Profile

Cover photo
Science on Google+
597,366 followers|11,719,067 views
AboutPostsCollectionsYouTube

Stream

Science on Google+

Shared publicly  - 
 
Please join us on July 8th for a +Science on Google+ HOA with Drs. Kelly Cahill Roberts and +Nathaniel Swigger, Associate Professor of Political Science at +OhioStateNewark. We will be discussing dating violence and dating violence prevention programs. Feel free to post your comments on this event post or by using the Q & A app during the event.

Fund or learn more about the prevention program here: https://goo.gl/0SEPbt 
This Hangout On Air is hosted by Science on Google+. The live video broadcast will begin soon.
Q&A
Preview
Live
Dating Violence Prevention
Today, July 8, 4:00 PM
Hangouts On Air - Broadcast for free

13
7
Nathaniel Swigger's profile photoOSU MAD Lab's profile photo~Keep Calm Evolution is True~'s profile photoDevelopmental Psychology's profile photo
 
You can fund or learn more about the dating violence prevention program here: https://goo.gl/0SEPbt 
Add a comment...

Science on Google+

Shared publicly  - 
 
Center of Mass

The animations in the link shows how the barycenter shifts depending on the relative masses of the orbiting bodies (Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter)
 
The barycenter is the point in space around which two objects orbit. For the Moon and Earth, that point is about 1000 miles (1700 km) beneath your feet, or about three-quarters of the way from the Earth’s center to its surface. That means the Earth actually wobbles around a point deep in its interior, pulled around by the Moon.

Source:
http://www.itsokaytobesmart.com/post/119785206632/orbital-barycenter

#space   #astronomy  
131 comments on original post
184
45
Oliver Isenrich's profile photoVee Smirfink's profile photoEmerson Contreras's profile photo‫طاها علیمردانی‬‎'s profile photo
18 comments
 
Wes
C
Add a comment...

Science on Google+

Shared publicly  - 
 
We will be hanging out with Dr. +Miguel Nicolelis tomorrow afternoon at 3:30 (ET). Here's the link (http://goo.gl/Wlv006) if you want to watch the HOA.
 
Dr. +Miguel Nicolelis is a pioneer in neuronal population coding (simultaneously recording from hundreds to thousands of neurons), Brain Machine Interface (controlling robotic or avatar limbs with thoughts), neuroprosthetics (prosthetic limbs that directly communicate with sensory and motor cortices), and Brain to Brain Interface (tactile or visual information encoded by rat 1 is decoded by rat 2). Check out this video if you are not familiar with his work. We will be hanging out with Dr. Nicolelis tomorrow afternoon at 3:30 (ET). Here's the link (http://goo.gl/Wlv006) if you would like to watch the HOA
7 comments on original post
21
8
Faisal Ahmed's profile photoZach Hans's profile photo
Add a comment...

Science on Google+

Shared publicly  - 
 
Please join us on 5/5 for a +Science on Google+ HOA with Dr.+Miguel Nicolelis, Professor of Neurobiology, Biomedical Engineering, Psychology, and Neuroscience at +Duke University, and founder of Duke's Center for Neuroengineering. Dr. Nicolelis is a pioneer in neuronal population coding (simultaneously recording from hundreds to thousands of neurons), Brain Machine Interface (controlling robotic or avatar limbs with thoughts), neuroprosthetics (prosthetic limbs that directly communicate with sensory and motor cortices), and Brain to Brain Interface (tactile or visual information encoded by rat 1 is decoded by rat 2). Dr. Nicolelis has published over 200 peer-reviewed articles, with many of these publications appearing in high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (see below for a short list of publications). More recently, Dr. Nicolelis’ research made it possible for a quadriplegic child to use his mind to control a bionic exoskeleton and kickoff the opening game at the 2014 FIFA World Cup.

RSVP “yes” to add this event to your calendar. We will open up the Q & A app so feel free to post your questions on this event post or by using the app during the hangout.

Relevant Links:
Faculty page: http://goo.gl/qs8NfM 
Lab page: http://www.nicolelislab.net 
2012 Ted Talk: http://goo.gl/kxCxT8 
2014 Ted Talk: http://goo.gl/23OqmV 
Book: http://goo.gl/x7Kg5J 

Relevant Readings (see http://goo.gl/nQadag for a more exhaustive list):

Schwarz D, Lebedev MA, Tate A, Hanson T, Lehew G, Melloy J, Dimitrov D, Nicolelis MAL. Chronic, Wireless Recordings of Large Scale Brain Activity in Freely Moving Rhesus Monkeys. Nat. Methods doi:10.1038/nmeth.2936, 2014.

