SciBlogs

Posts Tagged education

why everyone must understand science Alison Campbell May 31

5 Comments

(& a big ‘thank you!’ to Jean Fleming for showing me this on Facebook)

This video featuring philosopher A.C. Grayling, on the BBC’s ‘Future’ page (which alas! did not give an embed code), is a must watch for those concerned with (& about) science literacy. Noting that many people feel excluded by science, he explains why he believes this is a problem, before going on to point out that moves to change things need to start at school:

Our traditional way of teaching science is that the people who are learning it will go on to be scientists. For many people, that’s not the way to go… People could get a good understanding of science, without the need to have technical expertise.

Are our current school (& tertiary) curricula able to deliver on this?

perhaps the most inspiring graduation address i have ever heard Alison Campbell May 21

2 Comments

At the recent graduation ceremony for students from Waikato University’s Faculty of Science & Engineering (& those from its sister Faculty, Computing & Mathematical Sciences), we were privileged to hear an absolutely inspirational address from the recipient of an honorary Doctorate at that ceremony: Dr Gordon Stephenson. And I mean, inspirational! After the event I spoke with Dr Stephenson & asked if he’d be willing to provide the text of his speech, because I believed it deserves the widest possible audience, and he was kind enough to provide me with a copy. (I’ve taken the liberty of adding a hyperlink in a couple of places, for those who may not be familiar with some of the references.)

Chancellor Rt Hon Jim Bolger, Vice chancellor Professor Roy Crawford, academia, distinguished guests, students at all levels, my whanau, everyone.

This really is an extraordinary and totally unexpected honour that you have bestowed upon me. I find it very difficult indeed to adequately express what it means to me.   

When my daughter Janet handed me the letter from the University on Christmas day, she says it is the only occasion she has seen me speechless. I was truly gob-smacked ! So I will just say ‘Thank you’.

It is actually somewhat ironic, because in the late 1940’s, as a returned serviceman, I took a BSc (Agric) at Reading University, England, and passed with a ‘C’ grade.

But life was too full as a student, what with sport, starting an agricultural journal, getting married to a beautiful civil engineer  graduate of London University, living on a small boat, and many other activities better left unsaid, such that the ambition to attain a First Class Honours degree went by the wayside.

I did, however, become infected with the stimulating topic of science. Even as a 10 year-old, I pored over nature magazines. I still have some of them.

But I left university puzzled. I had been taught things which just did not make sense, such as the idea that mountain formation was due to shrinkage of the earth’s surface, while the concept of so-called continental drift was anathema. And the explanations of  heredity were far from complete or even believable.

It got me thinking about ‘truth’ and the realisation that truth is only that which is the current knowledge and thought, and that it is constantly being replaced with new ideas. And where do ‘facts’ tie in with ‘truth’?.

We moved to Waikato in 1960, and I have followed with interest the development of this University from paddocks to a landscaped campus. Your reputation has grown, and you can now boast of being a leader among NZ universities in the particular disciplines you have chosen to develop. Congratulations.

Universities have critical roles in society.

Research is a heavy responsibility. It is actually a huge privilege to be paid to research. You are a repository of knowledge, not only in your libraries and theses, but also in the research-based understanding lying in the minds of academia.

Then there are your teaching responsibilities, hence all these wonderful students hopefully fired by your inspirational lectures. I know I was by some unforgettable tutors.

But there is another responsibility, which I often feel is not adequately addressed. This is the role of a university as the public conscience.

It has long perturbed me that the public battlers and advocates for a better society are almost all lay people or NGO’s, whereas those very issues are probably being studied in depth in this institution.

It takes courage to step out beyond the walls of the campus and into the hurly-burly of controversy. There are noble examples at this University, and they will know to whom I refer, but I’ll mention one from Waikato, the late much-loved Dr Charlotte Wallace.

Besides being an assiduous researcher of snails, she was totally fearless in her environmental advocacy, and greatly admired and respected as a result. She virtually started, decades ago, the South Auckland Conservation Association. She made a difference.

We look to the Universities to be the champions, the leaders, for the big issues facing us. You have the knowledge. Please, make sure it is put to good use.  

I turn now to you graduates of all disciplines and interests.

