Blogs / The Intersection

Over at ABCNews, a headline earlier this week read, “For Women Who Want Kids, ‘the Sooner the Better’: 90 Percent of Eggs Gone By Age 30.” As expected, the story popped up all over facebook during the next few days with ensuing commentary on female fertility. To which I must respond…

Let me begin with the opening sentence:

By the time a woman hits 30, nearly all of her ovarian eggs are gone for good, according a new study that says women who put off childbearing for too long could have difficulty ever conceiving.

Hyperbole anyone? (I mean sure, that outta scare lots of women enough into reading what follows and clicking through the links.) The piece reports that according to a study out of the University of St. Andrews and Edinburgh University, women have lost 90 percent of their eggs by the time they are 30 years old. But wait just one second. Yes it’s true that fertility drops significantly between 21 and 35, but it’s more complicated than this topical claim suggests, and furthermore, there’s a lot more to the story. So before women nearing the big 3-0 (like me) and younger rush off to get preggers, let’s examine this claim a bit…

Baby girls are born with one to two million follicles (immature eggs), but the majority die off early. By the time we reach puberty, we have, on average, about 400,000. From then on, we shed one developed egg–along with about one thousand follicles–every time we ovulate. So in the end, about 400 such follicles ever reach maturity. While this study tries to quantify the number of shed over time, it bothers me the way this story seems to overstate a sense that women are somehow running out.

There are so many layers to this issue, it would be impossible to list all of them in a blog post, so I think what’s most important for everyone to remember is relatively simple: To actually make a baby, it takes just one.

This week’s edition of The Science of Kissing Gallery features the custom of foot kissing as depicted on this woodcut ‘Passionary of the Christ and Antichrist‘ by Lucas Cranach the Elder.

Submit your original photo or artwork to the gallery here and remember to include relevant links to blogs and events.

Last week I participated in a three-day course on energy taught by Michael Webber at UTAustin. Very shortly, I’ll have more to say on the subject, but in the meantime, it’s a good opportunity to highlight an interesting new website from the National Academies called What You Need to Know About Energy. It’s a means to help visitors understand the ways we use energy, where it comes from, and how energy efficiency and alternative sources can figure into our energy future. The more we know, the better equipped we’ll be to engage in the ongoing debate about energy policy. Here are the details:

The site provides balanced and reliable information about our energy sources, uses, and options for the future. Take a quiz to see what you already know about energy. Explore “Our Energy System” for a quick and clear overview of the energy sources we depend on in the United States and how they are used, including what each source contributes to carbon dioxide emissions. Learn compelling facts about oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear energy, and renewable sources, such as solar and wind, including the pros and cons of each source. Compare a few cars and household appliances in “Understanding Efficiency” to see which use energy more effectively. Then rely on your new understanding of the energy situation as you make decisions about energy in your daily life, or participate in discussions about our nation’s energy options for the future.

Very rare, but fascinating.

Last week I mentioned participating in a discussion at ScienceOnline ‘10 entitled “Online Civility and Its (Muppethugging) Discontents” featuring Janet and Isis. But there’s another equally exciting panel I’m part of earlier in the day with Rebecca Skloot and David Dobbs. Here is the description:

Getting the Science Right:  — an underappreciated and essential art — and the role scientists can and should (but often don’t) play in it.

Description: Much of the science that goes out to the general public through books, newspapers, blogs and many other sources is not professionally fact checked. As a result, much of the public’s understanding of science is based on factual errors. This discussion will focus on what scientists and journalists can do to fix that problem, and the importance of playing a pro-active role in the process. Discuss here.

After turning in my latest manuscript just one week ago, I have a lot to say on the topic. This should be a terrific session and I encourage readers attending the conference to join us next weekend!

With that, I’m off to day one of Michael Webber’s energy technology and policy course at UTAustin.

