EarthSky Interview

By Carl Zimmer | April 5, 2010 11:38 pm

At the AAAS meeting a few weeks back, I sat down with Lindsay Patterson of the radio show EarthSky to talk about evolution. Here’s a new 90-second piece that’s now airing.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Evolution, Talks, The Tangled Bank

Come to the Island of Science Writing!

By Carl Zimmer | April 5, 2010 2:02 pm

This August I will be teaching a week-long writing course on Appledore Island in the Gulf of Maine. Last year, the first time around, we had a blast, embarking on an Ahab-like quest for hagfish, observing the role played by mind-controlling parasites in the ecology of the island’s tidal zone, learning how to use broken 300-year-old pipe stems and cod ear bones to reconstruct American’s first economic boom, and much more. (Here are some articles the students wrote about their experiences.)

This year promises to be just as much fun (and intense).

The deadline for registering is April 16. You can reigster and get more information on the course page at the Shoals Marine Lab web site. (Shoals is jointly run by Cornell and the University of New Hampshire.) For those beyond college interested in the class, here are some details about taking the course non-credit.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Teaching

The Science Times: The Book, The Class?

By Carl Zimmer | April 5, 2010 11:04 am

A couple of my articles are included in a new book, The New York Times Reader: Science and Technology. Edited by S. Holly Stocking, it’s an anthology that can stand on its own, or serve as reading for a journalism class. Here’s a description of the book from the publisher’s web site:

Science writing poses specific challenges: Science writers must engage their audiences while also explaining unfamiliar scientific concepts and processes. Further, they must illuminate arcane research methods and statistics and at the same time cope with scientific ignorance and uncertainty. Stocking’s volume not only tackles these challenges, but also includes extraordinary breadth in story selection, from prize-winning narratives, profiles and explanatory pieces to accounts of scientific meetings and new discoveries, Q&A’s, traditional trend and issue stories, reviews, essays and blog posts. These Times exemplars, together with Stocking’s guide to reading stories about science and technology, are perfect for science writers who aspire to diversify and hone their reporting and writing skills in a changing media climate. Holly Stocking is an experienced science writer, award-winning teacher, and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

You can order it from CQ Press. Here’s the Amazon page, too.

(Hat tip: Leigh Boerner)

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Teaching, Writing Elsewhere

Hello Boston: Coming to the Museum of Science, April 17

By Carl Zimmer | April 5, 2010 10:52 am

I’ll be giving a talk at the Museum of Science in Boston on Saturday, April 17. It’s the keynote address at the annual meeting of the Massachusetts Academy of Science. I’m going to talk about spangled dinosaurs, how scientists are splashing colors all over the history of life, and what all that color can tell us about evolution.

My talk is just one part of an all-day celebration of science for all ages. (The entire Zimmer clan will be in attendance.) For information on registration and tickets, visit the meeting web site.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Talks

Yet-Another-Genome Syndrome

By Carl Zimmer | April 2, 2010 10:15 am

There’s a certain kind of headline I have become sick of: “Scientists Have Sequenced the Genome of Species X!”

haemophilus genome 440Fifteen years ago, things were different. In 1995, scientists published the first complete genome of a free-living organisms ever–that of a nasty germ called Haemophilus influenzae. Bear in mind, this was in the dark ages of the twentieth century, when a scientist might spend a decade trying to decipher the sequence of a single gene.

And then, with a giant thwomp, a team of scientists dropped not just one gene, but 1740 genes, spelled out across 1.8 million base pairs of DNA. At the core of the paper was an image of the entire genome, a kaleidoscopic wheel marking all the genes that it takes to be H. influenzae. It had a hypnotizing effect, like a genomic mandala. Looking at it, you knew that biology would never be the same.

Looking over that paper today, I’m struck by what a catalog it is. The authors listed every gene and sorted them by their likely function. They didn’t find a lot of big surprises about H. influenzae itself. It had genes for metabolism, they reported, and genes for attaching to host cells, and for sensing the environment. But scientists already knew that. What was remarkable was the simple fact that scientists could now sequence so much DNA in so little time.

Then came more microbes. Then, ten years ago this coming June, came a rough draft of the human genome. Then finished drafts of other animals: chickens, mice, flies, worms. Flowers, truffles, and malaria-causing parasites. They came faster and faster, cheaper and cheaper. The acceleration now means that the simple accomplishment of sequencing a genome is no longer news.

torrent220On Wednesday I caught a talk at Yale by Jonathan Rothberg, a scientist who invented “next-generation sequencing” in 2005. By sequencing vast numbers of DNA fragments at once, the new technology made it possible to get a genome’s sequence far faster than earlier methods. Rothberg’s company, 454, got bought up by Roche, leaving him without a lot to do. So he came up with a new machine: a genome sequencer about the size of a desktop printer that can knock out complete genomes with high accuracy in a matter of hours. Rothberg has been unveiling details of the machine over the past few weeks. To convince his audience that the machine actually works, he flashed another mandala wheel–the 4.7 million base pairs of E. coli.

I recalled when the first E. coli genome was published in 1997. It was the result of years of work by 17 co-authors, an event celebrated in newspapers. Now Rothberg just threw up a quick slide of the germ’s genome just to show what he could do in a matter of hours. And I have to say that the sight of yet another circular map of a genome, on its own, no longer gave me a thrill. It’s a bit like someone waving you over to a telescope and saying, “Look! I found a star!”

What remains truly exciting is the kind of research starts after the genomes are sequenced: discovering what genes do, mapping out the networks in which genes cooperate, and reconstructing the deep history of life. Thanks to the hundreds of genomes of microbes scientists can now compare, for example, they can see how the history of life is, in some ways, more like a web than a tree. Insights like these are newsworthy. The sequencing of those genomes, on its own, is not.

And yet my email inbox still gets overwhelmed with press releases about the next new genome sequence. The press releases typically read like this:

“Scientists have sequenced the genome of species X. Their research, published today in the Journal of Terribly Important Studies, will lead to new insights about this important species. Maybe it will even cure cancer or eliminate world hunger!”

And then those press releases give rise to news articles. Here are dozens of pieces that came out over the past couple days, describing the freshly-sequenced genome of the zebra finch. What did the scientists actually learn about zebra finches through this exercise? The articles typically referred to 800 genes involved in the birds learning how to sing. Of course, nobody seriously would expect them to use just one or two genes for something so complex, so this was no big surprise. The articles also mentioned that a lot of the genes were similar to human language genes. This is not really news, either. For the most part, the articles look to the future–to experiments that scientists will be able to do on zebra finches, in the hopes of learning about human speech. But that’s not news of an achievement–that’s a promise.

Perhaps press release writers and journalists are still operating on the assumption that any new genome is news. But that assumption has been wrong for years now. Let’s wait to see what scientists actually discover in those marvelous mandalas.

[Update: Thanks to Jonathan Eisen for coining the easy-t0-remember acronym for my current disorder: YAGS. That goes into my personal lexicon right away.]

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Evolution, Meta

Who Will Dare To Challenge The Hotheaded Naked Ice Borer?

By Carl Zimmer | April 1, 2010 8:35 am

This morning, during my daily graze of news and commentary, I’ve come across some fairly excellent science-themed April Fool’s jokes. But it will take an exceptional hoax to mount a serious challenge to what is arguably the finest science-themed April Fool’s joke of all time, which today celebrates its fifteenth anniversary: the tale of the hotheaded naked ice borer.

Then-Discover-senior-editor, now-contributing-editor, and forever-all-around-good-guy Tim Folger concocted an article detailing the mystery of penguins vanishing from sight, and the discovery of a thermally endowed rodent that melted the ice under their feet and dragged them into their frozen tunnels.

Despite naming the scientist April Pazzo (I mean, come on, people), Tim fooled many a reader, as reflected in the flood of letters we received. You can read the story and some letters here. The beast even has its own Wikipedia page!

In fairness to the fooled, science is often so bizarre, it’s not always easy to distinguish the reality from the hoax. (And fortunately, this morning’s good news about science writer’s Simon Singh’s victory against chiropractors and the ridiculous libel laws of England is no joke.) So far, here the ones I’ve encountered that have made me smile…add you own in the comment thread.

The IUCN’s species of the day: the lion finch.

Catalogue of Organisms describes a new paper recognizing a new group of reptiles–the Gryphi.

The two leading journals, Nature and Science, will merge to form a journal called either Natural Science or Scientific Nature.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Meta

Yet Another Update to the X-Woman's Fingerbone

By Carl Zimmer | March 27, 2010 8:22 pm

The Atavism put together a nice picture showing how the X-woman’s DNA could just be plain old Neanderthal genes. I’ve shamelessly stolen it for my own post.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Evolution

There Are More Painful Things [Science Tattoo]

By Carl Zimmer | March 27, 2010 12:00 pm

fulvic440Corey writes, “I got this tattoo as an homage to the pain of my graduate work.  It’s a model of fulvic acid which is a representation of natural organic matter in the soil. I work with this molecule for my grad work and I figured I might as well get it etched into my skin so I can look at it and say, ‘Well, at least it hurt less than grad school at Cornell.’”

Click here to go to the full Science Tattoo Emporium.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Science Tattoo Emporium

Luring Out The Missing Biosphere

By Carl Zimmer | March 26, 2010 2:51 pm

stewart bacteriaMost of life on Earth is a mystery to us. The bulk of biomass on the planet is made up of microbes. By some estimates, there may be 150 million species of bacteria, but scientists have only formally named a few thousand of them. One of the big causes of this ignorance is that scientists don’t know how to raise microbe colonies. If you scoop up some dirt and stick it under a microscope, you’ll see lots of different microbes living happily there. If you mash up all the DNA in that mud and read its sequence, you’ll discover an astonishing diversity of genes belonging to those microbes–thousands in a single spoon of soil. But now try to rear those microbes in a lab. When scientists try, they generally fail. A tiny fraction of one percent of microbe species will grow under ordinary conditions in Petri dish.

This staggering difficulty is the reason why E. coli and a few other species became the laboratory darlings of biologists during the 1900s. As I write in Microcosm, E. coli will happily explode in a flask full of broth. As a result, a lot of what we know about life we know from E. coli. Certainly a lot of those lessons hold true for any species–genes encoded in DNA, DNA used to produce RNA and proteins, a genetic code, and so on. But there are a lot of microbes that are very unlike E. coli. Even in our gut, for example, E. coli is just a minor player in an ecosystem made up of hundreds or thousands of species. Yet we know relatively little about its neighbors.

One reason for the trouble we have in raising microbes is that the environment we like is not the environment a lot of them like. If you are feeding on minerals in boiling water at the bottom of the ocean, it’s possible that you might find life in a luke-warm flask in an oxygen-rich atmosphere at sea-level air pressure unbearable–perhaps even toxic.

But the physical surroundings of microbes can’t account for all the trouble they pose for would-be microbial zoo-keepers. If you scoop up some wet sand from a pleasant beach, you will still be hard-pressed to get more than a few species to grow in the lab.

To coax bacteria to grow, microbiologists have been upgrading their Petri dishes. They have been building cages that mimic the natural habitat of the bacteria, and in some cases taking their chambers out of the lab and putting them in the environments where the bacteria live.

These semi-wild chambers have brought scientists more success, and they’ve also helped scientists figure out why the microbes are so hard to grow in the first place. Along with the right physical conditions, microbes need to live alongside the right microbes.

In the new issue of Chemistry and Biology, a team of scientists–led by Anthony D’Onofrio, a post-doc in the laboratory of Kim Lewis at Northeastern University, and Jason Crawford in the lab of Jon Clardy at Harvard–report a striking success in cultivating bacteria that were previously impossible to cultivate. They made their discovery while studying some bacteria that live on a beach near Boston. Some of the bacteria, while unable to grow on their own in a Petri dish, grew if they were near certain other species. Perhaps, the scientists speculated, the hard-to-grow bacteria depended on something the other species made.

The scientists tested different molecules made by bacteria to see if any of them were fostering the growth. They eventually figured out that the responsible molecule was something known as a siderophore. Some species of bacteria make siderophores as a way to get their minimal daily required does of iron. Iron is essential for the growth of cells, but in many environments free iron is in short supply. So bacteria make iron-trapping molecules–siderophores–and release them through special channels. The siderophores drift around, and sometimes manage to snag iron atoms. They fold up around the iron, assuming a shape that allows them to slip through other channels back into the bacteria. Once inside, they open up again and set their iron free.

It turns out that a lot of species on the beaches around Boston–and presumably in a lot of other places in the world–don’t make their own siderophores. Instead, they rely on other species to produce siderophores, and once those molecules swallow up the iron, the bacteria that don’t make siderophores snatch them up. The scientists found that with different kinds of siderophores made by different species of bacteria, they could suddenly get a lot of microbes to grow.

Discoveries like these are exciting both in a practical and intellectual way. We’ve already harvested lots of valuable molecules from microbes, such as antibiotics and gene-copying enzymes. If scientists can raise lots of new species of microbes, they may be able to find new molecules. But the result is fascinating in itself. Apparently, a lot of microbial species depend on the kindness of strangers. And apparently, there are bacteria out there that are churning out siderophores despite the fact that other species are slurping up the iron they forage. If that was all there was to the story, this would not be a situation that could last long. The cheaters would thrive by skipping the effort of making siderophores, and eventually there wouldn’t be enough honest bacteria left to keep all the microbes supplied with their iron. It’s likely, instead, that the cheaters are not cheaters at all, but rather have services of their own to offer the microbial community.

And so the reason that we know so little about life on Earth may be that we have yet to figure out the complicated social life of microbes.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Microcosm: The Book

Welcome Razib and Ed to the Hive

By Carl Zimmer | March 26, 2010 10:58 am

Today Discover gains two new bloggers: Razib Khan and Ed Yong. But while they’re new to Discover, they’re far from new to the science blogosphere. I’m a long time reader of both of their blogs, and urge everyone to check them out, too. Welcome!

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Meta
NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
ADVERTISEMENT

DISCOVER's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

The Loom

A blog about life, past and future. Written by DISCOVER contributing editor and columnist Carl Zimmer.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »