Chernobyl: 25 years on

A sarcophagus in the Chernobyl Zone. Image by Piotr Andryszczak

26th of April was the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. The Presidents of Russia and Ukraine attended a commemoration ceremony at the site of the world's worst nuclear disaster and were united in calls for new international ruling to ensure the safe running and development of nuclear facilities.

The explosion and fire at the Chernobyl facility based in the former USSR released massive quantities of radioactive material into the surrounding area and into the atmosphere, where it was detected as far away as Norway and Scandinavia. To this day, the areas most effected by the nuclear fallout are still dealing with its aftermath - large areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia are still contaminated with heavy radioactive elements. Death and poor health attributed to high radiation exposure are still being reported.

Chernobyl radiation map from CIA handbook


President Dmitry Medvedev did not specify what proposals he would bring to the international community. He did, however, stress that the Chernobyl disaster has taught that truth and honesty is paramount to protecting lives: "it is duty of the state to tell the truth to its people. It must be acknowledged that the (Soviet) state did not always behave correctly".

However, lessons from the present-day disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant must also be recognised. Here, the incident was not a man-made accident like Chernobyl but caused by the uncontrollable and unanticipated force of nature. To save lives, one needs to know at an instant the extent and the immediate consequences of the damage to the facility and the impending nuclear fallout in order to take effective action - knowledge that could not have been apprehended fast enough for the officials in Japan to make any formal statements. It is here that honesty and truthfulness, under a massive plume of radioactive dust, do not appear to hold much value.

A word that does appear to be of value is conscience. What we know from both these major incidents is the sheer magnitude of the danger that a nuclear fallout poses to life and health; a danger that cannot be naturally sensed or outrun, that can be so easily caused by man or nature and that is irreversible, destructive and long lasting. One must question whether our demand for energy outweighs the value of human life and the value of our environment - one that in future will be serving as a massive dumping ground for nuclear waste.

Safer, renewable and clean energy technology exists. Now would be the perfect time for world leaders to listen to their conscience, and their people, and make a move away from the tempting toxicity that is nuclear power. What should be the real take-home message from Chernobyl and Fukushima is: haven't we seen enough?

Source: Reuters

Also see:

Channel 4 4od: Nuclear Eternity

Heavy Water: A film for Chernobyl

RNase Evil

For those scientists working with RNA you will feel my pain: so I got in early today to set up an RNA glyoxal gel:

I loaded my RNA samples, ran the gel for 5 hours and this was the result:

Arrraagh!!!!!!

It appears that I have RNase contamination in my gel! This is an enzyme found in abundance on skin (and in saliva and tears) that specifically destroy RNA, hence the horrible smeary bands you see. RNase can be found on almost every surface in physical contact and is hell to get rid of. For a better description - and for how I and many others who work with RNA feel about this enzyme - check out this page or just take me at my word - Evil! Evil! Evil!

Imagine you are the RNA, and those are RNases...coming after you...


RNA stands for ribonucleic acid and is one of three types of macromolecule (the other two being DNA and protein) that are essential for all forms of life. RNA is very similar to DNA in that it is made up of a string of nucleotides, the sequence of which allows RNA to encode genetic information, similar and as derived from DNA. However, unlike DNA, different types of RNA molecule exist, and are involved in many enzymatic processes within the living cell: that as well as encoding and passing on the information to synthesise proteins, RNA can direct and regulate gene expression, function in protein synthesis and sense and respond to cellular signals.

An x-ray structure of transfer RNA - a type of RNA that is involved in recruiting and linking amino acids together in the process of protein synethesis. Image by Yikrazuul.



Yet despite being so deeply involved in many vital biological processes RNA is very unstable. This is not surprising since a lot of these processes are rapidly occurring and are responsive to internal and external factors. RNA molecules generated now may not appropriate for what may occur at a later stage; their prolonged presence may even be deterimental to the cell in that specific catalytic processes may be overexpressed or suppressed; certain functions may be deregulated. One can say instead of being cogs in a well oiled machine they are now like spanners in the works.

So, yes, it is good that RNA is easily degradable and RNase is in abundance to do it - just not when one is trying to isolate and study it!!! So it will be take-two tomorrow: I am going to encase my hands in chain-mail gloves and treat all my equipment and my bench with a flame thrower. Hasta la vista RNase...


