newsweek:

Today in science: turns out that chocolate reduces body mass, prevents blood clots, improves numeracy, may prevent cancer, doesn’t ruin your complexion, and makes everybody like you. One of those is not true but does it matter? No! Chocolate!

SO IMPORTANT AND RELEVANT 

jtotheizzoe:

Nanopore DNA Sequencing

Does that mean anything to you? It should. People who know me know that I am prone to hyperbole (e.g. “This is the best freakin’ sandwich I have ever had, like, in history”), but believe me when I say that This. Changes. Everything.

Critics of genomics (even Craig Venter, “Mr. Genome” himself) have lamented the fact that sequencing our genome has not resulted in discovering the genetic basis of every disease. We have learned that human biology is orders of magnitude more complicated, redundant and networked than we ever imagined. But many people (including me) believe that we will only learn what we need to by sequencing more genomes.

Technologies like Oxford Nanopore’s, should they live up to their promises (or even half their promises), will make genome sequencing so cheap and so fast, that we will no longer be limited by how much genetic data we can assemble, only what we can process.

We will have to make sure that this doesn’t get applied to medicine all willy-nilly (true personalized medicine is still far-off), and watching for genomic snake oil hucksters will fall on all of our shoulders (they should be tarred, and then feathered). Kids: study that computer science. We’re gonna have a LOT of data to analyze.

I MEAN SERIOUSLY! THEY MADE A GENOME SEQUENCER THE SIZE OF A USB DRIVE THAT COSTS LESS THAN $1,000!! I’M LOSING MY MIND HERE!

Previously: Genome sequencing facts

(via Oxford Nanopore on Vimeo, for more check out Nature News)

follow up to yesterday’s post

pretty big deal, imo.

jtotheizzoe:

Where we came from:
  • 10 YEARS: The amount of time that it took to sequence the first human genome, at a cost of $2.7 billion.
  • 9.5 YEARS: The amount of time that it would take you to read the human genome, continuously, were it printed in a book. Oh, and that book would be the size of 200 Manhattan telephone books.
  • 3 GIGABYTES: The amount of computer storage that one human genome takes up.

Where we are going:

  • 15 MINUTES: The amount of time that Oxford Nanopore’s new single-DNA strand reading technology would take to sequence the human genome.
  • $900: The cost of their smallest nanopore genome sequencer (not quite big enough for a human genome, but still). Oh, and it’s the size of a USB drive.

More coming tomorrow. This is a big deal. I love science.

What (if any) are the repercussions for reproductive healthcare? 

Keeping my eye on this one…so interesting!!

but also so Gattaca like!! (getting a readout of the genome of your potential boyfriend anyone?)

politicalcanuck:

Ottawa ‘Muzzling’ Scientists, Panel Tells Global Research Community

For almost three weeks after David Tarasick published findings about one of the largest ozone holes ever discovered above the Arctic, the federal scientist was barred from breathing a word about it to the media.

Kristi Miller was similarly gagged from granting interviews about her own research into a virus that might be killing British Columbia’s wild sockeye salmon, despite going to print in the prestigious journal Science.

Such incidents aren’t one-off occurrences, but instead represent a trend of “muzzling” policies being imposed on Canadian scientists by federal agencies under the Conservative government, a panel told their international peers Friday at a global science conference in Vancouver.

“It’s pretty clear that for federal scientists, Ottawa decides now if the researchers can talk, what they can talk about and when they can say it,” senior science journalist Margaret Munro, with Postmedia News, told a group gathered at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting.

“We’re not talking about state secrets here.”

The views were aired in tandem with the release of an open letter by a coalition of six science and communications organizations, who jointly called on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to “tear down the wall” that’s been raised over the past four years separating scientists, journalists and the public.

“Despite promises that your majority government would follow principles of accountability and transparency, federal scientists in Canada are still not allowed to speak to reporters without the ‘consent’ of media relations officers,” the letter says.

It adds that far too frequently, journalists encounter “unacceptable” delays and denials for interviews.

“Increasingly, journalists have simply given up trying to access federal scientists, while scientists at work in federal departments are under undue pressure in an atmosphere dominated by political messaging.”

This, honestly, is scary.  Science needs to be kept free of politics, because sometimes, scientists are going to find things that are not politically safe, and this needs to occur and be released without bias or spin, because only then is the public able to make their own opinions and force their political parties to do something.

