Yes, this post is about goodbyes and hellos. I am saying goodbye to ScienceBlogs and Observations of a Nerd. I have spent just over a year here at ScienceBlogs. When I was first recruited, I was ecstatic. I was to be blogging alongside powerhouses like Ed Yong, Rebecca Skloot and Brian Switek on one of the most prestigious science blog networks out there. In my mind, I’d made it big, even if I was just a small fish in a very big pond.

Then came PepsiGate, stagnant checks, and a whole host of technical issues and managerial blunders that have marred the name of ScienceBlogs over the past year. ScienceBlogs wasn’t the network I’d hoped to be a part of, and somewhere along the way, I made up my mind to leave. The only question was when and to where, and when Bora took over Scientific American’s blogs, the pieces fell into place.

Though the past year has been rough, I am not leaving ScienceBlogs with feelings of frustration or anger. Instead, I am leaving with aloha. I have learned a lot from my fellow sciblings and ex-sciblings, and I hold them in the highest regard. Mahalo nui loa to all of the bloggers here and elsewhere who have become my role models and friends.

As Queen Lili`uokalani once explained, aloha is also “a recognition of life in another.” In saying aloha to ScienceBlogs, I also am recognizing the talent and vitality that is still here. I have no doubt that ScienceBlogs will continue to foster incredible science writing and writers, particularly in light of the new deal with National Geographic. I hope that this partnership will solve the issues that have plagued ScienceBlogs as of late, and allow some of the great lesser-known bloggers a chance to shine. Malama pono, all of you; I wish nothing but the best of luck to everyone here. But for me, it is too little, too late. I made the decision to leave before this deal, and I don’t regret that choice now.

Aloha also means “to consciously manifest life joyously in the present.” As I say aloha and goodbye to ScienceBlogs, in turn, I say aloha and hello to my new home: Science Sushi, a part of the freshly launched Scientific American Blogs. I am unbelievably excited to be a part of the fantastic group of bloggers that the blogfather Bora has assembled.

I hope that those of you who currently read my observations will join me as I set off on this new adventure. Though it’s a shiny new name on a shiny new network, it’ll still be the same old me and the kind of writing you’ve come to expect from me here.

The new URL is: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/ and the new feed is: http://rss.sciam.com/science-sushi/feed. Observations of a Nerd will move back to its ancestral blogspot home, and will serve as a back-up or an emergency place to post should all internet hell break loose. If you wish, update your feed, bookmarks, blogrolls, etc. I hope to see you all over at Scientific American!

Aloha and a hui hou,
Christie

Mahalo nui loa = thank you very much
Malama pono = take care, be right
A hui hou = until we meet again

Straight from the beginning, though, the authors attack a dichotomy that doesn’t exist. They write that a “native-versus-alien species dichotomy” is counterproductive, and that new, pragmatic approaches are needed. This makes it sound like scientists and managers label every plant or animal as A or B, and those in A are allowed to stay and those in B are eradicated. To an ecologist, though, there is no “dichotomy” – there are a range of labels that apply to a variety of situations. Specifically, there is already a strong distinction between invasive species and introduced, non-native or alien species – not to mention game species, fisheries species, etc.

I don’t know of a single removal program that seeks to eradicate every species in an area that wasn’t there 100 years ago. Removal programs don’t target all “non-natives” – they target invasives.

Invasive species get their own category, as well they should. They are specifically defined by the US government as “alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” Almost half of the threatened and endangered species are at risk due to the impacts of invasive species. In the US alone, invasive species cause an estimated $140 billion dollars in environmental damages and losses every year¹.

Take the species I study: lionfish (Pterois volitans and P. miles). Lionfish were first sighted in the Atlantic in the late 1990s. In the past decade, they have become ubiquitous from Brazil to New York. They’re a classic invasive species: they grow quickly, breed year round, have no natural predators or diseases in their invasive range, and they are causing serious ecological damage. Studies have found they reduce the recruitment of larval fishes by 79% on average², and they are causing a shift from coral dominated to algal dominated ecosystems³. The lionfish hardly stand alone. Hundreds of species from rats and mice to cane toads cause serious damage to ecosystems on a daily basis.

So do we over-vilify invasive species? No, we don’t.