Thomson EE, Carra R, Nicolelis MAL. Perceiving Invisible Light through a Somatosensory Cortical Prosthesis. Nat. Commun.10.1038/ncomms2497, 2013.

Ifft P, Shokur S, Li Z, Lebedev MA, Nicolelis MAL. A Brain-Machine Interface Enables Bimanual Arm Movements in Monkeys. Sci. Transl. Med. 5: 210, DOI:10.1126/scitranslmed.3006159, 2013.

Shokur S, O’Doherty J.E., Winans J.A., Bleuler H., Lebedev M.A., Nicolelis M.A.L. Expanding the primate body schema in sensorimotor cortex by virtual touches of an avatar. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110: 15121-6, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308459110, 2013.

O’Doherty JE, Lebedev MA, Ifft PJ, Zhuang KZ, Shokur S, Bleuler H, Nicolelis MAL. Active tactile exploration enabled by a brain-machine-brain interface. Nature 479: 228-231, 2011.

Fuentes R, Petersson P, Siesser WB, Caron MG, Nicolelis MAL. Spinal Cord Stimulation Restores Locomotion in Animal Models of Parkinson’s disease. Science 323: 1578-82, 2009.

Pereira A, Ribeiro S, Wiest M, Moore LC, Pantoja J, Lin S-C, Nicolelis MAL. Processing of tactile information by the  hippocampus. PNAS 104: 18286-18291 (Epub) November 2007.

Krupa DJ, Wiest, MC, Laubach M, Nicolelis MAL Layer specific somatosensory cortical activation during active tactile discrimination   Science 304: 1989-1992, 2004.

Nicolelis MAL, Dimitrov DF, Carmena J, Crist R, Lehew G, Kralik J, Wise S. Chronic, multi-site, multi-electrode recordings in macaque monkeys. PNAS 100: 11041-11046, 2003.

Nicolelis MAL. Actions from thoughts. Nature 409: 403-407, 2001.

Image Sources:
http://goo.gl/9pCg8d
http://goo.gl/FlChhV
This Hangout On Air is hosted by Science on Google+. The live video broadcast will begin soon.
Q&A
Preview
Live
Brain-Machine and Brain-Brain Interface
Tue, May 5, 3:30 PM
Hangouts On Air - Broadcast for free

40
36
george oloo's profile photoCountess Lilium Heather Satan 666's profile photoMartin Hoch's profile photoJamie Robbins's profile photo
Add a comment...

Science on Google+

Shared publicly  - 
 
California Water Cycle

Water cycle modeling connects the physics between groundwater, surface water, and the atmosphere. +Jason Davison models the complete California system using 3D models, and explores the feedbacks between the two systems. 

Check out his work below and at the European Geophysical Union (EGU) on Monday morning (April 13). 
 
Water Cycle Modeling

I coupled HydroGeoSphere (HGS), a three-dimensional integrated surface and subsurface flow and energy transport model, to Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF), a nonhydrostatic Mesoscale three-dimensional numerical weather model. HGS replaced the land surface components of WRF and provides the evapotranspiration and saturation from the porous media to the atmosphere. WRF provides HGS with the potential evapotranspiration and precipitation. 

I'm currently working on modeling all of California, with the goal of finding the relationship between water resources and the climate. We are also looking at the current drought in California and study the future climate under the new precipitation patterns. 

Our work on California is still in the early stages and our results are showing the initial spin-up period before quasi-equilibrium. I'm presenting my research at the  Universität Tübingen this week and to EGU (Monday, 13th morning) next week. 

Please learn more about my research at JasonDavison.com!

#california   #climate   #science   #climatechange   #drought   #water  
4 comments on original post
51
9
Monique Gordon's profile photoChrista Christian's profile photo
Add a comment...

Science on Google+

Shared publicly  - 
 
In 5 minutes we’ll be discussing Developmental Robotics with Dr. +Matthew Schlesinger, Associate Professor of Psychology from SIU. Hope you can join us!
27
7
Cyber Design Professional Traing Institute's profile photoLightofthemoon Ahweheyu's profile photo
Add a comment...

Science on Google+

Shared publicly  - 
 
Please join us on 4/6 for a Developmental Science HOA with Dr.+Matthew Schlesinger, Associate Professor of Psychology at Southern Illinois University and director of the SIU Vision Lab. Matthew Schlesinger received his graduate degree in cognitive development from the University of California at Berkeley in 1995. After spending a year as a visiting lecturer in psychology at Berkeley, Dr. Schlesinger received a Fulbright fellowship to study artificial life models of sensorimotor cognition with Domenico Parisi at the Italian National Research Council in Rome. Dr. Schlesinger continued his postdoctoral work in 1998-2000 with a multi-disciplinary team of researchers at the University of Massachusetts, studying machine-learning approaches to adaptive motor control.  He is currently involved in three areas of research:  (1) visual attention and spatial working memory in infants, children, and adults, (2) neural network models of early visual processing and oculomotor control, and (3) neural substrates of working memory and spatial-directed attention. 

