Wednesday, November 28, 2012

The Birds & Bee-eaters: Murderous African Birds Attack Nestmates

I ought to have posted these when writing them last year, but no time like the present, hm? These articles were written for Dr. Temesvari's BioSc 494: Popular Science Journalism. This appeared in the Fall 2011 issue of Tigra Scientifica which can be downloaded here.


The Birds & Bee-eaters: Murderous African Birds Attack Nestmates
Blindly yet brutally stabbing underground, the invader kills his foster siblings. Although it sounds like the premise for a horror film, this is the reality for African honeyguide chicks and their host families. A study published in the September 2011 Biology Letters, Dr. Claire N. Spottiswoode and Jeroen Koorevaar observed within the underground nest honeyguide chicks killing host chicks (their would-be foster siblings) with specialized hooked bills for the first time.
This murderous behavior is part of brood parasitism- the parents lay eggs in the nest of other birds and do not deal with the responsibility of childrearing. Unlike babies left on doorsteps, however, these youngsters will hatch early and actively take out their nest mates for primacy with their foster parents. Many species of cuckoo are brood parasites; their preferred method of siblicide is pushing the other eggs or chicks out of the nest. It certainly puts a spin on those hourly popouts by a cuckoo clock.
Honeyguides are drab African birds that are roughly the size of a pigeon. Honeyguide interactions with humans are generally positive – they are well known for guiding humans to beehives, eating the grubs left behind when the people take the combs. Their parasitic nature is known; however the only prior description of killing behavior is from 1952, when a chick bit a host chick while being held.
Spottiswoode and Koorevaar placed infrared cameras at the end of common bee-eater bird tunnels. The bee-eater is the most common host for the honeyguides, and they typically nest in underground burrows. Honeyguides visited most of the bee-eater nests that were observed and laid eggs in occupied ones. The parents actually punctured host eggs with their beaks to improve their offspring’s chance of survival. Luckily for the bee-eaters, sometimes they would miss some eggs, or the bee-eaters would lay additional eggs later.
The honeyguide chicks hatch days before the bee-eaters and are very aggressive- the authors noted that chicks immediately tried to bite them with considerable strength when handled. In the videos, the honeyguide chicks attacked the host chicks and held on, blindly stabbing by opening and closing their jaws and shaking the host chick. Although it does not cause open bloodshed, the biting produces bruising and hemorraghing under the skin. Host chick deaths varied from nine minutes to seven hours after initial attacks. In most nests, the corpses stayed and decomposed- a grisly background while the imposter grows and develops.
Without a doubt, this systemically brutal system works for honeyguides. But does such a well-developed system come at a cost? Spottiswoode speculates that accelerated growth and exertion may have a huge energy cost for honeyguides, though more research needs to be done to determine this. Honeyguides are like the fairies of folklore: they leave changlings in nests, equipped with built-in knives and the initial strength to wield them and cause mischief.

Spottiswoode, C. & Koorevaar, J. A stab in the dark: chick killing by brood parasitic honeyguides. Biological Letters. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0739

Monday, August 8, 2011

Writer's block crosspost from LJ: Study Break


What are you studying or did you study in school? Is it related to what you want to do for your career?

Genetics! For science, of course.

In high school I really hadn't a clue what I wanted to do. Or rather, I did know I wanted to do something with the life sciences, but not what. Luckily, I had a good counselor who helped me focus on molecular biology/genetics. Why? Because it's life's alphabet- everything from a toadstool to a banana to a giant squid is encoded by DNA. Genetics is a more specific subject than "I want to study biology!", but on the other hand it has many broad applications- evolutionary biology, medicine, archaeology, etc.

Gradually, I've figured out it's not entirely what I want to do. While extremely fascinating, I'm not sure I want to follow specific chemical pathways and see that x secretes y- I want to know if that pathway will yield a distinctive physiological change in the organism for a particular reason. Forest and not the trees, I guess. While I jokingly tell people "Imma gonna do SCIENCE" when asked what I want for a future career, I think I'd much prefer working on the organismal, physiological side of things. I want to do research, which is a very broad, very grey unknown area but that's the fun part. If I had to choose a specificity, I'd probably want to investigate deep sea communities for unique behaviors and structures that are a) weird and b) potentially useful for human use.

So, yes, I think I'd need to know genetics to figure out what makes a tubeworm be able to live in very acidic, very hot water full of metal particles.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

For us, does it get better?

