Double X Science

Everyday science: Why is the sky pink?

2012-03-12T10:32:00.001-07:00

On Mars, the sky is pink during the day, shading to blue at sunset. What planet did you think I was talking about?

On Earth, the sky is blue during daytime, turning red at as the sun sinks toward night.

Scattering light

Well, it's not quite as simple as that: if you ignore your dear sainted mother's warning and look at the Sun, you'll see that the sky immediately around the Sun is white, and the sky right at the horizon (if you live in a place where you can get an unobstructed view) is much paler. In between the Sun and the horizon, the sky gradually changes hue, as well as varying through the day. That's a good clue to help us answer the question every child has asked: why is the sky blue? Or as a Martian child might ask: why is the sky pink?

First of all, light isn't being absorbed. If you wear a blue shirt, that means the dye in the cotton (or whatever it's made of) absorbs other colors in light, so only blue is reflected back to your eye. That's not what's happening in the air! Instead, light is being bounced off air molecules, a process known as scattering. Air on Earth is about 80% nitrogen, with almost all of the rest being oxygen, so those are the main molecules for us to think about.

As I discussed in my earlier article on fluorescent lights, atoms and molecules can only absorb light of certain colors, based on the laws of quantum mechanics. While oxygen and nitrogen do absorb some of the colors in sunlight, they turn right around and re-emit that light. (I'm oversimplifying slightly, but the main thing is that photons aren't lost to the world!) However, other colors don't just pass through atoms as though they aren't there: they can still interact, and the way we determine how that happens is again the color.

The color of light is determined by its wavelength: how far a wave travels before it repeats itself. Wavelength is also connected to energy: short wavelengths (blue and violet light) have high energy, while long wavelengths (red light) have lower energy. When a photon (a particle of light) hits a nitrogen or oxygen molecule, it might hit one of the electrons inside the molecule. Unless the wavelength is exactly right, the photon doesn't get absorbed and the electron doesn't move, so all the photon can do is bounce off, like a pool ball off the rail on a billiards table. Low-energy red photons don't change direction much after bouncing–they hit the electron too gently for that. Higher-energy blue and violet photons, on the other hand, scatter by quite a bit: they end up moving in a very different direction after hitting an electron than they moving before. This whole process is known technically as Rayleigh scattering, for the physicist John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh.

The blue color of the sky

Not every photon will hit a molecule as it passes through the atmosphere, and light from the Sun contains all the colors mixed together into white light. That means if you look directly at the Sun or the sky right around the Sun during broad daylight, what you see is mostly unscattered light, the photons that pass through the air unmolested, making both Sun and sky look white. (By the way, your body is pretty good at making sure you won't damage your vision: your reflexes will usually twitch your eyes away before any injury happens. I still don't recommend looking at the Sun directly for any length of time, especially with sunglasses, which can fool your reflexes into thinking everything is safer than it really is.) In other parts of the sky away from the Sun, scattering is going to be more significant.

The Sun is a long way away, so unlike a light bulb in a house, the light we get from it comes in parallel beams. If you look at a part of the sky away from the Sun, in other words, you're seeing scattered light! Red light doesn't get scattered much, so not much of that comes to you, but blue light does, meaning the sky appears blue to our eyes. Bingo! Since there is some green and other colors mixed in as well, the apparent color of the sky is more a blue-white than a pure blue.

(The Sun's light doesn't contain as much violet light as it does blue or red, so we won't see a purple sky. It also helps that our eyes don't respond strongly to violet light. The cone cells in our retinas are tuned to respond to blue, green, and red, so the other colors are perceived by triggering combinations of the primary cone cells.)

At sunset, light is traveling through a lot more air than it does at noon. That means every ray of light has more of a chance to scatter, removing the blue light before it reaches our eyes. What's left is red light, making the sky at the horizon near the Sun appear red. In fact, you see more gradations of color too: moving your vision higher in the sky, you'll note red shades into orange into yellow and so forth, but each color is less intense.

So finally: why is the Martian sky pink? The answer is dust: the surface of Mars is covered in a fine powder, more like talcum than sand. During the frequent windstorms that sweep across the planet, this dust is blown high into the air, where light (yes) scatters off of it. Since the grains are larger than air molecules, the kind of scattering is different, and tends to make the light appear red. (Actually, the sky's “true” color is very hard to determine, since there is a lot more variation than on Earth.) When there is less dust in the atmosphere, the Martian sky is a deep blue, when the Sun's light scatters off the carbon dioxide molecules in the air.

By DXS Physics Editor Matthew Francis

Colon Cancer Awareness Month: Get your ass screened. We mean it.

2012-03-07T12:21:00.000-08:00

Don't want this growing in your colon?
Get screened. Via Wikimedia Commons.

It started a few months after I had my second son. A pain. Sharp, unrelenting, abdominal. Occasional blood from a place where blood isn't supposed to appear: the rectum. There. Got the R-word out of the way.

After I had laparoscopy for presumed endometrial scarring as the cause of the pain, the pain nevertheless persisted. So, I was referred to a gastrointestinal (GI) specialist, or gastroenterologist. The GI doc I saw first was a man who, I later, discovered, was the GI doctor for my uncle and my father. They loved him. There probably was a sort of "hail fellow well met" male camaraderie between doctor and patient there that made them sympatico. Me, not so much. He looked at me, looked at my age (36), and decided that all I needed was to take some ibuprofen. He literally sent me home with instructions to take some ibuprofen a few times a day and call him, not in the morning, but maybe in a couple of weeks.

Two years later, after more episodes of blood in the toilet, continued pain, and, pardon me, but I think this information is important, a whole lot of mucus coming out of there, I went to another GI doctor. For whatever reason--even though my symptoms weren't necessarily a match for colon cancer, even though I didn't, to my knowledge, have any risk factors for colon cancer, even though I was still quite young to have colon cancer--he decided to do a colonoscopy.

As I emerged from the anesthesia after the procedure, I saw my GI doctor talking with my husband. "How did it go?" I asked, groggy. He sort of smiled at me and said, "You're not going to remember any of this, but those symptoms you had saved your life." Unbeknownst to him, amnesia meds don't work on me--I've had ample subsequent opportunities to test that hypothesis--and I did remember it.

How did it save my life?
What they found in my colon, near where it meets my lower small intestine, was a large, flat growth, about two inches (5 cm) by one inch (2.5 cm). In GI parlance, it was a large, flat (sessile) polyp, which is not a good kind of polyp. Closer analysis of the thing after my GI doctor deftly removed it during a second procedure revealed it to be a tubulovillous adenoma with cancerous tendencies. In fact, my medical records from that doctor now say the word "cancer" on them.

Adenomas, the type of tumor this was, are "of greatest concern" in the colon. They come in three types: tubular, tubulovillous, and villous. The larger the size, the greater the cancer risk. Mine was large and on its way to becoming cancer. According to my GI doctor, I'd've been dead in another 5 years had I not had that colonoscopy and appropriate intervention.

In other words, if I'd waited until the recommended age for a first colon cancer screening--age 50--I'd have already been dead for seven years. In fact, I would have died this year from colon cancer.

My mind was saying, "This would have been It. This would have been the thing, in a different time, that would have killed me. My potential death was growing inside of me, and I managed to put a stop to it."

It's true: Colon cancer can be prevented
Finding and removing polyps in the colon can prevent colon cancer from developing. But first, you have to have the screening. Because more than 90% of cases of colorectal cancer happen in people ages 50 or older, the starting age for screening is currently set at age 50.

If you have symptoms like the following, though, don't delay. If a GI doctor dismisses you as my first one did--that polyp of mine was probably growing in there for a few years--get a second opinion.

Blood in or on the stool (as I had)

Stomach pain or aches that do not go away (as I had)

Unexplained weight loss

A change in bowel habits (diarrhea, constipation, frequency)

A feeling of incomplete emptying

Colon cancer is associated with some risk factors. These include

Age

Having previously had colon polyps or colorectal cancer yourself

A family history of polyps or colorectal cancer

A history of having inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn's or ulcerative colitis; not to be confused with irritable bowel syndrome or IBS)

A family history of inherited disorders related to polyps of the colon

Of these factors, I thought going into my GI doctors that I had none. Only later did I learn that my father also had had some polyps found and removed, although of the more typical and less-threatening variety and at a later age (in his 50s). In addition, in the past year, my octogenarian maternal grandmother had a large colorectal cancer removed that had likely begun its evolution from a polyp years ago, but she had never undergone screening. I cannot stress enough how important it is for a family to share health history so that these risks can be known and for anyone to have appropriate screening either at the recommended age or in the presence of symptoms.

Speaking of family, there is my own. My having been diagnosed with a precancerous growth at age 38 means that my first-degree relatives--siblings, parents, children--should have screening at least by that age and preferably years before.

There is some understandable reluctance to have a colonoscopy. Outside of the obvious ignominy of having someone shove a tube up your rectum while you lie anesthetized (I woke up during my second--yep, there's a tube in there), there is the preparation for it. I've done just about every prep known to modern medicine, having now had five colonoscopies--all my follow-ups have been clear, and I don't need another for four years now (!). Yes, they're unpleasant, and they take quite a bit of willpower. You have to drink what they tell you, take the pills that they tell you, not eat when they tell you, and consume only what they say is OK. You'll never want to see Jell-O or Gatorade again, and I can't stare down a bowl of clear bouillon any more without feeling a tad nauseated.

But the goal of a prep is a completely clean colon. The cleaner you get it, the more accurate your findings will be and the less likely you'll have to do it again simply because you conducted--pardon me--a crappy prep.

March is Colon Cancer Awareness month. Be aware and embrace the reality that polyps happen and that so far, finding them requires this daylong unpleasantness. But also embrace the fact that the prep won't kill you. Instead, it will help you prevent a cancer that does, in fact, kill 50,000 people a year in the United States alone.

This year, five years after that first colonoscopy would have been the year I'd've been one of those people. Thanks to that procedure, I am instead alive and well enough to tell you about it, and my three young sons still have their mother. I'd starve for a week and drink Gatorade until I puked to make sure of that outcome.
--------------------------------------------------------------
By Emily Willingham, DXS Managing Editor

Hormonal birth control explainer: a matter of health

2012-03-05T09:14:00.001-08:00

Politics often interferes where it has no natural business, andone of those places is the discussion among a teenager, her parents, and herdoctor or between a woman and her doctor about the bestchoices for health. The hottest button politics is pushing right nowtakes the form of a tiny hormone-containing pill known popularly as the birthcontrol pill or, simply, The Pill. This hormonal medication, when takencorrectly (same time every day, every day), does indeed prevent pregnancy. Butlike just about any other medication, this one has multiple uses, the majorityof them unrelated to pregnancy prevention.

But let's startwith pregnancy prevention first and get it out of the way. When I used to askmy students how these hormone pills work, they almost invariably answered,"By making your body think it is pregnant." That's not correct. Wetake advantage of our understanding of how our bodies regulate hormones not tomimic pregnancy, exactly, but instead to flatten out what we usually talk aboutas a hormone cycle.

The Menstrual Cycle

In a hormonally cycling girl or woman, the brain talks to theovaries and the ovaries send messages to the uterus and back to the brain. Allthis chat takes place via chemicals called hormones. In human females, theovarian hormones are progesterone and estradiol, a type ofestrogen, and the brain hormones are luteinizing hormoneand follicle-stimulatinghormone. The levels of these four hormones drive what we think of asthe menstrual cycle, which exists to prepare an egg for fertilization and tomake the uterine lining ready to receive a fertilized egg, should it arrive.

Fig. 1. Female reproductive anatomy. Credit: Jeanne Garbarino.

In the theoretical28-day cycle, fertilization (fusion of sperm and egg), if it occurs, will happen about 14 days in, timedwith ovulation, or release ofthe egg from the ovary into the Fallopiantube or oviduct (see video--watch for the tiny egg--and Figure1). The fertilized egg will immediately start dividing, and a ball of cells(called a blastocyst)that ultimately develops is expected to arrive at the uterus a few days later.

If the ball of cells shows up and implants in the uterine wall, theovary continues producing progesterone to keep that fluffy, welcoming uterinelining in place. If nothing shows up, the ovaries drop output of estradiol andprogesterone so that the uterus releases its lining of cells (which girls andwomen recognize as their “period”), and the cycle starts all over again.

A typical cycle

The typical cycle (which almost no girl or woman seems to have)begins on day 1 when a girl or woman starts her "period." Thisbleeding is the shedding ofthe uterine lining, a letting go of tissue because the ovaries have bottomed out production of the hormones that keep the tissue intact. During this time, the brainand ovaries are in communication. In the first two weeks of the cycle, calledthe “follicular phase” (see Figure 2), an ovary has the job of promoting an eggto mature. The egg is protected inside a follicle that spends about 14 daysreaching maturity. During this time, the ovary produces estrogen at increasinglevels, which causes thickening of the uterine lining, until the estradiol hits a peak aboutmidway through the cycle. This spike sends a hormone signal to the brain, whichresponds with a hormone spike of its own.

Fig. 2. Top: Day of cycle and phases. Second row: Body temperature (at waking) through cycle.
Third row: Hormones and their levels. Fourth row: What the ovaries are doing.
Fifth row: What the uterus is doing. Via Wikimedia Commons.

In the figure, you can see this spike as the red line indicatingluteinizing hormone. A smaller spike of follicle-stimulating hormone (blueline), also from the brain, occurs simultaneously. These two hormones alongwith the estradiol peak result in the follicle expelling the egg from the ovaryinto the Fallopian tube, or oviduct (Figure 3, step 4). That’s ovulation.

Fun fact: Right when the estrogen spikes, a woman’s bodytemperature will typically drop a bit (see “Basal body temperature” in thefigure), so many women have used temperaturemonitoring to know that ovulation is happening. Some women also mayexperience a phenomenon called mittelschmerz,a pain sensation on the side where ovulation is occurring; ovaries trade off follicleduties with each cycle.

The window of time for a sperm to meet the egg is usually veryshort, about a day. Meanwhile, as the purple line in the “hormone level”section of Figure 2 shows, the ovary in question immediately begins pumping outprogesterone, which maintains that proliferated uterine lining should a ball of dividing cells show up.

Fig. 3. Follicle cycle in the ovary. Steps 1-3, follicular phase, during
which the follicle matures with the egg inside. Step 4: Ovulation, followed by
the luteal phase. Step 5: Corpus luteum (yellow body) releases progesterone.
Step 6: corpus luteum degrades if no implantation in uterus occurs.
Via Wikimedia Commons.

The structure in the ovary responsible for this phase, the lutealphase, is the corpus luteum (“yellow body”; see Figure 3, step 5), which putsout progesterone for a couple of weeks after ovulation to keep the uterinelining in place. If nothing implants, the corpus luteum degenerates (Figure 3,step 6). If implantation takes place, this structure will (should) instead continue producingprogesterone through the early weeks of pregnancy to ensure that the liningdoesn’t shed.

How do hormones in a pillstop all of this?

The hormones from the brain--luteinizing hormone andfollicle-stimulating hormone-- spike because the brain gets signals from theovarian hormones. When a girl or woman takes the pills, whichcontain synthetics of ovarian hormones, the hormone dose doesn’t peak that way.Instead, the pills expose the girl or woman to a flat daily dose of hormones(synthetic estradiol and synthetic progesterone) or hormone (syntheticprogesterone only). Without these peaks (and valleys), the brain doesn’t release the hormones thattrigger follicle maturation or ovulation. Without follicle maturation andovulation, no egg will be present for fertilization.

Assorted hormonal pills. Via Wikimedia Commons.

Most prescriptions of hormone pills are for packets of 28 pills.Typically, seven of these pills--sometimes fewer--are “dummy pills.” During thetime a woman takes these dummy pills, her body shows the signs of withdrawal from thehormones, usually as a fairly light bleeding for those days, known as “withdrawalbleeding.” With the lowest-dose pills, the uterine lining may proliferate very little, so that this bleeding can be quite light compared to what awoman might experience under natural hormone influences.

How important are hormonalinterventions for birth control?

Every woman has a story to tell, and the stories about theimportance of hormonal birth control are legion. My personal story is this: Ihave three children. With our last son, I had two transientischemic attacks at the end of the pregnancy, tiny strokes resultingfrom high blood pressure in the pregnancy. I had to undergo an immediateinduction. This was the second time I’d had this condition, called pre-eclampsia,having also had this with our first son. My OB-GYN told me under no uncertainterms that I could not--should not--get pregnant again, as a pregnancy could belife threatening.

But I’m married, happily. As my sister puts it, my husband and I “likeeach other.” We had to have a failsafe method of ensuring that I wouldn’tbecome pregnant and endanger my life. For several years, hormonal medicationmade that possible. After I began having cluster headaches and high bloodpressure on this medication in my forties, my OB-GYN and I talked aboutoptions, and we ultimately turned to surgery to prevent pregnancy.

But surgery is almost always not reversible. For a younger woman, it’s not thetemporary option that hormonal pills provide. Hormonal interventions also areavailable in other forms, including as a vaginal ring, intrauterinedevice (some are hormonal), and implants,all reversible.

One of the most important things a society can do for its own health is to ensure that women inthat society have as much control as possible over their reproduction. Thanksto hormonal interventions, although I’ve been capable of childbearing for 30years, I’ve had only three children in that time. The ability to control mychildbearing has meant I’ve been able to focus on being the best woman, mother,friend, and partner I can be, not only for myself and my family, but as acontributor to society, as well.

What are other uses ofhormonal interventions?

Heavy,painful, or irregular periods. Did you read that part about how flat hormone inputs can meanless build up of the uterine lining and thus less bleeding and a shorterperiod? Many girls and women who lack hormonal interventions experiencebleeding so heavy that they become anemic. This kind of bleeding can take agirl or woman out of commission for days at a time, in addition to threateningher health. Pain and irregular bleeding also are disabling and negatively affect quality of life on a frequent basis. Taking a single pill each day can make it all better.

Unfortunately, the current political climate can take this situation--especiallyfor teenagegirls--and cast it as a personal moral failing with implications that a girl who takes hormonal medications is a "slut," rather than the real fact that this hormonal intervention is literallymaintaining the regularity of her health.

For some context, imagine that a whenever a boy or man producedsperm, it was painful or caused extensive blood loss that resulted in anemia.Would there be any issues raised with providing a medication that successfullyaddressed this problem?

Polycysticovarian syndrome.This syndrome is, at its core, an imbalance of the ovarian hormones that is associated with all kinds of problems, from acne to infertility to overweight to uterinecancer. Guess what balances those hormones back out? Yes. Hormonal medication,otherwise known as The Pill.