I was born in 1924 (I can see you all doing some rapid mental calculations). In that year, there were only two billion people on earth.

Now, in this one person’s lifetime, that has more than tripled. There are three people alive now for every one alive then. Picture if that were to happen to you all present here in the world of 2013. It would seem impossible.

So believe me when I say that maybe I can personally appreciate the creaks and groans of poor old mother earth, and the pressures and stresses placed upon the populace and natural systems.

There are the issues such as climate change, peak oil, the health of the oceans, extinctions and the loss of biodiversity, the rush to urbanization, rising sea levels, let alone the forecasted inability of farming to feed the projected ten billion people.

We ignore at our peril the intricate web of millions of species whose interactions create our living conditions. We have a lamentable inability to recognise the implications of exponential growth, and the menace of the bell curve. The downside of that curve will turn round and bite.

These matters are all interconnected, and cry out for solutions that are also interconnected. My generation has failed to find those solutions, or, where they are blindingly obvious, failed even more miserably to implement them.

Many of these issues were faced by Maori some 5-600 years ago. Their previously known world of easily harvested fish and birds suddenly faced the impacts of resource depletion. Their reactions paralleled those that arose centuries or millennia before in many parts of the world.

Their first reaction was war, to safeguard their food supplies and other resources. The other reaction, to their great credit, was to impose upon themselves strict rules of harvest, through such mechanisms as rahui. There are lessons there for humans everywhere.

And so I look to you, our next generation, to whom we dodderers bequeath our one-and-only beautiful and magical earth. In some ways, it matters little the topic you studied here.

You have, I trust, been taught by this University to think, because you will need to use those analytical skills that are so necessary in any field of study, for the massive tasks you face ahead. You have to persuade both the wider population and the decision makers, of the root problems we face. There are doubters galore, both for commercial and political reasons or because of reluctance to face facts.

The centuries-old saying is ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see’. You have an absolutely necessary task ahead, which may seem daunting, and you may react by thinking ‘what can little me do’.

However, I say you can make a difference. You will recall the butterfly effect, as expounded by Edward Lorenz, he of the chaos theory. He postulated that the effect of a beat of a butterfly’s wing in the tropics could trigger a hurricane many kilometres away.

I say to you, be that butterfly.

It is a sobering thought that you, we, are each utterly unique, an assembly of atoms never ever seen before. You will each therefore by definition, have abilities that are also unique. To make that ‘difference’ I speak of, you need to develop those abilities, and grow a fire in your belly, a determination to see things through.

Many of our gurus talk of the need to have ambition, but they are usually referring to the ambition to make money. While important, money does not equate satisfaction or contentment. Of its own, neither will it solve the problems you now face.

Nor will you achieve overnight success. It may take years, even decades. You’ll suffer setbacks, but that is in the nature of things, and our world needs stubborn battlers.

You will need to learn the skills of working with, rather than against, and of respecting the right of others to hold opinions that are so divergent from your own that they infuriate you. Anger is no solution. I think Churchill is credited with the saying ‘jaw-jaw is better than war-war’.

Seek friends, make alliances, and above all be positive. So often, even those who you originally felt were opponents, were actually just looking for solutions. Find those solutions.

Many years ago, a truth dawned on me. I had been used to complaining that ‘they’ should ‘do something’. ‘They’ frequently didn’t. I then realised that therefore ‘we’ must do something. Again, ‘we’ sometimes failed, and the clear conclusion was that ‘I’ must get stuck in. If I didn’t, why should someone else ?

Then something magical occurred. My actions suddenly activated the ‘we’, and in some cases, the ‘we’ became a reformed ‘they’. So I say, never be afraid to stick your head above the parapet.

Nor should you be put off by time. May I quote the proposed National Wetland Centre, at Lake Serpentine, south of Ohaupo. It is beginning to take shape, 16 years after planning started. Given maybe two more years, it could be completed.

And another issue took 67 meetings to end up with a solution that was welcomed by all parties. The Waikato Ecological Enhancement Trust was formed. It now puts hundreds of thousands of dollars annually into the wetlands and waters of the Waikato Catchment.

Stick at it !