RSVP “yes” if you want to add this event to your calendar.

Relevant Links:
Faculty page: http://goo.gl/JZro2y 
Lab page: http://goo.gl/5mxvZA 
Developmental Robotics Book: http://goo.gl/NEpoBg 
ICDL-EpiRob Conference:  http://goo.gl/KfnvG 

Relevant Readings:
Schlesinger, M., Johnson, S.P., & Amso, D.  (2014).  Prediction-learning in infants as a mechanism for gaze control during object exploration. Frontiers in Perception Science, 5, 1-12.  http://goo.gl/ZiXuDo 

Schlesinger, M., & McMurray, B. (2012). The past, present, and future of computational models of cognitive development. Cognitive Development, 27, 326-348.  http://goo.gl/T8Bgnd 

Schlesinger, M., Johnson, S.P., & Amso, D.  (2014).  Learnability of infants’ center-of-gaze sequences predicts their habituation and posthabituation looking time. In Proceedings of the Fourth Joint IEEE Conference on Development and Learning and on Epigenetic Robotics (pp. 267-272). New York: IEEE. http://goo.gl/qEc54G
This Hangout On Air is hosted by Science on Google+. The live video broadcast will begin soon.
Q&A
Preview
Live
Developmental Science HOA: Episode 5
Mon, April 6, 10:15 AM
Hangouts On Air - Broadcast for free

14
18
Alexander Ludvig's profile photoAdem Baran's profile photoGregory Annen's profile photoSinta Rizki's profile photo
3 comments
 
Really interesting HOA, +Matthew Schlesinger. Thanks. Hopefully we can continue our discussion in the very near future! Here's the link if you're interested in picking up the Developmental Robotics book (see below). I have also provided the link to the upcoming ICDL-EpiRob Conference, as well as Dr. Schlesinger's lab/faculty pages.

Developmental Robotics Book: http://goo.gl/NEpoBg 
ICDL-EpiRob Conference:  http://goo.gl/KfnvG 
Faculty page: http://goo.gl/JZro2y 
Lab page: http://goo.gl/5mxvZA 
Add a comment...
Have them in circles
597,366 people
Bob Brooks's profile photo
BELVET MARADIAGA's profile photo
Raul Alvare's profile photo
Ashley S.'s profile photo
BJ Lucero's profile photo
Jodi Ekberg's profile photo
Hamidreza Akbari's profile photo
KJ Reed's profile photo
Wang Bob's profile photo

Science on Google+

Shared publicly  - 
 
What does the immune system have to do with cancer? What exactly is immunotherapy? Join us for a +Cancer Research UK and +Science on Google+ Hangout on Air as we speak to Professor +Frances Balkwill and Professor +Ben Willcox about cancer immunotherapy. 

Fran is a Professor of Cancer Biology at Queen Mary University in London and is a fantastic science communicator. Her research focuses on the links between cancer and inflammation. Ben is a Professor of Molecular Immunology at the University of Birmingham and his work focuses on understanding immune receptor recognition. 
 
This HOA will be hosted by Dr +Buddhini Samarasinghe  and Dr +Kat Arney . You can tune in on Friday July 24th at 4 PM UK time. The hangout will be available for viewing on our YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/ScienceHangouts) after the event.
This Hangout On Air is hosted by Science on Google+. The live video broadcast will begin soon.
Q&A
Preview
Live
Cancer Immunotherapy
Fri, July 24, 11:00 AM
Hangouts On Air - Broadcast for free

3
5
Dear Good Norman,'s profile photoAndy Extance's profile photoKyriaki Zafeiriadou's profile photoalex podgaets's profile photo
 
Phillip
Add a comment...

Science on Google+

Shared publicly  - 
 
In 10 minutes we’ll be hanging out with Dr. +Miguel Nicolelis, Professor of Neurobiology, Biomedical Engineering, and Psychology and Neuroscience at +Duke University and Co-Director of Duke’s Center for Neuroengineering. Hope you can join us! Feel free to submit your questions using the Q & A app.
Science on Google+ originally shared to Science HOAs:
 
Please join us on 5/5 for a +Science on Google+ HOA with Dr.+Miguel Nicolelis, Professor of Neurobiology, Biomedical Engineering, Psychology, and Neuroscience at +Duke University, and founder of Duke's Center for Neuroengineering. Dr. Nicolelis is a pioneer in neuronal population coding (simultaneously recording from hundreds to thousands of neurons), Brain Machine Interface (controlling robotic or avatar limbs with thoughts), neuroprosthetics (prosthetic limbs that directly communicate with sensory and motor cortices), and Brain to Brain Interface (tactile or visual information encoded by rat 1 is decoded by rat 2). Dr. Nicolelis has published over 200 peer-reviewed articles, with many of these publications appearing in high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (see below for a short list of publications). More recently, Dr. Nicolelis’ research made it possible for a quadriplegic child to use his mind to control a bionic exoskeleton and kickoff the opening game at the 2014 FIFA World Cup.