Again, for some context, imagine that this syndrome affectedtestes instead of ovaries, and caused boys and men to become infertile,experience extreme pain in the testes, gain weight, be at risk for diabetes, andlose their hair. Would there be an issue with providing appropriate hormonalmedication to address this problem?

Acne. I had a friend in high school who was onhormonal medication, not because she was sexually active (she was not) butbecause she struggled for years with acne. This is an FDA-approved use of thismedication.

Are there health benefits ofhormonal interventions?

In a word, yes. They can protect against certaincancers, including ovarian and endometrial, or uterine, cancer. Womendie from these cancers, and this protection is not negligible. They may alsohelp protect against osteoporosis, or bone loss. In cases like mine, theyprotect against a potentially life-threatening pregnancy.

Speaking of pregnancy, access to contraception is “the onlyreliable way” to reduce unwantedpregnancies and abortion rates [PDF]. Pregnancy itself is farmore threatening to a girl’s (in particular) or woman’s health thanhormonal contraception.

Are there health risks withhormonal interventions?

Yes. No medical intervention is without risk. In the case ofhormonal interventions, lifestyle habits such as smoking can enhance risk for highblood pressure and blood clots. Age can be a factor, although--as I canattest--women no longer have to stop taking hormonal interventions after age 35as long as they are nonsmokers and blood pressure is normal. These interventionshave been associated with a decrease in some cancers, as I’ve noted, but alsowith an increase in others, such as liver cancer, over the long term. Theeffect on breast cancer risk is mixed and may have to do with how long takingthe medication delays childbearing. ETA: PLoS Medicine just published a paper (open access) addressing the effects of hormonal interventions on cancer risk.

---------------------------------------------------------

By Emily Willingham, DXS Managing Editor

Opinions expressed in this piece are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of all DXS editors or contributors.

Book Review: Science Myths Unmasked: Exposing the misconceptions and counterfeits forged by bad science books

2012-03-02T11:32:00.000-08:00

By DXS Biology Editor Jeanne Garbarino

Do you remember that old candle experiment involving a litcandle in a jar? You know, the one whereyou place a lit candle in a bowl of water, then place a jar over the candle,and rather quickly, the candle extinguishes? If you were like me, you probably learned that the candle goes outbecause all of the oxygen gets used up (oxygen is a requirement for combustion). However, according to DavidIsaac Rudel in his multi-volume series Science Myths Unmasked, this is oneof the many science demonstrations that are wholly misinterpreted.

Unfortunately, the science textbooks used by thousands ofschools across the US are chock-full of what Rudel calls “pseudo-explanations”for many complicated scientific phenomena. Instead of presenting clear explanations, including the establishment ofa basic scientific foundation, many science textbooks present certain conceptsusing shortcuts, with the assumption that these so-called shortcuts make iteasier for kids to understand science.

Rudel argues that these shortcuts, which are oftenassociated with an “abuse of [scientific] language,” only confusestudents. In fact, included on the backcover of Science Myths Unmasked, Volume2: Physical Sciences is a quote from Richard Feynman regarding sciencetextbooks: “They said things that were useless, mixed-up, ambiguous, confusing,and partially incorrect. How anybody canlearn science from these books, I do not know, because it’s not science.”

My husband, a public high school chemistry and biologyteacher, is wholeheartedly aligned with this particular opinion of Feynman andRudel and for many years, has not used a textbook to teach science. When I asked why, he simply stated, “Theyjust confuse the kids.”

As an example to what is wrong with science textbooks, let’sget back to the candle-in-a-jar experiment. In Science Myths Unmasked Volume2: Physical Science, this very common scientific demonstration isthoroughly dissected, explaining why “the candle goes out when the oxygen contentof the air is no longer high enough to support combustion” is an incorrectconclusion found in many textbooks, especially since it overlooks how theproducts of combustion affect the candle flame. After elaborating on the precise conditions point by point, andproviding an outline for easy demonstrations to “expose the myth,” thefollowing is stated:

Candles in closed containers do not go out because they use up all theoxygen. Rather, the hot carbon dioxide(and to a lesser extent water vapor) given off in combustion accumulates at thetop, pushing down other gases (most importantly, oxygen), and eventuallystifles the flame.

If the jar’s rim is submerged in water, the liquid rises not becausewater is replacing the oxygen used up in combustion. Rather, the air inside the jar cools as theflame dies down and hot gases offload heat to the glass container. As the air cools, it applies less pressure tothe water than it did when the jar was first put over the candle. The water rises as a result of the decreasingpressure from the air against it.

In the Science MythsUnmasked series, a great number scientific factoids and processes that areoften misrepresented in the classroom are correctly explained, and in greatdetail. In addition to the candleexperiment described above, Rudel tackles simple machines, circuits, phasechange, and waves, just to name a few. However,this book is not for those without at least some background in science, as itdoes get technical. I would, though, recommendthat these books find a way onto the shelves of science educators, as it seemsthey would benefit the most from the lessons and demonstrations covered. It is also good for people who, like me, havea scientific background and wish to properly explain scientific concepts totheir kids, as I am sure those questions are bound to come up.

For more on the ScienceMyths Unmasked series, gohere.

Good Deeds, Good Science: Autism Research Foundation

2012-02-29T07:35:00.002-08:00

Happy Leap Day!

How often have you wished for an extra hour or extra day to get everything you need done? At the Autism Science Foundation (ASF), we want to make the most of this special leap day by using it to help autism science leap forward.

Thanks to your support, for the last two years we have provided funding for autism stakeholders (parents, individuals with autism, teachers, students, etc) to attend the International Meeting for Autism Research (IMFAR). All donations made today, February 29, 2012, will go directly to our IMFAR Travel Grants program, helping us provide more scholarships to IMFAR 2012 in Toronto where they will share their real world autism experience with scientists. These stakeholders will then bring the latest autism science back into our communities helping the science take a giant leap forward.

After attending IMFAR, past grant recipients have:
- Organized a five day autism science seminar at Barnard College
- Presented critical autism research information to nurses in Philadelphia
- Produced multiple blog posts that reached thousands of readers around the world
- Organized an autism awareness club and speaker series at Yale College

And thanks to a generous donor, all donations made today (February 29, 2012) will be matched dollar for dollar for an extra big leap.

Do something special with this extra day of 2012 and help leap science forward. Please make a donation today!

BTW - It’s no coincidence that applications for our IMFAR travel grants are due today. Thinking of applying? Click here to learn more.

The Autism Science Foundation was founded in 2009 as a nonprofit corporation organized for charitable and educational purposes, and exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code.

The Autism Science Foundation's mission is to support autism research by providing funding and other assistance to scientists and organizations conducting, facilitating, publicizing and disseminating autism research. The organization also provides information about autism to the general public and serves to increase awareness of autism spectrum disorders and the needs of individuals and families affected by autism.

Good Deeds, Good Science: IAmScience Kickstarter

2012-02-24T12:54:00.001-08:00

Kevin Zelnio, husband, father, musician, scientist, human.

As someone who is not only into science, but also doesscience, I was over the moon to see the #IAmScience hashtag in my tweet streamon the evening of January 26^th, 2012. This is because, like hundreds, if notthousands, of others, my trajectory into science did not necessarily follow thestereotypical blueprint associated with becoming a scientist. Furthermore, and quite frankly, I am sick ofwhat people think scientists shouldlook and act like.

It all started with this harshyet honest post from Zuska, inwhich she admitted to disliking the Science Online 2012 keynote speaker, Mireya Mayor, just because of herfemininity. It took some deduction andself-observation to figure out exactly why Zuska had a negative reaction toMayor, and her post inspired others to admit, although somewhat abashedly, thatthey felt similarly.

Naturally, this sparked quite a discussion within the scicommcommunity, and also facilitated several tangible reactions, including the DoubleXpression: Profiles of Women into Science series on Double X Science and Allie Wilkinson’s This Is What A Scientist Looks Liketumblr. But, perhaps the most heartfeltand inspiring movement coming out of this discussion is Kevin Zelnio’s baby, #IAmScience.

In the events leading up to #IAmScience, Zelnio asks why thescicomm community was so bothered by Mayor and her keynote address. His point, which was well said despite of the140 character limitation, basically called out those who weren’t practicingwhat they preached.

This was followed by a brutally honest recap of how Zelniomade his way into science, which included drug use, homelessness, and violentbehavior.

And, suddenly, #IAmScience became a movement.

Because of the roaring success of #IAmScience, Zelnio is lookingto expand the movement’s reach. He haslaunched an #IAmScienceKickstarter project, which, if funded, will lead to an eBook containing individual#IAmScience stories:

Thegoal of the I am Science storytelling is to break down the scientist stereotypeand highlight how much diversity of backgrounds really exist in science, wherestereotypes in Hollywood and the media have done massive damage to the field.To reduce barriers to accessing this resource, the e-book will be made freelyavailable for all major digital platforms (Kindle, iPad, Nook, pdf).

We at Double X Science believe inthe breaking down of stereotypes when it comes to science and scientists, and weencourage you to donate to this worthy cause. For a closer look at the #IAmScience stories, you can check out the IAmScience Tumblr, or read Emily Willingham’s touchingand poetic post about her science experience.

Making these types of storiesavailable to the public will do nothing short of inspire – and this may be thedeciding factor for a career in STEM for those living a life where noinspiration can be readily found. Together, we can make a difference, one IAmScience story at a time.

To back Kevin Zelnio’s Kickstarterproject, visit the IAmScienceKickstarter page.

IAmScience vimeo is by Mindy Weisberger.

Notable Women in Science: Historical Physicists

2012-02-21T08:58:00.000-08:00

Featured today are 10 more women who broke boundaries by their presence in physics. They lived from 1711 to 2000. While I again limited information to one paragraph, I tried to highlight how they got their start, what universities, family members, and scientists were supportive of them. For these women, without the support of fathers, mothers, husbands, and mentors (all male with one exception) their life in science would not have happened. While barriers are not as difficult today as they were at the times these women made their way, it is a testament to what can be done when families and scientists support each other. These women are an inspiration and I hope you look up more information for them. In addition, I'd love to hear who your favorite women in science are in the comments.

Laura Bassi by Carlo Vandi

Laura Bassi (1711-78) lectured on science until a few hoursbefore her death. An Italianscientist of international fame and one of the first women physicists inwestern history, Dr. Bassi earned her doctorate in philosophy and sciencethrough public debate from the University of Bologna. The University of Bologna offered Dr. Bassi aposition in an effort to be known as a leader in women’s education.Unfortunately, this forward step was not acceptable to much of the rest of theworld’s academic community and required stipulations to Dr. Bassi teaching.However, she countered these limitations with determination and passion. Herappointment to full membership in the Bendettini Academics also deterred somenaysayers of Dr. Bassi’s involvement in research and teaching. In order tofurther her career, she married. A married woman could achieve more than asingle woman at that time. Her death in 1778 was unexpected, especially as shehad participated in an Academy of Sciences lecture on a few hours before.

If you can access the full article, I highly recommend The Desire to Contribute: AnEighteenth-Century Italian Woman of Science by Gabriella Berti Logan formore information on Laura Bassi.

Margaret Eliza Maltby (1860-1944) was a recognized scientistand advocate for women in science. She overcame the education offered towomen by taking extra courses in order to attend Oberlin College and receive aB.A. She studied with the Art Students’ League in New York City to explore herinterest in art and then taught high school before enrolling as a “specialstudent” at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), receiving her B.S.Oberlin recognized this extra effort by awarding Dr. Maltby an M.S. She becamea physics instructor at Wellesley College. She was encouraged in her graduatestudents by an AAUW fellowship to attend Göttingen University, which culminatedin Dr. Maltby being the first American woman to receive a Ph.D. in physics fromany German university. Dr. Maltby worked as an instructor, a researcher, andadministrator in many universities andcolleges in the U.S. and abroad. Her stature as a scientist was acknowledgedwith her entry in the first edition of AmericanMen of Science. She also was active in the AAUW, advocating for women togain education and enter scientific fields. After her retirement fromuniversity life, she maintained her interest in the arts.

Frederic and Irene Joliot-Cure by By James Lebenthal

Irène Joliot-Curie (1897-1956) was a Nobel Prize Laureate for "artificial radioactivity." Born to the woman every person thinksof as the epitome of a woman in science, Marie Curie, Irène had an extremely closerelationship with her paternal grandfather. Her schooling was outside of thestandard schooling type, her first years at home and her latter years in ascience and math heavy co-operative school of Madame Curie’s colleagues. Shereceived her Bachelor’s degree from the Collège Sévigné and went on to study atthe Sorbonne. She received her doctorate in 1925 based on work with her motherat the Radium Institute of the Sorbonne. She married Frédéric Joliot, anotherresearch assistant of Madame Curie’s. Dr. Joliot-Curie continued her research,interrupted by a stint as Undersecretary of State for Scientific Research, oneof the first high government posts to be offered to a woman. She worked as aprofessor for the Sorbonne and director of the Radium Institute, but was notadmitted to the Academy of Sciences due to discrimination despite her work. Shedied, like her mother, of acute leukemia. Her scientific work was complementedby her love of physical activity and motherhood.

Katharine Burr Blodgett By Smithsonian Institution, U.S.

Katharine Burr Blodgett (1898-1979) was a woman with an amazing number of firsts. Born to a widow, she was a worldcitizen in her formative years, attended high school at a private school in NewYork City, won a scholarship to attend Bryn Mawr, and graduated second in herclass there. She received her Master’s degree from the University of Chicago,then headed off to work with Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir at General Electric(GE) and becoming the first woman research scientist there. She was able to workwith Nobel Laureate Sir Ernest Rutherford and earn her Ph.D. from CambridgeUniversity as the first woman to earn a doctorate from Cambridge. She returnedto GE. During her career, she invented many applications and is credited withsix patents. She achieved much when many women did not, but her work wasde-valued in the media. She did earn recognition from her peers, including theACS Garvan Medal, the Photographic Society of America Progress Medal, and a daynamed after her in her hometown of Schenectady, NY. In addition to her scientificlife, she enjoyed gardening, civic engagement, acting, and “dart[ing] aboutLake George in a fast motor boat.”

Astrophysicist Charlotte Emma Moore Sitterly (1898-1990) wasan authority on sun composition. She started her career as an excellent student with extracurricular interests,attending Swarthmore College to earn her B.A. Upon graduation, she accepted aposition as a mathematics computer at Princeton University Observatory, one ofthe few employment opportunities available to science inclined women at thetime. A stint at the Mount Wilson Observatory led to results published a 1928monograph which was considered the authoritative work on the solar spectrum forfour decades. She received her Ph.D. from the University of California,Berkeley in 1931. Her work earned her the Annie J. Cannon Prize, Silver andGold Medals from the Department of Commerce, and several honorary doctorates inthe U.S. and abroad. She was the first woman elected foreign associate by theRoyal Astronomical Society of London. Her enthusiasm for her work continueduntil her death.

Maria Goeppert-Mayer By Nobel Foundation

Nuclear Physicist Maria Goeppert-Mayer (1906-1972) was thesecond woman to win the physics Nobel. Her early education was public education for girls followedby a private school founded by suffragettes. Circumstances led Dr.Goeppert-Mayer to take her exiting exams a year early, passing them sheattended the University of Göttingen for her college education inmathematics. She continued to study physics at the University of Göttingen,earning her Ph.D. in 1930. She also married that year. The couple moved toAmerica in hopes of better career trajectory for Dr. Goeppert-Mayer. Finding aposition was difficult. When she had her first child, she stayed home with herfor one year, then returned to research. While her positions were alwayspart-time and not well recognized, she grew a well-respected network ofcollaborators. This network led to work with Hans Jensen which won her theNobel Prize, shared with Jensen. Her network also eventually led to a fullprofessorship position after 20 years of volunteer work. During this time, herhealth began to fail. She persevered with her work, publishing her last paperin 1965. The American Physical Society established an award in her honor in1985.

Gertrude Scharff Goldhaber (1911-1998) was a respected researcher. She grew up in a time in Germany where girls were expected tobecome schoolteachers. She had a fascination with numbers, and eventuallystudied physics at the University of Munich, receiving her PhD in 1935. Shefled Germany during the rise of the Nazis due to being Jewish, arriving in theUnited States and becoming a citizen in 1944. She had a wide involvement in thevarious National Laboratories studying nuclear physics. She also maintainedseveral committee positions in the science community. She was also a strongadvocate for women in the science community, forming a Women in Science groupat Brookhaven National Lab and supporting other similar groups elsewhere. After her retirement from research, shecontinued interests in the history of science, outdoor activities, and art.

The Chicago Pile One Team

Physicist, Molecular Spectroscopist Leona Woods MarshallLibby (1919-1986) Leona Woods grew up on a farm and was known for herinexhaustible energy. She attained her B.S. in chemistry from the University ofChicago when she was only 19 years old, and earned her PhD 5 years later. Sheworked as the only woman and youngest member of the Chicago MetallurgicalLaboratory, a secret war group led by Enrico Fermi who built the world’s firstnuclear fission reactor during her graduate work. Dr. Woods’ expertise wasessential to the undertaking. She married another member of her team. She hidher first pregnancy until 2 days before her son’s birth. She took one week offbefore returning to work. Childcare was provided by her mother and sometimesFermi’s bodyguard, John Baudino. Dr. Marshall was encouraged by Fermi as afemale physicist. In the late 1950s, Dr. Marshall was divorced from herhusband, pursuing her own career. In the early 1960s, Dr. Marshall moved toColorado to work and married Willard Libby. Her mind was always considering anynumber of problems from many angles. She worked up until her death and washonored posthumously for her work, along with Lise Meitner, Marie Curie, andIrene Joliot-Curie.

Chien-Shiung Wu

Chien-ShiungWu (1912-1997) was a foremost experimental physicist of modern era. She was encouraged as a girl to pursue her schooling as faras possible. This led her to teaching training, which lacked science soshe taught herself physics, chemistry, and mathematics. She graduated highschool with the highest grades in her class, earning her a place at theNational Central University in Nanjing. She taught and did research upongraduation, then moved to the United States to pursue graduate studies. Sheearned her Ph.D. from the University of California – Berkeley in 1940, fouryears after leaving China. She was known for her expertise in nuclear fissionand was consulted by top scientists. Despite this, her gender and nationalityhindered her finding appropriate employment due to discrimination on both accounts. She married andstarted a teaching career, although she missed research. Upon therecommendation of Ernest Lawrence, she received offers from several Ivy Leagueschools who were not accepting female students at the time. She becamePrinceton’s first woman instructor at that time. She was offered severalpositions, including back in China, but chose to remain in the U.S. to raiseher son. She was unable to return to China until 1973. She worked at Columbiafor many decades and earned accolades for her work.