To date, you have been absorbing, assembling, knowledge. Today, from this moment, your role changes. You have been learners, now, while still seekers, you become teachers. You have been followers, now you must become leaders.

Your collective tasks are frightening in their necessity. I challenge you. Get out there. Don’t be afraid. Be determined. Make sure our planet earth continues to be a place of diversity and beauty we can all truly love and protect. Play your part.

Then, when you reach the age of 80, people will say,’ yes, you made a difference’.

I end with a quote from the inspirational Helen Keller: deaf and blind from early childhood.

I am only one, but still I am one.

I cannot do everything, but still I can do something.

I will not refuse to do something I can do.

 

Thank you.

thought-provoking video, pity about the title… Alison Campbell May 20

No Comments

… for I fear the title (not to mention the image below!) of this video by Thunderf00t would put many off if they were not forewarned. A real pity, as the video contains some thought-provoking ideas, eg: the total value of a discovery is the product of data (the utility of an idea) & metadata (can anyone actually find out about it, in the internet age?). So, should scientific publishers become a lot more proactive in using new media to share ideas?

No, seriously – ignore the atrocious cover image & listen to the ideas therein. (I suppose one could argue that the image would get more people to view Thunderf00t’s message than a more mundane title, but would those who came for the cars & women stay for the serious sci-comm message?)

out of the mouths of students Alison Campbell May 19

2 Comments

We’ve been trialling some software for on-line paper/teaching appraisals & I got my results back the other day. The appraisal form included open-ended questions where students could give extended feedback on particular issues that concerned them, & I’ve been going through it all so that I can give feedback in my turn, thus ‘closing the loop’. (This is something that I believe is absolutely essential: students need to know that we value their opinions & that, where appropriate, use them to inform what we do.) I’ve been interested to see that some of the class are definitely thinking outside the ‘box’ that represents my paper, and one comment in particular struck a chord:

One concern with the paper is individuals who were not taught certain aspects of the NCEA Level 3 curriculum. This is a major issue that has resulted from the preference of schools to not teach certain aspects of the course. There NEEDS to be consultation to standardise the NCEA curriculum as well as ensuring that the gap is bridged with communication between teriary education providers and secondary education providers. As I understand it there is significant concern over the changed NCEA Level 3 Biology course, which now does not teach genetics in year 13. I don’t know the answer in the resolution of this issue, however it will greaty impact on future acedemic success as well as future funding when grades drop.

This student has hit the nail squarely on the head. Teachers reading this will be working on the following Achievement Standards with their year 12 students this year (where previously gene expression was handled in year 13): AS91157 Demonstrate understanding of genetic variation and change, and AS91159: Demonstrate understanding of gene expression. (You’ll find the Biology subject matrix here.)

And as my student says, this has the potential to cause real problems unless the university staff concerned have made it their business to be aware of these changes and to consider their impact. For the 2014 cohort of students coming in to introductory biology classes will have quite different prior learning experiences (& not just in genetics) from those we are teaching this year and taught in previous years. We cannot continue as we have done in the past.

selling services on-line Alison Campbell May 13

1 Comment

Yesterday’s Sunday Star-Times carried the headline: Chinese cheats rort NZ universities with fakes. The story begins:

An investigation has uncovered a well-organised commercial cheating service for Chinese-speaking students in New Zealand. The long-standing business uses a network of tutors, some outside New Zealand, to write original assignments ordered by Chinese-speaking students attending New Zealand universities, polytechnics and private institutions

and provides a link to an essay bought by the reporting team as part of their investigation.

Frankly, about the only thing that surprised me about the story was the fact that the organisation delivering this ‘service’, and thus helping those using it to cheat, is based in New Zealand. I mean, I’ve just had one of my regular clean-outs of the spam folder. Anything there just gets deleted; there’s so much coming in that I don’t have time to scan it just in case a genuine commenter has been dumped there. But occasionally something at the top of the queue for oblivion catches my eye, and I notice things like this:

Lately, graduates are overloaded to produce essay writing, they can find custom writing services where they are able to buy critical analysis essays.

If you are desperate, you always have a possibility to purchase high quality essay and all your problems will disappear.

Are willing to be a good student? Therefore, you should realise that good high school students buy paper and if it is fits you, you can do the same!