The Damon Fowler story in Louisiana irritates me infinitely, especially given that the school completely disregarded the first amendment.

If you need a refresher, it says
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Though I have seen a few supporters of the student who led the Lord's Prayer argue she was expressing her freedom of speech and exercise of a religion, they seemingly forget the forget the wall of separation between church and state implied by author Thomas Jefferson.

Also, Santa Fe School Dist. v. Doe as a precedent. Because even if the school didn't print it on the program and made it a 'Moment of Silence' instead, by not pulling the mike from Ms. Mattice implicitly endorsed her speech.

The internet support has been wonderful (See Hemant Mehta's posts linked above, r/atheism on reddit, etc.), but it really makes me wonder: why isn't there a nontheist equivalent to the "It Gets Better Project"?

There are some parallels between the homosexuality and nontheism movements: minority perspectives, distrusted by various segments of the population, and ostracization of 'out' individuals in homogenous populations. This last part troubles me in particular, as I've seen people I knew in high school only come out of the closet as a gay person after arriving at college, away from the dog-eat-dog world of high school. I also know people who've come to the conclusion they don't believe in a God on their own, but refuse to publicly admit it for fear of familial backlash.

There are differences between the movements, true, as I can't think of any specific legislation against not believing (in fact, as mentioned above it's protected as a right to believe or not), whereas both at the state and national level laws have been made denying GLBT individuals the right to marry, the right to serve, and in some states the right to adopt (or any single parent for that matter, which is silly considering the number of children that need homes).

Also, as a friend asked me the other day, does it really get better for nontheists? We may not be legislated against, but certainly receive flak for merely existing. And that's as adults, so not sure I could honestly say it gets better.

But what we could borrow from the LGBT movement is an equivalent to National Coming Out Day, so individuals don't have to feel like their hiding their true selves, as well as showing other people, "Hey, we're not alone, and we do exist!" Having a supportive framework would help towards this, which is why I applaud the increase in high school chapters of the Secular Student Alliance, as well as at college campuses (including our very own Clemson! Check us out). Especially in places like the Bible Belt, it really does help to know you're not alone. I almost wish we had an equivalent at my very Mormon high school, but then I remember I hung out with all the nontheists, Catholics and other religious minorities anyway.

There is the Out Campaign for individuals to come out (and encourages people to let others 'out' themselves when they feel ready), and I highly recommend it.

Taking my own advice and declaring myself (though subtly put on my facebook) as an agnostic atheist, meaning: I don't believe there's a God or gods, but I also don't know that it's true (see explanation for definitions here)

Friday, March 5, 2010

Another attempt at a wedge?

The New York Times today had this article about antievolutionists now adding global warming and climate change to their "Teach the Controversy" agenda. Denialists bother me, and it's disturbing to think that two kinds merging into some kind of horrific hybrid could descend upon schools with "Academic Freedom Bill" nonsense. I almost want to ask if alchemy and Stork theory can be included, but all facetiousness aside, this is frustrating. It also reminds me of the mock stickers Dr. Waldvogel showed us last year warning that books may contain information about gravitational theory, germ theory, etc.

Climate change may be the "new kid on the block" scientifically speaking, but the current consensus is that it is anthropogenic. Volcanos can account for only so much... but I'm not going to climb on that particular soapbox until I can do more research for a clearer, better-cited post.

Among the comments was this gem (oh Highlights feature, how awesome art thou) from a clergyman concerned with the rise of anti-intellectualism among the evangelical movement, who, like Randy Olson points out that science is terrible at public relations, that the man on his pulpit can reach into the hearts of people to guide them to Christ's light and that scientists need such a person to show people that proper science is by extension an indication of a creative God.

In my podcast last year, I highlighted this issue- that while I personally adore PZ Myers and his cephalopod love, having such a popular figure also tear down theism on a regular basis isn't likely to help "bring people into the fold" of scientific literacy. Dr. Ken Miller is an excellent example of someone who practices a particular belief and still understands and appreciates how science works.

I'd rather not tell you what to believe, to be all condescending and make decisions based on my particular world view. Instead, I opt for spreading critical thinking and rational thought in hopes of raising scientific literacy. Whether you see it as evidence of the existence of a higher power or not, I don't care so long as you can intelligently reason. As Queen Elizabeth I said, "I have no desire to make windows into mens souls"

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Review: Flight of Dodos

Apologies for the dust. Unfortunately I never got around to writing an appropriate eulogy for Dr. Waldvogel; I may get around to that at some point.

