Shut up...

Photo source: The malaysian

Do you know the kind who use a lot of words to say something simple or the kind that use the entire breadth of their knowledge of English language to convey something that you still would not understand after they finish their sentences, yeah that kind (I am mostly irritated because they talk too much, their verbosity comes later). Most of the times, I feel like saying to them just shut up but when I have my generous moments I kind of pity them. It seems to be an obsession, a way of trying to prove their worth.

But wait- there might be actually a point to all this talking, says Susan Blackmore. Theories out there from a genetic perspective suggest that talking might soon be a lost cause as it seems to be a waste of energy. Others from an evolutionary standpoint suggest that we are stuck with it today because somehow the advent of language and therefore talking was extremely advantageous to out ancestors. But Susan in her article describes yet another possibility- the spreading of memes through talking (remember memes all ye' Dawkins readers out there). For those who have not read Selfish Genes- memes are essentially a unit of cultural transmission or imitation. Examples include catchy tunes, trendy styles and ideas. Say for example- my hopelessly pathetic book reviews can be at some level considered as spreading memes. I read it, I am telling you all about it and hopefully you will tell someone else about it...so on and so forth.

And as far as talking is concerned- think about our brain filled with ideas. These ideas will get transmitted only when you talk, the ideas that are easy to say and forces the host to say them (like celebrity scandals). So essentially you act as the host for the ideas that need to be heard, the "say-me" memes as Susan puts it in her article.

I want to leave you with what George Washington said-

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter house"

Not an optimist myself, yet I do hope the kind I described earlier would put talking to good use!

Do you bond?

Want people to trust you more or want to make an impression on your first date- try this!

This picture is from here

For someone like me who is in love with the subject of social bonding but not have had the time to stay up to date with it, this seminar was perfect.

Larry Young started his seminar with an introduction to monogamy. Did you know that while ~90% of bird species are monogamous, less than 5% of mammals exhibit monogamy? Anyway his talk focused on molecules oxytocin and vasopressin. They are both hormones and neurotransmitters. If you do not already know, oxytocin is a key hormone in stimlating milk ejection when a baby feeds and stimulating uterine contractions during birth. While these aspects of oxytocin have been quite well characterized, recently it has been shown to be involved in establishing maternal instincts and pair bonding nature (Larry Young studies the neurobiology of pair bonding in prairie voles).

I thought he made an interesting evolutionary correlation by suggesting that in females pair bonding is an extension or adaptation of the maternal instincts while in males it is more an adaptation of territorial behaviour that is controlled by vasopressin, a hormone that is very similar to oxytocin. Males have more of vasopressin which is associated with their territorial and aggressive behaviours. If you paid attention in your high school biology class, you would know vasopressin as the antidiuretic hormone (ADH).

He showed data to support his argument- basically in prairie vole females that bond there is more oxytocin and in males there is more vasopressin. There are all correlative confirmations. An interesting conclusion comes from a study where they made mice which lacked oxytocin and showed that these mice suffer from something that is known as "social amnesia". David Adam has this to say about that study in Nature News-

"Love is chemical and so, it seems, is remembering it. Male mice missing certain brain proteins cannot recall which females they have had sex with. The forgetful fellas can blame this unfortunate amnesia on their DNA: a missing gene means their 'social' memory fails them."

Yet another interesting paper by Kosfeld and others, suggests that oxytocin plays a role in trust in humans, I know it just gets better and better. They put their subjects in to two groups- investor and trustee, basically a financial situation. The subjects were either sprayed with oxytocin or a placebo. Below is a part of their abstract (their work was published in Nature, 2005)

"Trust pervades human societies. Trust is indispensable in friendship, love, families and organizations, and plays a key role in economic exchange and politics. In the absence of trust among trading partners, market transactions break down. In the absence of trust in a country's institutions and leaders, political legitimacy breaks down. Much recent evidence indicates that trust contributes to economic, political and social success. Little is known, however, about the biological basis of trust among humans. Here we show that intranasal administration of oxytocin, a neuropeptide that plays a key role in social attachment and affiliation in non-human mammals, causes a substantial increase in trust among humans, thereby greatly increasing the benefits from social interactions."

I liked Young's talk for one more reason- he was FUNNY!

Having commitment issues, trust issues- the be-it-all-have-it-all hormone might be your way to go.

Better yet banking folks should spray us all with it, may be then we would begin to trust the world financial institutions better! Well a few companies (check the link from the first sentence of this post) have already capitalized on it- a typical capitalistic attitude- BEWARE! Remember it definitely is not the know-all-end-all of this issue, if you wait just a few more years there might be a super-enhanced version of "Liquid Trust" for y'all to try!