Xide Xie (1921-2000) is a woman in China who needs no introduction. Her early life involved much moving due to war and ill health,during which she taught herself English, calculus, and physics. She graduatedin 1942 with a degree from Xiamen University. She moved to the United States toreceive her master’s degree from Smith College in 1949 and her Ph.D. in physicsfrom M.I.T. in 1951. She married in England and returned to China, despite thepolitical climate. She taught and did research at the prestigious FudanUniversity. During the Cultural Revolution of 1966-76, she was detained,publicly humiliated, and endured breast cancer. After this upheaval, she returnedto Fudan University, growing the physics department and achieving more esteemedpositions in the University and government. She had also remained connected toher family, caring for her husband through lengthy illness. Her achievementswere internationally recognized.

Awards Mentioned

Benedettini Academics were a select group of scholars fromthe Academy of Sciences created and named for Pope Benedict XIV to conductresearch and present it annually at Academy meetings. This appointmentescalated the prestige of the scientist above that given by being a member ofthe Academy of Sciences.

American Association for University Women (AAUW): MargaretMaltby received the European Fellowship from the Association of CollegiateAlumnae, which became the AAUW. This fellowship was specifically intended tohelp American women pursue graduate studies to circumvent rules that did notallow women to enroll in coeducational universities or earn graduate degrees.

The Nobel Prize is an international award given in several fields. It is one of the most prestigious awards for scientists in the eyes of the public.

The Garvan Medal is an award from the American Chemical Society to recognize distinguished service to chemistry by women chemists.

The Photographic Society of AmericaProgress Medal recognized a person who has made an outstanding contribution to the progress of photography or an allied subject.

Annie Jump Cannon Prize is given to a North American female astronomer in the early stages of her career for her distinguished contribution to the field.

Department of Commerce Silver Medal, Gold Medal are the highest honors granted by the department for distinguished and exceptional performance.

Much of the information for this post came from the book Notable Women in the Physical Sciences: A Biographical Dictionary edited by Benjamin F. Shearer and Barbara S. Shearer.

Images for this post came from Wikimedia Commons.

Adrienne M Roehrich, Double X Science Chemistry Editor

@fiainros

Double Xpression: Mariette DiChristina

2012-02-17T08:04:00.002-08:00

Mariette DiChristina is editor in chief of Scientific American.

[Ed. note: Thisinterview is the second installment in our new series, Double Xpression:Profiles of Women into Science. The focus of these profiles is howwomen in science express themselves in ways that aren’t necessarily scientific,how their ways of expression inform their scientific activities and vice-versa,and the reactions they encounter.]

Today’s profile is aninterview with Mariette DiChristina, editor in chief,Scientific American, who answered our questionsvia email with DXS Biology Editor Jeanne Garbarino. Read on to find out what a Marx Brothersmovie has to do with communicating science.

DXS: First,can you give me a quick overview of what your scientific background is and yourcurrent connection to science?

MD: Like mostkids, I was born a scientist. What I mean is, I wanted to know how everythingworked, and I wanted to learn about it firsthand. At a tag sale, for instance,I remember buying a second-hand biology book called The Body along with my second-hand Barbie for 50 cents. “Are yousure your mom is going to be OK with you buying that?” asked the concernedneighbor, eyeing the biology book.

Imemorized the names and orbital periods of the planets and of dinosaurs likesome kids spout baseball stats (which I could also do as a kid, by the way). Wedidn’t have a lot of money, so I caught my own pet fish from a nearby pond byusing my little finger as a pretend worm. I scooped up my fish with an oldplastic container and put it on my nightstand. If it died, I buried it and dugit up later so I could look at the bones. My proudest birthday gifts were whenI got a chemistryset and a microscope with 750x. A girlfriend and I got the idea to pick upa gerbil that had a bad habit of biting fingers, just so we could get blood tosqueeze on a glass slide. (She was braver than I was about being the one to getbitten.)

Inmiddle school, I was a proud member of the Alchemists—an after-school scienceclub—so I could do extra labs and clean the beakers and put away Bunsen burnersfor fun. I knew I would be a scientist when I grew up.

Butsomewhere during my high school courses, I came to believe that being ascientist meant I’d have to pick one narrow discipline and stick to it. I feltthat I liked everything too much to do that, however. As an undergraduate, Ieventually figured out that what I really wanted was to be a student of manydifferent things for life, and then share those things I learned with others.That led me to a journalism degree. It also means that, as far as knowledgeabout science goes, I fit the cliché of being “an inch deep and a mile wide.”

DXS: Whatways do you express yourself creatively that may not have a single thing to dowith science?

MD: This one isa tough one for me to answer because I am always trying to convince people thatpretty much everything they care about in the headlines actually has to do withscience! In my case, I’ve also always been interested in drawing and in visualsin general. I was a pretty serious art student in high school as well, althoughI later decided that I didn’t have enough passion for it to make that my careerchoice. My interest in art partly led me to work at magazines like Scientific American and Popular Science, where the ability tostoryboard an informational graphic and otherwise think visually is veryhelpful.

WhenI’m home, I really enjoy making things with my two daughters, such as helpingthem with crafts or scrapbooks, although I definitely spend a lot more time onplanning dinners and cooking for (and with) the family than anything else. Ilike the puzzle solving of setting up the meals for the week during theweekend, so it’s easier for my husband to get things ready weeknights. We’rebig on eating dinner together as a family every night. I like gardening andmapping out planting beds. I’m better at planting than at keeping up withtending, however, because of my intense work schedule and travel. In short, ifI have free time at all, I’m enjoying it with my family. And if we’re doingsome creative expression while we’re at it, great!

DXS: Do youfind that your connection to science informs your creativity, even though whatyou do may not specifically be scientific?

MD: Myconnection to science informs most things that I do in one way or another. WhenI’m making dinner, I sometimes find myself talking about the chemistry ofcooking with the girls. Especially when our daughters were smaller, if one ofthem had a question, I’d try to come up with ways to make finding the answertogether into a kind of science adventure or project.

Isuppose that since I spend most of my waking hours thinking about how best topresent science to the public, it’s just a mental routine, or a lens throughwhich I tend to view the world.

DXS: Haveyou encountered situations in which your expression of yourself outside thebounds of science has led to people viewing you differently--either morepositively or more negatively?

MD: It’s morethe other way around. I get amusing reactions from people once they find outwhat I do. How could I seem so normal and yet work in a field that relates to…shudder…science? An attorney friend hassometimes kidded me, saying there’s no way he can understand what’s in Scientific American, so I must beincredibly smart. I don’t feel that way at all! Anybody who has a high schooldegree and an interest in the topic can understand a feature article in Scientific American. Science is foreveryone. And science isn’t only for people who work in labs. It’s just arational way of looking at life. I also believe science is the engine of humanprosperity. And if I sound a little evangelistic about that, well, I am.

DXS: Haveyou found that your non-science expression of creativity/activity/etc. has inany way informed your understanding of science or how you may talk about it orpresent it to others?

MD: I thinkit’s helpful to look to non-science areas for ideas about ways to help makescience appealing, especially for people who might be intimidated by thesubject. My main job is to try to make a connection for people to the sciencewe cover in Scientific American. Ionce had a boss at Popular Sciencewho made all us editors take an intensive, three-day screenwriting course thatculminated in the showing and exposition, scene by scene, of the structure andwriting techniques of Casablanca.When I came back, he gave me a big grin and said, “So, what did you think?” Igot his point about bringing narrative techniques into feature articles. Likemost people, I enjoy movies and plays; now I also look at them for storytellingtips. And there are lots of creative ways to tell science stories beyond words:pictures, slide shows, videos, songs. Digital media are so flexible.

DXS: Howcomfortable are you expressing your femininity and in what ways? How does thisexpression influence people’s perception of you in, say, a scientificallyoriented context?

MD: I was theoldest of three daughters raised by a single dad (my mom died when I was 12)and I was always a tomboy, playing softball through college and so on. So Ican’t say I’ve ever been terribly feminine, at least in the stereotypical ways.At the same time, I’m obviously a wife and a mother who, like most parents,tries not to talk about my kids so often that it’s irritating to friends andcoworkers. I once was scolded in a letter from an irritated reader after I hadmentioned my kids in a “From the Editor” column about education. He wrote thatif I was so interested in science education and kids, I should go back home and“bake cookies.” I laughed pretty hard at that.

DXS: Do youthink that the combination of your non-science creativity and scientific-relatedactivity shifts people’s perspectives or ideas about what a scientist orscience communicator is? If you’re aware of such an influence, in what way, ifany, do you use it to (for example) reach a different corner of your audienceor present science in a different sort of way?

MD: I’m surethat’s true. I think personality and approach also might shift perspectives. Agirlfriend of mine once called me “the friendly face of science.” I guess Ismile a lot, and I like to meet people and try to get to know them. Thatability—being able to make a personal connection to different people—isimportant for every good editor. My job, essentially, is to understand yourinterests well enough to make sure ScientificAmerican is something that you’ll enjoy each day, week, month.

Increasingly,also, the audiences are different in different media, so we need to understandhow to flex the approach a bit to appeal to those different audiences. Inprint, for instance, according to the most recent data we have from MRI, the medianage of Scientific American readers is47, with 70 percent men and 30 percent women. The picture is quite differentonline, where, according to Nielsen, our median age is 40 and the male/femaleratio is closer to half and half, with 56.5 percent men to 43.5 percent women.You need to bring a lot of creative thinking to the task of how to make onebrand serve rather different sets of people.

Fortunately,I have terrific, creative staff! And another part of the way you do that, Ithink, is to invite your readers in to collaborate; we’ve done a bit of that inthe past year on http://www.scientificamerican.com/,and I’m looking forward to experimenting further in the coming months.Ultimately, I’d like to turn ScientificAmerican from a magazine with an amazing 166-year tradition of being aconduit of authoritative information about science and technology into aplatform where curious minds can gather and share.

DXS: If youhad something you could say to the younger you about the role of expression andcreativity in your chosen career path, what would you say?

MD: I was pretty determined to do something—whatever itwas—that would let me satisfy my curiosity and passion about science. I wouldtell younger me, who, by the way, never intended to go into magazinemanagement: It’s just as fun, rewarding and creative to be a science writer asyou suspect it might be. I’d also tell the younger me something that didn’toccur to me early enough to pull it off—that a double major in journalism andscience might be a good idea. And, I would add, it’s also a good idea to takesome business classes, so you’ll be better armed for dealing with the workingworld.

Also on Double X Science

Chemistrysets and the power of hands-on science
NotableWomen in Science Series
DoubleXpression: Interview with MeghanGroome, PhD, Director of K12 Education and Science& the City, New York Academy of Sciences

More aboutMariette DiChristina

Mariette DiChristina oversees ScientificAmerican, ScientificAmerican.com, Scientific American Mind and all newsstand special editions.She is the eighth person and first female to assume the top post in Scientific American's166-year history. Under her leadership, the magazine received a 2011 NationalMagazine Award for General Excellence.

A science journalist for more than 20 years,she first came to Scientific American in 2001 as its executive editor. Sheis an advisor for the Citizen Science Alliance. She was named an AAAS Fellow in2011. She was also the president (in 2009 and 2010) of the 2,500-memberNational Association of Science Writers. She was an adjunct professor in thegraduate Science, Health and Environmental Reporting program at New YorkUniversity for the several years. DiChristina is a frequent lecturer and hasappeared at the New York Academy of Sciences, California Academy of Sciences,92nd Street Y in New York, Yale University and New York University among manyothers.

Previously,she spent nearly 14 years at PopularScience in positionsculminating as executive editor. Her work in writing and overseeing articlesabout space topics helped garner that magazine the Space Foundation's 2001Douglas S. Morrow Public Outreach Award. In spring 2005 she was Science Writerin Residence at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her chapter on scienceediting appears in the second edition of A Field Guide for ScienceWriters. She is former chair of Science Writers in New York (2001to 2004) and a member of the American Society of Magazine Editors and theSociety of Environmental Journalists. DiChristina was honored by New York'sItalian Heritage and Culture Committee in October 2009 for her contributions asan Italian American to science journalism and education in New York City. InJanuary 2010, she was honored by the National Organization of Italian AmericanWomen as one as one of its "Three Wise Women" of 2009.

Pregnancy 101: Peas made me puke, but not just in the morning

2012-02-14T08:58:00.000-08:00

Jeanne, would you like some...peeeaaasss?
License information here.

I was seven weeks deep when it hit me. Suddenly, I was in a chronic state of queasiness. Under most circumstances, I had it under control. Sure, I would gag every time I brushed my teeth, but (mostly) I could keep it all down. Then I went to my aunt Diane’s house for dinner.

Aunt Diane rolls with a crowd of self-made Italian chefs and, as a result, most of her cooking falls under the “rustic Italian” umbrella. It is not uncommon to see sitting in her cupboard a massive inventory of jarred plum tomatoes or for an entire section of her freezer to be dedicated to homemade vodka sauce, always frozen in those takeaway containers that originally brought us egg drop soup. Under normal circumstances, I’d be psyched to eat over.

I don’t recall the entire menu, but there is one side dish that has been forever burned into memory, and not in a good way. I remember starring at my plate, specifically at the heaping pile of sautéed peas. I kept rearranging the peas on my plate, sometimes spreading them out, sometimes piling them up. Then Diane looked at me and excitedly asked, “Jeanne, did you try my peas? I made them just for you!” I don’t know what compelled her to make these peas for me. Perhaps it was because I am a vegetarian and the rest of the meal involved meat? But, there they were, staring me down, and there Diane was, watching with anticipation, waiting for my approval.

Because I adore my aunt Diane and I wanted to make her happy (after all, she did just cook an entire meal for my small family), I scooped up a moderate amount of peas with my fork and deposited them in my mouth. I had to use every fiber of my being to chew them, and even more effort to actually swallow. My body was not cooperating and I had to implement a state of near meditation to keep them from coming back up. Luckily, I kept my cool and was able coerce my face into showing a smile while simultaneously telling my aunt and friend that her peas were delicious.

Credit: Jeanne Garbarino.

My husband picked up on my soaring level of discomfort and without missing a beat, ate all my peas when Diane wasn’t looking. We ended the evening with my stomach contents intact, but barely.

The next morning, as I was preparing my 18 month-old daughter’s daycare lunch, I remembered that we were provided with a parting gift of sautéed peas. I took them out of the fridge and proceeded to aliquot them into containers more suitable for a toddler. As I removed the lid, the onion-tinged aroma of Diane’s sautéed spring peas smacked me across my face. My body was clearly angry about what I had done to it the night before and, as if it were in a state of protest, I found myself sprinting to the bathroom where I began to puke.

From that day forth, I could not eat peas, let alone see or smell them, without eliciting extreme nausea. It didn’t matter what time of day, the mere presence of peas, although not necessary, was sufficient to make me toss my, well, peas.

That’s the funny thing about morning sickness – it isn’t just a morning thing.

What is morning sickness?

Tick-tock. Credit: Jeanne Garbarino

It has long been known that nausea and vomiting are common symptoms of pregnancy. In fact, documentation of this phenomenon goes as far back as 2000 BC. However, the term “morning sickness” is a complete misnomer. For one, pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting is not just a morning thing. It can happen at any time of day. Second, the term “sickness” suggests a state of unhealthiness. We know that perfectly healthy pregnant women who deliver perfectly healthy babies experience morning sickness, and this type of nausea and vomiting is not an indicator of maternal and/or fetal health.

But, that doesn’t change the fact that it sucks.

Morning sickness, more appropriately known as nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP), affects approximately two-thirds of women in their first trimester of pregnancy. In many cases, morning sickness subsides at the end of the first trimester. In other cases, the symptoms of morning sickness can last for the entire pregnancy. For both my pregnancies, I experienced morning sickness for the first 5 months.

I feel so lucky.

No one really knows the exact mechanisms responsible for the onset morning sickness. We do know that the drastic hormonal changes that occur during early pregnancy certainly play a role; however, these effects are likely indirect. For instance, estrogen levels do not differ between pregnant women with morning sickness and those who do not experience symptoms. Furthermore, there is no causal relationship between human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), the early pregnancy hormone detected by pregnancy tests, and morning sickness, despite the fact that peak hCG levels and peak severity of pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting occur at approximately the same time.

Based on these observations, scientists suggest that the hormonal fluctuations in pregnant women can elicit different responses in an individual, rendering some extremely susceptible and others remarkably resistant to the same stimulus (with regard to nausea and vomiting). This begs the question: Is there a genetic predisposition to morning sickness?

While a “morning sickness” gene has not been identified, a few lines of evidence point toward a potential for inheriting the tendency. For instance, identical twins, are fairly likely to share a tendency to morning sickness. Also, you are more likely to experience morning sickness if your mom experienced it, too. Even though genetics may be involved, the onset of morning sickness is probably what scientists call “multifactorial,” a result of a very complex interaction between genetics and environment, making it difficult to find a treatment that is effective and safe for everyone.

Until more is known, we are stuck eating saltines and sour candy. At least it’s something, right?

Right?

Food aversions and morning sickness

Make them if you dare. Credit: Jeanne Garbarino.

For my first pregnancy, it was smoked salmon, which I probably shouldn’t have been eating in the first place. For my second pregnancy, it was peas. (Interestingly, my aunt Diane initially provided both foods, which, after that initial consumption, was immediately followed by the onset of morning sickness.) The mere sight of either peas or smoked salmon elicited an uncomfortable queasiness that often culminated with a sprint to the porcelain throne. Apparently, this type of experience is pretty normal.

Developing an aversion to a specific tastes and smells during pregnancy is an extremely common phenomenon. In fact, between 50–90% of pregnant women worldwide experience some level of food aversion, with the most common aversions being meat, fish, poultry, and eggs. Furthermore, research suggests that food aversions developed during pregnancy are actually novel as opposed to an exaggeration of a pre-existing dislike for a certain food.

Complementing the development of food aversions is the report that dietary changes in pregnant woman are often related to changes in olfaction, or sense of smell. More specifically, some pregnant women experience increased sensitivity to certain odors, and usually in an unpleasant way. This heightened sensitivity is thought to be protective against foods that could pose a problem for mother and baby, such as those that have become rancid.

When I was pregnant, the self-perceived powerfully pungent scent of peas could have probably knocked me over if it was translated into some other physical force. I wish I had a gas mask.

Is there some benefit to morning sickness?

In general, nausea and vomiting are a defense mechanism, acting to protect us from the accidental ingestion of toxins. While morning sickness is likely a very complicated condition that needs further study, a popular explanation suggests that morning sickness is beneficial to both mother and fetus.

