Behaviour is an amazing thing. Behavioural differences between males and females are inherent; programmed in our genes from birth. Courtship is a sexually dimorphic behaviour. Courtship basically refers to any behaviour that is related to attracting a mate. And yes, in humans this could involve some weird activities. However, in flies, this usually involves wing flapping (see the video below). Genes important in regulating brain activity have been found to affect neural circuits in the brain in a sex-specific way. In a recent article in Nature, the authors describe how one pheromone, common to both males and females, can elicit different neurological responses because the neural circuit that it activates is actually dimorphic, or different in males than it is in females. Remember this one next time you are selecting a perfume or cologne for your mate…
Here’s an interesting article about a Winnipeg man who sought treatment for his addictions in Cuba. The approaches used to treat the man for his alcoholism seem to have worked. It also makes me wonder about the state of our medical system, especially when it comes to mental health. Mental health experts in Manitoba are looking at the Cuban methods of treating addiction. This is an indication, at least to me, of some sort of validity to their approaches.
Educators in Florida have finally approved “scientific theories” as part of the state’s curriculum. Now kids all across the great sunshine state will be learning about atoms, cells and evolution (gasp!). The motion passed by 4-3, indicating that over 40% of education department officials still think that their kids (or grandkids) should not be learning these “scientific theories.” A quick scan of the proposals reveals nothing about stem cells, but I don’t expect miracles. To see this hot mess in its entirety, visit this page. To find out more about a warm, sunny Florida vacation, visit this page.
Didn’t Florida have an issue with “chads” in the 2001 Presidential Election? Hmm…
So Pfizer wants the New England Journal of Medicine to hand over confidential expert reviews of published papers because the science is being used to justify legal action against Pfizer. A great editorial on this subject was recently written by Donald Kennedy, the Editor-in-Chief of Science magazine. In case you don’t have full access, I’ve reposted it here.
Kennedy makes great points in his editorial. What gets me is that Pfizer, who presumably bases the efficacy of their drugs on real science, needs critical reviews of data that contradicts theirs from OTHER PEOPLE? What about the “scientists” at Pfizer try reading the papers and coming up with their own informed, critical analyses? When a real scientist comes across published work that contradicts their own, he/she analyzes the data and comes up with reasons as to why the data is contradictory. Not so for Pharma? This is news to me.
I don’t know about you, but I know I would think twice about reviewing new, exciting and controversial scientific data if my anonymity wasn’t preserved. The legal ramifications in a law suit happy world just aren’t worth it.
There actually was a science debate in the recent primaries, however, none of the Republicans showed up. Are you surprised? I’m not. Does Huck-a-bee even know what science is? The rockstars, Obama and Clinton, at least sent their science advisors…
A recent editorial in Nature has highlighted how Harper has been bad for Canadian scientists. On the upside, Canada’s researchers hold their own… but for how long under a Conservative government?
Reference: Nature451, 866 (21 February 2008) | doi:10.1038/451866a
A group at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at the University of California Santa Barbara have recently published an analytical map demonstrating what waters have been affected by humans. The report was published in Science and basically demonstrates that no areas have been unaffected, but that there still are areas that have been minimally affected. This new data not only provides critical information, but also may serve as a basis for ecosystem management and planning.
Science 15 February 2008: Vol. 319. no. 5865, pp. 948 – 952
The topic of my last entry on the Canadian Organic Grower’s Conference is the idea of buying local versus buying organic. The main idea is that you shouldn’t have to pick between the two and that sound food choices should be made on sustainability.
The state of current food choices is a direct result of financial concerns becoming paramount about 50 years ago. Today, issues such as ecological balance, chemicals and GMO are taking precedence. I will start with the naysayers who suggest that the idea that “food miles” should be a factor in making food choices because of the environmental benefits may actually be a fallacy. This was reasoned as follows by Laura Telford, the COG Executive Director. In general, food accounts for 16-17% of energy expenditure in society. Of this, 20% is production (pesticides, fertilizers, basically all the inputs), 10% is transportation and another 25% is end point storage and prep (i.e. your fridge and cooking). The argument goes that it would be worthwhile focusing on refrigeration or the inputs before tackling the transportation. Another point she made was that local does not necessarily mean sustainable. However, she pointed out that it is very important for Canada to have food sovereignty because of the issues that happened with imports just after 9/11.
So what does sustainable mean? The people from Local Food Plus did a good job of this. Local Food Plus is an NPO that encourages buying local. Their argument is that with urban sprawl, we are losing precious farmland and we need to support local farmers. Sustainable operations should be:
1. Local 2. Financially viable 3. Have ecological integrity (i.e. organic) 4. Socially responsible 5. Respectful of other species
Overall, what I took home from this was that it is good to buy local, but not crucial. If you want organic bananas from Chile, there isn’t a huge concern about the distance they have traveled. On the other hand, why buy pesticide ridden garlic from China when you can buy amazing, fresh, organic garlic from right here in Ontario. What matters most is how sustainable the methods used in the production of the food are.
The plaques that form in Alzheimer’s patients have been thought to be either causative or resultant. A current paper in Nature sheds some light on this issue. It looks like the plaques can form quite early, leading to neuronal defects…
Here’s the second entry on the Canadian Organic Growers conference and it deals with the break out session on ensuring organic integrity
So everybody knows that most organic produce and meats come with a sticker ensuring us that it’s organic. However, the stickers can vary and often times consumers second guess these labels when they are all different. This is about to change because in December 2008, there will be a common organic label in Canada that will be enforced.
I knew that the certification process was complex. How complex though, I had no idea. It has become so complex that it resembles a genome-wide protein-protein interaction map (if you don’t know what that is, consider yourself lucky). It’s multi-layered and consists of many entities. Basically, there are 3 or 4 international accreditation groups that regulate about 24 Canadian certification agencies. The certification process is all based on the Precautionary Principle and the certifiers actually visit the farms, usually once a year, to ensure guidelines are being met.
What wasn’t clear (and several people tried to ask this question) was how much extra does the certification process add to the farmers’ expenses and how much of this is passed on to the consumer? This entire process is also tedious for the farmers because as per the certification agencies: “If it isn’t written down, then it didn’t happen.” So farmers are literally taking notes about which animals are moved, where the produce moves to and from, all day. Often times it’s thought, because of this process, organic farms have to have many more layers of check points than conventional farms.
It’s kind of funny because the conventional food, that 98% of us eat, doesn’t seem to be put through the same vigorous safety and health standards. But then again, that’s why some of us are willing to pay more for organic products.
So everybody knows that most organic produce and meats come with a 