picture from evolutionaryparenting.com

I consider myself having two jobs: from 8 to 5, I´m a scientist, the rest of the time, I´m a mom. [Before you decide to stop reading, no, this is not a self-pitying my-life-is-so-hard-post, I honestly love both my jobs] Hence my excitement when I stumbled upon the following phrase: Evolutionary Parenting. Wow, I can apply my one job to the other? But then, what the hell does that even mean? Aren´t we all evolved to be decent parents? After all, if my parents, or my parents´ parents, or their parents´ parents were parenting fruitcakes, I wouldn´t be here. But no, all my ancestors were fed, protected from the elements, diseases and danger and socialized to the extent that they were able to find a mate to have babies again.

So, what´s this evolutionary parenting all about? In a nutshell, it is about chucking out all current cultural norms and go back to how parenting has evolved, such as breastfeeding until natural weaning occurs, ´wearing´ baby close to mom at all times like monkeys ´wear´ their babies in their first year(s) of life and sleeping together instead of the social norm of a separate cute baby room.  Hmm… I use a cow to provide milk for my kids, push the youngest in a stroller, and they both happily sleep in their own rooms so I get some well-needed sleep to perform my two jobs.. I guess I am not an evolutionary parent after all. Yikes, am I reducing my offspring´s fitness?

Whether it is running statistical tests in SPSS, doing a literature search online, or running assays in the temperature controlled Conviron, technology enables be to do my job everyday.  This morning I learned about a new piece of technology and for the first time, it troubled me.  Meet Quill. Quill is an artificial intelligence engine that will take raw data, analyze it, and write about it.  Don’t believe that Quill could possibly do a very good job of this?  Read its article on Forbes.com about Apple’s earnings.

On its website Narrative Science, the company that created Quill, explains how Quill takes charts and spreadsheets, “applies complex and sophisticated artificial intelligence algorithms that extract the key facts and interesting insights” and then …. “transforms them into stories”.

Did anyone else get a small chill running down their spine? One of the creators of this technology was interviewed as part of a piece on NPR’s TED Radio Hour. He believes people are uncomfortable with this technology because it makes them feel, “less special” since a machine can communicate in a way that we used to think only people could.  I will say some of my apprehension about this technology is due to a fear of being replaced.  Who needs post-docs when you can use Quill? (“The resulting content is as good or better than your best analyst, and is produced at a scale and speed only possible with technology”).

However what truly terrifies me about this type of technology is not the loss of my job. We are now creating technologies that can do things which we define as part of being human. I do not fear robotic replacement. I fear human atrophy. I appreciate that the current application of Quill is to analyze large amount of boring data and make is palpable to a board or CEO, but where does this stop? Will we remove writing requirements from majors in which Quill can pick up the slack?

In a recent New York Times article, Verlyn Klinkenborg (no algorithm came up with that surname!) discusses the steady decline in the number of English majors. These majors are not seen to produce people with useful skills. He explains, “..writing well is isn’t merely a utilitarian skill. It is about developing a rational grace and energy in your conversation with the world around you.” No technology, no matter how amazing, should excuse you from that conversation.

Calvin's dad explains science (click on the image for more)

I love a good story. You know, the kind of story that you tell kids to instill in them a healthy sense of skepticism? My uncle – a poet and professor of literature naturally – used to tell these kinds of stories to me and my cousin all the time when we were kids. One day, I hope to tell these stories to my niece. It’s not that my family lies for the sake of lying; the lies in our stories are not malicious lies nor are they little white lies, they are big colorful lies told in the service of an entertaining story.

In contrast, I have an ethical obligation to be honest in my professional life. This obligation means that I can’t always tell the story I might want to tell, but storytelling is no less important as a scientist. Being able to tell a good story sells your science and advances your career; a good story, paired with good data hopefully, is what gets you into the top journals. The pressure to tell a good story can also lead to fraud, as it did with Diederik Stapel. But if we let the data guide us, storytelling is what makes the day-to-day of science meaningful. I don’t do experiments because they’re fun or intrinsically interesting, I do them because they’re essential to telling a good and honest scientific story.

Given that skepticism and storytelling are both integral to being a scientist, my conclusion is that if you want to turn your children into scientists, you should lie to them early and often. With any luck, they will quickly learn to question what they’re told, and they will know how to tell a good story. Everything else that they will need to know is already available through Google and Web of Science.

And lastly, just because I love a good story, I want to hear yours. What are the stories told in your family that aren’t necessarily true but are still a damn good story?

I just smoked my last cigarette. I said I’d wait until I finished the pack, but I ran the rest under water and crushed them in the sink.