Several lines of observations support this idea, formally called the “maternal and embryo protection hypothesis”: (a) peak sensitivity to morning sickness occurs at approximately the same time that embryo development is most susceptible to toxins and chemical agents; and (b) women who experience morning sickness during their pregnancy are less likely to miscarry compared to women who do not experience morning sickness.

In essence, the maternal and embryo protection hypothesis suggests that morning sickness is an adaptive process, contributing to evolutionary success (measured in terms of how many of your genes are present in later generations). However, morning sickness is not found in all societies. One possible explanation for this is that those societies that do not widely experience morning sickness are significantly more likely to have plant-based diets (meats spoil much faster than plants). Another argument against evolutionary adaptation is that morning sickness has been documented only in three other species: domestic dogs, captive rhesus macaques, and captive chimpanzees.

It makes sense that the pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting widely known as morning sickness is a means to help protect mom and baby. It makes sense that women have a mechanism to detect and/or expel toxins and potentially harmful microorganisms if ingested. But the idea that morning sickness is actually a product of evolution is still under debate.

And even as a biologist, if I ever have to go through morning sickness again, the idea that it could be protective won’t really bring me comfort as I am puking up my guts. But, biology is biology and sometimes we just have to deal with it.

References

Andrews, P. and Whitehead, S. Pregnancy Sickness. American Physiological Society. 1990 February;5: 5-10.

Flaxman, S.M. and Sherman, P.W. Morning Sickness: A mechanism for protecting mother and baby. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 2000 June; 75(2):

Goodwin, TM. Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: an obstetric syndrome. American Journal Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2002; 185(5): 184-189.

Kich, K.L. Gastrointestinal factors in nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. American Journal Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2002; 185(5): 198-203.

Nordin, S., Broman, D.A., Olofsson, J.K., Wulff, M. A Longitudinal Descriptive Study of Self-reported Abnormal Smell and Taste Perception in Pregnant Women. Chemical Senses. 2004; 29 (5): 391-402

The real scandal: science denialism at Susan G. Komen for the Cure®

2012-02-11T09:36:00.000-08:00

Double X Science is pleased to be able to repost, with permission, this important piece courtesy of author Christie Aschwanden and the Last Word on Nothing website, focused on the things that science teaches us we still don't know...but want to find out.

You'll notice that the focus of this article is the way that the Komen foundation blames the individual with the disease for having it, relying on what Aschwanden aptly calls "breast cancer's false narrative." This "blame the person" tactic seems to be especially common in women's health, with an emphasis on the way a woman allegedly does the wrong thing or thinks the wrong thoughts or doesn't work hard enough willing herself well, making her disease her fault, instead of the fault of nature, mutations, cell division gone astray, and the countless other molecular factors that accumulate into what we call "disease." In the case of breast cancer, it's not one monolith of disease that the decision to screen will magically stop.

Many thanks to Christie Aschwanden and the Last Word on Nothing for graciously agreeing to this important repost. --The DXS Editors --------------------------------------------

The real scandal: science denialism at Susan G. Komen for the Cure®

Is breast cancer threatening your life? This Susan G. Komen for the Cure® ad leaves no doubt about who’s to blame —you are.

Over the last week or so, critics have found many reasons to fault Susan G. Komen for the Cure®. The scrutiny began with the revelation that the group was halting its grants to Planned Parenthood. The decision seemed like a punitive act that would harm low-income women (the money had funded health services like clinical breast exams), and Komen’s public entry into the culture wars came as a shock to supporters who’d viewed the group as nonpartisan.* Chatter on the intertubes quickly blamed the move on Komen’s new Vice-President of Public Policy, Karen Handel, a failed GOP candidate who ran for governor in Georgia on a platform that called for defunding Planned Parenthood.** Komen’s founder, Ambassador Nancy Brinker, awkwardly attempted to explain the decision, and yesterday, Handel resigned her position. (Whether she’ll receive a golden parachute remains unclear, but former CEO Hala Moddelmog received $277,864 in 2010, despite her resignation at the end of 2009.)

The Planned Parenthood debacle brought renewed attention to other controversies that have hounded Komen in recent years—like its “lawsuits for the cure” program that spent nearly $1 million suing groups like “cupcakes for the cure” and “kites for the cure” over their daring attempts to use the now-trademarked phrase “for the cure.” Critics also pointed to Komen’s relentless marketing of pink ribbon-themed products, including a Komen-branded perfume alleged to contain carcinogens, and pink buckets of fried chicken, a campaign that led one rival breast cancer advocacy group to ask, “what the cluck?”

But these problems are minuscule compared to Komen’s biggest failing—its near outright denial of tumor biology. The pink arrow ads they ran in magazines a few months back provide a prime example. “What’s key to surviving breast cancer? YOU. Get screened now,” the ad says. The unmistakeable takeaway? It’s your fault if you die of cancer. The blurb below the big arrow explains why. “Early detection saves lives. The 5-year survival rate for breast cancer when caught early is 98%. When it’s not? 23%.”

If only it were that simple. As I’ve written previously here, the notion that breast cancer is a uniformly progressive disease that starts small and only grows and spreads if you don’t stop it in time is flat out wrong. I call it breast cancer’s false narrative, and it’s a fairy tale that Komen has relentlessly perpetuated.

It was a mistake that most everyone made in the early days. When mammography was new and breast cancer had not yet become a discussion for the dinner table, it really did seem like all it would take to stop breast cancer was awareness and vigilant screening. The thing about the false narrative is that it makes intuitive sense–a tumor starts as one rogue cell that grows out of control, eventually becoming a palpable tumor that gets bigger and bigger until it escapes its local environment and becomes metastatic, the deadly trait that’s necessary to kill you. And this story has a grain of truth to it—it’s just that it’s far more complicated than that.

Years of research have led scientists to discover that breast tumors are not all alike. Some are fast moving and aggressive, others are never fated to metastasize. The problem is that right now we don’t have a surefire way to predict in advance whether a cancer will spread or how aggressive it might become. (Scientists are working on the problem though.)

Some breast cancers will never become invasive and don’t need treatment. These are the ones most apt to be found on a screening mammogram, and they’re the ones that make people such devoted advocates of mammography.H. Gilbert Welch of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, calls this the overdiagnosis paradox. Overdiagnosis is what happens when a mammogram finds an indolent cancer. A healthy person whose life was never threatened by breast cancer is suddenly turned into a cancer survivor. She thinks the mammogram saved her life, and so she becomes an advocate of the test.

Some cancers behave just the opposite of these slow-growing, indolent ones. Researchers now know that some cancers are extremely aggressive from the start. There’s simply no such thing as “early” detection for these cancers. By the time they’re detectable by any of our existing methods, they’ve already metastasized. These are the really awful, most deadly cancers, and screening mammograms*** will not stop them.

Then there are cancers that fall somewhere in between the two extremes. These are the ones most likely to be helped by screening mammography, and they’re the lives that mammography saves. How many? For women age 50 to 70, routine screening mammography decreases mortality by 15 to 20% (numbers are lower for younger women). One thousand women in their 50′s have to be screened for 10 years for a single life to be saved.

So let’s recap. Getting “screened now,” as the Komen ad instructs can lead to three possible outcomes. One, it finds a cancer than never needed finding. You go from being a healthy person to a cancer survivor, and if you got the mammogram because of Komen’s prodding, you probably become a Komen supporter. Perhaps a staunch one, because hey—they saved your life and now you have a happy story to share with other supporters. Another possibility is that the mammogram finds a cancer that’s the really bad kind, but you die anyway. You probably don’t die later than you would have without the mammogram, but it might look that way because of a problem called “lead time bias.” The third possibility is that you find a cancer that’s amenable to treatment and instead of dying like you would without treatment, your life is saved. Here again, you’re grateful to Komen, and in this case, your life truly was saved.

Right now, breast cancer screening sucks. It’s not very effective, and if you measure it solely based on the number of lives saved versus healthy people unnecessarily subjected to cancer treatments, it seems to cause more harm than good. For every life saved, about 10 more lives are unnecessarily turned upside down by a cancer diagnosis that will only harm them. In a study published online in November, Danish researchers concluded that, “Avoiding getting screening mammograms reduces the risk of becoming a breast cancer patient by one-third.”

But it’s not quite that simple. Some people really are helped by mammography screening, and if you’re the one helped, it’s hard to discount that one life. Right now mammography is the best tool we have. Welch, who has spent more time than probably anyone else in America studying this issue, has deemed the decision about whether or not to get breast cancer screening a “close call.”

Reasonable women can decide that for them, the potential benefits outweigh the risks. Other reasonable women will decide that for them, the risks outweigh the potential benefits.

Komen isn’t wrong to encourage women to consider mammography. But they’re dead wrong to imply that “the key to surviving breast cancer” is “you” and the difference between a 98% survival rate and a 23% one is vigilance on the part of the victim. This message flies in the face of basic cancer biology.

Between 2004 to 2009, Komen allocated 47% of it $1.54 billion toward education and screening. Much of its education messaging promotes the same false narrative as its ads, which means they are not only not furthering the search for a cure, they are harming the cause. By implying that the solution to breast cancer is screening, Komen distracts attention from the real problem, which is that way too many women (and men) are still dying of breast cancer, and screening is not saving them. We still can’t prevent breast cancer, because we don’t know what causes it.

To explain why Komen’s fixation on an unscientific story matters, I want to introduce you to Rachel Cheetham Moro. Moro was a cancer blogger, but she won’t be weighing in on this latest Komen controversy, because she died Monday of metastatic breast cancer. Before she left us, she had plenty to say about the false narrative Komen was peddling. Last October she wrote,

How dare Komen so FALSELY suggest that a screening mammogram is all it takes to avoid metastatic breast cancer? How dare Komen so CRUELLY suggest that “not getting screened for breast cancer in time” would be THE reason and the FAULT of the person with metastatic disease who misses out on all the experiences and joyous events of a long and healthy life that so many others take for granted? How dare you, Komen? How dare you?

In August of 2009, I wrote about the overdiagnosis problem for the Los Angeles Times. I happened to be attending a conference with several executives from Komen. When I asked them about overdiagnosis, they were dumbfounded. They had no idea what I was talking about. Nor did they seem very interested. (Interestingly enough, two of these women were breast cancer survivors, and told me they’d found their cancers on their own–in the shower or the like–without a self-exam or mammogram.) VP of health sciences Elizabeth Thompson told me that they just needed to keep plugging their message— “early detection saves lives.”

By contrast, Komen’s chief scientific advisor, Eric Winer of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, was fully aware of the problem. He told me that “As painful as it is to admit, we have oversold mammography to the American public.”

That was more than two years ago. Why is Komen clinging to their denialist message? They owe Moro an answer.

Footnotes:
*In fact, Komen has a long and cozy association with the Republican Party. George W. Bush rewarded founder Nancy Brinker’s generous donations to the GOP—more than $175,000 since 1990—by awarding her an ambassadorship to Hungary in 2001 and later, the position of chief protocol officer. The Komen board has a couple women of color and several democrats, but ispredominately rich, white GOP donors.

**Apparently, some abortion foes think that eliminating Planned Parenthood would also abolish abortion. Will Saletan at Slate debunks this notion by explaining that the way to drive Planned Parenthood out of the abortion business is to give them more money.

***It’s important to distinguish a screening mammogram from a diagnostic one. Screening mammograms are done on women without any symptoms. A diagnostic mammogram is done to check out a suspicious lump. Disagreements over mammograms center over whether and how often women should have screening mammograms. Diagnostic mammograms are not in dispute. If you find a lump, you need a diagnostic mammogram.
For more on this issue, read Barbara Ehrenreich’s 2001 famous Harper’s piece,Welcome to Cancerland.

Photos:

Race for the Cure banner by Ladybugbkt (via Flickr)

Fnck cancer by Michaelhyman300 (via Flickr)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also on Double X Science

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About Christie Aschwanden

I’m an independent journalist, essayist and science nerd. I’ve written for more than 50 publications on topics ranging from placebos to prairie dogs, but I’m especially interested in belief, sense of place and the after-effects of war. I was a National Magazine Award finalist in 2011 and a Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting fellow in 2007.

I live on a small farm perched on a sunny slope of the Grand Mesa in western Colorado where my winemaker husband tends our vineyard, orchard and garden, and I raise a flock of heritage poultry. My coffee table book about chicken breeds, Beautiful Chickens, was published this year. Website. Twitter.

About the Last Word on Nothing

"Science says the first word on everything and the last word on nothing." Victor Hugo

Science is first of all about discovery (the first word on everything). But the more science knows, the more it realizes what it doesn't know (the last word on nothing). Curiosity and humility: the human condition.

A peek inside the US Naval Observatory - keepers of time and celestial motion

2012-02-09T13:24:00.000-08:00

(Today's guest post comes to us from Carrie Fitzgerald, a professor of astronomy at Montgomery College in Maryland. She directs the Montgomery College Observatory; this piece originally ran on her blog.)

Driving past the woodsy grounds of the US Naval Observatory on Massachusetts Avenue, you can't help but notice the prominent "USNO Master Clock" displaying the time in bright red digits. That is part of their mission, after all, to "determine the positions and motions of celestial bodies, motions of the Earth, and precise time."

How exactly do they do what they do? And who are these modern day keepers of time and celestial motion?

In the physics and engineering department at MC, we are particularly lucky to have Amy Fredericks as an adjunct astronomy professor, teaching the evening section of our Astronomy 101 course. Not only is Amy a dedicated and enthusiastic instructor, she is also a real live astronomer at the US Naval Observatory!

For students who have wondered how I set the times of the Observatory Open House nights (I base it on when civil twilight ends), or how I know how much of the Moon's visible disk is illuminated (81% last open house), well, I owe it all to Amy and the USNO Data Services. :) If I were a leprechaun, the data services portion of the USNO website would be the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. It's even better though, because the data services page is super easy to find.

Have you ever wanted to know more about what goes on inside the USNO and what goes into maintaining something as complex as the data services? Amy was generous enough to satisfy our curiosity about what she does during the daylight hours.

Q. I know you as our brilliant and intrepid evening astronomy instructor at Montgomery College, but you have a whole other life at the US Naval Observatory. How long have you been there, and what do you do?
A. I have worked at USNO for 6 years, in the Astronomical Applications Department. You could say I'm both an astronomer and a computer programmer. My department, working in concert with Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office in the UK, produces the Astronomical, Nautical, and Air Almanacs. I work in the AA Department's Software Products Division, which produces software and web applications related to the almanacs and also astrometry and celestial navigation.

I maintain the web applications and assist in the testing and maintenance of all our software products. Our website is http://aa.usno.navy.mil/.

Q. Is there a typical day for you at work? If so, what is it like?
A. A typical day may include making updates to our website or our data services, attending status meetings on the latest upgrade to one of products, or helping to get that upgrade ready by testing it.

Q. The USNO in Washington, DC has telescopes. What kind of telescopes do you have and what are they used for?
A. The biggest telescope we have in DC is the 26-inch refractor. It is the telescope that Asaph Hall used in 1877 at our old Foggy Bottom location to discover the moons of Mars. It is still used today (despite DC's light pollution!) to study double stars and the moons of the outer planets. We have a few smaller telescopes that are also used for research.
Our "dark sky" site is USNO's Flagstaff Station in Arizona. That's where we have some big reflecting telescopes that are used for viewing fainter objects than we can see from DC. One of them was used to discover Charon, the biggest moon of Pluto, in the 1970s.

Q. What is your favorite thing about being at the USNO?
A. Our products are used by the military, the scientific community, and the public. I love being able to support all of our users. And, of course, I love the people I work with at the Observatory.

Q. Are you ever able to bring what you do at the USNO into the classroom?
A. Sometimes I make passing references to it but not too much. I'm always trying to think of ways! I know friends at other colleges have assigned their students to use our website in their homework.

Q. The USNO is also the official residence of the vice president, so I have to ask...in all the time you've been at the USNO, any vice president sightings?
A. Sadly, no! Just his helicopter and motorcade on occasion. He does use our library for news interviews, so the librarians probably see him the most.

Good Deeds, Good Science: Breast Cancer Research and Education

2012-02-07T14:18:00.000-08:00

Normal (left) versus cancerous (right) mammography image.
Public domain, from the National Cancer Institute.

Recently, funding for breast cancer research and clinicaldetection has been a highlypopular topic of discussion. Therewas a very large, collective voice angered by the decision of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation tostop contributing to PlannedParenthood. And this voice was loudenough to make a difference.

If only breast cancer had ears.

On February 6, 2012, the world lost not one, but two amazingwomen to breast cancer: SusanNiebur, also known as WhyMommy; and Rachel Cheetham Moro of The Cancer Culture Chronicles. Both women spoke candidly about theirindividual battle with metastatic breast cancer. Their deliberate determination to beat thisthing was always apparent, whether they showed it through humor (see this “FavoriteThings” post by Rachel), or through a deeply rooted sense of gratitude, asexemplified by Susan’s “Going HOME!”post.

Unfortunately, Susan and Rachel are not anomalies. They are but two of the approximately 40,000women (in US alone) projected to lose the battle in 2012.

Breast cancer affects 1 in 8 women. These odds put someone you know – your wife,mother, sister, girlfriend, aunt, daughter, friend, cousin, neighbor, co-worker– at risk.

In the "Goodbye" post written by Susan Niebur’s husband Curt(WhyDaddy), he made the following request:

In lieu of flowers,please consider furthering Susan’s legacy through a contribution to the Inflammatory Breast Cancer ResearchFoundation. Or please choose to make a difference somewhere,anywhere, to anyone.

To help uphold that request, and to honor Susan, Rachel, andthe thousands of women and men diagnosed with breast cancer each year, we atDouble X Science have compiled a list of breast cancer charities. If you have the means, please take time todonate.

Inflammatory Breast Cancer ResearchFoundation

What I have learned from Susan Niebur is that there is morethan one kind of breast cancer, and lumps are not required. This foundation is dedicated to researchingthe mechanisms involved in the development of inflammatorybreast cancer (IBC), a rare but extremely aggressive cancer comprising 1-5%of all breast cancer cases in the US.

The Rose

Located in the Houston area, The Rose is a non-profitorganization dedicated to providing women with breast health essentials, suchas mammography screening, diagnosis, support, and treatment to any and allwomen, regardless of ability to pay.

National Breast CancerCoalition Fund (NBCCF)

This brazen organization is dedicated to eradicating breastcancer BY JANUARY 1, 2020. That’s lessthan 8 years from now. Imaginethat. The NBCCF encompasses hundreds ofsmaller organizations and represents millions of patients, along with theirhealth care professionals, family, friends, etc.