The debate about invasive species really hits home in Hawaii, where 25% (maybe more) of the local flora and fauna aren’t just native, they’re endemic, which means they are found nowhere else in the world. It’s estimated that somewhere around 25 new species are introduced to Hawaii every year, but thankfully, most of these do not become invasive. Indeed, of the 13,000 or so species of plants that have been introduced to Hawaii, only about 1% are considered invasive. Those that are deserve the title and the removal efforts that tend to go with it. When invasive species take over natural habitats in Hawaii, they very directly and quickly drive species towards extinction. Not surprisingly, Hawaii has a number of invasive species removal programs targeting species that are or might be a problem.

I couldn’t believe the authors chose to picture Miconia (Miconia calvescens) removal in Hawaii as their lead image, especially since they then didn’t even bother to talk about it. Yes, a lot of effort is spent preventing the spread of Miconia in Hawaii, but it’s for damn good reason – all Hawaiian biologists and managers need to do is take a look at Tahiti, where it’s referred to as “green cancer”. A single Miconia was introduced to Tahiti in 1937. Within a half a century, the plant took over. By the 1990s, the plant had spread to 70% of the island’s forested areas, over a third of which were near monotypic, meaning the Miconia had out-competed and overrun all the other native species of trees⁴.

On Oahu, Miconia has not had that kind of impact because we have actively prevented it. If we were to stop these removal efforts, there is little doubt that Miconia would spread. One study estimated that it would take less than a century for Micona to take over Oahu like is has Tahiti⁵. That study also estimated what would happen if we stopped control efforts for the next 40 years; the cost of doing nothing, based on loss of native habitat and species, changes in watershed properties, and other ecosystem damages would be $627 million.

This is the species that Davis and his colleagues chose as the front image for saying we unnecessarily persecute non-native species?

But, of course, the authors don’t talk about Miconia, or any of the removal programs in Hawaii. They instead cherry-pick their examples, cite their own work, and ignore the vast majority of the science from the past ten years which supports invasive species management.

I wouldn’t be so bothered by this short essay, except that more than ever, management programs need to be supported. If only the authors’ claim that there is “a pervasive bias against alien species that has been embraced by the public, conservationists, land managers and policy-makers” were true. But sadly, many politicians and people just don’t care. Just earlier today, my grandfather was watching a Fox News segment called “The Money Hole“, in which John Stossel started ranting and raving about all the ways in which the US wastes tax payer money. One of his examples? The $500,000 spent on removing brown tree snakes from Guam – one of the nastiest invasive species around, responsible for the extinction of ten out of the twelve native bird species that once lived there as well as a slew of other damages.

I’m actually shocked this paper was published by Nature. I’m even more shocked such an essay wasn’t peer-reviewed and the authors were paid for it. Of course, I generally would find it hard to trust an essay where the vast majority of the cited papers are written by the coauthors, and those that aren’t are outdated by a decade. How can they deride the management plans currently in use when they don’t actually evaluate the current efforts?

By dishing out blanket criticisms towards all invasive management programs, the authors provide fuel to the fire of those who attack environmental work on a daily basis. Conservation programs and scientific agencies which study the practicality, necessity, and effectiveness of them are already first on the chopping block when budgets are cut. They’re struggling for funding in these harsh economic times, and articles like this one only seek to unfairly undermine their credibility when they need it most.

Comment in Question: Davis, M., Chew, M., Hobbs, R., Lugo, A., Ewel, J., Vermeij, G., Brown, J., Rosenzweig, M., Gardener, M., Carroll, S., Thompson, K., Pickett, S., Stromberg, J., Tredici, P., Suding, K., Ehrenfeld, J., Philip Grime, J., Mascaro, J., & Briggs, J. (2011). Don’t judge species on their origins Nature, 474 (7350), 153-154 DOI: 10.1038/474153a

Citations:
1. PIMENTEL, D., ZUNIGA, R., & MORRISON, D. (2004). Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States Ecological Economics DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.10.002
2.Albins, M., & Hixon, M. (2008). Invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish Pterois volitans reduce recruitment of Atlantic coral-reef fishes Marine Ecology Progress Series, 367, 233-238 DOI: 10.3354/meps07620
3. Lesser, M., & Slattery, M. (2011). Phase shift to algal dominated communities at mesophotic depths associated with lionfish (Pterois volitans) invasion on a Bahamian coral reef Biological Invasions DOI: 10.1007/s10530-011-0005-z
4. Meyer, J., & Florence, J. (1996). Tahiti’s native flora endangered by the invasion of Miconia calvescens DC. (Melastomataceae) Journal of Biogeography, 23 (6), 775-781 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.1996.tb00038.x
5. Kimberly M. Burnett, Brooks A Kaiser, & James Roumasset (2007). Invasive Species Control over Space and Time: Miconia calvescens on Oahu, Hawaii Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics,, 39