I eventually came to the decision myself, but I’ve gotten a LOT of crap about my smoking habit since I came to grad school. Mostly because people don’t understand how I could be such a huge hypocrite; that is, I’m a scientist, and I, like most scientists, pride myself on my skepticism and reliance on evidence to make decisions. Yet clearly, there are absolutely no benefits of smoking cigarettes. None. No evidence points to any one pro, and there are decades and volumes of evidence that support a plethora of cons.

Which leads me to another question I get often; how can you have done four years of conservation biology, and then work in a lab that deals mainly in the effects of climate change on disease prevalence and transmission AND drive a massive tank of a vehicle that seats seven others and gets 14 mpg on a good day? Admittedly, that’s also insanely hypocritical. When I’m a little more established, I’ll purchase a more environmentally friendly car. And since that will be a while from now, hopefully hybrid technology and fully electric options will be more affordable for the average customer.

But my question is how much we really have to practice what we preach as scientists. We’re not as much in the public eye as politicians, but does it ever irk you that conferences for horrendous neglected tropical diseases in impoverished nations take place in lavish hotels, where we stuff ourselves with more food than we’d ever need? And how much should that bother us? Are we supposed to be role models?

I have about one zillion other words that I need to write, so I thought I would just share some of my favorite ever words that someone else wrote in a scientific paper that I read. I encountered them years ago, in Hodjati and Curtis’ 1999 article, “Effects of permethrin at different temperatures on pyrethroid-resistant and susceptible strains of Anopheles.” I have had to re-read this paper a number of times, as you might guess based on the title if you remember anything about my work, and I’m always tickled to re-discover this tidbit of silliness:

“[…] mosquitoes were placed in a paper cup and, for their humidification and possible refreshment, a pad of cotton soaked with dilute glucose was provided on the top of the gauze covering the cup.”

If you want to make money as a poker player, read Doyle Brunson’s Super System.  If you want to thrive as a samurai, read Miyamoto Musashi’s The Book of Five Rings.  If you want to survive a zombie apocalypse, read Max Brooks’s The Zombie Survival Guide.  But which book do you read if you want to learn how to advise PhD students?  A brief internet search revealed no books on the subject.

I can imagine a few possible reasons why this type of book wouldn’t exist: 1) Nobody feels qualified to write it (it’s risky to make strong statements with only ~10 data points), 2) Nobody cares enough to write it, 3) Nobody is brave enough to be candid about past mistakes, 4) Nobody ever thought of it, 5) Nobody would publish it (because early faculty don’t have the time to read it, and experienced faculty don’t feel the need to read it).

My guess for the reason this book has never been written is because nobody who felt qualified to write it, had the motivation to write it, and was self-assured enough to tell anecdotes about his/her past shortcomings, ever thought to do it.  Or the publishers didn’t think it would sell.

That or it does exist and I need to search harder.

Edit:  Jessi brought to my attention the book At The Helm, which deals with this topic and other issues faced by young faculty.  But I still find it interesting that there are so many books written from the student’s perspective, and so few written from the advisor’s.

A couple of weekends ago I got the urge to go dancing and therefore proceeded to coax two of my friends to accompany me for a night of grooving or “flailing” (as Megan more appropriately calls it).

Is dancing uniquely human? This question certainly isn’t novel, being among one of many human characteristics that draws interest from the public and researchers alike who attempt to answer the fundamental question: how different are humans from other organisms?

Maybe you remember a couple of years ago the wildly popular youtube videos that surfaced featuring an African grey parrot and a cuckatoo who appeared to be moving in response to some tunes? Chuckles and slight snorts probably accompanied the majority of people’s reactions, but there were some scientists who watched with fascination and instead proceeded to ask “are these animals actually dancing?”.

Scientists took a systematic analysis of these two subjects and thousands of other youtube videos of animals “dancing” to provide evidence for a theory that has been previously suggested: only species that engage in vocal mimicry are also able to translate audio stimuli into coordinated motor expressions (entrainment). The biological reason for this may lie with basal ganglia modification (which has been shown to co-occur in avian lineages that developed a capacity for vocal mimicry).

Good work Science. Making the most of extracting information from otherwise time-sucking youtube videos to help answer evolutionary questions!