RSVP “yes” to add this event to your calendar. We will open up the Q & A app so feel free to post your questions on this event post or by using the app during the hangout.

Relevant Links:
Faculty page: http://goo.gl/qs8NfM 
Lab page: http://www.nicolelislab.net 
2012 Ted Talk: http://goo.gl/kxCxT8 
2014 Ted Talk: http://goo.gl/23OqmV 
Book: http://goo.gl/x7Kg5J 

Relevant Readings (see http://goo.gl/nQadag for a more exhaustive list):

Schwarz D, Lebedev MA, Tate A, Hanson T, Lehew G, Melloy J, Dimitrov D, Nicolelis MAL. Chronic, Wireless Recordings of Large Scale Brain Activity in Freely Moving Rhesus Monkeys. Nat. Methods doi:10.1038/nmeth.2936, 2014.

Thomson EE, Carra R, Nicolelis MAL. Perceiving Invisible Light through a Somatosensory Cortical Prosthesis. Nat. Commun.10.1038/ncomms2497, 2013.

Ifft P, Shokur S, Li Z, Lebedev MA, Nicolelis MAL. A Brain-Machine Interface Enables Bimanual Arm Movements in Monkeys. Sci. Transl. Med. 5: 210, DOI:10.1126/scitranslmed.3006159, 2013.

Shokur S, O’Doherty J.E., Winans J.A., Bleuler H., Lebedev M.A., Nicolelis M.A.L. Expanding the primate body schema in sensorimotor cortex by virtual touches of an avatar. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110: 15121-6, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308459110, 2013.

O’Doherty JE, Lebedev MA, Ifft PJ, Zhuang KZ, Shokur S, Bleuler H, Nicolelis MAL. Active tactile exploration enabled by a brain-machine-brain interface. Nature 479: 228-231, 2011.

Fuentes R, Petersson P, Siesser WB, Caron MG, Nicolelis MAL. Spinal Cord Stimulation Restores Locomotion in Animal Models of Parkinson’s disease. Science 323: 1578-82, 2009.

Pereira A, Ribeiro S, Wiest M, Moore LC, Pantoja J, Lin S-C, Nicolelis MAL. Processing of tactile information by the  hippocampus. PNAS 104: 18286-18291 (Epub) November 2007.

Krupa DJ, Wiest, MC, Laubach M, Nicolelis MAL Layer specific somatosensory cortical activation during active tactile discrimination   Science 304: 1989-1992, 2004.

Nicolelis MAL, Dimitrov DF, Carmena J, Crist R, Lehew G, Kralik J, Wise S. Chronic, multi-site, multi-electrode recordings in macaque monkeys. PNAS 100: 11041-11046, 2003.

Nicolelis MAL. Actions from thoughts. Nature 409: 403-407, 2001.

Image Sources:
http://goo.gl/9pCg8d
http://goo.gl/FlChhV
This Hangout On Air is hosted by Science on Google+. The live video broadcast will begin soon.
Q&A
Preview
Live
Brain-Machine and Brain-Brain Interface
Tue, May 5, 3:30 PM
Hangouts On Air - Broadcast for free

20 comments on original post
21
3
Kathy Wynn's profile photoChris Robinson's profile photoGilberto Sánchez Ortiz's profile photogeorge oloo's profile photo
 
What a trip, sorry I missed this
Add a comment...

Science on Google+

Shared publicly  - 
 
Science vs. Chipotle

Now that the fast food chain is going GMO-free in response to public sentiment, not science, it's a good time to remind our readers of some GMO myths. Remember, Jane Goodall knows her primates but apparently not molecular biology.
 
Busting a few GMO Myths

I'm reposting this from a discussion on my Facebook wall.

A little while back, I posted the attached link about Jane Goodall, and it sparked a conversation about GMOs.  Some of the things that people were saying are frequently-repeated misconceptions about genetic modification, so I think my attempt to clear up the confusion is worth reposting here.  I'll update, maybe, as the conversation evolves.  I'm bolding the (edited) claims, and leaving my responses unformatted.