Another year brings another Darwin Day, this time being the 201st birthday of the Bearded One. The Biological Sciences Club along with Dr. Kelly had a viewing of filmmaker Randy Olson's 2006 documentary "Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus", which is a film I've been wanting to see for a while since I saw its name tossed about last year in my browsing.

Olson uses humor and animated graphics to capture the attention of a general audience, and his interviews are conversational (in fact, one of his meetings with scientists is actually a poker game) He highlights both sides as potential (if not already) 'dodos'- ID populists who insist on 'teaching the controversy' as well as erudite scientists so far removed in their ivory towers that they've lost how to connect with the general public.

This being 2006, he takes his camera to Kansas to talk to the Kansas Board of Education members still reeling from Evolution War II (as opposed to Evolution War I which was a more obviously creationist attempt to wedge 'alternate views' in the 90s), one of whom coincidentally lives across the corner from his mother. He also talks to intellectuals around the country including Michael Behe (who despite his views I still regard as some kind of scientist, even if his 'theory' doesn't hold water).

Olson makes the interesting observation that the Intelligent Design movement is a more marketable approach, with buzz phrases 'Teach the Controversy', 'there are flaws', 'where's the proof?' etc. and friendly supporters you could easily have a beer with (or at least lemonade and brownies). The scientific establishment, however, can't seem to communicate effectively and are somewhat argumentative (or at least during a poker game with alcoholic lubrication).

The neighborly barmate analogy he borrowed and used from the 2004 Presidential campaigns, and unfortunately the same attraction seems to appear today in the form of the Tea Party movement along with its darling, Sarah Palin. Folksy populism and mild sex appeal are great advertising, shiny wrappers. However, Sarah, the Tea Party, and Intelligent Design all share the same lack of substance beneath the glitz and glamour. Intelligent design, as previously discussed in this blog lacks testable research and actually discourages finding natural explanations beyond 'somebody did it.' Likewise, for all the outrage and screaming they've been whipping up, the Tea Party is still largely that- angry people who misappropriated historical events for their outrage (the original Boston Tea Party was more in protest of the British East India Company becoming a monopoly on tea, etc. etc. like a nightmarish WalMart). But I digress.

My seemingly irrelevant tangent to modern politics merely restates the documentary's message- science needs to better communicate information, research, and models to the general public, educating them with interesting things to combat attractive anti-intellectuals with ad company slogans. In my personal opinion based on my background, I feel one step would be to better promote public television programs if children must be parked in front of the boob tube. Relatable icons like Bill Nye the Science Guy and the characters of The Magic School Bus captivate attention and effectively promote scientific literacy.

As a postscript, I'll sadly note that the majority of the audience for this viewing were students largely there for extra credit in their Biol 102 course, uninterested in a discussion afterwards. Olson's humor was appreciated though, and hopefully brought his points across. This was a much more digestible film than Ben Stein's Expelled last year.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Temp. Memoriam Post

Dr. Jerry Waldvogel, professor for my Biol 210 course, passed away last Saturday of a heart attack at his home. Will write a lengthier post later, feeling glum and the dreary, rainy weather isn't helping much (though in a way it is because I sincerely love cold, wet weather).

A virtual memorial page was created by Prof. Kelly here: http://www.jerry-waldvogel.virtual-memorials.com/

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Welcome to the family, Darwinius!

Big news item of the day: Darwinius masillae. New primate fossil, apparently found in Germany in 1983, but purchased by the lead scientist on this particular research cookie in 2006. Why not reveal it then? Because you have to figure out what it is and present it in a neat, crispy package fit for information consumption.

So here we are, roughly two-three years later, igniting a media frenzy of "Missing Link?!?" articles. Myers discusses and links to MOAR discussion about why this label is inappropriate here. Relevant points include the fact that EVERY fossil is a link between other fossils, and that this particular fossil, while important and undoubtedly fascinating, likely isn't going to shake the scientific establishment like an asteroid hurtling to Earth.

However, I'd like to bring up another interesting point which hasn't been brought up yet- such widespread coverage will hopefully attract more people to the pure awesomeness of biology. Much like a recent xkcd (which apparently won't fully show in this format, AGGH. Livejournal: 1, Blogger: 0. so here's the link)

Aha yes. Everyone will be under our will one day. MWAHAHAHA.