Kidding!!!


Wish me luck!

Of Science and Religion

Depiction of Jesus Christ on stained glass. Image by Toby Hudson

While enjoying the Easter holidays I came across this article in the New Statesman where the author, Andrew Zak Williams, interviewed a variety of leading public figures and scientists on their views on Christian faith and their reasons for believing. The responses are diverse as they are fascinating - Religious leaders James Jones and Richard Chartres describe the Christian faith as unquestionable. Others such as the barrister Cherie Blair, journalist Jeremy Vine and former Conservative minister Jonathan Aitken see religion as natural and a form of solace, something that cannot be explained. The British author Peter Hitchens and Professor of Psychology David Myers find that faith provides a guide and a meaning to life, that it holds the key to the many questions of the universe and of our existence.

It is perceived that the scientist's view is a little more divorced than those expressed and in this article it shows - Quantum Physicist Paul Davies prefers "useful concepts" than belief; that the word 'God' is undefined and idea of a spiritual entity capable of thought and control is unacceptable. Theoretical physicist Peter Richmond goes further, stating that although the teachings of the Bible are still relevant to this day, the scriptures should not be taken literally. However, the likes of Professor of biology Kenneth Miller, astrophysicist Hugh Ross and Professor of climate change Mike Hulme confirm a personal belief in the Bible and in God; a belief that stems from, surprisingly, scientific findings, scientific rationality and scientific values.

There is a concept perpetuated in the UK media that science is very much against religion - that it is God versus Nature; creationism versus evolution. However, from these short interviews it can be seen that the lines are blurred - that there are well respected and successful scientists who openly embrace religion and the concept that scientific methodology is not appropriate to explain or define faith.

Source: New Statesman

Happy Halloween - I mean Easter!

Lets go easter egg hunting!! Image by Paul Sapiano


It is past midnight and I am desperately fumbling for the remote control with my eyes closed to get rid of the creepy advert of yet another horror movie from my TV screen. It's April, for goodness sake! Easter is but a week away, our Kate and Will's wedding is not far off either; it should a time of sunshine, celebration and scoffing Easter eggs. But no, instead, some of us will be happily heading on down to the cinema to take a proverbial dump in the pants:



Why??????

An article blog by Norman Holland (Psychology Today: Why are there horror movies?) suggests that one can find satisfaction from experiencing fear and other unpleasant emotions. As living beings, we learn from a whole host of sensory cues. Fear and other negative emotions signals for danger and from an evolutionary stand point it does us good to pay attention and learn from the situation in order to help us survive. As human beings we enjoy learning, therefore maybe we enjoy learning the art of survival through fictitious media. However, Holland suggests that it is all down to the economising of psychic energy: in an unreal situation we have no need to respond to what is happening. We can just watch and learn and go with the flow and this (apparently) can be relaxing and quite satisfying. In reality however we would be more inclined to do something, like call the police or go knock out that p***k with the mask on. This requires brain activity, extra energy and with the addition of the impending adrenaline rush that energises the fight or flight response, it is this that causes unpleasant sensations.

So having learnt all that, how come I (and others) are such scaredy cats?? I can say in my case I maybe have more of an emotional response to what I perceive, whether it is real or not, since I feel really depressed when I watch sad movies and laugh out loud at comedies. One of the appealing natures of any storyline is that it draws you in to feel for the characters, and that's a good thing as otherwise it would be really boring! However, for the more emotionally sensitive amongst us, movies, books or games invoking negative emotions is a big no-no. I'll go and hide back behind the sofa now...

Source: Psychology today

See also: Norman Holland - Marston-Milbauer Eminent Scholar Emeritus

New bag!

Alas, commuting has taken it's toll on my wheelie bag. For a week or two I had started noticing that my laptop case was looking a bit dusty. I just thought it was my DIY lining on the inside of my wheelie bag coming off. Turns out there was a huge hole at the bottom of the bag near one of the wheels. I had been dragging my laptop along the floor all this time!!!!!!!!

I have since gotten a new one and it is no way as good as what I had - the compartments are too small, I have to put my lunchbox in sidewards, and I can't haul shopping in it either. The upside is that it is designed to hold a laptop so it is all protected, and the wheels are a bit bigger.

