I'm a scientist! Pt 2

If you want to read some news articles about my lab’s research, here are some links:

Scientists are learning more about big birds from feathers
Study shows animal mating choices more complex than once thought
Sex lives of wild fish: genetic techniques provide new insights
Random picks better than complicated process in gene indentification
DNA from feathers tells tale of eagle fidelity
Road losses add up, taxing amphibians and other animals
Study rules out inbreeding as cause of amphibian deformities
Genetically modified fish could damage ecology

Speaking of our amphibian road kill project…to give you an idea of how bad it gets, here’s the carnage on a road in West Lafayette after it rains:The town literally has sweepers that come through and remove all of the frog bodies. Thousands die after a single rainfall.

This is why road planners need to talk to biologists before building a major road that bisects a marsh.

This is post 22 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

I’m a scientist!

I figured I’ve been blogging long enough with vague references to lab work and research and biology conferences that I should actually tell you guys what my research is. I’m not going to go super in depth for two reasons: one, if you’re not a biologist, you probably wouldn’t know what the heck I was talking about, and two, we’re still trying to publish my work, so I don’t want to give it all away before it’s officially out there.

So before I get into specifics, let me give you a little background information about what I do.

My official job title is not “Undergraduate Slave Technician” but a Forestry & Natural Resources Signature Area Fellow in Ecological Genetics (phew, try saying that three times fast). That’s really just a fancy way of saying I get paid slightly more because FNR had a special fund for smarty pants undergraduates doing more than one year of lab work. I’m actually a student of the Biology Department, which is in the College of Science, while FNR is part of the College of Agriculture. The only difference? Ag gets better funding at Purdue. Genetics is genetics no matter what department you’re in.

The laboratory I work in is pretty diverse as far as projects go. Most of our research is on ecological genetics and using genetics to answer questions about conservation. While a lot of labs have only one or two study organisms, we basically have everything. Birds (a ton of species from Hispanola, Eastern Imperial Eagles from Kazakhstan), amphibians (from Tiger Salamanders to whatever we find squished on the road), fish (Lake Sturgeon, my favorite sexually ambiguous fish), and mammals (hurray for Kangaroo Rats!). And our actual research is just as diverse: investigating long term population histories, genetic diversity and the effects of human structures, noninvasive ways to monitor population densities, discovering the genetic mechanisms for sex determination, the genetic basis for mate choice, dispersal…we’ve basically done it all.

When I started research, I have to admit that I really didn’t see the point of conservation projects. I didn’t know much about the fragile nature of ecosystems or why we need to protect our wealth of resources on earth, even at the very least for selfish reasons. After working in the lab for a while, I have a new appreciation for conservation. Personally, it’s not the kind of research I want to be doing – I’m still a bit of a cynic about conservation, and I’m not passionate enough to devote my life to it. My cynicism doesn’t make my the best spokeswoman for it, either. But regardless, I do appreciate the work done much more than I did before, and I’m glad I got what’s going to be a diverse lab experience before I go devoting my life to human genetics or something (or who knows what).

This is post 20 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

I'm a scientist!

I figured I’ve been blogging long enough with vague references to lab work and research and biology conferences that I should actually tell you guys what my research is. I’m not going to go super in depth for two reasons: one, if you’re not a biologist, you probably wouldn’t know what the heck I was talking about, and two, we’re still trying to publish my work, so I don’t want to give it all away before it’s officially out there.

So before I get into specifics, let me give you a little background information about what I do.

My official job title is not “Undergraduate Slave Technician” but a Forestry & Natural Resources Signature Area Fellow in Ecological Genetics (phew, try saying that three times fast). That’s really just a fancy way of saying I get paid slightly more because FNR had a special fund for smarty pants undergraduates doing more than one year of lab work. I’m actually a student of the Biology Department, which is in the College of Science, while FNR is part of the College of Agriculture. The only difference? Ag gets better funding at Purdue. Genetics is genetics no matter what department you’re in.

The laboratory I work in is pretty diverse as far as projects go. Most of our research is on ecological genetics and using genetics to answer questions about conservation. While a lot of labs have only one or two study organisms, we basically have everything. Birds (a ton of species from Hispanola, Eastern Imperial Eagles from Kazakhstan), amphibians (from Tiger Salamanders to whatever we find squished on the road), fish (Lake Sturgeon, my favorite sexually ambiguous fish), and mammals (hurray for Kangaroo Rats!). And our actual research is just as diverse: investigating long term population histories, genetic diversity and the effects of human structures, noninvasive ways to monitor population densities, discovering the genetic mechanisms for sex determination, the genetic basis for mate choice, dispersal…we’ve basically done it all.

