Part II: Speed
Article 2
Me, Myself, and Why Searching for the Science of Self by Jennifer Ouellette
Time 2
Near the end of Ouellette’s new book — a personal journey exploring what shapes people’s sense of self — she pops a candy tablet of LSD and settles in for her first psychedelic experience. Ouellette had heard that once the drug wore off and the acid-induced wonderland slipped away, the “self” came barreling back.
“I had to experience this firsthand,” she writes. “After all, it was ‘research.’ ” As the chemical toyed with her brain, Ouellette saw kaleidoscopes of swirling patterns and watched her husband transform into a dragon-man. She keeps the scene light, but her nonrecreational drug use adds a dogged, truth-seeking vibe to her latest project. It’s an ambitious effort to dissect the hodgepodge of genetic and environmental factors that sculpt people’s identities.
Ouellette submits herself to various scientific methods to figure out what makes her who she is, from a brain scan to personality tests to decoding her DNA. But the book isn’t just a lighthearted romp in and out of research labs. It also delivers meaty dollops of biology and history.
As the author of The Calculus Diaries and the blog Cocktail Party Physics, Ouellette is a veteran at breaking tough scientific concepts into bite-sized pieces. She offers richly detailed backstories about genetics and personality science, from Gregor Mendel’s pea plants to Franz Joseph Gall’s early efforts to read people’s traits by touching the bumps on their skulls.
Occasionally the book bites off chunks of science that could be too big to chew, but Ouellette tempers discussions of the latest research on gender identity and consciousness with her own journey of self-discovery. She steers tricky subjects away from textbook terrain by hopscotching through pop culture, dropping names from the X-Men to Harry Potter. Still, the book might appeal most to readers with a good grasp of the basics of biology and psychology.
The overall trip is as colorful as the one Ouellette took as “research” — and it’s probably more illuminating [353]
Source:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/me-myself-and-why
Article 3
Should you hush that white noise?
Time 3
It truly pains me to bring you tired parents another round of “Is this bad for my baby?” But this week, a new study suggests that some white noise machines designed for babies can produce harmful amounts of sound.
Before you despair about trashing your baby’s hearing, please keep in mind that like any study, the results are limited in what they can actually claim. And this one is no exception.
I learned the power of white noise when Baby V and I ventured out to meet some new mamas for lunch. As I frantically tried to reverse the ensuing meltdown, another mom came over with her phone. “Try this,” she said as she held up her phone and blasted white noise. Lo and behold, her black magic worked. Instantly, Baby V snapped to attention, stopped screaming and stared wide-eyed at the dark wizardry that is the White Noise Lite app.
Since then, I learned that when all else failed, the oscillating fan setting could occasionally jolt Baby V out of a screamfest. In general, I didn’t leave the noise on for long. It was annoying, and more importantly, it stopped working after the novelty wore off.
But lots of parents do rely on white noise to soothe their babies and help them sleep through the night. These machines are recommended on top parenting websites by top pediatricians, parenting bloggers and, most convincingly, all of the other parents you know. Use liberally, the Internet experts recommend. To reap the benefits, white noise machines should be played all night long for at least the entire first year, many people think. And don’t be shy: The noise should be louder than you think.
These machines are inescapable. But now, a study published online March 3 in Pediatrics is attempting to silence these ringing endorsements. After analyzing the max output of these machines, the study authors conclude that some have the potential to harm babies.
[332]
Time 4
Pediatric ear surgeon Blake Papsin at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto got interested in these white noise machines when he went into a patient’s room and was blasted with white noise. “The parents said, ‘Oh, the sleep doula tells us this is good for sleeping,’” Papsin recalls. The next time he went into the room, he brought a sound pressure meter. “Eighty-five decibels is what this thing was pumping out,” he says. That’s a level that can be reached by a loud hair dryer.
Curious about this modern-parenting phenomenon, Papsin and colleagues bought 14 commercial noise machines marketed for babies and tested their noise output when turned up all the way. “To our surprise, three of the devices were capable of presenting a toxic, hazardous level of sound,” he says. At a distance of 30 centimeters (to mimic crib-rail placement), those three machines were pumping out noise louder than 85 decibels, the limit set as safe for workplaces. Above that limit, government regulations mandate that adults wear ear protection.