Maybe I should ditch it and go more high-tech - there are now bags you can get with solar panels that can generate energy to charge up your laptop (check out Voltaic):

Pretty cool no? Now if only it had wheels and I could haul shopping with it that would be great!

Sell it to me

Hmmm, I'd like a coffee please! (Image by Marshall Astor)


Having worked in molecular biology research for 9 years and still counting, I can conclude that being in science is very much like running a business: the Principle Investigator (the P.I., the boss) is like a sole trader; their laboratories are their work premises; they employ students, technicians and post-doctoral researchers who are all paid with monies obtained through research grants; their heavy-duty equipment (also obtained through grants) is their capital; stock consists of glassware, disposal containers, pipettes, bins, chemicals, growth media and the like. There are bills to pay, health and safety regulations to adhere to and obligations to fulfill, such as teaching and lecturing. The major object of trade is data.

To be successful in academic science one has to be successful in the business of generating data. And not just any old data - positive data, exciting data, data that tells a story. Data that gets everyone in your field of work talking. Data that scoops anyone else working on your topic. With funds becoming scarce and more complex to obtain (see blog entry: Fat cats and dead rats), it is now necessary for scientists to have not just good communications skills but good selling skills too. Depending on the interest of the charity/trust who acts as the bank, a research proposal needs to be written in a way that it can fulfill that interest - even if it may never happen. This seems dishonest, however as mentioned in my last blog a lot of science is developmental. Like the initial design sketchings before a form takes place, the nature of scientific research is full of uncertainty. But it does allow questions to be answered, more questions to be asked and doors to be opened to many different possibilities.

There are various ways a scientist can sell his wares. Most communications in academic science occur not only through relevant scientific journals but through conferences and meetings held by the relevant societies. The more popular the topic (i.e. those of public interest such as the environment, food, health and energy) the more a scientist has access to popular medium, such as newspapers, science magazines, radio and TV. It is here in the bright lights that the information being conveyed gets confusing. With many seemingly expert opinions, it is hard to make sense of it all.

A good example of this is the ongoing claims about the health benefits and risks of coffee . In 1999 it was claimed that coffee drinkers are less likely to suffer heart disease compared to those drinking tea (BBC News Health). But then in the same year it was reported that too much coffee leads to elevated stress levels and increased blood pressure (BBC News Health). In 2004, the story changed again with an Italian dietian stating that coffee has a whole host of health benefits - "the stronger the better" (BBC News - again). But don't drink it cold - in 2009 it was reported that iced coffees bought from the high street may increase the likelihood of obesity and cancer (Sky News). Not for Prince Charles though - he was reported to back a controversial therapy involving coffee that could cure cancer (The Guardian). The coffee, however, will not be for drinking purposes.

Some communications in popular medium appear more like hard sell tactics, arising from situations in current events. A recent article in The Guardian pulls out all the stops to confirm that nuclear power has greater benefits than the risks perceived. Another article in the The Telegraph states that even small amounts of alcohol can lead to the risk of developing certain types of cancers. Here, one is more likely to question the reasons behind this: a face-saving tactic by the representatives of the nuclear power industry perhaps? A way to reduce National Health Service bills of treating alcohol related incidents/diseases?

Only those in the know can truly say how the science is being sold. In any case, one has to be quizzical of the information being conveyed, even if it is being backed by scientists and experts.


Enjoy your coffee.

Fat cats and dead rats

Image by brokinhrt2

Today I went to the first of a two day course titled 'Career Management for Researchers - Broadening Horizons'. The aim of the course is to recognise that with so few academic positions available nationwide, it is necessary for university staff on contract employment (such as yours truly) to think about the transferrable skills we have in order to find permanent employment elsewhere.

The declining number of positions is in line with the cuts the UK government has announced for university funding: according to The Guardian £940m will be cut from the 2012 budget for teaching, research and buildings. This announcement is a massive blow for science departments everywhere who are already struggling to obtain funding. The regulations to date, set by various research councils, state that successful research proposals should have a social or/and economical impact. This has put a huge pressure on laboratories, such as the ones I have worked for, that carry out what I call 'pure' research; where a subject is being studied solely for the expansion of knowledge and discovery. The findings of these projects are by no means "useless" or a "waste of money". It is the probing nature of this type of research that leads to the better understanding of the complexity of life, in the standpoint of physics, chemistry and biology. I believe that forced cessation of such projects will lead to the decline of useful knowledge that could lead to the discovery and development of new medicines and technology; the vital component of work that, ironically, would have a social and economical impact.