When I started research, I have to admit that I really didn’t see the point of conservation projects. I didn’t know much about the fragile nature of ecosystems or why we need to protect our wealth of resources on earth, even at the very least for selfish reasons. After working in the lab for a while, I have a new appreciation for conservation. Personally, it’s not the kind of research I want to be doing – I’m still a bit of a cynic about conservation, and I’m not passionate enough to devote my life to it. My cynicism doesn’t make my the best spokeswoman for it, either. But regardless, I do appreciate the work done much more than I did before, and I’m glad I got what’s going to be a diverse lab experience before I go devoting my life to human genetics or something (or who knows what).

This is post 20 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Human FOXP2 in Chimps – Ethical or not?

Jerry Coyne, one of my favorite evolutionary biologists who blogs over at Why Evolution is True, talked about the mouse FOXP2 experiment I mentioned the other day. He definitely took a bit of the wind out of my sails, since I had gotten pretty excited, but he’s probably more realistic than I am about this thing. However, one thing got to me:

“Of course the definitive experiment, swapping a human or chimp gene with the copy from the other species, and observing the result, is unethical.”

Noooooo! There goes my experiment.

But seriously. Forgive me if I’m just being a naive young scientist – I am but a lowly undergrad – but why would one argue that doing this experiment with a chimp would be unethical? He states it like it’s such an obvious black and white issue – “Of course” it’s unethical. But I would be more inclined to view it as a gray area. It’s highly unlikely we’d create apes who run around speaking French ala Michael Crichton’s Next. Many more genes than FOXP2 control the various brain and throat structures associated with human speech for us to see this happen.

Do we just have some special connection with chimps because they’re our cousins? If so it seems like we’re applying the Scala Naturae to our ideas of what’s okay to experiment on and what’s not (one of my big pet peeves). Fruit flies and mice are just lowly creatures, but a chimpanzee is too close to the “perfection” of humans to fiddle with. I know we experiement on chimpanzees – but why are those studies okay, yet this one wouldn’t be?

I’m not necessarily defending my half-joking experiment of sticking FOXP2 in chimps and seeing what happens. I’m just honestly curious what people think and the reasoning behind these ethics. There’s no “Ethics in Science 101” class we’re all required to take (though there should be), so I love talking about this kind of stuff. What do you think? Is putting the human gene for “speech” into chimpanzees going too far? Where do we draw the line?

Mice given human speech gene

Man, science is so cool. Stuff like this is why I’m a geneticist. The FOXP2 gene is considered the “language gene” in humans. People who have nonfunctional versions of the gene have a hard time controlling the fine movements in the face needed for forming words, and their areas of the brain associated with language are less active. FOXP2 is found throughout the animal kingdom and is associated with vocalization and song learning. It is also highly conserved – except in humans. While mice and chimpanzees have the same version of the gene, humans have two non synonymous mutations – that is, two different amino acids.

So what did these scientists do? They stuck the human version of FOXP2 into mice to see what would happen. No, the mice didn’t start talking like Mickey, but they showed changes in brain structure that is associated with human speech and had different ultrasonic vocalizations. Unfortunately we’re not fluent in Mouseish, so we don’t know if these mouse pups are suddenly speaking at a Shakespearean level, but it’s still pretty neat.

This is especially exciting because we kept coming back to this topic in my Eukaryotic genetics class. Our professor was telling us the above information about FOXP2. “What if you put a human FOXP2 in a chimpanzee?” a student asked. “I wonder what would happen.” Half of the class’s eyes twinkled with mad scientist glee (the half that will be researchers, not med students I assume). Our professor sort of laughed nervously. “I don’t know, have fun getting an ethics committee to accept that.” I turned to one of my friends and mouthed, presumably with an evil grin, “I’m gonna do it!!” and it turned into a running joke for the class. She’s the one who sent me the article. We haven’t been scooped quite yet, but almost!! I better get crackin’ on my talking chimp.

ACLU sues over patents on breast cancer genes

The ACLU and Yeshiva University’s Law school filed a lawsuit against Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation, which own the patent rights to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Those are the genes that account for most of the heritable breast cancers, which is about 5-10% of all cases. We’ve discussed the ethics of gene patents in many of my classes, so I’ll be interested in how this case turns out. Usually most of us agree that you shouldn’t be able to patent a gene that you found, and I think this is a good example why:

“Ravicher offered an analogy to describe the plaintiffs’ argument, saying, “It’s like saying if someone removes your eyeball … just because you remove the eyeball and wash it off, that doesn’t make the eyeball patentable. “Now if they create another eyeball out of plastic or metal, then you can patent that.”

…”It’s like trying to patent the moon,” he said. “You didn’t do anything to create it, just discovered something that already existed. You can’t patent things that are publicly available, that anyone can find. You have to create something, make something, do something with the thing.””

Now, if you changed the gene somehow to have a unique function, that’s different. But I really don’t think you should be able to patent a gene just because you found it. It slows scientific research and makes it more difficult for doctors and patients to get affordable testing. Usually the number one argument I’ve heard in my classes for patents is that you spent all that time working on something, you might as well get the credit for it. But as my professor said, if you want credit, publish a peer reviewed paper on it – then everyone will know it was you.