This is doubly disturbing given that we are currently giving foreign aid to mining companies (THE BIGGEST ONE IN THE WORLD, ahem) and are looking to turn oil into our major primary export.

We are doing things that should have rigorous, independent monitoring of environmental impact and human impact.  Not sanitized reports where the government considers the political impact of ‘what happens if the public knows this?’

Because really, the more they think the public might react unfavourably, the more the public has the right to know.

jtotheizzoe:

Why Does the Cartoon Heart Look the Way It Does?

There’s real history behind this medical cartoon misinterpretation. Check out the full comic explanation here.

(via sci-ence)

I had no idea bill nye was a legitimate scientist. 

or that he wore ties that aren’t bow. 

jtotheizzoe:

And here’s Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye and Tom Kalil sitting around at the White House reading my Tumblr answering science questions from folks on Twitter today.

Here’s the complete Storify of the White House Science chat.

Let’s get this party startedddd

Let’s get this party startedddd

by far the coolest thing we’ve received at school so far — this michael jackson hand anatomy glove, which we get to color in during labs next week. 

(patent pending by two of my anatomy profs)

i bet i could run a successful experiment

that shows a positive correlation between the amount of work i have to do (as measured by length of to-do list) and number of tumblr posts. 

Weighty eBooks

futurejournalismproject:

A scientist demonstrates that when you fill your Kindle with digital books, it actually gets heavier.

Via The Telegraph:

Using Einstein’s E=mc² formula, which states that energy and mass are directly related, Prof Kubiatowicz calculated that filling a 4GB Kindle to its storage limit would increase its weight by a billionth of a billionth of a gram, or 0.000000000000000001g.

This is roughly equivalent to the weight of a small virus, while the equivalent number of books – about 3,500 – would weigh approximately two tons.

So now we know.

(Source: futurejournalismproject)

When Photos Are Painkillers

Many mothers offer their young children a hand to squeeze as they brave a vaccination in the doctor’s office. We instinctively know that contact with a loved one can help mitigate pain—and the scientific evidence concurs. Now two recent studies show that a mere reminder of an absent beloved—a photograph—can deliver the same relief.

Psychological Science study in 2009 first showed the effect. Psychologist Sarah Master of the University California, Los Angeles, and her colleagues studied 25 women and their boyfriends of more than six months. The researchers subjected the women to different degrees of thermal stimulation—a sharp, prickling sensation—as they either held their boyfriend’s hand while he sat behind a curtain, held the hand of a male stranger behind a curtain, viewed a photograph of their boyfriend or viewed a photograph of a male stranger. Holding their partner’s hand or viewing his photo decreased the women’s pain significantly more than touching or viewing a stranger—and the photo was just as effective as the physical contact.

A more recent study in the October issue of PLoS One peered inside the brain to better understand how love soothes pain. Neuroscientist Jarred Younger of Stanford University and his colleagues recruited 15 students who were in the first nine months of a new and passionate relationship. While lying inside a functional MRI machine, the participants focused on photographs of their partners or on pictures of similarly attractive acquaintances, or they played a word association game. During these dis­tractions, the experimenters applied mild, medium or painful temperatures to the students’ palms. Images of attractive acquaintances were not very effective painkillers, but gazing at the faces of significant others and playing the word game reduced reported pain on average between 36 and 44 percent and high pain between 12 and 13 percent.

Only photos of loved ones, however, sparked activity in reward centers within the amygdala, hypothalamus and medial orbitofrontal cortex. The faces of romantic partners also decreased activity in major pain-processing areas, such as the left and right posterior insula. Because the reward centers did not flutter in response to the distracting word game, the researchers argue that the salve of romantic affection is not mere distraction—it is a bliss as potent as that of drugs such as cocaine, which invigorate the same pleasure pathways.

A photograph may not need to show a significant other to produce analgesic effects—any loved one could do, thinks neuroscientist Lucy Brown of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, who was not involved with the study. “Whether a photo of a boyfriend or girlfriend works better than one of your spouse, child or beloved pet, I’m not so sure,” she says. So the next time you have to squeeze into a cramped airplane seat or trudge to work with a bad cold, consider bringing a picture of someone you love to make things more bearable.