The announced cuts for 2012 means that many research groups will be scaling down and tightening belts than ever before. Many highly qualified and talented individuals who have trained long and hard and have made many personal sacrifices for the sake of their careers will be unceremoniously made redundant. This is insult to injury since professionals in other fields of work have excellent job security, decent pay and benefits and, most importantly, are recognised and appreciated.

Tonight, as I wring my hands at the prospect of being a job seeker that is too old and too over-qualified for most types of work, I see that our Vice-Chancellors are not feeling as worried. Dispatches on Channel 4 has reported that while universities are facing cuts, students (their parents) will be hit with massive tuition debts and academics and researchers will be out of a job, university Vice-Chancellors are livin da vida loca with salaries up and over a quarter of a million pounds. In addition, they reside in luxurious accomodation and have ski chalets, chauffeured driven cars, membership of exclusive clubs - all taken care of by the "cash-strapped" universities. My hands are wringing even harder.

Memories of a quip from an ex-colleague enters my mind: "it is time to find a real job". This epitomises the life of a present-day academic science researcher. Far from the romantic ideal that universities are a haven for those who wish to make a living through knowledge and discovery, the reality of the situation now is that through commercialisation the fat cats are getting fatter and the lab rats are facing certain death.

See: Dispatches

No thank you, GM cows...

It was reported late yesterday evening that researchers at the State Key Laboratories for AgroBiotechnology in China's Agricultural University has successfully introduced human genes into a herd of cows in order for them to produce milk similar to that of human breast milk (see The Telegraph). This latest advancement in GM research is to enhance the presence of key nutrients, missing or found as a low level in cows milk, that are vital to a baby's health and development. At present, three types of genes have been incorporated by microinjection of the modified genetic material into bovine somatic ('body') cells. The nuclei of these cells were then transferred into donor cells, from which transgenic bovine embryos were created and the resulting cows could express lactoferrin, lysozyme and Alpha-lactalbumin in their milk. The observed high yields from these "mammary bioreactors" is seen as a positive step towards the industrial scale production of GM milk.

The process of creating clones by somatic nuclear transfer (taken from de: Quelle: Zeichner: Schorschski / Dr. Jürgen Groth)







However, these findings will also alarm and outrage those who are against the use of GM for food production. There is the obvious safety issue of consuming products that have been unnaturally enhanced and of which the short and long-term effects of consumption are unknown. There is also the concern for the welfare of the animal, since the previously created Dolly the Sheep - although deemed a healthy clone - had an unusually short life-span and suffered health problems.

In the UK, the concept of GM food has had so much bad press that supermarkets go to great lengths to stress that the food they sell are GM free. Furthermore, the use of breast milk for commercial purposes has already caused quite a stir - the recent offering of "Baby Gaga" - breast milk ice cream made from donations of a lactating mother - has invoked mixed feelings ranging from curiosity to disgust (see BBC News).

The question that weighs heavy on my mind is this - why is it that these cows are required when a human mother is quite perfectly able to feed her own child? For argument's sake, there are those mothers who are unable to feed their baby, such as those with a medical condition or are taking/addicted to substances that could risk harm to the baby. However, cannot a human lactating mother donate milk for this purpose? In the case of the ice cream, there were a number of mothers who expressed an interest in offering their milk for financial gain. Cannot healthcare companies/the government pay these ladies to help fellow mothers in need?

In the commercial sense I suspect that when the time comes, the marketing ploy to convince western mothers to use GM milk will be largely based on cosmetics. The perceived unattractiveness of "saggy boobs" as a result of 6 or so months of breastfeeding per baby could be totally avoided by the use of an alternative and equally nutritious source. If that is the case, vanity has reached new heights.

In conclusion, my personal opinion is this - Mothers and women of the UK should unite, burn those bras and chain themselves to the gates of parliament in protest. Not only is breastfeeding a way to feed a child it is also crucial for the bonding between mother and baby; the first step towards building a relationship that is positive, unique and special. Scientific commercialism, vanity and social pressure should not be allowed to undermine its importance. No thank you, GM cows.