Claim: Science doesn't say things like "GMOs are safe."  Anyone advocating GMOs is a business person, because scientific claims are more contextual than that, and there's no preponderance of evidence.

Response:

That's absurd. There's a tremendous amount of peer reviewed evidence that GMOs are in no way harmful. Asserting that anyone disputing claims that they pose health risks is a "business person" is just as crazy as saying that anyone claiming that climate change is a real problem is being paid off by the government (or whatever). It's a conspiracy theory, and it's irrational.

The parallels between climate deniers and GMO skeptics are striking and obvious. In both cases, there's a strong scientific consensus about the right answer to some question, along with a popular rejection of that scientific consensus. Virtually every study done on GMOs has shown that they pose absolutely no additional health risk to human beings; asserting that GMOs are safe is absolutely a scientific position. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "science is contextual." Yes, of course we haven't done every single test possible on the health risks associated with consuming GMOs in every possible circumstance. We don't know if they pose a health risk when consumed on Mars, while standing on your head, while sitting in a bathtub full of homemade gin, and so on; to be skeptical of their general safety on that basis is totally insane, though. 

By every indicator we have, they're perfectly safe, and it's reasonable to base our opinion on the best science we currently have. Claiming that any scientist (that includes me, by the way!) who agrees that GMOs are safe is a shill for agribusiness is exactly the same thing as claiming that any scientist who claims vaccines are safe is a shill for "big pharma." It's a completely unwarranted conspiracy theory. Of course science can't make a claim like "All GMOs are completely risk free for every person in all circumstances," but that's a strawman--no one is making that claim. The claim is that based on all the evidence we have, GMOs are pose no more health risks than non-GMO crops for the majority of people. There are, of course, people out there who might have allergies to some component in GMO foods, just as there are people who have allergies to some components of vaccinations. However, that has absolutely no bearing on their general safety, and (again) we have strong evidence that they are indeed safe.

Just as with climate change, it's really, really important that people keep abreast of the genuine research on this issue before making claims like this. In both cases (as well as with vaccinations), the body of scientific literature is extensive, and the evidence is firmly on one side of the issue. Climate change is real, GMOs are safe, and vaccines save lives. Disputing any of those points is to go against the scientific consensus. In all cases, of course, research is ongoing and always evolving. It's possible that we'll discover some hidden danger associated with GMOs, just as it's possible that we'll discover that we've been entirely mistaken about anthropogenic climate change. Basing beliefs or public policy on the unsupported supposition that future research will overturn the current consensus, though, is crazy.

Claim: Glyphosate is incredibly dangerous.  It's been linked to Celiac disease (citing http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/), as well as the widespread die-off of honeybees.

Response:

The first (and most important) point here is that even if glyphosate is actually dangerous to humans (a claim for which there is virtually no evidence), that's a problem with glyphosate rather than with GMOs. Saying that pesticide resistant GMO crops are inherently dangerous because of the pesticides is absurd--if there's a risk there, it's a risk associated with the pesticide itself, rather than with genetic modification. This is similar to the point about monoculture that I mentioned above--we can say that some of the farming practices associated with GMO agribusiness are suspect without that implying that GMOs themselves are suspect. If I engineer an organism to grow better in the presence of arsenic, and people become sick after consuming the arsenic covered crops, that doesn't show that it was the genetic modification that made people sick--it was the arsenic. Again, there's a strong parallel with climate change here. The fact that some approaches to dealing with global warming (say, geoengineering) carry substantial risks themselves is not evidence that global warming isn't happening, nor is it an argument against trying to deal with the problem in some way.

All that aside, the study that you linked to is itself suspect in a number of different ways. A quick review of the article shows that the authors are basing their conclusions on a single paper out of India from 2009 (http://cropandweed.com/vol5issue1/46.1.html) in which the investigators exposed fish to a "glyphosate containing" (emphasis mine) compound. The researchers found changes in the fish's digestive tract which (in their words) "appeared to resemble Celiac disease." That's not much of a link. I did a little more digging, though, and things are even more suspect. The particular compound that they used in the 2009 study is a commercial compound called "Excel Mera 71" (EM71). EM71 is a terrestrial herbicide--not designed for use in water--that contains, in addition to glyphosate, a number of other compounds--most notably a couple of surfactants. Surfactants aren't used in non-terrestrial applications, as lots of aquatic animal life is known to be vulnerable to it, and the damage associated with surfactants is the sort that the authors noticed in this study. In fact, the National Pesticide Information Center notes that "pure glyphosate is low in toxicity to fish and wildlife, but some products containing glyphosate may be toxic because of the other ingredients in them." Every other study conducted shows that glyphosate is minimally harmful to fish, but compounds that it is mixed with can be harmful, which is why those formulations aren't used in water. The 2009 study on which the Celiac claim is based doesn't take this into account, and fails to control for damage that might have been induced by other compounds in EM71. That's bad science, but jumping from that single study conducted on fish that found damage that looked like Celiac disease to the researchers to the claim that glyphosate causes Celiac disease in humans is beyond bad science: it's fear-mongering that's completely without basis in reality.