And the icing on the cake:

Some people have got a passion of composing academic papers, but, some of them do not know the correct way to complete research papers. Professional Custom UK Essay writing service is developed to help students who cannot write.

Frankly, the standard of English in that lot should put potential buyers off! At least some of the time they make an attempt at ‘buyer beware’ (but don’t you just know that the following would link to one of these ‘good’ sites?):

If you want to escape any troubles while ordering essays at the paper writing services, you ought to be really thorough. Buy essay services only if you have solid evidences that the people you’ll be dealing with are highly educated.

Lols aside, there’s obviously a market for this sort of stuff; it’s worth pondering why students would buy in work, and what options teaching staff have for avoiding/reducing the temptation.

One obvious motivation is the pressure to do well. Students (& often their families) do invest quite a bit of money into their education. This is particularly true for many international students whose families spend a lot to send them here & support them during their studies. (So do taxpayers, via the student loan system, so we – ie taxpayers – do need to know that we’re getting good value there, & that includes the quality of students’ work.) So fear of getting a poor mark, & perhaps having to repeat a paper, could drive the sort of behaviour that our spammers and the Auckland organisation are hoping to generate.

And unfortunately ‘custom essays’ are not going to be picked up by anti-plagiarism software (eg Turnitin) – unless the ghostwriters are stupid enough to just do a copy-&-paste! That’s not to say they can’t still be identified: an obvious clue would be a standard of English that differed significantly from that in other work submitted by a student; the relevance of the actual content would be another.

But there are ways of reducing incentives to be dishonest around assessment. For example, teachers can review their use of ‘high stakes’ assessment items: single essays or reports that are worth a large proportion of the final grade (& so can offer some incentive to cheat in order to gain a higher mark). ‘End-loading’ assessment, so that it’s all due at the end of semester, is not going to help here either.

Another tool would be to have students generate work in class. Now obviously that won’t work if you want a lengthy report, but what about: getting them to do the relevant research but asking for them to write an abstract, or a summary of their findings, in-class, & having it peer-marked (using your marking scheme) or doing that task yourself? The students still gain practice in useful skills & – hopefully – your workload is somewhat reduced. If students get more involved in the writing process from the start, & are supported in learning the various skills involved, they might be more confident in their own abilities & feel less need to cheat on the assignment.

Recommended reading**:

J.C.Bean (2001) Engaging Ideas: the professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. Jossey-Bass (Wiley). ISBN 978-0-787-90203-2

** actually, make that highly recommended!

`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And in today’s spam (May 20) – how blatant can you get?

Nowadays you shouldn’t give your best shot in order to come up with quality academic papers since online writing services are willing to provide you with professional assistance. Buy essay example and get out of hard writing assignments.

 

science challenges & science education Alison Campbell May 02

No Comments

The National Science Challenges have been announced – and have already received a lot of attention (including on Sciblogs, with posts by my colleagues Grant, Siouxsie, and John - who also points at where the money’s going). What I’d like to address here is the comment by the Panel that it

was concerned by the lack of significant proposals in educational research

I have to admit that my first response to that was, well d’oh! Because, well, the public discussion was around national science challenges, I suspect that for many (most?) submitters the focus was to come up with a science-based proposal. After all (& please note bulging cheek ensconcing my tongue at this point), isn’t science education something that schools & other seats of learning ‘do’, rather than requiring science research? Hopefully not many scientists really think that way, & it’s great to see the additional Challenge, “Science & New Zealand Society” with its two goals (the first a science goal, while the second is societal):

To ensure the science capacities and literacy of New Zealand society so as to promote engagement between S[cience] & T[echnology] and New Zealand society, in turn enhancing the role played by science in advancing the national interest.

To allow New Zealand society to make best use of its human and technological capacities to address the risks and Challenges ahead. This requires the better use of scientific knowledge in policy formation at all levels of national and local government, in the private sector and in society as a whole.

 

Both are relevant to what follows here.