Young Survival Coalition

Contrary to popular belief, breast cancer affects youngerwomen too. In fact, I have two friendsthat were diagnosed before the age of 30. The mission of this organization is to help scientists and physiciansbetter serve young women affected by breast cancer.

National Breast Cancer Foundation,Inc.

The mission of the National Breast Cancer Foundation is toincrease breast cancer awareness and education. They’ve also partnered with medical centers across the US to providefree mammography services and diagnostic services to underserved women.

Living Beyond Breast Cancer

This is a national education and support organizationdedicated to help those who are newly diagnosed, in treatment, or are beyondtreatment stages. It also serves as asupport network for the friends and family of those affected by breastcancer. They have a Survivor’s Helpline- (888) 753-LBBC (5222) – run by trained volunteers and sponsor manyconferences in the name of breast cancer education.

Breastcancer.org

Breastcancer.org serves to educate those living with breastcancer, providing the most up to date scientific literature so that thoseaffected by breast cancer can make informed decisions on their health and wellbeing. You can watch a video about howBreastcancer.org has helped those in need.

If you would like to learn more about these organizations,including how they compare to others across the country, you can go to CharityNavigator.

Double Xpression: Meghan Groome

2012-02-06T10:18:00.000-08:00

Meghan Groome, PhD, Director of K12 Education and Science & the City, New York Academy of Sciences

[Ed. note: Double X Science hasstarted a new series: Double Xpression: Profiles of Women into Science. The focus of these profiles is howwomen in science express themselves in ways that aren’t necessarily scientific,how their ways of expression inform their scientific activities and vice-versa,and the reactions they encounter.]

Today’sprofile is an interview with Meghan Groome, PhD, New York Academy of SciencesDirector of K12 Education and Science & The City, who answered ourquestions via email with DXS Biology Editor Jeanne Garbarino.

DXS: First, can you give me a quickoverview of what your scientific background is and your current connection toscience?

MG: I was a bio major since age two. Growing up (and stilltoday) I had a deep love of all things gross, icky, creepy, and crawly and adeep dislike of anything math related. My parents didn’t really know what to dowith me, so a theme to my scientific background is that although I was astraight-A student in my bio classes, no one had any idea that I should bedoing enrichment programs or making an effort to learn math. I figured that bybeing a great bio major, I would become a great scientist. So I was anexcellent consumer of scientific knowledge but only realized late in life thatI needed to be a producer to actually become a scientist.

Being astraight-A student doesn’t actually get you a job when you graduate from asmall liberal arts college with a degree in biology and theater, and out of desperation,I took a job teaching. While I wasn’t a good scientist, I turned out to be anexcellent teacher and loved the creativity, energy, and never-ending questionsthat go along with being a science teacher. If you teach from the perspectivethat science is an endless quest for knowledge, you’ll never get bored takingkids on that journey.

While mybackground is in biology, my graduate degree is in science education, and Istudy gender dynamics and student questioning the middle-school classrooms. Icurrently work for the New York Academy of Sciences as the Director of K12Education and public programs and spend most of my day convincing scientiststhat education outreach is not only part of their jobs but a lot of fun.

DXS: What ways do you express yourselfcreatively that may not have a single thing to do with science?

MG: I’m also a photographer and spend a lot of timewandering around neighborhoods in Brooklyn with a special love of decayingbuildings and empty lots. I love how nature conquers things that we humansconsider to be permanent - like how we have to constantly beat back theinvading hordes of plants and animals even in one of the most man-madeenvironments in the world.

I was also atheater major, so (I) have a strong background in costume design and stagedirecting. I hate acting but love dance. If I had any talent I would havebecome a musical theater star but unfortunately enthusiasm and determinationcan only get you so far.

DXS: Do you find that your scientificbackground informs your creativity, even though what you do may notspecifically be scientific?

MG: I find great joy in seeing how nature conquers humanengineering. When I learned about Lynn Margulis’ Gaia hypothesis, Ibegan seeing it everywhere and I think I love photography because I’m documentingthe Earth fighting back.

Most of mycreative energy comes from working with kids and listening to the wonderful wayin which they think about the natural world. Adults can be so rigid in theirthinking and are often afraid to say ideas that are out of the mainstreamthinking. The older a kid gets, the more we expect them to conform to the adultway of thinking. Middle-school kids are old enough to express their wackyideas, and young enough to not recognize that their ideas are considered “wrong.”

DXS: Have you encountered situationsin which your expression of yourself outside the bounds of science has led topeople viewing you differently--either more positively or more negatively?

MG: People tell me all the time “You’re not what weexpected” and I’m not really sure how to respond.

In thescience education world, my research is informed by my experiences teaching ina very poor district and from a social justice perspective. It’s a rathercontroversial theoretical framework because it says, “I have an agenda to usemy research to bring about equity in an unequal world.” From a researchperspective, it means you need to be explicit in your point of view and yourbiases and have much greater validity and reliability to show that yourresearch is solid. My work is very passion driven so I’ve had to learn whenit’s appropriate to pull out my soap box and go full-out social justice tothem.

This ischanging, but for a long time I kept my personality under wraps in aprofessional setting. It’s only now -- with 10 years professional experience,great organizations on my resume, and a PhD -- that I can be clever, confrontthose I disagree with, and even smile. Anyone who’s ever had a beer with meknows that I’m a goofball and will do just about anything to make someonelaugh. I’m a science person, a theater person, a teacher, researcher, policymaker, consultant, and have seen a lot of exquisitely bad and good stuff in mylife and so I am frequently the voice of an outsider even though I look andsound like a total insider. That can really freak people out especially ifthey’ve only read my bio or seen me in my most professional mode.

DXS: Have you found that yournon-science expression of creativity/activity/etc. has in any way informed yourunderstanding of science or how you may talk about it or present it to others?

MG: I approach teaching science from a fairly theatricalperspective. In my class we dance, sing, laugh, talk about the real world. I’venever used the textbook, and I’m very insistent that everything be in the firstperson when writing or speaking about science. I much prefer teaching regularclasses -- not honors or AP -- and can’t stand kids who remind me of myself inhigh school.

I approachscientists in the same way and try to make them comfortable admitting thattheir more than a brain on a stick. I’ve found one of the biggest fears ofyoung scientists is that their PI will find out that they’re interested insomething more than life in the lab so I always try to work within the existingpower structure and make sure the PIs and Deans indicate to them that workingwith the (New York) Academy (of Sciences) is okay.

DXS: How comfortable are youexpressing your femininity and in what ways? How does this expression influencepeople's perception of you in, say, a scientifically oriented context?

MG: This question confounds the heck out of me. I am stillsuch a tomboy and have always chosen to present myself as a somewhat genderlessindividual. I’ve always considered myself “smart not pretty” because I cancontrol how smart I am but not how pretty. A few years ago, my sisters pulledme aside and told me I needed to stop dressing like such a slob. They startedbuying me pretty, fashionable clothes and insisting that I wear skirts abovethe knee and get a real hair cut.

Since Istarted working at the Academy, I have a very public facing role and have grownto accept that I should look nice. This goes along with slowly feelingcomfortable letting my personality out in professional settings but I stillconsider myself a tomboy and consider my outward appearance to be a costumedesigned to do a job.

So I guessthe answer is, femininity, what femininity?

DXS: Do you think that the combinationof your non-science creativity and scientific-related activity shifts people'sperspectives or ideas about what a scientist or science communicator is? Ifyou're aware of such an influence, in what way, if any, do you use it to (forexample) reach a different corner of your audience or present science in adifferent sort of way?

MG: I think very few people are brains on a stick but thatbeing a scientist often requires us to pretend we have no life outside the lab.I’ve now worked with hundreds of young scientists who spend time working withkids and I’m so pleased to see how quickly they shift from lab geek to realperson when talking with a 4th grader. I want scientists to be evangelicals forscience, and I want that to include the fact that scientists are real, fallible,wacky, wonderful people too.

DXS: If you had something you could sayto the younger you about the role of expression and creativity in your chosencareer path, what would you say?

MG: I was always encouraged to be an individual and bemyself. I credit my parents with allowing me to pursue my passion and not tryto box me in to one identity. It’s never been easy to forge my own path, and Idedicate a lot of myself to my work.

My advice tomy younger self would be to slow down a bit, know that you don’t have to get100% on everything, and know that the problems of the world don’t have to besolved right now.

And perhapsto learn how to be a bit more like a girl. It’s incredibly powerful to seeyourself as smart and pretty.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Groomeis the Director of K12 Education and Science & the City at the New YorkAcademy of Sciences, an organization with the mission to advance scientificresearch and knowledge, support scientific literacy, and promote the resolutionof society’s global challenges through science-based solutions. After graduatingfrom Colorado College in Biology and Theatre, she desperately needed a job andtook one as a substitute teacher at a middle school in Ridgewood, NJ. Shediscovered that she had a knack for making science interesting and enjoyable,mostly through bringing in gross things, lighting things on fire (but always ina safe manner), and having a large library of the world's best science writingand science fiction. After teaching in both Ridgewood and Paterson, NJ, shecompleted her PhD at Teachers College (TC) Columbia University with a focus onstudent question-asking in the classroom. While at TC, she was a foundingmember of an international education consulting firm and worked on projectsfrom Kenya to Jordan with a focus on designing new schools and school systemsin the developing world.

After graduating, Dr. Groome became a Senior PolicyAnalyst at the National Governors Association on Governor Janet Napolitano’sInnovation America Initiative. Prior to her work at the Academy, Dr. Groomeworked at the American Museum of Natural History and authored the policyroadmap for the Empire State STEM Education Network and taught urbanbiodiversity in the Education Department. At the Academy, she is responsiblefor the Afterschool STEM Mentoring program, which places graduate students andpostdocs in the City’s afterschool programs, and the Science Teacher program, where she designs field trips and content talks to the City’s STEM teachers. Connectwith her on Twitter, and read her NYAS blog!

Why Are Snowflakes Always Six-Sided?

2012-02-03T13:43:00.000-08:00

(Today's offering is a guest post by engineer Linda Gaines.)

It’s a well-known fact that all snowflakes have six sides. Or at least I thought it was. Why Google is unable to Google that fact and has on at least two occasions created a Doodle with an eight-sided snowflake is a mystery. What’s less mysterious is how scientists can be so sure that all snowflakes have six sides. Have we examined all snowflakes? No, of course not, but the explanation lies in two words: hydrogen bonding. Thanks to the intermolecular force of hydrogen bonding, all snowflakes have six sides, and hydrogen bonding also makes life as we know it possible. Now that’s an important bond.

You can’t really understand hydrogen bonding, though, without understanding why water molecules are arranged like they are. Water seems like a simple enough molecule. It consists of one oxygen atom with two hydrogen atoms bonded to it. The hydrogen atoms bond to the oxygen atom at a distance of exactly 104.5 degrees from each other (1). Why that particular angle?

An oxygen atom has a total of eight electrons. Two of them take up all the available spots in the shell closest to the atom’s nucleus. The remaining six electrons are relegated to the atom’s outermost (or valence) electronic shell. But this shell can actually hold eight electrons, so two spots are open. A hydrogen atom has one electron on its only electronic shell, and since that shell holds two electrons, it’s got room for one more.

Because oxygen has two available spaces and hydrogen has one, oxygen can share that space with two hydrogen atoms. Both hydrogen atoms share their single electron with the oxygen, and the oxygen shares an electrons with each of the hydrogen atoms. The remaining four of the oxygen’s electrons aren’t a part of this sharing arrangement, though. Electrons kick around in pairs, so these four non-sharing electrons form two pairs.

With these two pairs sitting alone and the other two electrons each sharing with a hydrogen, a water molecule has a tetrahedron (or three-sided pyramid) shape with four attachments emerging from the oxygen nucleus. Two of those attachments are electron clouds containing two electrons each (the pairs), and the other two attachments are hydrogen atoms with two electrons moving between the oxygen and hydrogen orbits. In a true tetrahedron, the attachments would all be 109.5 degrees from each other. With the water molecule, though, the hydrogen atoms are 104.5 degrees from each other because the two paired-electron clouds are grabby with space and force the electrons shared with the hydrogen atoms a little closer together.

So we’ve learned that the hydrogen and oxygen form a covalent bond, which means they share their electrons. What I haven’t told you is that the oxygen is very grabby with that electron, so the sharing isn’t exactly equal. The oxygen has a stronger hold on the electron and is pulling that negative charge closer to it and away from the hydrogens. What results is a slightly negative oxygen and slightly positive hydrogens. The oxygen actually has two areas of negativity, right across from where it’s bonded with each hydrogen. Water molecules can use these areas of slight charge to form a fairly strong bond with other molecules, a bond called a hydrogen bond. While not every molecule containing hydrogen can form this kind of bond with other molecules, molecules in which hydrogen is in this unequal sharing situation will be able to.

In the case of water molecules bonding to other water molecules, the two slightly negative areas of the oxygen can each bond with a slightly positive hydrogen from another water molecule. When all four slightly charged areas have each bonded with another water molecule via hydrogen bonding, the result is a tetrahedral (four-sided pyramid) shape.

These bonds make water an unusual substance. When the temperature drops and water starts to solidify, the hydrogen bonding becomes very important. The hydrogen bonding dictates the shape of the ice crystals. You’ve learned that each water molecule is linked to four other water molecules in a tetrahedral arrangement.

As the water freezes, these tetrahedrons come closer together and crystallize into a six-ring or hexagonal structure. Look at the image to see how this happens. Each point on the hexagon is an oxygen atom, and each side is a hydrogen bonded to one oxygen. As the water approaches freezing temperature, the water molecules continue to crystallize in this tetrahedral arrangement.

But water does something unlike most substances. As it nears freezing, instead of continuing to contract, it expands slightly from about 4 degrees to 0 degrees Celsius as the motion of the molecules slows with the cold, and the hydrogen bonds extend the molecules to their fullest distance from each other. It’s like a ring of people holding hands, elbows bent, and then gradually straightening their arms to the fullest extension so that they’re at the greatest distance from each other. When water molecules do this, the hexagonal structure expands into a larger and larger hexagonal structure.

The snowflake, with its six sides, is what results from this process: It is a large, gorgeous ice crystal. Ice crystals are like mineral rock crystals. The macroscopic (large) shape you see is dictated by the microscopic, molecular crystalline structure. Ice has a hexagonal crystalline structure, so a snowflake has a hexagonal structure. Sodium chloride, aka table salt, has a cubic molecular structure, so the salt crystals you shake on your food have a cubic shape.

It’s interesting that hydrogen bonding causes snowflakes to be six sided (are you listening, Google?), but it carries far greater consequences than beautiful snowflakes. Breaking those hydrogen bonds apart so that water can transform from liquid to gas takes a lot of heat, so the boiling point of water is much higher than it is for other, similar molecules. Based on similar molecules, water’s boiling point should be about -80 degrees Celsius (-176 degrees Fahrenheit) (!) instead of the 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit) it really is (1).

And then there’s the fact that ice floats, which means that the solid form of water is less dense than the liquid form. It is highly unusual for the solid form of a substance to be less dense than its liquid. But because those hydrogen bonds force water into a pretty open, hexagonal crystalline structure as the temperature nears 0 degrees Celsius, molecules are not packed as closely together as they are at warmer temperatures.

Think of those people holding hands, stiff-arming each other as far apart as possible. If they all started slam dancing, their handholds would break, and they could get closer to one another. Water molecules are a bit like that when the temperature goes above 4 degrees Celsius. When ice melts, some of the hydrogen bonds break, and the water molecules can be closer together. The far-apart water molecules in ice form a less-dense substance than the close-together molecules of liquid water, so ice floats in liquid water.

This property of water is integral to life on Earth. When a freshwater lake starts to freeze, the ice floats on the top, insulating the water below and preventing it from freezing. The fish, plants, and other life in the lake remain alive beneath the protective and insulating icy layer. If ice sank instead, over periods of deep freeze during its 4.5 billion year existence, this blue planet would have developed an icy, inhospitable core. Instead, the fact that ice floats meant that Earth was a perfect incubator for life in its oceans. All because oxygen is just a little bit grabby with electrons.

(1) Petrucci, Ralph H. (1989) General Chemistry (Fifth Edition). New York: MacMillan.

HPV and cervical cancer don't care what month it is

2012-02-01T08:03:00.000-08:00

Young love. Like older love, it too can spread HPV.
Image via Wikimedia Commons, public domain image.

January was Cervical Cancer Awareness Month, but we'd like to note that sexually active people should be aware of cervical cancer in any month and continue the recommended preventive and early detection measures for it, which includes keeping up with Pap tests. To maintain awareness, we're kicking off the month for lovers--February--with a post about cervical cancer and the human papillomavirus (HPV).

One thing that cervical cancer awareness overlooks is that HPV causes not only that cancer but also can play a role in penile, vaginal, urethral, anal, and head and neck cancers. In fact, a recent study found that about 1 in 10 men and almost 4 in 100 women are orally infected with HPV, the most common sexually transmitted virus in the United States, and HPV-related head and neck cancer rates are higher among men. Further, HPV-related oral cancers have been on the rise for about two decades now, and HPV is now responsible for about 50% of oral cancers today.

Research also shows that about 50% of college age women acquire an HPV infection within four years of becoming sexually active. In addition, an infected mother can pass HPV to her baby during childbirth, and the virus can populate the child's larynx, causing recurrent growths that block the respiratory tract and require surgical removal.

The remainder of this post appeared initially on the Parents of Kids with Infectious Disease site, which provides information for preventing infectious disease in addition to supporting parents whose children have them. As insidious as HPV is, the vast majority of HPV infections can be prevented now with a vaccine.

Have you or a loved one ever had an abnormal Pap test result? Ifprecancerous cells were identified, the cause was almost undoubtedly infectionwith human papillomavirus (HPV). Almost all casesof cervical cancer arisebecause of infection with this virus. Yet a vaccine can prevent infection withthe strains that most commonly cause cervical cancer.

A vaccine against cancer. It’s true.

For the vaccine to work, though, a woman must have it before HPVinfects her. You may find it difficult to look at your daughter, especially apre-teen daughter, and think of that scenario. But the fact is that even ifyour daughter avoids all sexual contact until, say, her wedding night, she canstill contract HPV from her partner. As we noted above, it happens to be the most commonsexually transmitted infection.

About 20 million Americans have an HPV infection, and 6 millionpeople become newly infected every year. Half of the people who are eversexually active pick up an HPV infection in a lifetime. That means yourdaughter, even if she waits until her wedding night, has a 1 in 2 chance ofcontracting the virus. Unless it’s a strain that causes genital warts, HPVusually produces no symptoms, and the infected person doesn’t even know they’vebeen infected.