After reading Andrew’s blog post expressing his bafflement over the amount of people who have viewed his TedTalk on the serious problem of drug resistance vs. his son’s video post from a popular play station game, Borderlands 2, I reflected on what I would rather watch, if offered a choice, and why.  If I was going with my gut reaction (and if I didn’t know Andrew), I think I would rather watch his son’s video…sorry Andrew.  Actually, in all honesty I would probably watch both, starting with his son’s video.  This may be because I am a secret play station enthusiast, but I think there is something deeper here.  Both videos discuss solving problems, whether it is more effectively managing superbugs or culling aliens.  However, Matthew’s video represents solving a problem that we are ultimately in control of (if one gun doesn’t work, a bigger gun will), has little to no real consequences (oops, I died), and involves crazy beasts.  Andrew’s problem is one we have much less control over (susceptible germs are a common pool resource), has very real consequences (a return to the era of pre-antibiotics – oops, we can really die in nasty ways), and involves invisible organisms (which in some sense is scarier).  So, I think why many people choose to focus their attention on fluff like reality TV, fakebook, video games, and pure fiction is because there are many real world problems that are hard to solve, feel out of our control, and bottom-line are down right scary.  Ignoring them, of course, will not make them go away or help inform decision making down the road, but I can understand the need to escape from reality.  So I guess the remaining question is how to get people to engage on real-world problems?  That, I do not have an answer for.

Apologies if this is an abuse of the blog, but here we go…

In the most Tom Sawyer-ish way I can muster, I invite you to come catch up on all those papers you’ve been meaning to read/think deep thoughts/take a nap over at the Insectary. I’m testing some new bednet technologies and would love some help!

It seems like a pretty sweet deal to lie around all day collecting data. Unfortunately, there are only so many hours in a day that I have available to essentially be mosquito bait, and lots more data I would like to gather.

If you have some time (45 minutes minimum) where you could just as easily work (or not) while lying on a pretty comfy mattress under a net, send me an email to let me know you’re interested and when you’d like to come on over. I’m planning to start a sign up sheet for napping. You get to climb under the net, I release some mosquitoes in the room with you (don’t worry, you’re under the net, and this project is SEPARATE from the P. falciparum work…) and after an agreed upon time I come back and collect them. We can start an in lab competition to see who can attract the most mosquitoes.

The view from the bednet

I had a craving for vegan bacon earlier this week, so I marinated some tempeh using one of my favorite recipes and took the leftovers as lunch a couple times this week. In my non-random sample of three omnivores, all were curious about the substance residing on a bed of spinach, all were deeply skeptical about the concept of vegan bacon, all three really liked it once they tried it, and two demanded the recipe. (Hint: liquid smoke is key.) Nicole suggested that I call it marinated tempeh so as not to put off carnivores, but upon reflection, I’d prefer to challenge people’s preconceptions about bacon. Following on an earlier lunch conversation, all too often we get disappointed by something that is actually really good because it’s not what quite what we were expecting (e.g., negative results that challenge our world view, vegan desserts, etc.).

Butternut squash cupcake with lime frosting (vegan)

On a related note, Bill Gates is investing in egg-substitutes because it’s questionable whether animal-based foods are going to be a sustainable enterprise at our current rate of population growth. The potential environmental consequences are worrisome, but I was also disappointed to hear that none of the current egg substitutes on the market can make a viable scrambled eggs-equivalent. (Though they note that studies suggest that people can’t tell the difference between baked goods made with and without eggs, in line with my own experimental results long those lines.)  Apparently the non-eggs tend to crumble instead attaining the coveted bouncy-ness of real scrambled eggs. At least until chemistry finds an answer, I suspect that the trick might be to recondition our expectations of what scrambled eggs should be.

Green Drakes (Ephemera guttulata) flying upstream and resting in the trees.

The ‘sip’ and ‘slap’ of rising fish had disappeared and you could be forgiven for thinking the rushing water had stagnated, for it too could not be heard. Flowing upstream, a din of emerald mayflies fluttered en masse above the water. Standing chest high in the creek, I was assailed by papery wings, crawled over as a resting place. We mustered metaphors, ‘a plague of beautiful locusts!’, catching bodies in our mouths as they opened to shout ‘Awesome!’.

The train quietened. I was sorry that it was over so soon. Until an even louder juggernaut came by, thousands of Green Drakes strong. As they pushed on forward at head height, the bodies of those just-mated floated limply back around my hips. A life-cycle diagram on a too-white page had never seemed so ridiculous. Hands in the water, I collected and inspected: yellow, large bodies – females; whiter, smaller bodies – males. Fish started to feast and with them began the whistle of a fly rod pendulum, but it was all a nothing to me, as I stared at the river of corpses.

The water grew colder, the night blacker and the great green flies were replaced by their black, biting rivermates. It was time to leave. Now, I’m haunted by questions: Why weren’t there bats and birds swarming?; What’s the chance of any one individual mating?; Is it not a law of diminishing returns – the group gets so large that, while an adult escapes predation, its also unlikely to mate?; Why do they drive upstream?…

Once paralyzed in wonder, the mind whirs faster.

A Green Drake female (top) mating with a male (bottom) with the possible addition of some larval gunk on top! (Macro-capabilities courtesy of Jim Marden's camera).