Let’s look more closely at the question of science literacy/appreciation/education for citizenship. The chair of the Panel, Sir Peter Gluckman, has previously made it clear that we need to do much more in engaging young people with science, to the extent of developing a science curriculum that focuses far more on science literacy than on accumulation of science knowledge. But what constitutes science literacy? This is something I’ve written about previously, & my fellow Scibloggers and I discussed it between ourselves more recently. So I was interested to find a set of nine science literacy ‘themes’ listed and expanded upon in a recent paper (Bartholomew & Osborne, 2004):

scientific methods and critical testing

science & certainty

diversity of scientific thinking

hypothesis and prediction

historical development of scientific knowledge

creativity

science and questioning

analysis and interpretation of data

cooperation and collaboration in the development of scientific knowledge

And while we might not agree on the relative order of these themes, or the completeness of the list, but they do give us something to go on with. (I’m going to talk about the formal education system for the moment – but I’m perfectly well aware that there’s much more than that to public engagement with science! Let’s just treat this as a starting point for discussion.)

Now, I’d like to think that the current NZ Science curriculum gives a good basis for developing these skills & attributes in all students Right Now, regardless of whether or not they intend to go on to study science at tertiary level. And let’s face it, most won’t, so we surely have to work on engagement with and understanding of what science is about, for all students. in fact, that’s a tension I struggle with myself: a proportion of my first-year biology students are taking the subject purely for interest, & in some cases haven’t studied the subject before. I want them to come away with an appreciation of the wonder and worth of the subject in their lives, as much as I want them to accumulate biological knowledge. It’s a tricky balancing act.

Anyway, while I might like to think that about the curriculum document, in reality I suspect that it doesn’t yet deliver. And that’s something that’s unpacked further by Bartholomew & Osborne, who note that there are a number of factors that affect teachers’ “ability to teach effectively about science”.

One of those factors is the teachers’ own understanding of what science is all about, as opposed to their body of content knowledge. NB Please note, at this point, that this is not a criticism of teachers and the demanding work that they do; it’s a question of whether the training and experiences we offer our teachers prepare them well for this particular aspect of teaching science.

The researchers found that a reasonable proportion of the teachers they worked with were not really confident in their own ability to teach lessons based on the ideas embedded in those themes. This was partly due to uncertainties about their own knowledge, and partly around feeling that they lacked the classroom skills to deliver such a program. Which, of course, raises issues around provision of professional development opportunities (with the associated resourcing).

Related to that is their own engagement with the subject. OK, if you’re teaching the subject as a specialist science teacher, I’m guessing that you took this role on because you enjoy the subject and want to share that. But if someone’s a primary school teacher with very limited exposure to science during their training, then the story might be very different.

And so that would be a fruitful area for research, in NZ (and at this point someone is probably going to tell me that they’re Already Doing It): what is the actual level of science literacy – using, for example, those 9 themes listed above – in NZ science teachers at all levels? And how does that translate into classroom practices? And – if the answer is, not as well as we’d like – what do we do about it?

Teachers’ ability to enhance learning about science (as opposed to of science) is also affected by factors outside their classrooms. For example, the pressure is on, at senior school level, to ensure students do as well as possible in national assessment – which, for all the changes associated with NCEA, remains largely content-based. And classroom time is limited, so it’s easy to see how there can be more focus on content & less on the other desirable attributes. As Bartholomew & Osborne comment,

developing a questioning and sceptical attitude to scientific knowledge claims in students might actually be disadvantageous.

Perhaps that also needs to change. [Pace, Schol Bio examiners!]

 

H.Bartholomew, & J.Osborne (2004) Teaching students “ideas about science”: five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education 88: 655-682 doi: 10.1002/sce.10135

what might a ‘science for citizens’ curriculum look like? Alison Campbell Feb 02

7 Comments

That’s the question blog-buddy Michael Edmonds asked some of us last night, & it got me thinking.

Sir Peter Gluckman raised the idea of a ‘science for citizens’ curriculum back in early 2011, in his report Looking ahead: science education for the 21st century. Included in that report was a brief list of some skills, knowledge, & abilities that all children need to have (characterised as ‘citizen-focused objectives’):

  • a practical knowledge at some level of how things work;
  • some knowledge of how the scientific process operates and have some level of scientific literacy
  • enough knowledge of scientific thinking as part of their development of general intellectual skills so that they are able to distinguish reliable information from less reliable information.