A tale of YIM 2009, Boston

YIM or otherwise known as young investigator meet (this is the second such meeting, first one was held earlier this year in SFO) provides a setting for young investigators (mainly postdocs) working in the US to meet and greet the faculty members from a variety of institutes (mostly biology related) in India. This meeting was essentially to talk to people about the new initiatives that are being undertaken on behalf of the Govt of India to further the scientific agenda (sort of put India on science road map, at least in terms of life science research). One of the main initiative is described here and Martha Gray was one of the organizers of the meet organized this past weekend in Boston. The meeting started with open session of Friday (afternoon) and there were closed sessions held on Saturday and Sunday.
At the open session, the faculty members from India gave brief introductions to "what and how things are changing" nothing so elaborate of course and then people could ask questions. There were a variety of questions ranging from reservation issues when it comes to faculty hiring to the application forms that need to be sent via the snail-mail!
The next day began the closed sessions, for which one had to be selected (I was an observer, please do not ask me what it means, I guess I was supposed to observe). Now here is where I have issues (not all negative I assure you). I will try my best to enumerate them and of course keep this civil. Oh if you want only/mostly positive feedback, you can check the facebook page. I must also tell you that I do appreciate every bit of effort that has gone into the organization of this event- however

1. Two things that struck me- one, there were only 3 or 4 women speakers out of a total of 22 (does this mean many women candidates did not apply, I applied and I was chosen to be an observer!) and two, some of the speakers were either directly or indirectly connected to one of the organizers (Happens everywhere, so why not!)

2. There was no mention of the students who will actually be doing the work- how are they selected, how many students does a PI get, how good are the students in general, how motivated are they and how much effort do they normally put in (I have seen some of the best and the worst students, trust me it is important!)

3. While it might be hard to recruit someone in just two days, it sure looked like a recruitment fair to me (that is fair, am not complaining about it- just wanted to point it out). It did annoy me somewhat especially because I did not know what the hell I was doing there- I was not talking which meant I could not showcase what I have done or been doing. I felt like I sat there "observing" how other people got recruited!! But I must add a word of caution- I am of the shy type and would not venture into "networking" mode ever unless I know the person (in which case I am not sure if it can be called networking at all and I am sure I am going to lose out on opportunities on account of this)

4. I would have liked to hear the faculty present their work before everyone else (to get an idea of how well they are doing) but they did give talks on Sunday for which I could not go as I was sick!!

5. Of the 8 talks I attended on Saturday, I liked may be one (I thought they were not good talks, could have been much better). What irritated me even more was the fact that no one had the appropriate number of slides for a 10-min presentation (may be one guy did)!

6. They kept talking about change and being a part of that change and making a difference and all, but my question is- as the newest member of the institution, how can I bring about any change or difference, why would the underdogs listen to someone junior (hierarchy still exists, does'nt it?), in fact much junior to them? And Satyajith Rath put it- you should join not because you want to make a difference but because you think it is something comparable to other top institutes from which you might get an offer. While I agree for the most part- they are two different career goals at least initially, so that statement is something to think about and is something that might influence peoples' decisions.

7. Some of the seemingly interesting panels could have been held during the open sessions -like the panel on "setting up a lab"

8. It was not totally clear as to what the selection process was for the closed sessions- there were quite a few of the speakers who already seemed to have established some sort of contacts with the Indian faculty.

9. I still do not understand why I was chosen and chosen as an observer!!

One thing , actually two things you could not miss- everyone seemed enthusiastic about the whole thing which was nice and there seems to be a ton of money, which is super-nice!!

Do the dance!

Watch this video, first alex and now snowball.
What do you see- well a parrot gone crazy, yes...but also the fact that the bird moves its body to the different beats it hears- it is called rhythmic entrainment, which us humans took pride of as a unique gift bestowed only upon us. Clearly how much more egotistical can we get. Apparently we are not so unique anymore...
Anyway scientifically it is a very interesting aspect because apparently there are no videos of dogs or other mammalian pets doing the moves!

Here is what the author of the dispatch section had to say

" it also raises fascinating questions about the species that aren't on the list. The most obvious gaps are domesticated animals like dogs or horses: despite their pervasive exposure to music, not a single convincing demonstration of mammalian pet dancing was found. This negative evidence supports the everyday observation that dogs can't dance, and the outstanding question is why not. What is lacking?

Another group conspicuous by its absence are nonhuman primates. The absence of any true ‘dancing chimpanzees’ is surprising, not just because chimpanzees are our closest relatives but because they naturally engage in ‘drumming’ in the wild [7]. Chimpanzees often drum with their hands or feet on rainforest trees in the wild, generating far-carrying, quasi-rhythmic signals. Similarly, gorillas beat their bodies, and occasionally objects, with a rough ‘beat’. Thus, our nearest living cousins exhibit a behaviour suggesting that some form of propensity to drum was present in our common ancestor, making the lack of evidence for ape entrainment surprising. But given that most humans do not interact with chimpanzees regularly, and that most chimpanzee owners (in entertainment or science) do not post videos online, this negative evidence does not yet provide compelling evidence of absence. An open mind concerning apes remains warranted."

Biology of Music: Another One Bites the Dust, Volume 19, Issue 10, 26 May 2009, Pages R403-R404

They also go on to acknowledge the fact that one cannot rule out the possibility that pet-dancing may simply have not been uploaded to YouTube! Nevertheless it is an interesting evolutionary question. So next time you see your pet dancing away to rock and roll music, film it and put it on YouTube, someone might actually use it for something useful!