So, there are three major things wrong with the claim that GMOs are dangerous because glyphosate might cause Celiac disease: (1) If that's true, it's a risk associated with glyphosate, not GMOs. (2) The proposed glyphosate/Celiac link itself is based on a single study of EM71's damage to fish, and (3) the fish study itself was methodologically suspect. That's very unconvincing.

Honeybee colony collapse disorder is indeed worrying, but I've never seen a single plausible paper suggesting that it's linked to GMOs directly. There are a lot of proposed mechanisms on the table, and we're still trying to figure out what's going on. However, none of the proposed mechanisms blame genetic modification. In fact, the biggest metastudy done on that question (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2169303/) found that there is no discernable link between GMOs and honeybee health. Even when exposed directly (and exclusively) to Bt crops, bee fertility, larvae viability, or adult lifespan. Blaming colony collapse on GMOs is completely unwarranted speculation that isn't backed up by science.

Claim: Saying "GMOs are no more dangerous than other crops" isn't the same as saying "GMOs are safe."  Some GMOs are bred to require more water, or encourage more pesticide use.  Pesticides can run off into the water supply, and that's really bad.

Response:

I suppose "no safer than non-GMO food" isn't the same as "safe," that's true. That seems like sort of a peculiar point, though. There are risks associated with agriculture, especially the large-scale industrial agriculture (which is one of the largest contributors to climate change, incidentally) that we practice in much of the world now. I'm happy to admit that, and I share your concern about water table contamination and water use--I'm quite worried about that stuff as well.

However, I think framing this stuff in terms of GMO vs. non-GMO food muddies the water (so to speak) of the debate, and distracts from the very real problems associated with industrial farming practices. Worrying that genetic modification as a practice is dangerous, or claiming (as Goodall does here) that we're "poisoning ourselves" with GMOs confuses one problem with another, which makes it harder to solve the real problem. Genetically modified food itself poses no health hazard, according to the best scientific evidence we have. GMOs are not poison, or even risky as far as we can tell.

Now, if it's true that some GMO crops need more water to grow (a claim for which I'd like to see a citation), that's a concern. However, framing the problem in terms of an issue with GMOs themselves also blocks off a potential avenue for solving the problem: engineering crops that require less water to thrive. A cursory Google search shows that at least some people are actively working on this idea (http://12.000.scripts.mit.edu/.../genetically-modified.../). That's wonderful. If the public narrative is dominated by claims that GMOs are inherently unsafe, though, that makes it that much harder for these sorts of crops to come into wide use, which makes the problem significantly worse.

Similarly, if we're worried about pesticide runoff into lakes and rivers (which we should be!), framing the problem in terms of a risk associated with genetic modification just makes it that much harder to solve. A significant number of genetic modifications are actually designed to produce crops that don't require pesticides in virtue of allowing the plant itself to produce proteins that harm local pests. This piece from the New York Times discusses one such crop, a genetically modified species of eggplant being grown in some places in Africa, which has been engineered to be toxic to the most pervasive local pest: http://mobile.nytimes.com/.../how-i-got-converted-to-gmo...

Using that crop seems unequivocally great. It's helping the environment by decreasing the use of pesticides, and it's helping a small subsistence farmer make a better living. However, the crop has met with considerable resistance from environmental activists who oppose its use purely on the grounds that it is genetically modified. This reflects a lack of scientific understanding on the part of the activists, and has the potential to do a lot of damage, both environmentally and economically. That's the problem with framing this debate in terms of GMO-associated dangers. It obfuscates the real problem, and can prevent real, helpful solutions that benefit both people and the environment.

Claim: I guess I'll just have to trust you on this

Response: 

No, don't trust me on this! I'm incredibly untrustworthy in general, but at least when it comes to climate change I've done an extensive amount of real original work on the issue, and am an expert in my own right. I'm not an expert on GMOs. However, I am a scientist and I have a tremendous amount of trust in the scientific method and institution. I'm happy to put my faith in my colleagues working on this issue, just as I'd hope that they'd put their trust in me and my fellow climate change researchers when it comes to AGW. I'm basing my claims here on the existence of a strong consensus among those who are experts on this issue. That's the only reasonable position to take with respect to any complicated issue in which I'm not an expert. If the people who know the most about this stuff overwhelmingly say that it's safe, I'm very inclined to believe them.