As regular Intersection readers know, I’ve long been interested in energy. Today I’m flying to Texas to join Michael Webber’s three day energy technology and policy course at UTAustin. Here is the description:

Dr. Michael Webber, Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering, and Associate Director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Texas at Austin, will share his insights and candid views about the best and worst of US energy practice. His fast-paced and information-packed lectures will include real-world examples, entertaining anecdotes, engineering fundamentals, historical perspectives, and an outlook for the future of energy. This crash course is perfect for people who want an energy credential or a graduate class in energy, but only have a few days to spare.

With lectures covering transportation, biofuels, climate, security, and food, I can’t wait. So expect some energy related posts this week as I have time to blog.

Vanessa Woods is not only one of my dearest friends, she’s also an extremely gifted writer. Currently at Duke University, she studies the cognitive development of chimpanzees and bonobos at sanctuaries in the Republic of Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Next June, Vanessa’s latest book, Bonobo Handshake, will be published–and I can’t wait…

Check out this video and read the description below:

Bonobo Handshake

In 2005, Vanessa Woods accepted a marriage proposal from a man she barely knew and agreed to join him on a research trip to the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo. Settling in at a bonobo sanctuary in Congo’s capital, Vanessa and her fiancé entered the world of a rare ape with whom we share 98.7% of our DNA. Vanessa soon discovered that bonobos live in a peaceful society in which females are in charge, war is nonexistent, and sex is as common and friendly as a handshake.

A fascinating memoir of hope and adventure, Bonobo Handshake traces Vanessa’s self-discovery as she finds herself falling deeply in love with her husband, the apes, and her new surroundings. Courageous and extraordinary, Almost French meets The Poisonwood Bible in this true story of revelation and transformation in a fragile corner of Africa.

Eric has an interesting post up on the age distribution for recipients of NIH grants since 1980:

He writes that it’s difficult for young U.S. researchers to obtain funding and points to Darwin and Einstein as examples of scientists with revolutionary ideas in their 20s–even though we tend to remember them as old men in photos.

While it’s a thought-provoking point, to be fair we really need to consider that there is more to this discussion than the most obvious factors. Yes, older PIs receive the lion’s share of funding, but these trends also reflect the large hiring periods in the past as university faculty members age. I agree that in many instances, scientists may be doing their most creative, groundbreaking research early, however, success during this time is not necessarily measured by obtaining large grants given few can land the job to be eligible until their mid-30s. Rather, it’s a crucial period for obtaining a faculty position, so the most promising young scientists may go on to recruit a lab, and eventually apply for such grants from a stronger position.

The trend’s shift right over decades may also reflect that postdocs are no longer allowed to be PIs on grants at many universities that do not want to lose a portion of overhead when the person leaves. In addition, agencies such as NIH provide a vast amount of fellowships to fund legions of graduate students (especially in the biomedical sciences) so it’s important to acknowledge that support to young scientists comes in many forms. NIH provides an enormous number of postdoc fellowships as well.

I do like Eric’s point that perhaps we should consider young Darwin and Einstein as iconic figures before their hair whitened. Still, we must remember that many complex factors are at play influencing the initial graph. The real question to consider is whether such grants are adequately funding early tenure track professors.

As the weeks wind down to 2010, we’re bombarded with ‘Year’s Best‘ lists on everything music videos to movies. Colleagues and I have recently been discussing the best science papers–not just for 2009, but the entire past decade. We’ve had many ideas as there are obviously different kinds of breakthroughs across fields that have had enormous influence.

I’m very interested to hear the rest of the science community: What do you think have been the most significant, paradigm-shifting, and fascinating articles of the 2000’s? I’ll start with a particularly notable contribution from Colosimo et al. in 2005 to get the ball rolling…

Colosimo PF, Hosemann KE, Balabhadra S, Villarreal G Jr, Dickson M, Grimwood J, Schmutz J, Myers RM, Schluter D, Schluter D, Kingsley DM. Widespread parallel evolution in sticklebacks by repeated fixation of Ectodysplasin alleles. Science 2005 Mar 25 307 (5717): 1928-33

This study had a large impact on our understanding of  biology with far reaching implications that “set a new standard in the identification of adaptive variants found in nature.”  Evolutionary genetics hasn’t been the same since its publication.

Now let’s hear from readers…