Those three machines were the worst offenders, but all of the machines were capable of exceeding 50 decibels, the level considered safe for nurseries in hospitals. These levels were hit from a distance of 30 and 100 centimeters (mimics placement near the crib), the team found. All but one machine still pumped 50 decibels from a distance of 200 centimeters.
Because of this potential for harm, Papsin and colleagues recommend regulations that prevent these machines from producing more than 85 decibels and suggest the machines have automatic shutoffs. Papsin would also like to see a warning on the side that urges parents to use the machines for a short amount of time at the lowest volume possible.
[300]
Source:
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/growth-curve/should-you-hush-white-noise?mode=topic&context=69
article 4
Sing a song of bird phylogeny
by Bethany Brookshire 5:42pm, March 12, 2014
Time 5
Spring will be here soon. And with daffodils, crocuses and other signs of spring comes a burst of birdsong as males duke it out to get female attention. While the males trill loud songs, the females sit quietly, choosing who will be the lucky male.
Vocal male and quiet female songbirds are common in temperate zones, and have given rise to a common assumption. The best male songs get picked for reproduction, and this sexual selection results in complex song; females just listen and choose, so female song should be rare. After all, females don’t need to sing to attract mates.
But it turns out this commonly held assumption is not true. A new study shows that the majority of females of songbird species do sing, and it’s likely that the ancestor of modern songbirds was also a vocal diva. The results challenge the old wisdom about female songbirds, and suggest that when it comes to female song, it’s not all about sex.
Karan Odom, a behavioral ecologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, has always been interested in birdsong. “As I began to study it in depth,” she says, “I realized there was a lot that’s unknown, and one area was the extent to which females were singing and the role that song plays in males and females.” Odom and her colleagues did a survey of 44 songbird families, going through bird handbooks and other sources to find records of whether males, females or both were singers. In results published March 4 in Nature Communications, they showed that female melodies are not rare at all. In fact, 71 percent of the species surveyed have singing ladies. So much for that quiet, retiring female bird.
The scientists then mapped the bird species on a phylogenetic tree, a family tree of sorts for a particular group of organisms. By putting species, or family members, in their correct places on the family tree, you can divine what their ancestors may have been like, even if you have never seen that ancestor, notes Mike Webster, an ornithologist at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. “If you had a whole bunch of relatives,” he says, “some with blonde hair and some with brown hair, you map that on the family tree, and you can see that blonde hair originates with one particular person.” We may not know what great-uncle Moe looked like, but if all of his descendants had brown hair, there’s a high likelihood that he did, too.
[433]
Time 6
Modern phylogenetic trees are often based on DNA from species that have been sequenced. Scientists can examine areas in the DNA where one letter might have been replaced with another. The similarities and differences between the letters can help determine how closely species are related.
The scientists took a phylogenetic tree of songbirdsand looked at each species, noting which had been observed to have female song and which hadn’t. By putting all of the song records on the tree to observe how closely related various species were, Odom and colleagues were able to show that the ancestor species of all songbirds probably had female singers. Kevin Omland, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Maryland and a coauthor on the paper, says that it is far more likely that a small and closely related songbird group lost female song than it is that 71 percent of all songbird species to gained female song through selection.
The scientists say that idea that female songbirds don’t sing probably arose not from the songbirds themselves, but from which species were studied and where. “When people first began studying birdsong,” Odom explains, “a lot of them were in temperate regions where not as many female birds sing.” This gave rise to the assumption that singing females were rare.
Marlene Zuk, a behavioral ecologist at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, is “always a fan of studies that examine commonly held assumptions.” She hopes the results of this paper will cause scientists to examine their ideas a little more. “Not everything is the same as in the temperate zone,” she notes. “There could be other implicit assumptions we are not aware of.”
Now that Odom knows more female songbirds sing, she wants to dig deeper to find out why. Females don’t have to sing to attract mates, but Odom hypothesizes that “maybe some other selection pressures are at play: to defend a territory or compete for resources.” With the new understanding of how widespread female song is, that’s a question that doesn’t have to be left for the birds.
[366]
Source:
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scicurious/sing-song-bird-phylogeny?mode=topic&context=76
|