#GMO   #gmofree   #environmentalism   #scienceeveryday  
Primatologist Jane Goodall is speaking in Salt Lake City at a sold-out event Friday evening about her work and the future of chimpanzees. But in the
45 comments on original post
90
18
Umadevi Koduru's profile photoChristie Driskill-Irwin's profile photoJefferson Lee's profile photoLAUREN PAYNE's profile photo
46 comments
 
+Johnathan Gross
 Years ago i flogged a friend with a green stalk of hygromycin resistant tobacco resulting in mild skin swelling, no effects in the progeny tough..... 
Add a comment...

Science on Google+

Shared publicly  - 
 
Dr. Theodore (Ted) P. Pavlic, Assistant Professor of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research in the School of Computing, Informatics, and Decision Systems Engineering at +Arizona State University. +Ted Pavlic received his PhD in Electrical and Computer Engineering in 2010 from The Ohio State University where he learned to combine behavioral ecology and control theory to build algorithms that allow automation to make flexible decisions that are rational with respect to the current environment. Inspiration came from optimal foraging theory and cooperative breeding, and target applications ranged from military to the sustainable built environment. From 2010 to 2012, he worked as a postdoctoral scholar in Computer Science and Engineering studying cyber-physical systems of the future composed of fully autonomous and human driven cars operating in parallel in the cities of the near future. Since 2012, he has worked as a research scientist at Arizona State University in the social-insect laboratory of Stephen Pratt studying the collective decision-making processes of ants and honeybees. Not only have these studies inspired novel stochastic programming techniques for swarm robotics, but these animal models are also providing insights into the information structures that emerged at the origins of life. In August of 2015, he will join the engineering faculty of Arizona State University where he will use a variety of theoretical, computational, and empirical methods to study decision-making and organization across a wide range of artificial and natural systems. Potential graduate students interested in trans-disciplinary explorations of decision making are welcome to contact him to discuss opportunities.

Links
Personal website in desperate need of updating:
http://www.tedpavlic.com/

Current host (Stephen Pratt) laboratory for ant work: 
http://pratt.lab.asu.edu/

Collaborator (Sara Imari Walker) laboratory for info. theory work:
http://emergence.asu.edu/

Recommended Readings
Sean Wilson, Theodore P. Pavlic, Ganesh P. Kumar, Aurélie Buffin, Stephen C. Pratt, and Spring Berman. Design of ant-inspired stochastic control policies for collective transport by robotic swarms. Swarm Intelligence, 8(4):303–327, December 2014.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11721-014-0100-8

Theodore P. Pavlic, Alyssa M. Adams, Paul C. W. Davies, and Sara Imari Walker. Self-referencing cellular automata: A model of the evolution of information control in biological systems. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems (ALIFE 14), pages 522–529, July 31 – August 2, 2014.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/978-0-262-32621-6-ch083

Theodore P. Pavlic and Stephen C. Pratt. Superorganismic behavior via human computation. In: Pietro Michelucci, editor, Handbook of Human Computation, pages 911–960. Springer, 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8806-4_74
This Hangout On Air is hosted by Science on Google+. The live video broadcast will begin soon.
Q&A
Preview
Live
Cognition in Ants, Robots, and Pre-biotic Chemistries
Wed, April 15, 10:15 AM
Hangouts On Air - Broadcast for free

18
15
abak hoben's profile photoMahak saini's profile photoAlexander Ludvig's profile photoAsdin Gomizshn's profile photo
3 comments
 
I was only able to catch the last 5 min live. I am very interested in this talk and hope to find the time to watch it all soon.
Add a comment...

Science on Google+

Shared publicly  - 
 
Naturally Dyed Easter Eggs!

The Science behind Egg Color: bile pigments, transporters and retroviruses.
 
Do You Like Green Eggs And Ham?

Yes, I like them, Sam-I-Am
White eggs, Brown eggs,  Pink ones too
But Tell me, how Do they turn Blue?
(With apologies to Dr. Seuss) 

Egg color in birds evolved for obvious reasons of camouflage and recognition, and for less obvious reasons such as thermal regulation, protection against UV light, and even antimicrobial defense. Chicken eggs are commonly white (no pigment), or brown (protoporphyrin). Rare breeds from China and Chile lay blue eggs, colored by the bile pigment biliverdin, a breakdown product of the hemoglobin in red blood cells.  Biliverdin is normally excreted by liver cells into the bile. So how does it end up in the egg shell? 