Until the cancer shows up.

And it can show up in more places than the cervix. This virus, yousee, favors a certain kind of tissue, one that happens to be present in severalparts of you. This tissue, a type of epithelium, is a thin layer of the skinand mucous membranes. It’s available for viral invasion in the cervix, vagina,vulva, anus, and the mouth and pharynx. In fact, HPV is poised to replacetobacco as the major cause of oral cancers in the United States.

The virus can even sometimes pass from mother to child, causing recurrentrespiratory papillomatosis, the recurrent growths in the throat that must beremoved periodically and can sometimes become cancerous. It strikes about 2000children each year in the United States.

How does a virus cause cancer? To understand that, you must firstunderstand cancer. You may know that cells reproduce by dividing, and thatcancer occurs when cells divide out of control. Behind most cancers is amalfunction in the molecules that tell cells to stop dividing. These moleculesoperate in a chain reaction of signaling, like a series of well-timedstoplights along a boulevard. If one starts sending an inappropriate “go”signal or fails to send a “stop” signal, the cell divides, making more cellsjust like it that also lack the right signals. If your body’s immune systemdoesn’t halt this inappropriate growth, we call it cancer.

The blueprint for building these “stop” molecules is in yourgenes, in your DNA sequences. As a virus, HPV also requires a blueprint to makemore viruses. Viruses use the division machinery of the host cell—in you—toachieve reproduction by stealthily inserting their own DNA blueprint into thehost DNA.

Sometimes, when it’s finished with the host, a virus leaves alittle bit of its DNA behind. If that leftover DNA is in the middle of theblueprint for a “stop” molecule, the cell won’t even notice. It will use thecontaminated instructions to build a molecule, one that no longer functions instopping cell division. The result can be cancer.

Of the 150 HPV types or strains, about 40 of which pass throughsexual contact, two in particular are associated with cancer, types 16 and 18. Theyare the ones that may persist for years and eventually change the cellularblueprint. The vaccines developed against those two strains are, therefore,anti-cancer vaccines.

Without a successful viral infection, viral DNA can’t disrupt yourDNA. That’s what the HPV vaccine achieves against the two strains responsiblefor about 70% of cervical cancers. Recent high-profile people havemade claims about negative effects of this vaccine, claims that have been thoroughly debunked. The Centers for Disease Control andPrevention as always offers accurate information aboutthe side effects associated with available HPV vaccines.

This achievement against cancer, including prevention of almost100% of precancerous cervical changes related to types 16 and 18, is important.

Worldwide, a half million women receive a cervical cancerdiagnosis each year, and 250,000 women die from it. These women are somebody’sdaughter, wife, sister, friend. Women from all kinds of backgrounds, with allkinds of sexual histories.

Women whose precancerous cervical changes are identified in timeoften still must undergo uncomfortable and sometimes painful procedures to getrid of the precancerous cells. These invasive procedures include cone biopsies thatrequire shots to numb the cervix and removal of a chunk of tissue from it. Conebiopsies carry a risk of causing infertility or miscarriage or pretermdelivery. A vaccine for your daughter could prevent it all.

HPV doesn’t care if your daughter has had sex before. It’s equallyoblivious to whether the epithelium it infects is in the cervix or in the mouthor pharynx or in an adult or a child. What it does respond to is antibodiesthat a body makes in response to the vaccine stimulus.

Even if your daughter’s first and only sex partner passes alongone of the cancer-associated strains, if she’s been vaccinated, her antibodieswill take that virus out cold. It’s a straightforward prevention against alifetime of worry—and a premature death.

For more info: Facts about the HPV vaccine fromthe National Cancer Institute.

By Emily Willingham, DXS managing editor

From spiders to breast cancer: Leslie Brunetta talks candidly about her cancer diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up

2012-01-31T10:06:00.000-08:00

According to Leslie Brunetta, she now has much more hair than she had last July.

We became aware of Leslie Brunetta because of her book, Spider Silk: Evolution and 400 Million Years of Spinning, Waiting, Snagging, and Mating, co-authored with Catherine L. Craig. Thanks to a piece Leslie wrote for the Concord Monitor (and excerpted here), we also learned that she is a breast cancer survivor. Leslie agreed to an interview about her experience, and in her emailed responses, she candidly talks about her diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up for her cancers, plural: She was diagnosed simultaneously with two types of breast cancer.

DXS: In yourConcord Monitor piece, you describe the link between an understanding of theway evolution happens and some of the advances in modern medicine. What led youto grasp the link between the two?

LB: I think, because I’m not a scientist (I’m an Englishmajor), a lot of things that scientists think are obvious strike me asrevelations. I somehow had never realized that the search for what would turnout to be DNA began with trying to explain how, in line with the theory ofevolution by natural selection, variation arises and traits are passed fromgeneration to generation. As I was figuring out what each chapter in Spider Silk would be about, I tried tothink about the questions non-biologists like me would still have aboutevolution when they got to that point in the book. By the time we got pastdragline silk, I realized that we had so far fleshed out the ways that silkproteins could and have evolved at the genetic level. But that explanationprobably wouldn’t answer readers’ questions about how, for example, abdominalspinnerets—which are unique to spiders—might have evolved: the evolution ofsilk is easier to untangle than the evolution of body parts, which is why wefocused on it in the first place.

I decided I wanted to write a chapter on “evo-devo,”evolutionary developmental biology, partly because there was a cool geneticstudy on the development of spinnerets that showed they’ve evolved from limbs.Fortunately, my co-author, Cay Craig, and editor at Yale, Jean Thomson Black,okayed the idea, because that chapter wasn’t in the original proposal. Writingthat chapter, I learned why it took so long—nearly a century—to get from Darwinand Mendel to Watson and Crick and then so long again to get to where we aretoday. If we non-scientists understand something scientific, it’s often how itworks, not how a whole string of people over the course of decades building oneach other’s work discovered how it works. I knew evolution was theaccumulation of gene changes, but, until I wrote that chapter, it hadn’toccurred to me that people began to look for genes because they wanted tounderstand evolution.

So that was all in the spider part of my life. Then, afew months into the cancer part of my life, I was offered a test calledOncotype DX, which would look at genetic markers in my tumor cells to develop arisk profile that could help me decide whether I should have chemotherapy plustamoxifen or just tamoxifen. The results turned out to be moot in my casebecause I had a number of positive lymph nodes, although it was reassuring tofind out that the cancer was considered low risk for recurrence. But still—theidea that a genetic test could let some women avoid chemo without taking onextra risk, that’s huge. No one would want to go through chemo if it wasn’tnecessary. So by then I was thinking, “Thank you, Darwin!”

And then, coincidentally, the presidential primaryseason was heating up, and there were a number of serious candidates (well,serious in the sense that they had enough backing to get into the debates) whoproudly declared that they had no time for the theory of evolution. And yearafter year these stupid anti-evolution bills are introduced in various statelegislatures. While I was lying on the couch hanging out in the days afterchemo sessions, I started thinking, “So, given that you don’t give any credenceto Darwin and his ideas, would you refuse on principle to take the Oncotypetest or gene-based therapies like Gleevec or Herceptin if you had cancer or ifsomeone in your family had cancer? Somehow I don’t think so.” That argument isnot going to convince hard-core denialists (nothing will), but maybe thecognitive dissonance in connection with something as concrete as cancer willmake some people who waver want to find out more.

DXS: Youmention having been diagnosed with two different forms of cancer, one in eachbreast. Can you say what each kind was and, if possible, how they differed?

LB: Yes, I unfortunately turned out to be an “interesting”case. This is one arena where, if you possibly can, you want to avoid beinginteresting. At first it seemed that I had a tiny lesion that was an invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and that I would “just” need a lumpectomy and radiation.Luckily for me, the doctor reading my mammogram is known as an eagle eye, andshe saw a few things that—given the positive finding from the biopsy—concernedher. She recommended an MRI. In fact, even though I switched to anotherhospital for my surgery, she sent emails there saying I should have an MRI. Thatturned up “concerning” spots in both breasts, which led to more biopsies, whichrevealed multiple tiny cancerous lesions. The only reasonable option was then adouble mastectomy.

The lesions in the right breast were IDCs. About 70%of breast cancers are diagnosed as IDCs. Those cancers start with the cellslining the milk ducts. The ones in the left breast were invasive lobular carcinomas (ILCs), which start in the lobules at the end of the milk ducts. Onlyabout 10% of breast cancers are ILCs.

Oncologists hate lobular cancer. Unlike ductalcancers, which form as clumps of cells, lobular cancers form as single-file ribbonsof cells. The tissue around ductal cancer cells reacts to those cells, which iswhy someone may feel a lump—she’s (or he’s) not feeling the cancer itself butthe inflammation of the tissue around it. And because the cells clump, theyshow up more readily on mammograms. Not so lobular cancers. They mostly don’tgive rise to lumps and they’re hard to spot on mammograms. They snake their waythrough tissue for quite a while without bothering anything.

In my case, this explains why last spring felt like anunremitting downhill slide. Every time someone looked deeper, they foundsomething worse. It turned out that on my left side, the lobular side, I hadmultiple positive lymph nodes, which was why I needed not just chemo but alsoradiation (which usually isn’t given after a mastectomy). That was the sidethat didn’t even show up much on the mammogram. On the right side, the ductalside, which provoked the initial suspicions, my nodes were clear. I want towrite about this soon, because I want to find out more about it. I’ve onlyrecently gotten to the place emotionally where I think I can deal with readingthe research papers as opposed to more general information. By the way, theresource that most helped us better understand what my doctors were talkingabout was Dr. Susan Love’s Breast Book. It was invaluable as we made our way throughthis process, although it turned out that I had very few decisions to makebecause there was usually only one good option.

DXS: As part ofyour treatment, you had a double mastectomy. One of our goals with thisinterview is to tell women what some of these experiences with treatment arelike. If you’re comfortable doing so, could you tell us a little bit about whata double mastectomy entails and what you do after one in practical terms?

LB: A mastectomy is a strange operation. In a way, it’smore of an emotional and psychological experience than a physical experience.My surgeon, who was fantastic, is a man, and when we discussed the need for themastectomies he said that I would be surprised at how little pain would beinvolved and how quick the healing would be. Even though I trusted him a lot bythen, my reaction was pretty much, “Like you would know, right?” But he didknow. When you think about it, it’s fairly non-invasive surgery. Unless thecancer has spread to the surrounding area, which doesn’t happen very often nowdue to early detection, no muscle or bone is removed. (Until relativelyrecently, surgeons removed the major muscle in the chest wall, and sometimeseven bone, because they believed it would cut the risk of recurrence. Thatmeant that many women lost function in their arm and also experienced backproblems.) None of your organs are touched. They don’t go into your abdominalcavity. Also, until recently, they removed a whole clump of underarm lymphnodes when they did lumpectomies or mastectomies. Now they usually remove justa “sentinel node,” because they know that it will give them a fairly reliableindicator of whether the cancer has spread to the other nodes. That also makesthe surgery less traumatic than it used to be.

I opted not to have reconstruction. Reconstruction isa good choice for many women, but I didn’t see many benefits for me and Ididn’t like the idea of a more complicated surgery. My surgery was only abouttwo hours. I don’t remember any pain at all afterwards, and my husband says Inever complained of any. I was in the hospital for just one night. By the nextday, I was on ibuprofen only. The bandages came off two days after the surgery.

That’s shocking, to see your breasts gone and replacedby thin red lines, no matter how well you’ve prepared yourself. It made thecancer seem much more real in some way than it had seemed before. Incomparison, the physical recovery from the surgery was fairly minor because Ihad no infections or complications. There were drains in place for about 10days to collect serum, which would otherwise collect under the skin, and myhusband dealt with emptying them twice a day and measuring the amount. I had tosleep on my back, propped up, because of where the drains were placed, high upon my sides, and I never really got used to that. It was a real relief to havethe drains removed.

My surgeon told me to start doing stretching exerciseswith my arms right away, and that’s really important. I got my full range ofmotion back within a couple of months. But even though I had my surgery lastMarch, I’ve noticed lately that if I don’t stretch fully, like in yoga, thingstighten up. That may be because of the radiation, though, because it’s only onmy left side. Things are never quite the same as they were before the surgery,though. Because I did have to have the axillary nodes out on my left side, mylymph system is disrupted. I haven’t had any real problems with lymphedema yet,and I may never, but in the early months I noticed that my hands would swell ifI’d been walking around a lot, and I’d have to elevate them to get them todrain back. That rarely happens now. But I’ve been told I need to wear acompression sleeve if I fly because the change in air pressure can cause lymphto collect. Also, I’m supposed to protect my hands and arms from cuts as muchas possible. It seems to me that small nicks on my fingers take longer to healthan they used to. So even though most of the time it seems like it’s all over,I guess in those purely mechanical ways it’s never over. It’s not just that youno longer have breasts, it’s also that nerves and lymph channels and bits oftissue are also missing or moved around.

The bigger question is how one deals with now lackingbreasts. I’ve decided not to wear prostheses. I can get away with it because Iwas small breasted, I dress in relatively loose clothes anyway, and I’ve gainedconfidence over time that no one notices or cares and I care less now if theydo notice. But getting that self-confidence took quite a while. Obviously, ithas an effect on my sex life, but we have a strong bond and it’s just become apiece of that bond. The biggest thing is that it’s always a bit of a shock whenI catch sight of myself naked in a mirror because it’s a reminder that I’ve hadcancer and there’s no getting around the fact that that sucks.

DXS: My mother-in-law completed radiation and chemo for breast cancer last year,and if I remember correctly, she had to go frequently for a period of weeks forradiation. Was that you experience? Can you describe for our readers what thetime investment was like and what the process was like?

LB: I went for radiation 5 days a week for about 7 weeks. Threedays a week, I’d usually be in and out of the hospital within 45 minutes. Oneday a week, I met with the radiology oncologist and a nurse to debrief, whichwas also a form of emotional therapy for me. And one day a week, they laid on achair massage, and the nurse/massage therapist who gave the massage was greatto talk to, so that was more therapy. Radiation was easy compared to chemo.Some people experience skin burning and fatigue, but I was lucky that I didn’texperience either. Because I’m a freelancer, the time investment wasn’t aburden for me. I’m also lucky living where I live, because I could walk to thehospital. It was a pleasant 3-mile round-trip walk, and I think the walkinghelped me a lot physically and mentally.

DXS: And now tothe chemo. My interest in interviewing you about your experience began with areference you made on Twitter to “chemo brain,” and of course, after readingyour evolution-medical advances piece. Can you tell us a little about what theprocess of receiving chemotherapy is like? How long does it take? Howfrequently (I know this varies, but your experience)?

LB: Because of my age (I was considered young, which wasalways nice to hear) and state of general good health, my oncologist put me ona dose-dense AC-T schedule. This meant going for treatment every two weeks overthe course of 16 weeks—8 treatment sessions. At the first 4 sessions, I wasgiven Adriamycin and Cytoxan (AC), and the last 4 sessions I was given Taxol (T). The idea behind giving multiple drugs and giving them frequently is thatthey all attack cancer cells in different ways and—it goes back to evolution—byattacking them frequently and hard on different fronts, you’re trying to avoidselecting for a population that’s resistant to one or more of the drugs. Theycan give the drugs every two weeks to a lot of patients now because they’ve gotdrugs to boost the production of white blood cells, which the cancer drugssuppress. After most chemo sessions, I went back the next day for a shot of oneof these drugs, Neulasta.

The chemo clinic was, bizarrely, a very relaxingplace. The nurses who work there were fantastic, and the nurse assigned to me,Kathy, was always interesting to talk with. She had a great sense of humor, andshe was also interested in the science behind everything we were doing, so if Iever had questions she didn’t have ready answers for, she’d find out for me. Alot of patients were there at the same time, but we each had a private space.You’d sit in a big reclining chair. They had TVs and DVDs, but I usually usedit as an opportunity to read. My husband sat through the first session with me,and a close friend who had chemo for breast cancer 15 years ago sat through afew other sessions, but once I got used to it, I was comfortable being therealone. Because of the nurses, it never felt lonely.

I’d arrive and settle in. Kathy would take blood fortesting red and white blood counts and, I think, liver function and some otherthings, and she’d insert a needle and start a saline drip while we waited forthe results. I’ve always had large veins, so I opted to have the drugs administeredthrough my arm rather than having a port implanted in my chest. Over the courseof three to four hours, she’d change the IV bags. Some of the bags were drugsto protect against nausea, so I’d start to feel kind of fuzzy—I don’t think Iretained a whole lot of what I read there! The Adriamycin was bright orange;they call it the Red Devil, because it can chew up your veins—sometimes it feltlike it was burning but Kathy could stop that by slowing the drip. Otherwise,it was fairly uneventful. I’d have snacks and usually ate lunch while stillhooked up.

I was lucky I never had any reactions to any of thedrugs, so actually getting the chemo was a surprisingly pleasant experiencejust because of the atmosphere. On the one hand, you’re aware of all thesepeople around you struggling with cancer and you know things aren’t going wellfor some of them, so it’s heartbreaking, and also makes you consider, sometimesfearfully, your own future no matter how well you’re trying to brace yourselfup. But at the same time, the people working there are so positive, but not ina Pollyannaish-false way, that they helped me as I tried to stay positive. Thesocial worker stopped in with each patient every session, and she wasfantastic—I could talk out any problems or fears I had with her, and thathelped a huge amount.

DXS: Would yoube able to run us through a timeline of the physical effects of chemotherapyafter an infusion? How long does it take before it hits hardest? Mymother-in-law told me that her biggest craving, when she could eat, was forcarb-heavy foods like mashed potatoes and for soups, like vegetable soup. Whatwas your experience with that?

LB: My biggest fear when I first learned I would needchemo was nausea. My oncologist told us that they had nausea so well controlledthat over the past few years, she had only had one or two patients who hadexperienced it. As with the surgeon’s prediction about mastectomy pain, thisturned out to be true: I never had even a single moment of nausea.

But there were all sorts of other effects. For thefirst few days after a session, the most salient effects were actually from themix of drugs I took to stave off nausea. I generally felt pretty fuzzy, but notnecessarily sleepy—part of the mix was steroids, so you’re a little hyped.There’s no way I’d feel safe driving on those days, for example. I’d sleep wellthe first three nights because I took Ativan, which has an anti-nausea effect.But except for those days, my sleep was really disrupted. Partly that’s because,I’m guessing, the chemo hits certain cells in your brain and partly it’sbecause you get thrown into chemical menopause, so there were a lot of nighthot flashes. Even though I’d already started into menopause, this chemomenopause was a lot more intense and included all the symptoms regularlyassociated with menopause.