Below are the references of the two papers

A.D. Patel, J.R. Iversen, M.R. Bregman and I. Schulz, Experimental evidence for synchronization to a musical beat in a nonhuman animal, Curr. Biol. 19 (2009), pp. 827–830.

A. Schachner, T.F. Brady, I.M. Pepperberg and M.D. Hauser, Entrainment to music requires vocal mimicry: Evidence from non-human animals, Curr. Biol. 19 (2009), pp. 831–836.

Yeaah..go ahead replace us

Beware we will all be soon replaced by machines or may be perhaps we can sit back and relax while we let robots like Adam do our experiments for us (smell a long vacation here). Adam has been developed by Amanda Clare's group in the UK. He can come up with hypothesis and test them too. How cool is that people?! But he still needs somebody to add more lab consumables and of course clean the waste he generates. May be I should get an Adam- since he can perform all those things that I am doing right now.

The Automation of ScienceRoss D. King, Jem Rowland, Stephen G. Oliver, Michael Young, Wayne Aubrey, Emma Byrne, Maria Liakata, Magdalena Markham, Pinar Pir, Larisa N. Soldatova, Andrew Sparkes, Kenneth E. Whelan, and Amanda Clare (3 April 2009)
Science 324 (5923), 85. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1165620]

Schadenfreude, hope not

Schadenfreude is a German word that describes the pleasure that one derives from others misfortunes. It is very closely related to envy. In this nice paper, the authors show that despite the two emotions being correlated they activate different regions of the brain. While envy activates neural connections related to pain, sch.. activates the reward center of the brain. But can anything be ever so simple.....of course not. The authors show the interplay between social pains and pleasures.

Taken from

NEUROSCIENCE: Pains and Pleasures of Social Life

Matthew D. Lieberman and Naomi I. Eisenberger (13 February 2009)

Science 323 (5916), 890. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1170008]

Analyses of brain activity reveal a link between social and physical pains and pleasures.

"If maintaining one's social value is a need like other physical needs, then the greater the pain caused by negative social comparisons, the greater the pleasure in response to seeing the comparison target socially devalued (schadenfreude). The authors found that greater envy and dACC activity in response to a negative social comparison was associated with greater schadenfreude and ventral striatum activity when learning of that comparison target's subsequent downfall."

Basically what it means is if you envy someone, you get greater pleasure when misfortune strikes them. In fact Leiberman and Eisenberger think of this as something akin to physical needs such as food when you are hungry! What is even more interesting is the fact that the brain is treating things as important as lack of food and water similar to social pains such as envy. Now why would that be?

If you have access you should read the article (don't worry if you don't understand much of it) and for people who are not used to neuroscience jargon, you should read the perspectives that is referenced above.

When Your Gain Is My Pain and Your Pain Is My Gain: Neural Correlates of Envy and Schadenfreude

Hidehiko Takahashi, Motoichiro Kato, Masato Matsuura, Dean Mobbs, Tetsuya Suhara, and Yoshiro Okubo (13 February 2009) Science 323 (5916), 937. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1165604]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5916/937

Bacteria are the best indeed

Two weeks ago, there was a talk by Bonnie Bassler (Priceton University). Her talk was absolutely great- she was extremely energetic, enthusiastic and seemed very passionate about her work. She also seemed to absolutely love bacteria. When I listen to a talk I want to hear the speaker's passion for his or her work show in their talks. I cannot stand talks that are drab no matter how good the person might be. Just does not give a good impression you see.
She spoke about quorum sensing in bacteria and I was blown away by how the concept of multicellularity may not be new at all.
But I do have questions about it- while the bacteria produce auto-inducer(s) specific to their own species (say a regional language) and a common auto-inducer (universal language) made across a wide variety of bacteria, the evolutionary aspect of why bacteria need such a mechanism is unclear to me, especially if they are invovled in only one downstream signaling process.

You are not alone...

I find this amusing and annoying at the same time, I understand when you work you want to left alone but science is all about mingling- sharing ideas, sharing crazy hypotheses, sharing work space and more. I think science would have remained rudimentary if the iPOD was discovered 200 years ago. I am not sure I can embrace the idea of come to the lab, turn your iPOD on and do whatever it is that you might be doing- surfing the net, working on an experiment or reading papers. My old lab was different that way and I liked it- we did not flaunt the "oh-look-wires-coming-out-of-me and so glued to my ears I cannot take it off" thingies. We talked incessantly, our thoughts constantly collided with one another giving rise to better experiments, we would badger the newbies in the lab calling it the "we would love to get to know you" phase.
This iPOD fetish might have something to do with being in a big lab, your bench spaces themselves are so far apart that there is very limited extent of interaction.
Anyway, I think as scientists we should limit the use of such devices- use it albiet sparingly, at least when at work. I am just a fly on the wall but I hope I am making sense here. I think this is not just true about science, you walk on the road all you can see are people either talking to themselves (back in the old days we used to think such people had the crazies!), or talking to a cell phone or concentrating on the music that is playing right into their heads.
So long people...man is a social being afterall, is he not?