re spending money looking at that” Istook shook his head and responded “You know, that is really curious….humans don’t go around making attacks with electricity underwater….it just doesn’t work that way” (click here to view the video).

This kind of populist anti-science pandering is a recurring phenomenon. One recent example is Sarah Palin’s remarks during a speech in October: “Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? […] You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.”

The entire genetics revolution occurred because of research on fruit flies started over 50 years ago. Given that her child has a genetic disorder that scientists do research on using fruit flies (I kid you not), her attack is darkly ironic. Professor John Carlson from Yale University, who organized the 50^th Annual Fly Meeting in Chicago that just finished on Sunday, told me over dinner last week that he had invited Palin to the meeting. Her staff was to get back to him on that, but not surprisingly never did.

The fact that such attacks can gain traction (45.7% of traction, if you count the popular vote for McCain-Palin this past election) shows how far we have to go in terms of educating the public about research. Increasing the quality and content of science in entertainment is one small part of the solution. One of the areas of research we told the TRON-2 producers about–to help with difficult but key dramatic transition in the movie–is a new branch of physics which several investigators at Northwestern work on. Should that make it into the movie, this will increase the awareness of the public for this kind of work and make it slightly less likely to become the target of ignorant political attacks.

By increasing the quality of the portrayed science, one can foresee a slow process of increased scientific “situation awareness” in mass culture. In such a climate, people may be able to think more critically about Palinesque pseudo-expose’s of scientific programs. The short-sighted turn away from basic science to translational research, which represents a failure of science education on a large scale, may be helped. Massively irrational practices and beliefs, such as creationism and homeopathy, may be less likely to spread.

For these reasons, I hope that the National Academy’s Science and Entertainment Exchange is successful in getting a mutually beneficial dialogue started between scientists and story tellers. Having recently heard that our input to the makers of TRON 2 has had a significant impact on the storyline, I’m optimistic that the effort will pay off.

Welcome to my corner – or loose confederacy of evanescent electrons – of the Science in Society Blog. My primary charges are issues in brain science and engineering, my main areas of research. I’m an assistant professor in the Departments of Biomedical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering at Northwestern University. Because two departments means only two Christmas parties, clearly not enough, I’m also adjunct in the Department of Neurobiology and Physiology.

My background is quite varied, with degrees in philosophy, computer science, and neuroscience, and on-the-job training in artificial intelligence and mechanical engineering. A highly abbreviated history is that I started out with the aim of making an artificially intelligent system with human-like capabilities, and I’ve settled for the more practical goal of making an artificially intelligent fish. This work is driven by more general questions about the ways in which the body is clever, and how that fits with more readily recognized forms of cleverness that are identified with the nervous system. The body evolved in close coordination with the nervous system over the past 635 million years, so it should be no surprise that there’s a lot going on in that interaction. The main approaches I use for working on these problems are biological investigations, computer simulations, and robotics.

I’m excited by this opportunity to blog about issues at the intersection of science and society, as I’ve long been interested in bringing research to the broader community. In the past I’ve done this through an interactive art installation project in LA and through working on projects between Northwestern University and the Shedd Aquarium.

Most recently, I was involved with the Science Entertainment Exchange (SEE). SEE is a new program sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, with the goal of connecting entertainment industry folks (thus far, mostly movie types) with scientists. The idea is that part of the reason there is not much science, or poorly portrayed and inaccurate science, is due to the lack of such lines of communication. Suppose you’ve got a plotline revolving around an asteroid about to collide with Earth. The first draft has an asteroid that gets a bit closer over more than a century of observation, and then enters the atmosphere only to vaporize in a ball of steam that causes a few extra days of rain in London. Not very interesting – but what is possible? How might we be surprised by a rapidly approaching asteroid that wasn’t detected until it’s almost too late? What would happen if something the size of a typical sports stadium hit the earth? SEE will get you in touch with a scientist who knows about such things.

A few weeks back, the makers of a sequel to TRON wanted to meet with some scientists at their studio in LA to brainstorm about some issues in their draft script. SEE arranged a meeting between the movie makers, myself, and four scientists who work nearby at the California Institute of Technology. Two days before the session we were asked if we could read the draft script. This has to be done under the watchful eye of an assistant to the producer — such scripts are treated like the Pentagon Papers by the industry. We all agreed to do so (which itself was an interesting experience as I’d never read a screenplay. It’s a good way to appreciate how much has to happen to words on a page to get to a movie). In my next posting, I’ll tell you about what happened. I’ll also suggest a few interesting ways I think these two very different communities can interact for mutual benefit.

For example, “change blindness” is the tendency of a viewer not to notice significant visual changes in a particular scene if they are masked by a temporary flicker, rapid movement, or other interruption (for a dramatic demonstration, watch this video). Because the pre- and post-change environments cannot be compared side by side, the changes are missed.

The article gives other neat examples, too, like the tendency of our visual system to follow movement, which can be covertly manipulated by the magician with head or hand movements.  Straight or curved hand motions affect our visual system in different ways, producing different levels of attention on the gesture.

Original Article

Give the Nikon site a look. Many of the pictures are quite stunning – true works of art!

Original Article

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