By the end of the first session, I was feeling prettyjoyful because it was much less bad than I had thought it would be. By thesecond week in the two-week cycle, I felt relatively normal. But even though itnever got awful, the effects started to accumulate. My hair started to fall outthe morning I was going to an award ceremony for Spider Silk. It was ok at the ceremony, but we shaved it off thatnight. I decided not to wear a wig. First, it was the summer, and it would havebeen hot. Second, I usually have close to a buzz cut, and I can’t imagineanyone would make a wig that would look anything like my hair. My kids’attitude was that everyone would know something was wrong anyway, so I shouldjust be bald, and that helped a lot. But it’s hard to see in people’s eyesmultiple times a day their realization that you’re in a pretty bad place. Also,it’s not just your head hair that goes. So do your eyebrows, your eyelashes,your pubic hair, and most of the tiny hairs all over your skin. And as yourskin cells are affected by the chemo (the chemo hits all fast-reproducingcells), your skin itself gets more sensitive and then is not protected by thosetiny hairs. I remember a lot of itching. And strange things like my headsticking to my yoga mat and my reading glasses sticking to the side of my headinstead of sliding over my ears.

I never lost my appetite, but I did have food cravingsduring the AC cycles. I wanted sushi and seaweed salad, of all things. Andsteak. My sense of taste went dull, so I also wanted things that tasted strongand had crunch. I stopped drinking coffee and alcohol, partly because of thesleep issues but partly because it didn’t taste very good anyway. I drank loadsof water on the advice of the oncologist, the nurses, and my acupuncturist, andI think that helped a lot.

During the second cycle, I developed a fever. That wasscary. I was warned that if I ever developed a fever, I should call theoncologist immediately, no matter the time of day or day of week. The problemis that your immune response is knocked down by the chemo, so what wouldnormally be a small bacterial infection has the potential to rage out ofcontrol. I was lucky. We figured out that the source of infection was ahemorrhoid—the Adriamycin was beginning to chew into my digestive tract, awell-known side effect. (Having to pay constant attention to yet anotherusually private part of the body just seemed totally unfair by this point.)Oral antibiotics took care of it, which was great because I avoided having togo into the hospital and all the risks entailed with getting heavy-duty IVantibiotic treatment. And we were also able to keep on schedule with the chemoregimen, which is what you hope for.

After that, I became even more careful about avoidinginfection, so I avoided public places even more than I had been. I’m very closeto a couple of toddlers, and I couldn’t see them for weeks because they were inone of those toddler constant-viral stages, and I really missed them.

The Taxol seems to be much less harsh than the ACregimen, so a lot of these side effects started to ease off a bit by the second8 weeks, which was certainly a relief.

I was lucky that I didn’t really have mouth sores orsome of the other side effects. Some of this is, I think, just because besidesthe cancer I don’t have any other health issues. Some of it is because myhusband took over everything and I don’t have a regular job, so I had theluxury of concentrating on doing what my body needed. I tried to walk everyday, and I slept when I needed to, ate when and what I needed to, and went toyoga class when my immune system was ok. I also went to acupuncture every week.I know the science is iffy on that, but I think it helped me with the sideeffects, even if it was the placebo effect at work (I’m a big fan of theplacebo effect). We also both had extraordinary emotional support from manyfriends and knew we could call lots of people if we needed anything. That’shuge when you’re in this kind of situation.

Currently, I’m still dealing with some minor jointpains, mostly in my wrists and feet. I wasn’t expecting this problem, but myoncologist says it’s not uncommon: they think it’s because your immune systemhas to re-find its proper level of function, and it can go into overdrive andset up inflammation in the joints. That’s gradually easing off, though.

Most people don’t have it as easy as I did in terms ofthe medical, financial, and emotional resources I had to draw on. I’m verymindful of that and very grateful.

DXS: You saythat you had “few terrible side effects” and a “very cushy home situation.” I’msure any woman would like to at least be able to experience the latter whiledealing with a full-body chemical attack. What were some factors that made it“cushy” that women might be able to talk to their families or caregivers aboutreplicating for them?

LB: As I’ve said, some of it is just circumstance. Forexample, my kids were old enough to be pretty self-sufficient and old enough tounderstand what was going on, which meant both that they needed very littlefrom me in terms of care and also that they were less scared than they mighthave been if they were younger. My husband happens to be both very competent(more competent than I am) around the house and very giving. I live inCambridge, MA, where I could actually make choices about where I wanted to betreated at each phase and know I’d get excellent, humane care and where none ofthe facilities I went to was more than about 20 minutes away.

Some things that women might have some control overand that their families might help nudge them toward:

Find doctors you trust. Ask a lot of questions andmake sure you understand the answers. But don’t get hung up on survival orrecurrence statistics. There’s no way to know for sure what your individualoutcome will be. Go for the treatment that you and your doctors believe willgive you the best chance, and then assume as much as possible that your outcomewill be good.
Make sure you talk regularly with a social worker orother therapist who specializes in dealing with breast cancer patients. If youhave fears or worries that you don’t want to talk to your partner or familyabout, here’s where you’ll get lots of help.
Find compatible friends who have also had cancer totalk to. I had friends who showed me their mastectomy scars, who showed metheir reconstructions, who told me about their experiences with chemo andradiation, who told me about what life after treatment was like (is still likedecades later…). And none of them told me, “You should…” They all just told mewhat was hard for them and what worked for them and let me figure out whatworked for me. Brilliant.
Try to get some exercise even if you don’t feel likeit. It was often when I felt least like moving around that a short walk made mefeel remarkably better. But I would forget that, so my husband would remind me.Ask someone to walk with you if you’re feeling weak. Getting your circulationgoing seems to help the body process the chemo drugs and the waste productsthey create. For the same reason, drink lots of water.
Watch funny movies together. Laughter makes a hugedifference.
Pamper yourself as much as possible. Let people takecare of you and help as much as they’re willing. But don’t be afraid to say noto anything that you don’t want or that’s too much.

Family members and caregivers should also take care ofthemselves by making some time for themselves and talking to social workers ortherapists if they feel the need. It’s a big, awful string of events foreveryone involved, not just the patient.

DXS: In themidst of all of this, you seem to have written a fascinating book about spidersand their webs. Were you able to work while undergoing your treatments? Werethere times that were better than others for attending to work? Could work be asort of occupational therapy, when it was possible for you to do it, to keepyou engaged?

LB: The book had been published about 6 months before mydiagnosis. The whole cancer thing really interfered not with the writing, butwith my efforts to publicize it. I had started to build toward a series ofreadings and had to abandon that effort. I had also started a proposal for anew book and had to put that aside. I had one radio interview in the middle ofchemo, which was kind of daunting but I knew I couldn’t pass up theopportunity, and when I listen to it now, I can hear my voice sounds kind ofshaky. It went well, but I was exhausted afterwards. Also invigorated,though—it made me feel like I hadn’t disappeared into the cancer. I had twostreams of writing going on, both of which were therapeutic. I sent emailupdates about the cancer treatment to a group of friends—that was definitelypsychological therapy. I also tried to keep the Spider Silk blog up to date by summarizing related research papersand other spider silk news—that was intellectual therapy. I just worked on themwhen I felt I wanted to. The second week of every cycle my head was usuallyreasonably clear.

I don’t really know whether I have chemo brain. Inotice a lot of names-and-other-proper-nouns drop. But whether that’s from thechemo per se, or from the hormone changes associated with the chemicallyinduced menopause, or just from emotional overload and intellectualdistraction, I don’t know. I find that I’m thinking more clearly week by week.

DXS: What isthe plan for your continued follow-up? How long will it last, what is thefrequency of visits, sorts of tests, etc.?

LB: I’m on tamoxifen and I’ll be on that for probably twoyears and then either stay on that or go onto an aromatase inhibitor [Ed. note:these drugs block production of estrogen and are used for estrogen-sensitivecancers.] for another three years. I’ll see one of the cancer doctors everythree months for at least a year, I think. They’ll ask me questions and do aphysical exam and take blood samples to test for tumor markers. At some pointthe visits go to every six months.

For self-care, I’m exercising more, trying to losesome weight, and eating even better than I was before.

DXS: Last…ifyou’re comfortable detailing it…what led to your diagnosis in the first place?

LB: My breast cancer was uncovered by my annual mammogram.I’ve worried about cancer, as I suppose most people do. But I never really worriedabout breast cancer. My mother has 10 sisters and neither she nor any of themever had breast cancer. I have about 20 older female cousins—I was 50 when Iwas diagnosed last year--and as far as I know none of them have had breastcancer. I took birth control pills for less than a year decades ago. Neversmoked. Light drinker. Not overweight. Light exerciser. I breastfed both kids,although not for a full year. Never took replacement hormones. Never worked ina dangerous environment. Never had suspicious mammograms before. So on paper, Iwas at very low risk as far as I can figure out. After I finished intensivetreatment, I was tested for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (because mutations there areassociated with cancer in both breasts) and no mutations were found. Unless oruntil some new genetic markers are found and one of them applies to me, I thinkwe’ll never know why I got breast cancer, other than the fact that I’ve livedlong enough to get cancer. There was no lump. Even between the suspiciousmammogram and ultrasound and the biopsy, none of the doctors examining me couldfeel a lump or anything irregular. It was a year ago this week that I got thenews that the first biopsy was positive. In some ways, because I feel reallygood now, it’s hard to believe that this year ever happened. But in other ways,the shock of it is still with me and with the whole family. Things are good fornow, though, and although I feel very unlucky that this happened in the firstplace, I feel extremely lucky with the medical care I received and the supportI got from family and friends and especially my husband.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

More about Leslie:

Leslie Brunetta's articles and essays have appeared in the New York Times, Technology Review, and the Sewanee Review as well as on NPR and elsewhere. She is co-author, with Catherine L. Craig, of Spider Silk: Evolution and 400 Million Years of Spinning, Waiting, Snagging, and Mating (Yale University Press).

How fluorescent lights work: quantum mechanics in the home

2012-01-30T08:08:00.000-08:00

We have a tendency to think that "quantum mechanics" is synonymous with "out of the ordinary." I do that, too, since there's so much strange to talk about: the blurring of particles and waves, the apparent randomness that drove Einstein crazy, and so forth. It's easy to forget that quantum mechanics also is an everyday matter. The odds are pretty good you're reading this post on a computer screen (as opposed to a printout), and possibly the light you're using is fluorescent.

The three major types of lights you can buy are incandescent bulbs, fluorescent lights (including compact fluorescent lights), and light-emitting diodes. Incandescent bulbs are the "normal" type (though they are becoming less so): They light up when an electric current runs through a thin wire made of tungsten, which heats up. The wattage of an incandescent is a measure of how much power it consumes, and most of that power goes to heat, not light, which is why you can burn your hand if you touch a bulb that's been on any length of time. Because of the wasteful nature of that kind of bulb, a lot of people have made the switch to compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), which don't run hot and use a lot less power for the same amount of light. And they work by using quantum mechanics!

Of course even incandescent bulbs are quantum-mechanical underneath: after all, everything is quantum if you examine it closely enough. The everyday stuff of our lives is made of atoms, which are built up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. However, the details of quantum mechanics often get blurred out, since we are big (relatively speaking) and atoms are small. We can't ignore quantum effects for fluorescent lights, though: The structure of atoms is what enables them to be higher efficiency than their incandescent cousins.

As you probably remember from school, atoms consist of a nucleus (containing protons and neutrons, which are relatively heavy) and electrons orbiting the nucleus. Electrons can only orbit at certain distances in specific patterns, which are dictated by the kind of atom: Hydrogen is different from helium, both of which are different from oxygen or mercury or sodium. I like to use a bookshelf analogy: The books can only lie on shelves, not at arbitrary points in midair. Different bookshelves may have different numbers and configurations of shelves. Lifting a book from a low shelf to a high shelf requires energy from you, just as moving an electron from a lower energy orbit to a higher energy orbit requires energy from outside the atom.

In a real atom, the outside energy can come from collisions with other atoms, or from bombardment by photons (particles of light) or electrons. The difference between a bookshelf and an atom lies in how the electron behaves once it is in a higher-energy orbit: If there is any available space left in a lower “shelf”, the electron jumps back down, emitting a photon. A lot of quantum mechanics involves calculating exactly what energies are involved in making those transitions: which ones are allowed and which are forbidden. We won't worry about that! All we care about is that atoms can absorb and emit only certain quantities (which is where the quantum in quantum mechanics comes from) of energy, and those quantities are determined by the type of atom. Big jumps in energy will correspond to ultraviolet light, while moderate jumps are visible light, and small jumps involve infrared light.

That's a lot of quantum mechanics in two short paragraphs, but it's most of what we need to understand fluorescent lights. Inside a fluorescent bulb (whether a big tube or a CFL), there's a very small amount of mercury, which is liquid at room temperatures. Electrodes at either end of the tube boil off electrons that collide with the mercury atoms, turning the liquid into a gas and kicking electrons into higher-energy states. Mercury produces a lot of photons in the ultraviolet and blue-light parts of the spectrum: a bare mercury bulb appears blue. Fluorescent lights have a coating called the phosphor, which absorbs that ultraviolet light and glows with visible light instead, losing the extra energy to heat (though a lot less than in incandescents).

I'm skipping over a lot of details (mostly involving how the bulbs regulate the flow of electrons through the tube – that's where the “ballast” comes in) but that's the basic idea. Fluorescent lights are more efficient than incandescents because the energy mostly goes directly into making the mercury glow, not into heating up a filiment. By using the quantum-mechanical properties of atoms, fluorescent lights are less hot, more energy efficient, and last longer. Quantum mechanics isn't just weird--it's practical!

By Matthew Francis, DXS physics editor

Biology Xplainer: Evolution and how it happens

2012-01-28T20:30:00.000-08:00

Evolution: a population changes overtime

First of all, in the context ofscience, you should never speak of evolution as a "theory." There isno theory about whether or not evolution happens. It is a fact.

Scientists have, however, developed tested theories about how evolution happens. Although several proposed and tested processesor mechanisms exist, the most prominent and most studied,talked about, and debated, is Charles Darwin's idea that the choices of natureguide these changes. The fame and importance of his idea, natural selection, has eclipsed the very real existence of other ways that populations can change over time.

Evolution in the biological sense doesnot occur in individuals, and the kind of evolution we're talking about hereisn't about life’s origins. Evolution must happen at least at the populationlevel. In other words, it takes place in a group of existing organisms, membersof the same species, often in a defined geographical area.

We never speak ofindividuals evolving in the biological sense. The population, a group ofindividuals of the same species, is the smallest unit of life that evolves.

To get to the bottom of what happenswhen a population changes over time, we must examine what's happening to the genecombinations of the individuals in that population. The most precise way totalk about evolution in the biological sense is to define it as "a changein the allele frequency of a population over time." A gene, which contains the code for a protein, can occur in different forms, or alleles. These different versions can mean that the trait associated with that protein can differ among individuals. Thanks to mutations, a gene for a trait can exist in a population in thesedifferent forms. It’s like having slightly different recipes for making thesame cake, each producing a different version of the cake, except in this case,the “cake” is a protein.

Natural selection: One way evolutionhappens

Charles Darwin, a smart, thoughtful,
observant man. Via Wikimedia.

Charles Darwin, who didn't knowanything about alleles or even genes (so now you know more than he did on that score), understood from his work and observationsthat nature makes certain choices, and that often, what nature chooses inspecific individuals turns up again in the individuals' offspring. He realized thatthese characteristics that nature was choosing must pass to some offspring. Thisnotion of heredity--that a featureencoded in the genes can be transmitted to your children--is inherent now in thetheory of natural selection and a natural one for most people to accept. In science, an observable or measurable feature orcharacteristic is called a phenotype,and the genes that are the code for it are called its genotype. The color of my eyes (brown) is a phenotype, and thealleles of the eye color genes I have are the genotype.

What is nature selecting anyindividual in a population to do? In the theory of natural selection, naturechooses individuals that fit best into the current environment to pass alongtheir "good-fit" genes, either through reproduction or indirectlythrough supporting the reproducer. Nature chooses organisms to survive and passalong those good-fit genes, so they have greater fitness.

Fitness is an evolutionary concept related toan organism's reproductive success, either directly (as a parent) or indirectly(say, as an aunt or cousin). It is measured technically based on the proportionof an individual's alleles that are represented in the next generation. When wetalk about "fitness" and "the fittest," remember thatfittest does not mean strong. It relates more to a literal fit, like a squarepeg in a square hole, or a red dot against a red background. It doesn't matterif the peg or dot is strong, just whether or not it fits its environment.

One final consideration before we moveonto a synthesis of these ideas about differences, heredity, and reproduction:What would happen if the population were uniformly the same genetically for atrait? Well, when the environment changed, nature would have no choice to make. Without a choice, naturalselection cannot happen--there is nothing to select. And the choice has to existalready; it does not typically happen in response to a need that theenvironment dictates. Usually, the ultimate origin for genetic variation--which underlies this choice--is mutation, or achange in a DNA coding sequence, the instructions for building a protein.

Don't make the mistake of saying thatan organism adapts by mutating in response to the environment. Themutations (the variation) must already be present for nature to make a choicebased on the existing environment.

The Modern Synthesis

When Darwin presented his ideas about nature'schoices in an environmental context, he did so in a book with a very long titlethat begins, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Darwinknew his audience and laid out his argument clearly and well, with onestumbling block: How did all that heredity stuff actually work?

We now know--thanks to a meticulous scientistnamed Gregor Mendel (who also was a monk), our understanding of reproductivecell division, and modern genetics--exactly how it all works. Our traits--whetherwinners or losers in the fitness Olympics--have genes that determine them.These genes exist in us in pairs, and these pairs separate during division ofour reproductive cells so that our offspring receive one member or the other ofthe pair. When this gene meets its coding partner from the other parent’s cellat fertilization, a new gene pair arises. This pairing may produce a similar outcometo one of the parents or be a novel combination that yields some new version ofa trait. But this separating and pairing is how nature keeps things mixed up, settingup choices for selection.

Ernst Mayr, via PLoS.

With a growing understanding in thetwentieth century of genetics and its role in evolution by means of naturalselection, a great evolutionary biologist named ErnstMayr (1904--2005) guided a meshing of genetics and evolution (along withother brilliant scientists including Theodosius Dobzhansky, George Simpson, andR.A. Fisher) into what is called TheModern Synthesis. This workencapsulates (dare I say, "synthesizes?") concisely and beautifullythe tenets of natural selection in the context of basic genetic inheritance. As part of his work,Mayr distilled Darwin’sideas into a series of facts and inferences.