Yesterday’s forecast predicted all-day rain, and so when Jessi suggested waiting until after work to go tarping it seemed like a good idea.  Then, in the early afternoon, the rain stopped.  I started to panic.  I calmed myself down enough to check the radar map and it looked like the rain would return right around 5:30-6:00.  Perfect.

Monica, Jessi, Ike and I headed over to the hill by the stadium, and set up the tarp.  6:00 came, no rain.  6:15, the blue peaked out from behind the clouds, uh oh.  6:25, we looked at the weather map on our phones; the clouds seemed to be parting around us.  Then at 6:30, we heard thunder.  Finally, a positive sign, sort of.  A bolt of lightning — count the seconds, if it’s too close, we’ll have to leave — 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6… boom.  More than a mile, we’re alright.  Then another bolt — 1, 2, 3, 4, crack…  Uh oh, it’s getting closer, maybe we should go — but the rain was finally starting — a couple slides, then we’ll make a decision…  And I haven’t heard a crack of thunder since.  Good rain, good hill, good company.  Perfect tarping conditions.

Needless to say, fun was had by all.

Matt blogs….

Over the kitchen table tonight, I mentioned my TedMed talk had not even 4,000 views. Disappointing in the scheme of things, but still about 3,500 more people than I ever taught before.

My youngest son, just coming up to 16 years old, and lippy as hell, mentions he has a video with 22,000 views. And, as of today, he has.

I am trying to save the world from drug resistant parasites. He is trying to save the world from rare creatures. Evidently his problem, or his solution, is way more interesting.

Yesterday I went to a seminar on the health effects of air pollution. While it is common knowledge that living in a big city isn´t good for your health, I was amazed how much effect breathing in polluted air really has. These effects are not limited to respiratory distress, but are even more apparent by increased risk of cardiovascular disease and even affect brain development, not to mention they take 6 months of your life. Considering we traded in our lovely little house in the forest with an apartment along one of the busiest streets of Barcelona, these facts are rather frightening.

Then I learned there are some interesting individual and population group dilemma´s here. Of course, the best thing to reduce air pollution is to commute by bike. However, as an individual, biking increases your exposure to air pollution greatly. Even the environmentally friendly bus riders expose themselves to higher air pollution than the average car driver because of worse cabin filters in buses. So, this leaves me two options, either I start a revolution to ban cars altogether in the city (there´s really no need anyway) or I should opt for a car as well.

However, since I don´t think I have what it takes to start a revolution and the benefits of owning the car would be nulled by a long walk from scored parking space to work (breathing in all my carefully avoided air pollution), I´ll just go Dutch and grab my bike. Cause luckily, I was also told that the health benefits of biking counterbalance my breathing in of air pollution by a factor of 90. Still, a move to a house away from the city does not seem like a bad idea after all.

When I was a graduate student I spent 6 weeks visiting another lab trying and failing to get an assay to work.  Needless to say I was discouraged. A kind post-doc
wrote across my notebook, “Science is hard. If it was easy everyone would do it”.

Strawberry=1200 individual life histories of mosquitoes, Turtle=Lauren this week

At the moment, I appear to have bitten off more than I can chew.  Nothing is doing what I would expect it to.  Usually this is a good thing because it means I’m about to learn something new.  In this case however, nothing is replicating. Andrew made a joke about not coming back until things were replicating at the end of our last meeting (at least I’m hoping that it was a joke..).

I have several days of intensive data analysis ahead of me to try to figure it all out. I’m not excited, but I have been pleased this week to discover that I’ve grown up a little bit. I know I will figure this out.  I will sniff out the problem and yes, I may need to repeat everything, but that is what scientists do (figure it out, not design experiments that don’t replicate!). So bring on the SPSS, the cramp in my back which I inevitably get from sitting for too long at a computer, and the whiteboard sessions.  This is what I signed up for.

I was going to write about cannibalism this week, but then I remembered that my friend Kristin has already written an excellent blog post about cannibalism and kuru. Which leaves me with only two things to add.

The first is that the Science paper she mentions is a great teaching tool for an undergraduate evolutionary biology course. Particularly when teaching population genetics, which can be a tricky topic to introduce.

And the second is that I find hypothetical questions about cannibalism (e.g. if you have to eat someone, who would it be?) can be great conversation starters if introduced at the right time and in the right place.

But, and I can’t emphasize this enough, these two discussions should never intersect.

1. When I was a grad student, I wanted to grow up to be Dr Linda Partridge. After listening to The Life Scientific today, I still do. She is now Professor Dame Linda Partridge FRS.

2. EO Wilson’s new book sounds fantastic. I can’t wait to read it.