As I said at the time, the tricky thing is to work out how to deliver this, & the sort of learning experiences we might use in the classroom (& out of it!)

The ability to distinguish ‘reliable’ from ‘less reliable’ information is essential, given that we are now in a time when that information is only a few mouse clicks away. Students need to be learning how to do this right from the start of their time in our education system. And the tools to do it are pretty much part of the scientific process, so learning about one complements gaining knowledge in the other.

If we’re going to offer two ‘streams’ of science education, as proposed by Sir Peter, when should that start? Or should we simply take the ‘science for citizens’ from the start, hopefully keeping as many students as possible ‘turned on’ to science for as long as possible, & then split off an ‘academic’ stream – for potential scientists & engineers – later in the piece?

And what would this mean for students who might come late in the day to realising that science/engineering is where they want to be? Split into the streams too early, & we risk closing the door to those young people. We need to lock in the flexibility to allow students to change course mid-stream, as it were.

(We need to provide them with good advice, too. Wearing one of my other hats for the moment, just now I’m seeing quite a few young men & women who want to study engineering but who are weak in physics, or maths. Or who dropped maths in year 12. And in at least some cases, they seem to have gained the impression that ‘you can just pick that up at uni.’ I can generally work out a pathway for them, but it means they’ll take longer to complete their program; time that would have been saved by better choices earlier on.)

What about content? I mean, we can’t deliver process skills in a vacuum? Personally I’d go for more human biology in the curriculum. Children tend to be fascinated by how their bodies work, & such knowledge is important when making decisions that affect health, for example. And I’d like to think that a good grounding there would help people to recognise when they’re being offered sound advice as compared to some of the significant volume of health pseudoscience that’s out there these days.

And I’d also go for developing awareness of our place in the global ecosystem. Yes, there’s a lot to learn about our local environments & how to care for them, but our 21st-century science-literate citizens understanding of our large-scale impacts is also necessary if their world is to remotely resemble ours.

What would you like to see in this curriculum?

 

cloning neandertals – can we? should we? is it true? Alison Campbell Jan 23

5 Comments

The Telegraph has a story on the possibility of cloning Neanderthals, with the fetching headline: ‘I can create Neanderthal baby, I just need willing woman.’ (You can read the NZ version on Stuff.)

My first thought was ‘eeewww’. (And, as a friend commented, it’s stories like this that get science a bad name.) Once past that rather visceral reaction, various questions popped up: just how feasible is this? Really? Has the researcher given any consideration to the ethical issues such a proposal generates? What about (epi)genetics, ecology & so on? And – for the money – how much of this ‘story’ accurately reflects what the scientist who was interviewed actually said, & how much of it is.. er… down to a combination of poor translation (the original article was in German-language paper Der Spiegel) and journalistic license?

Let’s deal with the last first: it would appear that the Daily Mail is responsible for the form in which this story hit the English-speaking world (oh, why am I not surprised by this?). And indeed, one of the quotes attributed to Harvard geneticist Professor Church strongly suggests the journalist wasn’t paying attention:

The professor claims that he could introduce parts of the Neanderthal genome to human stem cells and clone them to create a foetus that could then be implanted in a woman.

‘Parts’ of the genome would give you a Neanderthal? Implanting a ‘foetus’? Hellooooo.

Prof. Church is very firm that he hasn’t actively sought out volunteers for any potential, very-much-in-the-future surrogacy program. Rather, he was speaking theoretically of what was possible now that the Neanderthal DNA sequence is known. That’s good to hear, but I can’t help thinking that a little forethought might have avoided this whole furore. Science & scientists don’t need this sort of press. And let’s face it, people are more likely to remember the shock! horror! of the original story than they are to recall the subsequent, much less ‘exciting’ correction.

On the ethics front, bringing back an extinct race of humans from the dead (apart from the fact that there’s a little bit of their DNA in most of us) strikes me rather as treating them as objects. And what would be the justification for that? While there’s plenty of evidence that there are individuals around today who view other people in much the same way (ie as objects with no real rights or feelings about what’s happening to them), that is hardly a moral justification for resurrecting the Neanderthals. (And, before someone ever got to the point of cloning, there’d have to be some very serious examination of the ethics of surrogacy in a situation such as this.)