Facts and Inferences

Mayr’s distillation consists of fivefacts and three inferences, or conclusions, to draw from those facts.

The first fact is that populations have the potential to increase exponentially. Aquick look at any graph of human population growth illustrates that we, as aspecies, appear to be recognizing that potential. For a less successfulexample, consider the sea turtle. You may have seen the videos of the littleturtle hatchlings valiantly flippering their way across the sand to the sea,cheered on by the conservation-minded humans who tended their nests. What thecameras usually don't show is that the vast majority of these turtle offspringwill not live to reproduce. The potential for exponential growth is there,based on number of offspring produced, but…it doesn't happen.
The second fact is that not all offspring reproduce, and manypopulations are stable in size. See "sea turtles," above.
The third fact is that resources are limited. And that leadsus to our first conclusion, or inference:there is a struggle among organismsfor nutrition, water, habitat, mates, parental attention…the variousnecessities of survival, depending on the species. The large number ofoffspring, most of which ultimately don't survive to reproduce, must compete,or struggle, for the limited resources.
Fact four is that individuals differ from one another. Look around. Even bacteria ofthe same strain have their differences, with some more able than others to with stand an antibiotic onslaught. Look at a crowd of people. They're alldifferent in hundreds of ways.
Fact five is that much about us that isdifferent lies in our genes--it is inheritable.Heredity undeniably exists and underlies a lot of our variation.

So we have five facts. Now for the three inferences:

First, there is that struggle for survival, thanks to so many offspring and limitedresources. See "sea turtle," again.
Second, different traits will be passed on differentially. Put another way:Winner traits are more likely to be passed on.
And that takes us to our finalconclusion: if enough of these "winner" traits are passed to enoughindividuals in a population, they will accumulate in that population and changeits makeup. In other words, the population will change over time. It will be adapted to its environment. It will evolve.

Other mechanisms of evolution

A pigeon depicted in Charles Darwin's
Variation of Animals and Plants
Under Domestication, 1868. U.S.
public domain image, via Wikimedia.

When Darwin presented his idea of naturalselection, he knew he had an audience to win over. He pointed out that peopleselect features of organisms all the time and breed them to have thosefeatures. Darwin himself was fond of breeding pigeons with a great deal ofpigeony variety. He noted that unless the pigeons already possessed traits forus to choose, we not would have that choice to make. But we do have choices. Wemake super-woolly sheep, dachshunds, and heirloom tomatoes simply by selectingfrom the variation nature provides and breeding those organisms to make morewith those traits. We change the population over time.

Darwin called this process ofhuman-directed evolution artificial selection. It madegreat sense for Darwinbecause it helped his reader get on board. If people could make these kinds ofchoices and wreak these kinds of changes, why not nature? In the process, Darwin also described this second way evolution can happen: human-directed evolution. We're awash in ittoday, from our accidental development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria towheat that resists devastating rust.

Genetic drift: fixed or lost

What about traits that have no effecteither way, that are just there? One possible example in us might be attachedearlobes. Good? Bad? Ugly? Well…they don't appear to have much to do withwhether or not we reproduce. They're just there.

When a trait leaves nature soapparently disinterested, the alleles underlying it don't experience selection.Instead, they drift in one direction or another, to extinction or 100 percentfrequency. When an allele drifts to disappearance, we say that it is lost fromthe population. When it drifts to 100 percent presence, we say that it hasbecome fixed. This process of evolution by genetic drift reduces variation in a population. Eventually,everyone will have it, or no one will.

Gene flow: genes in, genes out

Another way for a population to changeover time is for it to experience a new infusion of genes or to lose a lot ofthem. This process of gene flowinto or out of the population occurs because of migration in or out. Either ofthese events can change the allele frequency in a population, and that meansthat gene flow is another was that evolution can happen.

If gene flow happens between twodifferent species, as can occur more with plants, then not only has thepopulation changed significantly, but the new hybrid that results could be awhole new species. How do you think we get those tangelos?

Horizontal gene transfer

One interesting mechanism of evolutionis horizontal gene transfer. When we think of passing along genes, we usuallyenvision a vertical transfer through generations, from parent to offspring. Butwhat if you could just walk up to a person and hand over some of your genes tothem, genes that they incorporate into their own genome in each of their cells?

Of course, we don't really do that--atleast, not much, not yet--but microbes do this kind of thing all the time.Viruses that hijack a cell's genome to reproduce can accidentally leave behinda bit of gene and voila! It's a gene change. Bacteria can reach out to other living bacteria and transfer genetic material to them, possibly altering the traits ofthe population.

Evolutionary events

Sometimes, events happen at a largescale that have huge and rapid effects on the overall makeup of a population.These big changes mark some of the turning points in the evolutionary historyof many species.

Cheetahs underwent a bottleneck that
has left them with little genetic variation.
Photo credit: Malene Thyssen, via
Wikimedia.

Bottlenecks: losing variation

The word bottleneck pretty much saysit all. Something happens over time to reduce the population so much that onlya relatively few individuals survive. A bottleneck of this sort reduces thevariability of a population. These events can be natural--such as thoseresulting from natural disasters--or they can be human induced, such as speciesbottlenecks we've induced through overhunting or habitat reduction.

Founder effect: starting small

Sometimes, the genes flow out of apopulation. This flow occurs when individuals leave and migrate elsewhere. Theytake their genes with them (obviously), and the populations they found willinitially carry only those genes. Whatever they had with them genetically whenthey founded the population can affect that population. If there’s a gene thatgives everyone a deadly reaction to barbiturates, that population will have ahigher-than-usual frequency of people with that response, thanks to thisfounder effect.

Gene flow leads to two key points to make aboutevolution: First, a population carries only the genes it inherits and generallyacquires new versions through mutation or gene flow. Second, that gene forlethal susceptibility to a drug would be meaningless in a natural selectioncontext as long as the environment didn't include exposure to that drug. Thetake-home message is this: What's OK for one environment may or may not be fitfor another environment. The nature of Nature is change, and Nature offers no guarantees.

Hardy-Weinberg: when evolution isabsent

With all of these possible mechanismsfor evolution under their belts, scientists needed a way to measure whether ornot the frequency of specific alleles was changing over time in a givenpopulation or staying in equilibrium. Not an easy job. They found--“they"being G. H. Hardy and Wilhelm Weinberg--that the best way to measure this wasto predict what the outcome would be if there were no change in allelefrequencies. In other words, to predict that from generation to generation,allele frequencies would simply stay in equilibrium. If measurements over timeyielded changing frequencies, then the implication would be that evolution hashappened.

Defining "Not Evolving"

So what does it mean to not evolve?There are some basic scenarios that must exist for a population not to beexperiencing a change in allele frequency, i.e., no evolution. If there is a change, then one ofthe items in the list below must be false:

· Verylarge population (genetic drift can be a strong evolutionary mechanism in smallpopulations)

· Nomigrations (in other words, no gene flow)

· Nonet mutations (no new variation introduced)

· Randommating (directed mating is one way nature selects organisms)

· Nonatural selection

In other words, a population that isnot evolving is experiencing a complete absence of evolutionary processes. Ifany one of these is absent from a given population, then evolution is occurringand allele frequencies from generation to generation won’t be in equilibrium.

Convergent Evolution

Arguably the most famous of the
egg-laying monotremes, the improbable-
seeming platypus. License.

One of the best examples of theinfluences of environmental pressures is what happens in similar environments aworld apart. Before the modern-day groupings of mammals arose, the continent of

Australia

separated from the rest of the world's land masses, taking the proto-mammalsthat lived there with it. Over the ensuing millennia, these proto-mammals in Australiaevolved into the native species we see today on that continent, all marsupialsor monotremes.

Among mammals, there's a divisionamong those that lay eggs (monotremes), those that do most gestating ina pouch rather than a uterus (marsupials), and eutherians, which use a uterus for gestation (placental mammals).

Elsewhere in the world, most mammalsdeveloped from a common eutherian ancestor and, where marsupials still persisted, probably outcompeted them. In spite of this lengthyseparation and different ancestry, however, for many of the examples ofplacental mammals, Australiahas a similar marsupial match. There's the marsupial rodent that is like therat. The marsupial wolf that is like the placental wolf. There's even amarsupial anteater to match the placental one.

How did that happen an ocean apartwith no gene flow? The answer is natural selection. The environment that madean organism with anteater characteristics best fit in South America was similar to the environment that made those characteristics a good fit in

Australia

.Ditto the rats, ditto the wolf.

When similar environments result inunrelated organisms having similar characteristics, we call that process convergent evolution. It’s naturalselection in relatively unrelated species in parallel. In both regions, nature uses the same set ofenvironmental features to mold organisms into the best fit.

By Emily Willingham, DXS managing editor

Note: This explanation of evolution and how it happens is not intended to be comprehensive or detailed or to include all possible mechanisms of evolution. It is simply an overview. In addition, it does not address epigenetics, which will be the subject of a different explainer.

For Dad: A guide on strokes, including a glossary of terms

2012-01-26T10:48:00.000-08:00

A scanning electron micrograph of a blood clot. Image credit: Steve Gschmeissner/Science Photo Library (http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/203271/enlarge#)

On Monday January 1^st, I overheard my dad tellingmy mom how his left arm was numb and that he had no strength in his lefthand. I immediately ran into themedicine cabinet, grabbed two aspirin, practically shoved them down my dad’sthroat, and told him to get his coat. Hewas going to the ER.

As it turns out, my dad was having a stroke, whichis basically the cessation of blood flow to an area in the brain. Luckily, my dad only suffered a very mildstroke, and after several days of monitoring and a battery of tests, he wasreleased from the hospital.

While we are all relieved that he dodged what could havebeen a fatal bullet, I came to realize that there was only a superficialunderstanding of what was actually happening. So, to help demystify the process for my dad (and anyone else in thissituation), I’ve decided to write a mini-guide on strokes. Below you will find some handy informationabout strokes, including what they are, as well as a glossary of relevantterms.

Why we need blood flow in the brain

Before I get into what happens to the brain when a strokeoccurs, it is important to first understand why unrestricted blood flow inblood vessels in the brain is important. The brain is a type of tissue, and like all tissues in our body, itneeds a constant access to nutrients and oxygen. Furthermore, tissues produce waste, and thiswaste needs to be removed.

The human cardiovascular system. Image Credit: Wikipedia.

Evolution’s solution to this problem is the development of avast network of blood vessels existing within our tissues. For instance, take a good look at your veryown eyeballs. Especially when we aretired, we can see tiny blood vessels called capillaries, which help to deliverkey nutrients and oxygen, keeping our organs of sight healthy and happy. Now consider that this type of blood vesselnetwork exists in all tissues in our bodies (because it does). Depending on the needs of the tissue, thesevessels vary in size and number. Sometimesthe blood vessels are large, like the aorta, and sometimes they aresuper tiny, like the capillaries in our eyes. However, all serve the same function: to make sure that cells canbreath, eat, and get rid of waste.

When blood is prevented from traveling to a specific areawithin a tissue, the cells in that area will not get enough fuel and oxygen andwill begin to die. For instance, the restrictionof blood flow to the heart leads to the death of heart tissue, causing a heartattack. Similarly, the interruptionof normal blood flow within the brain causes the affected cells in the brain toessentially starve, suffocate, and die, resulting in a stroke. The medical term for a lack of oxygendelivery to tissues due to a restriction in blood flow is ischemia. In general, the heart, brain, and the kidneysare the most sensitive to ischemic events, which, when occurring in theseorgans, can be fatal.

So, what exactly is a stroke?

Some strokes can be categorized as being ischemic. As mentioned above, an ischemicstroke occurs when blood flow (and the associated oxygen supply) is restrictedin an area within the brain, leading to tissue death. A major cause of ischemic strokes is aprogressive disease called atherosclerosis,which can be translated to mean “the hardening of the arteries.”

Severe atherosclerosis of the aorta.
Image Credit: Wikipedia.

Affecting the entire cardiovascular system,atherosclerosis is the result of cholesterolbuild-up inside of our blood vessels, causing their openings to becomenarrower. These cholesterol plaques caneventually burst, leading to the formation of a blood clot. Ischemic strokes occur as a result of a bloodclot, medically known as a thrombus,that blocks the flow of blood to the brain, a phenomenon often related tocomplications from atherosclerosis. Aruptured cholesterol plaque and resulting blood clot can occur in the brain, orit can occur elsewhere in the body, such as in the carotid arteries, and thentravel to the brain. Either way, theblood clot will block blood flow and oxygen delivery to sensitive brain tissueand cause a stroke.

Strokes that result from the bursting of a blood vessel inthe brain can be categorized as being hemorrhagic. In this situation, there may be apre-existing condition rendering the blood vessels in the brain defective,causing them to become weak and more susceptible to bursting. More often than not, a hemorrhagic stroke isthe result of high blood pressure, which puts an awful lot of stress on theblood vessels. Hemorrhagic strokes areless common than ischemic strokes, but still just as serious.

How do you know if you’ve had a stroke?

The symptoms of a stroke can vary depending on which part ofthe brain is affected and can develop quite suddenly. It is common to experience a moderate tosevere headache, especially if you are hemorrhaging (bleeding) in thebrain. Other symptoms can includedizziness, a change in senses (hearing, seeing, tasting), muscle tinglingand/or weakness, trouble communicating, and/or memory loss. If you are experiencing any of these warningsigns, it is important to get to the hospital right away. This is especially important if the stroke isbeing caused by a blood clot since clot-busting medicationsare only effective within the first few hours hours of clot formation.

Once in the hospital, the caregiver will likely give anyonesuspected of having a stroke a CTscan. From this test, doctors willbe able to determine if you had a stroke, what type of stroke you had (ischemicversus hemorrhagic), or if there is some other issue. However, as was the case with my dad, a CTscan may not show evidence for a stroke. This issue can arise as a result of timing (test performed before braininjury set in) or size of affected area (too small to see). When not in an emergency situation, doctorsmay also or instead choose to prescribe an MRItest to look for evidence of a stroke.

If a stroke has been confirmed, the next steps will be totry and figure out the underlying cause. For ischemic strokes, it is important to find out if there is a bloodclot and where it originated. Because mydad had an ischemic stroke, he had to undergo a series of tests that searchedfor a blood clot in his carotid arteries though ultrasound, as well as in the heart,using both an electrocardiogram(EKG) and an echocardiogram(ultrasound of the heart). The patientmight also be asked to wear a Holter Monitor, which isa device worn for at least 24 hours and can detect potential heart abnormalitiesthat may not be obvious from short-term observations, like those obtained viaan EKG. If a stroke is due to ahemorrhagic event, an angiogramwould be performed to try an pinpoint the compromised blood vessel.

A stroke you did have. Now what?

Once a stroke has been confirmed and categorized, thepatient will most likely be transferred to the stroke unit of the hospital forboth treatment and further observation. If a clot has been detected, a patient will receive clot-bustingmedications (assuming this detection occurs within several hours of clotformation). Alternatively, a clot can bemechanically removed with surgery (animation of clot removal,also known as a thrombectomy). Patients mightalso be given blood-thinningmedications to either ensure that clots do not increase in size or toprevent new clots from forming. As forsecondary prevention, meaning preventing another stroke from happening,patients might be given blood pressure and cholesterol loweringmedications.

If a disability arises due to stroke, a patient might needto undergo rehabilitation. The type andduration of strokerehabilitation is dependent on the area of brain that was affected, as wellas the severity of the injury.

Major risk factors and predictors of stroke

There are many situations that could predispose one tohaving a stroke, and many of these conditions are treatable. The absolute greatest predictor of a strokeis blood pressure. High blood pressure,also known as hypertension,will significantly raise your risk of having a stroke. Othermodifiable stroke risk factors include blood cholesterol levels, smoking, type2 diabetes, diet, alcohol/drug use, and a sedentary life style. However, there are also risk factors that youcannot change including family history of stroke, age, race, and gender. But that shouldn’t stop one from practicing ahealthy lifestyle!

In conclusion, strokes are no joke. I am glad that my dad is still here (yes,dad, if you are reading this, we are in fact friends) and that he escaped withrelatively no real consequences. Let’sjust not do this again, ok?

Stroke Glossary

Anti-coagulants:These are medications that help to reduce the incidence of blood clotting. The repertoire includes aspirin, Plavix,Warfarin, and Coumadin. Also calledblood thinners.

Atherosclerosis:Literally translated as “hardening of the arteries,” this condition ishallmarked by the build-up of cholesterol inside of blood vessels. Atherosclerosis can lead to manycomplications including heart disease and stroke.

AtheroscleroticPlaque: The build of fatty materials, cholesterol, various cell types,and calcium.

CardiovascularSystem: The network of blood vessels and heart that works to distributeblood throughout the body.

CarotidArteries: Arteries that carry blood away from the heart toward thehead, neck, and brain.

CTScan: Cross sectional pictures of the brain using X-rays.

Echocardiogram:An ultrasound of the heart. In strokevicitms, electrocardiography is used to detect the presence of a blood clot inthe heart.

Electrocardiogram(EKG or ECG): The measurement of the electrical activity of theheart. It is performed by attachingelectrodes to a patient at numerous locations on the body, which function tomeasure electrical output of the heart.

EmbolicStroke: A type of ischemic stroke, an embolic stroke occurs when ablood clot forms (usually in the heart) and then travels to the brain, blockingblood flow and oxygen delivery to brain tissue.

HemorrhagicStroke: A type of stroke that results form the bursting of a bloodvessel in the brain.

Hypertension: Highblood pressure, defined as having 140/90 mmHg or above.

IschemicStroke: The restriction of blood flow to an area within the brain.

MagneticResonance Imaging (MRI): An imaging technique employing a magneticfield that can contrast different soft tissues in the body.

ThrombolyticMedications: Medications that are approved to dissolve bloodclots. Also called “clot-busting”medications.

Thrombus:Blood clot.

Wordless Wednesday: The faces of the women and men in science, DXS edition

2012-01-25T13:25:00.000-08:00

Meet Chris Gunter, science education editor for Double X Science! We (and you) are lucky to have her!
Read more about Chris on our About Us page.

Some of us got to meet at a conference for online science writers.
From left, DXS Physics Editor Matthew Francis, Biology Editor Jeanne Garbarino,
and Managing Editor Emily Willingham.

And a meme of that conference was #youvebeenframed. In this case, Emily Willingham was, with the
help of photographer and DXS Biology Editor Jeanne Garbarino. More of these
fun pics at Jeanne's MotherGeek site.