#jess does science

[strangehorse]

I’m so pleased someone asked I am literally always desperate to talk about this.

First of all, let’s look at the concept of an evolutionary arms race.

Let’s say you hate this girl in your class, Becky. She’s a bitch. She hates you. You’re probably a bitch too, but mostly fuck Becky.

One day Becky comes in with a gorgeous hair clip. This is bullshit. You get a nicer hairclip. Becky notices and upgrades to a flower crown. You upgrade to a nicer, better flower crown, PLUS dangly earrings. Becky ups her game to a flower crown, earrings and dungarees. You do the same and go for bare feet too. Becky comes in looks like she’s at Coachella. She probably volunteers weaving blankets for orphaned elephants in Kenya. She’s strumming a ukelele. 

You do not give up. You will not lose. You will never lose.

You’ll also probably never win, either. Arms races don’t stop. As soon as side A builds something cool, side B builds something to block it or one-up it. The above example is actually awful, but I’m invested in it now so let’s stick with it. A better example would be Man 1 Makes Sword. Man 2 Makes Shield. Man 1 Makes Better Sword. Man 2 Makes Better Shield. Man 1: Two Swords. Man 2: Two Shields. 

And so on, and so forth. 

And so now we look at the rough-skinned newt.

You are now a rough-skinned newt. Congrats! You’re small, pretty squishy and you make a delicious snack for the local predators. You’re not exactly in a great position to attack back, and you could try running but that can only get you so far. The only logical solution is to make yourself as poisonous as I imagine those £1 Rustlers microwaveable burgers are.

You make tetrodotoxin*, also known as TXX. It’s a nasty chemical. Pufferfish and blue-ringed octopuses make it too, just to give you an idea of what we're dealing with. A snake tries to eat you and dies. If a snake bites you, it’s like ‘what the fuck? This is disgusting’. Snakes start leaving you alone.

Except.

Fortune favours the bold. Do you know why that story isn’t about Becky’s friend Rosanna? Because Rosanna gave up and she fuckin’ died. Nature has zero time for weakness. 

At some point, a common garter snake hatched with a mutation that allowed it to eat these toxic newts. The snake did very well. The snake bred, and soon every snake could eat the newts, and the newts said ‘bollocks’.

So the newts got more toxic.

And the snakes got more resistant.

And the newts got more toxic.

And the snakes got more resistant.

And the newts got more toxic.

And the snakes got more resistant.

Just how bad is TXX? Well, Wiki says:

“TTX is extremely toxic. The Material Safety Data Sheet for TTX lists the oral median lethal dose (LD50) for mice as 334 μg per kg. For comparison, the oral LD50 of potassium cyanide for mice is 8.5 mg per kg, demonstrating that even orally, TTX is more poisonous than cyanide.”

(LD50 is how much toxin it would take to kill half of a sample of mice. I know. Scientists are mean. Also, 334 μg is 0.334mg, just to hammer home that TXX is nasty shit.)

It would take a little over half a milligram a 75kg person.

Some of these newts have 15 fucking milligrams. 

There are newts poisonous enough to kill 30 people, and there are snakes who eat them. Interestingly, the snakes seem to be winning right now, as apparently some garter snakes can survive up to 100mg of TXX which makes snakes a) completely fucking insane and b) better than you in every way.

* It’s worth a quick note that when I refer to evolutionary ‘choices’ like this, I’m not talking about choices at all. It’s not like one newt went ‘aww fuck, I’m gonna die’ and started pumping out sweet TXX. It’s just that the newts that happened to make that were the ones more likely to live, breed and pass their poison-making genes on.

[strangehorse]

(Frankly, the only purpose to this question is because I -- and definitely many others -- enjoy reading you gush about things you like. You have been warned). I see you are studying biology currently! Would you be so kind as to explain all the various things that you love about biology and why others should be interested as well?

OH YES I ABSOLUTELY CAN AND WILL

biology is metal as fuck

right now you are reading these words. your eyes are smoothly tracking a series of symbols and transmitting them to your brain, which recalls the shape of the word and the sound of the word and the meaning of the words. it works out the meaning of the entire sentence. perhaps there is an emotional response: for example, 'suck my cock' gives a different reaction than 'terms and conditions apply'. You didn't have to think about any of that. It just happened..

BIOLOGY IS HAPPENING.

ALL AROUND YOU.

ALL THE TIME.

You're breathing and you're digesting food and your reproductive system is working away and your blood cells are carrying oxygen and CO2 and thousands of millions of processes are all going on at once and they're going right.

The more you learn about the amount of intricacy required for something as simple as a blink, the more you learn to respect your body for just how rarely anything goes wrong.

LIKE SERIOUSLY DNA IS A BETTER COPIER THAN ANY HUMAN COULD EVER HOPE TO BE

Biology is literally the study of life. You are alive. You cannot escape that. Biology is the study of yourself, and the study of all the things around you, and the study of how everything interacts. Biology allows you to look at something you once took for granted- the colour of a leaf, the purring of a cat, the crawling of a worm- and be able to explain it. Biology is what happens when you find something beautiful and want to know everything there is to know about it. The acquisition of knowledge does not, as many seem to believe, destroy or somehow invalidate emotional responses. There is as much beauty in a Petri dish under a microscope as there is in a painting or a poem, if you choose to find it. True, good biology is driven by curiosity and love.

Biology is immensely reassuring, in many ways. I cannot begin to explain how many times I've talked myself through how my body is using the nutrients from my food. I don't know how many times I've read and re-read sources on why the female body lays down fat reserves on the stomach and thighs. Biology has allowed me to get a grip and an understanding on a situation that otherwise hurls me into a whirlwind of obeying without understanding. Mental illnesses such as eating disorders work on fear: 'if you eat that, you will get fat'. Biology has allowed me to examine the science and factual nature of things and to challenge those irrational thoughts. More than that, it has given me pride in my body and respect for my body. I realise how incredibly it adapted to and fought against what I was doing to myself. I praise my liver for keeping going, I'm thankful to my heart for doing its best, I apologise to my uterus for not giving it what it needed to keep on going. The more I learn about the body the more remarkable I find it, and the more remarkable I find myself.

To not be interested in other species is a sign of an ignorant and selfish species. Learning about animals, plants, bacteria, protists and fungi is a wonderful, fascinating and eye-opening experience. The superpowers you watch films about exist. If a human had a turnover rate like an enzyme or could lift things like an ant or could feed itself using nothing but the air and the sun, we would consider them incredible. I see no reason to view the actions any differently because something else is taking them. To act as though humans are the only species of any importance or interest makes no sense at all to me.

Biology has so many applications. I think of my mental health disorder in terms of the biology of it. I think of the neuroplastic change that has occurred and how I could work on changing the pathways towards a healthier brain. I wonder how trauma can affect brain formation and how neurotransmitters and hormones can affect mood. More than that, I think about cancer, Alzheimer's, arthritis, diabetes, heart disease, fibromyalgia, every disease that's out there. The cure for them is found through biology. If you want to help people, biology is what you turn to. We are biology, and so we look to biology for help. You could find yourself working on something that could cure the heart disease that's run in your family for generations, or working to understand how therapy impacts the brain in order to improve future treatments. You can help people, because you understand people. To fix a body, you must first learn how it works.

No matter what that massive ramble may imply, I struggle to explain what it is about biology that I find so magical. It's just... it's almost a whole other world, except it's not, it's our world, and I feel so honoured and so lucky to live in a universe with all these fascinating creatures. I feel excited to be in such a prevalent, fast-moving and applicable field of research. And, TBH, above everything else, this is kind of how my reaction goes to most things biological:

xxxx

[strangehorse]

could you link to that time you made a video about science

I most certainly can!

Here it is

I would like to remind everyone that I am not even slightly proud of that video, and I am significantly more animated and less glassy-eyed in real life, I swear.

xx

[strangehorse]

Hey, I was wondering if you could recommend any books on schizophrenia and other mental illnesses :)

I admit, I tend to avoid memoirs, because I’ve had a bad experience with eating disorder memoirs so I tend to stay the fuck away from that section of the bookshop.

For mental illness including issues with diagnosis, the anti-psychiatry movement, the DSM and a whole whole whole range of issues, try The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson. It’s primarily about psychopathy, but it then goes on to explore the whole world of mental health diagnosis and management.

Autism ISN'T a mental illness, but I will mention a book on the topic here simply because it’s so well written. Nobody Nowhere by Donna Williams is very, very good. It’s the autobiography of an autistic woman and it’s a very moving read.

Not a book, but this TED talk on schizophrenia is very good.

This video simulates a psychotic episode and it’s very interesting.

Rachel’s Holiday by Marian Keys is fiction, but I like it a lot. It’s about a drug addict named Rachel who gets admitted to a mental hospital/rehab clinic, and it’s kind of frickin’ hilarious. You have to be in a good headspace to read it, though- lots of jokes made about bad behaviours. It’s still one of my favourite books, though.

I’m seriously drawing a blank at thinking of any more, which is weird. I know people love the book Girl, Interrupted by Susanna Kaysen, so maybe check out that? There’s obviously One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, though I’ve only seen the movie and haven’t read the book. 

Sorry, I know this wasn’t much help! Either way, those are some pretty cool resources- I hope you find what you were looking for!

xx

[strangehorse]

yo i've been waiting for a post like that about sherlock and psycopathy. i also think that line is p problematic bc then people use it as a term of endearment?? like "aww my little sociopath" or they refer to themselves as a sociopath bc their favorite character is. and sociopathy/psycopathy is p dangerous?? like it's a bad mental illness and it shouldn't be romanticized

I do think it’s a little problematic- but actually, a good number of psychopaths aren’t dangerous. Surprisingly, you can find a LOT of them in high business/positions of power- apparently, finance/banking in particular is a very attractive field for people with psychopathic tendencies.

A lot of psychopaths, when asked if they view their personality as ‘flawed’ or ‘in need of fixing’, respond that no, they believe they are normal and everybody else is strange. They often report that empathy seems very strange- like a very unnecessary type of weakness. I think it’s a bit dodgy to label it as a ‘bad’ mental illness, especially as psychopathy itself is not actually a diagnosable mental health condition. Describing it as ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ is a little like describing autism as ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’, y’know? It’s just… different.

Personally, I like the theory that we all exist on a kind of ‘spectrum’ of psychopathy, and those at the extreme end are more likely to be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder or to behave in a dangerous/criminal manner. Bob Hare, who’s a pretty wonderful resource on all things psychopathy, created a 20 point checklist that’s a good way of putting that into practice- pretty much everyone can relate to some of the points on that list, but that doesn’t make them a fully blown psychopath.

Eh, I don’t know. It’s a throwaway line, but it’s not actually correct and it pisses me off. There are people that believe that’s a distinction between psychopathy and sociopathy, but in the views of many (myself included) they really are terms for the same thing. Sherlock definitely registers higher on the psychopath spectrum than most ‘normal’ people would, but to start quabbling over the terminology feels a little like somebody going ‘John’s not nice, he’s kind!’

I’m gonna keep pimping out Jon Ronson’s ‘The Psychopath Test’, and Channel 4 recently did a program called The Psychopath Night which- whilst a little sensationalist- was pretty good. Check them out if you’re interested in the topic

Oh, and final note for anyone who for some reason is still reading: please remember that being psychotic and being psychopathic are totally totally different things. Not even slightly related. Thanks!

xx

[strangehorse]

Hi! do you remember a post about a study about baby girls and boys being similarly physically strong, but where parents treated them differently based on their gender? (i dont remember if i actually saw it on your blog, but maybe ??)

Oh gosh, I do remember seeing that post somewhere, but it wasn't on my blog, sorry. This is interesting, though:

http://www.psychlotron.org.uk/newResources/developmental/AS_AQB_gender_stereotypingStudies.pdf

This is also interesting, particularly as a modern day repeat seems to show a change in perception

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20923057

Hope that helps! xx

[strangehorse]

Hey Jess, merry Christmas!! I was wondering what's your opinion on putting money in and exploring fields of science that have no practical use (yet!!) instead of like, finding the cure for cancer or whatever. I had an argument over that yesterday...

Merry Christmas to you too! My opinion is below the cut because it was pretty long.

[and very opinionated]

oh

my god

you would not believe how irritating I find the argument ‘why are we wasting money on [x] instead of finding a cure for cancer?!’

Seriously, I’ll only consider it to be a valid argument when it literally comes out of the mouth of somebody who is actively researching cancer cures. But strangely enough, I only tend to read it in the comments section of Daily Mail articles, and somehow I don’t think that’s where leading academics hang out. So, if you’re going to castigate a scientist for focusing on something other than cancer: why aren’t YOU curing it? You’re a teacher? That’s not helping the cause at all. You’re a vet? If you hate animals getting cancer, why aren’t you helping find a treatment for it? Why are you, personally, not curing cancer right now? Sure, you could argue ‘I’m not clever enough to go into cancer research’- but does that mean if you are, you should automatically have to? Because when you rubbish the work of other scientists because it’s not in the field you would like it to be, you’re basically looking at a pile of rocks and shouting “Why is nobody picking those up?!”

That being said: curing cancer is not like picking up rocks. ‘Cancer’ is a word that covers over two hundred diseases. It is very very very unlikely that there will ever be A Cure For Cancer. That’s not to say there won’t be very effective treatments/preventive measures for different types; just that you’re not going to find a magic chemical that, alakazam, cures all cancers in a second.

I feel like a lot of stuff where people rubbish the experiments/research comes from people not really understanding what’s going on. Example: if I were to say “I study the development of zebrafish embryos”, you might say “Well, that’s pointless”. Zebrafish embryos are massively useful model organisms for a variety of diseases and disorders, including fatal/ severely life-limiting conditions like muscular dystrophy. Cancer doesn’t have monopoly on Shit Diseases We’d Quite Like To Cure.

But really, to say “Please drop all other areas of research and focus on cancer” is horrifying. That’s like saying “Please stop taking jobs in theatre, cinema, television, fashion, art, activism, music or literature, because that’s a waste of money that should really be going towards cancer”. Who are you to order everyone with the slightest scientific inclination to fall into one research field? How dare you say you would forbid research into taxonomy or ecology because it doesn’t match your own specific interests? You might not be able to see the direct benefit given to us from studying the behaviour of jellyfish- and you know what? Fuck, maybe there isn’t one. Maybe not everything in the entire world is about the human species. Maybe I take a goddamn interest in cephalapods because I think cephalapods deserve recognition on their OWN merits, not just on what they can offer humans.

I really, really do apologise if I’ve come across as flippant or dismissive of cancer. Cancer ruins lives. Cancer is a vicious illness, and cancer research is definitely an area I would personally consider going into. I just grow frustrated when people are faced with wonderful, incredible, never-before-thought-possible discoveries, and their only response is to go “Pffft, whatever”. It goes against everything science and biology should be about.

[strangehorse]

hey jess! I know you're super rad at biology, but I was wondering if you could help me with some chemistry? I can't get my head round electrolysis, what's formed where and anodes and shit. If you could help that would be awesome (cause you're awesome yeah) x

Oh man, this is the part of Chemistry I was the absolute worst at. Most of Chem, I can muddle my way through, but electrolysis (and fucking half cells) fucked me over so hard. I will do my best!

In atoms, the number of protons- positively charged particles- and electrons- negatively charged particles- are usually equal. So for example, lithium has three protons and three electrons, so it's neutral (3 + (-3) = 0). However, if lithium were to lose one electron, it would be unbalanced (3 + (-2) = 1). It would form an Li+ ion. An ion is a charged particle. If an ion is negatively charged, that means it has 'too many' electrons. If an ion is positively charged, it doesn't have enough.

So when an atom loses electrons, it becomes positively charged. We say that it has been oxidised. The number of electrons lost determines the charge the ion has. For example, a calcium atom which loses one electron forms Ca+. A calcium atom which loses two electrons (or a Ca+ ion which loses one) forms a Ca2+ ion. You get the idea.

When an atom gains electrons, it becomes negatively charged. For example, a chlorine atom which gains one electron becomes a Cl- ion. We say that it has been reduced. This really confuses people, because GAINING electrons is REDUCTION, but I'm afraid I didn't make the rules! 

Remember OILRIG! Oxidation Is Losing; Reduction Is Gaining.

The anode is the the positively charged electrode. Because opposite charges attract, this means that negative ions- also known as 'anions'- will be attracted to it. There, they will lose electrons and be oxidised. For example, Cl- ions might lose one electron to form Cl atoms.

The cathode is the negatively charged electrode. This means positively charged ions- known as 'cations'- will be attracted to it. There, they will gain electrons and be reduced. For example, Cu2+ ions might gain two electrons to form Cu.

I hope that helped, and I'm really sorry I couldn't help more. BBC Bitesize offer an excellent resource for basic electrolysis, and if there's anything else you want to ask/ that you want explaining in more detail, please just let me know!

xx