07.13.08
Posted in Adventure, Biology, Critters, Hug a tree, Not just a theorist, behind the curtain at 8:18 pm by CMonster
Earlier this afternoon, I came home from grocery shopping to find a frog hopping across my living room.
By itself, that’s pretty bizarre, even if I do live on the first floor-it’s pretty hard to get even a housefly by my cats, much less anything larger.
Then I realized two things, in quick succession:
1. The frog was furry. (Problematic)
2. Come to think of it, that squat, hopping shape near my pantry was actually a bat- albeit one with the wings folded under the body.
For a pet owner, finding a bat inside your home is a pretty scary thing- there’s always the fear of rabies, and with such small teeth, it’s not always clear when your pet has been bitten. Given that my cats regard bats as “Mice with wings” (aka, the greatest toy EVER), the risk of contact is… somewhat higher.
As for what to do? The good news is that the county I live in offers a free rabies-testing service, and I’ll know in a few days just how much a concern this will be.
The bad news is that my cats (lovable purrballs that they are) are somewhat at the far edge of the timeframe for a rabies shot to be effective- and a quick survey of cat owners I know has suggested that I’m not the only one who’s been slow to renew vaccinations. As I’m now finding out, just keeping the cats indoors isn’t any guarantee of protection. So if you’re reading this, go forth! Make sure your pets are up to date on their medical visits, even if they seem healthy now.
The other aspect of this situation that bothers me is that the actual rabies test is not, in fact, particularly humane- even if I did bring the bat to the humane society for testing. Essentially, it involves examining labeled brain tissue under a fluorescent microscope– and so merely because it wandered into my living room, I found myself owning and signing away the rights to euthanize and test the furry frog.
It’s upsetting on many levels, but as a chemist, I know that there have been some fantastic recent advances in non-lethal sampling and identification of substances in the brain. I’ll have to ask around, but there has to be a better way to do this- executing something just to find out if it has rabies feels too much like the modern equivalent of a witch dunking. And that’s not sitting well with me tonight.
Permalink
06.14.08
Posted in Adventure, Biology, Critters, behind the curtain at 4:23 pm by CMonster
It was a beautiful morning, and I took the opportunity to go kayaking with a friend today. The route took us through some fantastic scenery, past several species of birds that I’ve never seen before…
And, rather unexpectedly, I learned how dragonflies mate. (Hint: they’re talented little critters)
It took me a little bit to realize what the head-to-tail position meant, but I suppose it would offer a few advantages for mates that want to fly together.
But, there you have it: half a dozen pairs of dragonflies had sex on my leg today. Witty remarks fail me.
Permalink
04.27.08
Posted in Biology, Screechy monkeys, Turtles all the way down at 7:34 pm by CMonster
What is it about the evolution debate that turns normally rational, well-meaning scientists into kids in a sandbox? Seriously?
That’s the thought that’s been going through my head recently, with the release of a movie called “Expelled”. From everything I’ve heard, it’s a movie that thoroughly deserves to be panned- an argument in favor of teaching intelligent design that relies entirely on poor logic, vague emotional appeals, and the image of the “underdog”.
(My problems with the “intelligent design” movement- and the response of people like Richard Dawkins- would make a long post in themselves. Chad Orzel’s take on the issue is a good start, though.)
Back on topic. You see, the “Expelled” movie makes the argument that Darwinism is a straight stop on the Nazi express, and believing in evolution leads to all sorts of terrible things. As a result, I’ve had to physically stop reading quite a few science blogs: every !@#$%^&* time that someone from the bible belt thinks of Hitler, it gets blogged about.
“See! There’s a Nazi somewhere on their side- kiss the entire argument goodbye!”, goes the rallying cry. And criticism is met with some real gems- things like “They came for the biologists and I did not speak out for I wasn’t a biologist.
Not only is that annoying, but it’s sloppy. One of the things that makes evolution such a wonderful topic to study is the way that it presents a clear, reasonable, and generally consistent picture of the world, complete with clear and testable predictions. Keep what works, and discard the rest.
Give some of those same researchers and teachers an internet connection, though, and it degenerates into a carnival of mudslinging- where every emotional appeal is met with a slippery slope, and where people with names like “Stein” can be tarred with the Nazi brush for sharing a particular belief with a crackpot.
So what gives? I’ve certainly done my part to argue against intelligent design, but a lot of the science blogs I’ve seen on the debate offer the same devotion to emotional appeals, edge cases, and us-versus-them tactics that you’d expect from any lunatic. For a field that prides itself on clear, compelling logic, the scientific community could do much better.
Permalink
04.25.08
Posted in Biology at 11:26 pm by CMonster
The trees have just begun to bloom in the last few days, bringing a wonderful green tinge to the area- and with it, the arrival of a spring to match our recent warm weather.
I’ve also been noticing an upsurge in sightings of wildlife, reminding me of just how much a seemingly vacant suburb can hide- at night, there’s a pair of rabbits that seem to like grazing just outside my building.
Even in such a tame setting, though, the competition for spring urges can be fierce. On the walk to buy groceries this evening, I watched in horror as a goose with an injured wing drove another into traffic, then flew back to resume a courtship display with a third goose. Fortunately, the driver had good reflexes, and the second bird wasn’t harmed- though much like any sulky male, he took his time getting out of the road.
Permalink
03.03.08
Posted in Biology at 10:06 pm by CMonster
Today, I came across an NIH project worth visiting- it seems they’ve been scanning in some of the early classics in medicine and natural history, and putting them online in a really snazzy page-turning format.
It’s pretty interesting to see how the state of human knowledge has changed over the years- for example, consider this description:
Conrad Gesner’s Historiae Animalium (Studies on Animals) is considered to be the first modern zoological work. This first attempt to describe many of the animals accurately is illustrated with hand-colored woodcuts drawn from personal observations by Gesner and his colleagues.
Then take a look at one of the animals they observed.
But all snark aside, some of these books are truly classics. Reading them also motivated me to track down work by my scientific heroes- Project Gutenberg is wonderful for that, even if the presentation is less pretty. (Compare Leeuwenhoek to the NIH copy of Hooke).
Although often asked, I don’t actually care that much for Newton- in spite of his famous name, he was reputed to be very vicious when crossed. On the other hand, Project Gutenberg does have a lovely copy of The Chemical History of a Candle, by one of my actual scientific heroes, Michael Faraday. This is a really creative example of his approach to service and science education, stemming from a series of public lectures that he initiated. (The Christmas Lectures continue to this very day)
Anyone want to share their own favorite historical work? Who’s your scientific hero?
Permalink
02.26.08
Posted in Biology at 5:46 pm by CMonster
Perhaps my dinner reading is a bit unusual, but a letter sent to C&EN has this tantalizing clue about science past, and the limitations inherent in killing cancer cells using shock waves:
“I remember one occasion when they used a Band-Aid to attach the explosive wafer to a tumor on the side of a mouse. When they set it off, the mouse went flying across the room.”
Two things come to mind from reading this:
1. Is this a possibility that the experimenters should have considered in advance? (I doubt that this experiment could have been done today; one can only hope that the mouse survived to experience gentler forms of therapy for the tumor)
2. Does anyone have access to Oncology (1970, v24, p187)? I think it’s important to ensure that Mighty Mouse received an acknowledgement when this work went to press.
Permalink