Story: The Telegraph

Also see:

PloS One

Wonders of the Universe

After being awed by the sight of the supermoon (19th of March of this year) and oohing and aahing at the revelations by Professor Brian Cox in his aptly named TV series 'Wonders of the Universe' (its over now, making Sunday evening TV boring again), I started trawling the internet for more fascinating and inspiring information on the cosmos (that is easily accessible and understandable to non-physics-or-math-geniuses). Here is a really great page I found: apod is updated daily with pictures taken by NASA and various other sources and features commentary by professional astronomers. These guys also have a lot of fun it seems! Enjoy! :D



Check out:

Supermoon pics

BBC - Wonders of the Universe by Prof. Brian Cox

apod

Bags on wheels!

Bags, bags, bags. Everyone knows how much a girl loves bags. I got two that I take to and from work. The second one isn't by choice really. When I started my job the boss told me that they didn't have any office computers. In fact they didn't have anything so I had to bring my own pens, pencils, note pads, tape, gluestick, staples, paper-rock-scissors and get a laptop - fast. The cheapest laptop had all the basic specs I needed but weighs a ton. As I wasn't going to leave my purchase in a place frequented by opportunist drug addicts I needed a mode of transport for my laptop that allows me to keep my posture, muscle tendons and good temperment intact while lugging it to and from work. So all hail the wheelie bag! The saviour of commuting souls. The all faithful container of workstuff, lunch and other personal items. The epitome of convenience. I can't harp on about it enough!

Necessity is the mother of all innovation. I don't know much on the history of the bag or the wheel so I will say this: I love the guy/girl who invented the wheel! I love the girl (it has to be) who invented the bag! I love my wheelie bag! :D

What I would look like if my bag didn't have wheels (image by Thiago Piccoli)

It's all Chinese to me...

And in a few years time it might be. Recently the UK's national academy of science, The Royal Society, carried out a major study on the global scientific effort (Knowledge, Networks and Nations). The study notes the "striking" rise of Chinese science in terms of the number of scientific findings being published in recognised international scientific journals. At the time of the study, the number of publications orginating from the PRC stood at 184,080. This is a significant increase from the 25,474 papers being published in 1996. Compare this to the number of publications originating from the United States, the country that at present is number one in all areas of science. Here, 316,317 papers were published at the time of the study; a slight increase from the 292,513 papers being published in 1996. The study by the Royal Society suggests that after 2013 the PRC may overtake the US as the leading country in scientific research. The rise of scientific progress in India and Brazil, and the emergence of science in the Middle East, South Asia, North Africa and some smaller European nations also indicates a shift in the global scientific landscape where the likes of the US, Japan and Western Europe have been dominant.

So how did this change come about? As indicated in the study by the Royal Society the increase in collaboration between scientific communities has extended beyond international borders. The common interest of a particular field and the pursuit of a common goal has allowed the forming of specialised organisations and societies that convene on a regular basis to discuss and challenge ideas and to share knowledge and expertise. I myself have been to one such meeting (organised by the RNA Society in Berlin, 2008) and found the experience awesome, insightful and thought provoking. It is at these meetings that scientific collaborations are born, where ideas and solutions originate from a figure on a poster or the from the presentation and words a very nervous speaker (they don't call us labrats for nothing!). Furthermore, with international travel becoming the norm more and more scientists are taking the opportunity and travelling greater distances to present their work to a wider audience, to study and gain experience from a different lab or even moving and settling in a different location altogether; taking advantage of the expertise and technology available. A great number of scientific publications now contain the names of researchers from more than one institution.

So why in the PRC? The economy of the People's Republic of China is the second biggest in the world after the United States. It is also the world's fastest growing economy and one that emerged unscathed from the global recession that has had major effects on the US, the UK and Japan. The wealth and affluence in this emerging super power is attracting the interest of many scientific laboratories around the world. To be able to obtain financial backing is crucial to the life span of a research project. The PRC has the funds and wants in return the knowledge and know-how to further develope its own scientific base, in the form of institutes, technology centres and researchers.

The Royal Society recommends from the study that the support of international science should be maintained and strengthened and that international collbaoration be encouraged, supported and facilitated. This is true since it is scientific research and discovery, not nationalism, that is paramount for preserving the true quest for knowledge.

Having said that though, it wouldn't hurt to start learning some Chinese...

Story: Knowledge, Networks and Nations