Organic anion transporters are proteins that move a large number of compounds- drugs, toxins, hormones and bile pigments, across cell membranes, as part of the liver's detoxifying day job. Genetic sleuthing mapped the blue color trait to a region of a chicken chromosome. Here was a gene for a transporter protein, SLCO1B3, that could provide blue-green biliverdin to color the shell. But why was the gene inexplicably turned on only in the shell gland of the blue egg laying chicken?

Endogenous retroviruses (ERV) are ancient viruses that inserted randomly into the genomes of prehistoric birds. One such viral fragment inserted right next to the SLCO1B3 gene in blue egg laying chickens, where it behaved like an accidental transcription enhancer, or "on switch". Because of its sequence, scientists speculate that it mediates estrogen specific regulation, accounting for the high levels of the biliverdin transport protein in the shell gland. Although this story nicely explains our Seussian curiosity about green eggs and ham, it also shows how viruses shape diversity in the living world. For example, an insertion of the avian leukosis virus inside a gene for the enzyme tyrosinase results in white plumage in chickens. Viral insertions can also be incredibly harmful, triggering cancer when they accidentally turn on oncogenes.

REFS (open access papers): http://goo.gl/3yJ1FS and http://goo.gl/ypZyCF

Fun Fact: Green Eggs and Ham, published in 1960, is one of the best selling and most beloved children's books of all time. It has just 50 words, and was written by Dr. Seuss in response to a bet by his publisher. 

Photo: Tammy Riojas, Elgin, TX;

H/T to +Lorna Salgado for posting the news story that led to this   #ScienceSunday  post. 
102 comments on original post
161
17
Charles Brown's profile photoShe Eme's profile photoMonique Gordon's profile photoНадія Кремінь's profile photo
10 comments
 
Yed
Add a comment...
Science on Google+'s Collections
People
Have them in circles
597,366 people
Bob Brooks's profile photo
BELVET MARADIAGA's profile photo
Raul Alvare's profile photo
Ashley S.'s profile photo
BJ Lucero's profile photo
Jodi Ekberg's profile photo
Hamidreza Akbari's profile photo
KJ Reed's profile photo
Wang Bob's profile photo
Story
Tagline
Explore. Discover. Learn.
Introduction
The primary goal of this page/database is to make it easier for people to connect with scientists, science journalists, science teachers (K-12), and science pages on Google+.  


How do I use this database to follow science on Google+?
You can search for and follow scientists, science writers, science teachers, and science pages in two ways. First, the database is categorized by discipline. You can click on the links at the top of the spreadsheet or the tabs at the bottom of the spreadsheet to search within a discipline. You can circle individual profiles/pages by clicking on the Google+ links. Or second, you can add discipline specific shared circles. We will publish updated shared circles at regular intervals for your convenience.

Cover image by Tamily Weissman of Harvard University

Most recent shared circles 

Profiles
Applied and Mathematical Sciences: http://goo.gl/dktBm
Natural Sciences: http://goo.gl/QwRH9
Social Sciences and Communication: http://goo.gl/5UnBd
Anthropology and Sociology: http://goo.gl/xYzrF
​Chemistry: http://goo.gl/Tk6kP
Computer Science: http://goo.gl/5czCg
​​​​​Ecology: http://goo.gl/xyBcg
Engineering: http://goo.gl/N7vcd
​​​​​​​​​​Geology and Earth Science: http://goo.gl/i3aqb
Mathematics: http://goo.gl/j4iMU
Nanotechnology: http://goo.gl/FTyCP
Neuroscience: http://goo.gl/ZYqUZ
​​​Physics: http://goo.gl/AOxW7
Psychology​​: http://goo.gl/kVMBB
Science Teachers: http://goo.gl/UC8qK
Science Writers/Outreach: http://goo.gl/S0ndi

Pages
All Disciplines: http://goo.gl/8YzdG
Biology and Neuroscience: http://goo.gl/5RTf4
General Science: http://goo.gl/Rd2Kb
Geology and Earth Science: http://goo.gl/gpgm1
Psychology and Neuroscience: http://goo.gl/FLGwT


How do I add my Profile or Page to the database?
Please fill out this form and circle Science on Google+: A Public Database to submit your entry into the database.


What will happen after I submit my information?
Profiles- Entries for profiles will be evaluated and will fall into one of the three following categories: (1) your entry will be added to the database and your profile will also be added to shared circles (Active), (2) your entry will be added to the database (Inactive), or (3) your entry will be removed from database.

Criterion for Category 1: Degree in a science related field and you actively and publicly post about science on Google+.

Criterion for Category 2: Degree in a science related field and this is explicit on your about page.

Pages- Pages that actively post about science will be added to the database and to shared circles. Inactive pages will only be added to the database.


=======================================
Curators




Physical: +Brian Koberlein 


 

Contact Information
Contact info
Email