That being said, I don’t really know why the ACLU is being involved. I think their first amendment arguments are kind of weak, and that this can be overturned by patent laws alone. Maybe Yeshiva University’s law school just wanted the monetary help?

What are your thoughts on gene patents?

Why don’t astronauts float away on the moon? Heavy boots, of course!

If you’re not facepalming, you should review your introductory physics book. Either way, there’s an excellent summary about this particular question that really shows how little the average person understands basic scientific principles. Here’s the introduction:

“About 6-7 years ago, I was in a philosophy class at the University of Wisconsin, Madison (good science/engineering school) and the teaching assistant was explaining Descartes.

He was trying to show how things don’t always happen the way we think they will and explained that, while a pen always falls when you drop it on Earth, it would just float away if you let go of it on the Moon. My jaw dropped a little. I blurted “What?!” Looking around the room, I saw that only my friend Mark and one other student looked confused by the TA’s statement. The other 17 people just looked at me like “What’s your problem?” “But a pen would fall if you dropped it on the Moon, just more slowly.” I protested.

“No it wouldn’t.” the TA explained calmly, “because you’re too far away from the Earth’s gravity.” Think. Think. Aha! “You saw the APOLLO astronauts walking around on the Moon, didn’t you?”

I countered, “why didn’t they float away?”

“Because they were wearing heavy boots.” he responded, as if this made perfect sense (remember, this is a Philosophy TA who’s had plenty of logic classes).”

I had a similar experience when I was taking Sex, Gender, and Sexology my freshman year. It was a graduate level class offered through the Health and Kinesiology department. I’m pretty sure I was the only freshman foolish enough to take a grad level class, but it sounded so awesome that I couldn’t resist (and it was). I was also the only biologist in the class of 70 people – most people were in psychology, sociology, anthropology, or history.

We were talking about the possible biological causes of homosexuality, and our professor mentioned how there is probably a genetic component. One of the outspoken anthropology PhD students raised her hand.

“Well that’s obviously wrong,” she said. “A gene is either on or off, and we know people aren’t either straight or gay. There’s a continuum.”

A shot up my hand. “Um, that’s not how genetics works. You can have multiple genes effecting one trait, or different levels of regulation. That’s how you can get continuous traits like height or skin color. You’re not just tall or short.”

Her friend smiled and gave her the You Just Got Owned By a Freshman look.

Add this to my friend’s Anthropology TA who was convinced DNA was made up of proteins, and you can see why my opinion of Anthropology is a little shaky.

Why don't astronauts float away on the moon? Heavy boots, of course!

If you’re not facepalming, you should review your introductory physics book. Either way, there’s an excellent summary about this particular question that really shows how little the average person understands basic scientific principles. Here’s the introduction:

“About 6-7 years ago, I was in a philosophy class at the University of Wisconsin, Madison (good science/engineering school) and the teaching assistant was explaining Descartes.

He was trying to show how things don’t always happen the way we think they will and explained that, while a pen always falls when you drop it on Earth, it would just float away if you let go of it on the Moon. My jaw dropped a little. I blurted “What?!” Looking around the room, I saw that only my friend Mark and one other student looked confused by the TA’s statement. The other 17 people just looked at me like “What’s your problem?” “But a pen would fall if you dropped it on the Moon, just more slowly.” I protested.

“No it wouldn’t.” the TA explained calmly, “because you’re too far away from the Earth’s gravity.” Think. Think. Aha! “You saw the APOLLO astronauts walking around on the Moon, didn’t you?”

I countered, “why didn’t they float away?”

“Because they were wearing heavy boots.” he responded, as if this made perfect sense (remember, this is a Philosophy TA who’s had plenty of logic classes).”

I had a similar experience when I was taking Sex, Gender, and Sexology my freshman year. It was a graduate level class offered through the Health and Kinesiology department. I’m pretty sure I was the only freshman foolish enough to take a grad level class, but it sounded so awesome that I couldn’t resist (and it was). I was also the only biologist in the class of 70 people – most people were in psychology, sociology, anthropology, or history.

We were talking about the possible biological causes of homosexuality, and our professor mentioned how there is probably a genetic component. One of the outspoken anthropology PhD students raised her hand.

“Well that’s obviously wrong,” she said. “A gene is either on or off, and we know people aren’t either straight or gay. There’s a continuum.”

A shot up my hand. “Um, that’s not how genetics works. You can have multiple genes effecting one trait, or different levels of regulation. That’s how you can get continuous traits like height or skin color. You’re not just tall or short.”

Her friend smiled and gave her the You Just Got Owned By a Freshman look.

Add this to my friend’s Anthropology TA who was convinced DNA was made up of proteins, and you can see why my opinion of Anthropology is a little shaky.