And what of the fact that they’d be brought back to an environment quite different to the one to which natural selection had shaped them? For example, in addition to having a physique (& probably physiology) best suited to cold environments, any cloned Neanderthal would be lactose-intolerant. And, in life, Neanderthals would have had their own microbiome: their own suite of micro-organisms living on and in their bodies and affecting them on a daily basis. For this hypothetical cloned individual, what would be the effect on their health of a microbiome that didn’t ‘match’?

On the genetics front (& Grant or David might like to comment here), there is a big difference between knowing the complete Neanderthal base sequence (or at least, the base sequence derived from a handful of individuals) and having a nuclear genome in a form that can be inserted into an enucleate egg (or stem cell, which was the focus of part of Prof. Church’s discussion with Der Spiegel). Plus, that wouldn’t be enough – the mitochondrial DNA of the egg cell would need to be replaced with Neanderthal mtDNA. Not to mention the effect of epigenetics on expression of those Neanderthal genes.

Yes, definitely some good learning opportunities there. I must try & work some of them into my own classes.

evolution – a good video for the classroom Alison Campbell Jan 16

No Comments

Over lunch, I was catching up with my reading on various blogs and found – via PZ on Pharyngulathis little gem on evolution. The others on offer at the Stated Clearly site look good too; it would be nice to see the authors attract the crowd-sourcing they need to make more of the videos on their extensive list of future projects.

 

"the aviator" – a vision of the future that’s a little too close for comfort Alison Campbell Jan 09

No Comments

I found the Herald’s front page this morning a sad and depressing read. My heart goes out to all those affected in some way by the terrible bush fires ravaging so much of Tasmania, Victoria, & New South Wales.

I also had a certain sense of deja vu as I read of the fires – for I’d read something similar last year, in blog-buddy Gareth’s book The Aviator, Book One of the Burning World series. Except that in the book, the scale of events is much greater than is (thankfully) the case at the moment, and Melbourne is destroyed by a fire storm. Gareth’s vision of a not-too-distant future in which our global ecosystems have been irreparably affected by anthropogenic greenhouse warming, is both an alarming foretaste of how things could become**, and a rather good read (another blogging friend, Ken Perrott, reviewed the book very favourably when it first came out, & I’ve been meaning to write my own review for quite a while). The story follows the key character (& narrator – well, one of them), an airship pilot called Lemmy, in his travels around a world in which ecosystems and societies have collapsed, or changed – in many instances, beyond recognition. (There are actually 2 narrators: the second is Jenny, the artificial intelligence who actually runs the airship. Their commentaries alternate, & it’s interesting to see the differences in perspective, especially given that the AI is to some degree self-aware.)

As the series title suggests, in this future world it’s not only Australia that suffers from fire. Lemmy also witnesses huge fires in the Arctic, where massive methane deposits originally locked under the ocean in the form of methane clathrates have been ignited and the flames burn seemingly endlessly. I’ve recently read more about these deposits in Bill McGuire’s Waking the Giant: we are talking significant carbon stores here, at around 2000 billion tonnes of carbon trapped in the form of clathrates: something that is highly attractive to energy companies & of deep concern to climate scientists.

The first time I read The Aviator, I thought it would be a rather good classroom resource for senior students. And that hasn’t changed on a subsequent re-reading. Its engaging focus on a current, extremely relevant topic means that the book could be used in many different areas as the basis of discussion and to provoke further student research: how do individuals, and societies, cope with change? What happens when the technologies we rely on so heavily are no longer available, or are concentrated in the hands of relatively few people? How would a rise in average global temperature affect various ecosystems? Is a future such as the one Gareth describes, something that we can yet avoid?

Highly recommended.

 

Gareth Renowden (2012) The Aviator (The Burning World). Limestone Hills Ltd.

Bill McGuire (2012) Waking the Giant: how a changing climate triggers earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-959226-5

 

** In some ways it reminds me of Richard Cowper’s The Twilight of Briareus - though having said that, Cowper’s world has been sunk into an ice age, and his story has a strong mystical feel to it. But the themes of societal and ecological break-down, and how people cope with these, are common to both books.

 

 

 

 

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer