Octopus are not aliens, but they can be vicious. Combine that with an incredible intelligence, and we should all be worried that cephalopods populations are increasing world wide.
As coral reefs are dying, cephalopods are booming (likely not a causative correlation). And not just octopus, but also cuttlefish, and 35 other species of genera, spanning all major ocean regions.
Why are they expanding in number? It’s unclear, but read about possible reasons over at Gizmodo.
I, for one, would like to extend a welcome to our new cephalopod overlords.
The funding rates for science are not good (understatement…). Which has lead some in the popular science community to claiming that we don’t need government in research. We can do it on our own! We can make our own money! YOU’RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!
This argument is dangerously and terribly wrong. Very wrong. What we need from governmental funding is the ability to be able to conduct basic scientific research. Not research focused on questions that have the potential to bring large profits. And governmental funding provides that.
Read about it over at Scientific American.
Usually when an industry gets a booming industry it is largely due to profitability, which garners interest from investors.
But in biotech there is a section of the industry that is gaining investors and various firms chasing a similar goal. However, how that is happening is a mystery. The companies are burning through millions, hasn’t started clinical work on a drug candidate and it will be years, “if ever” before it has something commercializable.
What industry am I referring to? CRISPR-Cas9 technology. We’ve talked on the blog before about the possibilities CRISPR has to offer human health, but over at The Economist here’s a post about whether or not it can be all we dream it to be.
We have heard of viruses causing cancer (HPV) or even cancers that act like viruses (devil facial tumor virus).
But now there is a virus that can fight cancer! An engineered herpevirus provokes an immune response against cancer. And after a long hard road, it has been approved to treat certain types of cancer by the FDA!
Read about it over at Nature!
Killer T cells (orange) are recruited to attack malignant cells (mauve) in the viral-based cancer therapy T-VEC.
When science is used to support proposed changes to public policy, it isn’t uncommon for opponents of the policy changes to question the legitimacy of the studies cited. This often leads to rejection of scientific studies for completely unscientific reasons, and can even devolve into outright scientific denialism.
Earlier this year, the Obama administration proposed controversial policy changes related to sexual assault prevention on college campuses. As evidence of the need for reform, the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault cited the statistic that one in five women attending college are sexually assaulted at some point during their time on campus. Unsurprisingly, those opposed to the sexual assault policy changes are questioning the legitimacy of both the statistic and the study that produced it.
Recently, Emily Yoffe published an article in which she argues that the statistics on sexual assault presented by the Obama administration are misleading. Yoffe describes herself as “bringing some healthy skepticism to the hard work of putting a number on the prevalence of campus rape.” The thing is, skepticism in and of itself isn’t really that helpful unless you understand how to think critically about scientific studies. Yoffe’s article presents a good example of how misconceptions about research methodology and statistics can derail an otherwise productive conversation and steer it towards the territory of science denialism.
One of the co-founders of the structure of the DNA, James Watson, is selling his Nobel Prize medallion.
And since he’s bringing himself back into the media spotlight, an article at slate reminds us all of some of his verbal gems.:
“Whenever you interview fat people you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them.”
When speaking about women in science, “I think having all these women around makes it more fun for the men but they’re probably less effective.”
What else did the resident bad grandpa of science say recently? Read more here.
UK Resource Centre for Women in SET recently posted a study that found that only 12% of female late stage PhD students intend to pursue a career in academia. The Guardian does an excellent job summarizing the findings, as well as explaining why this is a terrible thing.