Yes, yes it is. (HT @Oxymoronics)

1. Cosmic Variance: The Fine Structure Constant is Probably Constant
2. Dr. Carin Bondar: Sacrifice on the Serengeti
3. Empirical Zeal: Blind Fish in Dark Caves Shed Light on the Evolution of Sleep
4. Highly Allochthonous: Levees and the Illusion of Flood Control
5. Laelaps: The Pelican’s Beak – Success and Evolutionary Stasis
6. Oh, For the Love of Science: Prehistoric Clues Provide Insight into Climate’s Future Impact on Oceans
7. Opinionator: Morals Without God?
8. Scientific American Guest Blog: Seratonin and Sexual Preference: Is It Really That Simple?
9. Starts With A Bang: Where Is Everybody?

Sadly, no, neither of my posts made the cut. It was some tough competition! Be sure to read all of these, and I’ll tack on to this post who takes the Top Quark when it’s announced in a week or so.

Thanks to you and all your votes, TWO of my three posts are in! Both “Why Do Women Cry” and “How Do You ID A Dead Osama Anyway” are among the top 20. I’m so grateful for all of your support – I don’t think anyone has ever gotten two posts in before!

In a couple days, the crew at 3QD will be posting their short list of six to nine finalists, which they will then pass off to Lisa Randall. The winners, chosen by her, will be posted sometime around June 21^st.

Thanks again, and I’ll keep you posted as the results come in!

Osama Bin Laden is dead. At least, that’s what we’ve been told, and I tend to believe such things.

But how do they know it’s him? Well, they have the visual evidence and the body, for one. But to be certain it’s not a look-a-like, the government has taken steps above and beyond to make sure they’ve got who they think they have: DNA analysis.

Now, I’m not entirely sure what DNA analysis has been done, but I can say this for certain – whatever method they used could be completed in a matter of hours given a lab ready to go and focused solely on this. Using commonplace PCR methods – which, for the record, is what I use in my lab every day – Bin Laden could easily be ID’d faster than you’d think. Heck, I can get DNA from a fish and turn it into sequences or genotypes in 24 hours, so I think the US government can work faster than me when time is of the essence. Allow let me explain how they could do it so quickly.

Step 1. Extract DNA
If they’ve got his body, then they’ve got enough DNA to run a billion or two genetic tests. It takes extremely little DNA to run genetic tests – on the order of single cells. So having even a 1 mm square piece of flesh would provide more DNA than they would even have use for. Extraction takes very little time. All you need to do it place the cells/tissue in some kind of solution that will break up the cell’s membranes, thus liberating the DNA from the nucleus without damaging the DNA too much. There are hundreds of extraction kits and protocols. I don’t know what the gov’t extraction policy is, but the Arkansas State Crime Lab just uses sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid to extract DNA from their samples (which, btw, is how I get DNA from my fish samples, too). For example, this is their protocol for buccal punches (a.k.a. cheek tissue):

1. Place 52 μl of 0.01 M NAOH in each well with 2.0 mm of tissue.
2. Incubate samples at 65°C for 10 minutes.
3. Add 10 μl of 0.1 M Tris HCl (pH 7.3).
4. Mix.
5. Let stand for 5 minutes.
6. Samples are now ready for amplification

Step 2: Amplify Identifying DNA Sequences
Once you have DNA, you’re ready to ID your suspect. While there have been a few methods used in the past, the onset of Polymerase Chain Reaction, or PCR technology, has made looking at parts of a genome pretty darn quick and easy.

The namesake of PCR, polymerase, is a very special enzyme that cells use to duplicate DNA. Polymerases are found in all creatures because we all must, at some point, have cells divide to grow and reproduce. When our cells divide, we have to make two copies of our genome – one for each new cell. To do this, our cells unwind the DNA, spread apart the two matching strands, then use each as templates to make two new strands. Polymerases are the enzymes that actually do that – they attach to single strands of DNA and grab matching nucleotides to create the other half of the strand.

