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…
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