PCR was invented in the 1980s and takes advantage of how our DNA reacts to temperature. At lower temperatures, like in our bodies, DNA sticks to it’s complementary half and forms a tight helix. But as you turn up the heat, our DNA denatures – that is, it unwinds and each half of the helix separates. We can’t use our own cell’s polymerases for PCR because they can’t stand that kind of heat. Instead, we’ve borrowed an enzyme from a particularly heat-tolerant bacteria to do the job for us.

PCR uses multiple cycles of heating and cooling to create thousands to millions of copies of a single piece of DNA. But how do we copy just what we want? Well, it turns out that polymerases need a little help getting started. They require a short sequence of RNA to tell them where to attach, called a primer. Because we can design this primer to match any unique sequence in the genome, we can target where the polymerase will attach, and voila. You’ve just picked your little chunk of genome to amplify over and over and over again. The total process doesn’t take all that long – you heat it up for a bit, run it through a set of temperature cycles, and then you’re good to go. The Arkansas protocol, for example, takes just about two and a half hours.

In the case of DNA fingerprinting, a set of very special genome regions called Short Tandem Repeats (or STRs) are used. These are non-coding sections that vary a lot between people. To be certain of ID, 13 separate regions, called loci, are compared between people. The chance that two people who are not twins would be the exact same across all 13 different loci is approximately 1 in 575 trillion.

The best part of PCR is that you can attach things to those primers to make the new DNA really easy to find. For example, the AmpFℓSTR® Identifiler ™ PCR Amplification Kit used by Arkansas has the primers for 15 different STR loci all tagged with fluorescent dyes. That means once you’re done with the PCR, you’re just a hop skip and a jump away from a full genetic ID.

Step 3: Genotyping
Once you have your DNA amplified, you need to find out what it looks like. In the case of STRs, you’re looking for how many repeats are in each DNA chunk. In other words, you’re looking to see how long they are. Because they’re each flagged with a fluorescent dye, the sequence in and of itself doesn’t matter, just the size. Some people just run this out on a gel, which is what we see in our classic TV fingerprinting:

But nowadays, more and more labs are shifting to genotyping analysis with the help of automated machines. Determining the size of fluorescent labeled DNA sequences is the job of specialized machines like the ABI 3130xl Genetic Analyzer. It can take a sample of DNA and tell you how much DNA you have at what sizes in what colors. The output looks something like this:

So how long did it take to get Bin Laden’s fingerprint? Well, with the three steps here, just under 5 hours. And for all I know, the FBI has a faster way of doing it – I wouldn’t exactly be shocked. That, and some are reporting he actually died last week sometime, and they’ve been waiting for the DNA confirmation – which also, frankly, wouldn’t shock me.

Of course, to ID Bin Laden in this way, they would have to have some Bin Laden DNA lying around to compare it to. I don’t know if they had some from some inside source, or not. What they do have is brain tissue from Bin Laden’s sister, who died in the US. They can compare his genetic signature to hers and determine if they are related – which is as close as you can get to guaranteeing it’s Bin Laden without a sample of his actual DNA from prior to his death.

Oil supplies the United States with approximately 40% of its energy needs. Billions upon billions of gallons are pumped out of our wells, brought in from other countries, and shipped around to refineries all over the states. 1.3 million gallons of petroleum are spilled into U.S. waters from vessels and pipelines in a typical year. Yes, it would be great if we never spilled a drop of oil. No matter how hard we may try, though, the fact is that nobody is perfect, and oil spills are an inevitable consequence of our widespread use of oil. The question is, once the oil is out there, how do we clean it up?

Nowehere is this issue more glaring than in the Gulf of Mexico right now, where 35,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil are spewing out of the remains of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig every day. The spill has enraged an entire nation. But perhaps my grandfather put it best, when I asked him what he thought about how BP and the US is responding to the spill.

“They’re friggin’ idiots.”

My grandfather, Ralph Bianchi, knows a thing or two about oil spills. He spent thirty years in the oil spill cleanup business. His company, JBF Scientific (now a part of Slickbar), developed new technologies for cleaning up spills, including a skimming method called the Dynamic Inclined Plane (DIP). In 1970, they sold their first skimmer to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The next year, the U.S. Navy purchased forty $250,000 DIP skimmers and stationed them at major naval installations throughout the world. When word of how well his designs worked for the government, private oil companies started buying DIP skimmers, too.

In 1987, my grandfather’s company, JBF Scientific, received a call from the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. The company, based in Alaska, was formed in 1970 and charged with the duty of designing, constructing, operating and maintaining the pipeline which transports oil from the fields in Alaska. It is owned by the major oil companies that operate the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, including a couple you may have heard of: BP and Exxon Mobil.

Part of Alyeska’s job is to clean up any spills which occur in the process of the movement of oil to, from and through the pipeline. What they wanted from my grandfather was a DIP skimmer larger than he’d ever constructed – a boat over 120 feet long. JBF drew up plans for a massive DIP skimmer capable of removing 2,500 barrels of oil per hour. But when my grandfather told them how much it would cost – an estimated $4 to $5 million at the time – Alyeska instead decided to try another company’s cheaper model, which turned out to be close to useless in the kelp-filled waters of the Northwest.

Of course, everyone knows what happened next. In 1989, the Exxon Valdez ran aground on Prince William Sound’s Bligh Reef and spilled an estimated 250,000 barrels of crude oil, creating one of the worst environmental disasters in history. The spill itself was bad enough, but Alyeska, Exxon and the country were entirely unprepared to deal with a cleanup of that nature. Despite months of cleanup efforts, less than 10% of the spilled oil was recovered, and 20 years later, the ecosystems in the area had still yet to recover.

After the spill, Alyeska bought my grandfather’s skimmer. The boat, called the Valdez Star, still operates in that area today. If another spill the size of the Exxon Valdez occurred now, picking up that volume of oil would only be a few days’ work for the Valdez Star and two aluminum oil recovery boats the company also bought. Only a few days work.

If only the cooperative in Alaska had been willing to spend a little more on their cleanup equipment! Other areas, however, were and are much better about their cleanup planning. One of the first privately owned groups to embrace the DIP skimmers was the oil cooperative in Puget Sound. Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits are among the busiest shipping lanes in the world, with billions of gallons of oil moving across the waters of Puget Sound every year. The Sound may have many environmental issues, including stormwater runoff and pollution, but it kicks butt at cleaning up oil spills.

Despite the fact that oil spills occur there fairly frequently, you don’t hear about them much. That’s because in Puget Sound, they have what my grandfather calls a “firehouse mentality.” The cooperative bought the first privately owned DIP skimmer, The North Sounder, from JBF in the late 1980s. After the Exxon spill, they purchased three more similar skimmers, and a 600 ton skimmer like the Valdez Star called The Shearwater. These skimmers are among a fleet of equipment and trained personnel ready at a moment’s notice to deal with any spill. They run drills to practice different methods of cleanup. They know the currents and wind data and predict where and when the oil will hit. They’ve identified sensitive shore areas like shell fish beds, bird feeding and nesting ground and yachting harbors, and have stationed containment and deflecting booms, storage barges, and skimmers at those areas. And all of it is funded by the state and the oil companies and other shippers whose oil could be spilled. In Washington, the state Ecology Department has a budget of $16 million, while companies spend roughly $41 million a year there preparing for spills.
Oil spill cleanup using my grandpa’s technology in 1972; my uncle Robert Bianchi on the left, a family friend Mark Mendano in the center, and my uncle Raimond Bianchi on the right.

In Puget Sound, when a spill happens, they jump into action. Just like firefighters responding to an alarm, trained teams of workers immediately assess the situation and combat the spreading problem. They contain the oil if they can, and if they can’t, they protect the areas that are most vulnerable to oil’s damaging effects. Similar oil cleanup crews are now in place in a number of harbors around the country.

So I asked my grandfather how many skimmers he sold to companies in the Gulf.

“None.”

BP now claims that 400 or so skimmers are now working to clean up the oil spilling in the gulf. One of their spokesmen, Mark Proegler, says skimmers are only able to collect about 10-15 percent of the oil. “They essentially scoop up the oil and water mix in the water for later separation,” he explained, “and that mix is about 10 percent oil and 90 percent water.”

But that’s because they aren’t using DIP skimmers, or other, better skimming technologies that have been developed over the past few decades. The resultant oil percentage of the fluids that are picked up by these skimmers is more than five times higher. When deciding how well prepared an area is for an oil spill, the government tends to operate on a 20% rule of thumb (33 CFR 155, Appendix B, Section 6) – that is, they assume that any skimmer will operate at only 20% the efficiency that the manufacturer claims. For JBF DIP models, however, they assume 74% to 94% efficiency.

What my grandfather wants to know is why the Valdez Star and the Shearwater, as well as the other large, high-quality skimmers, aren’t in the Gulf right now. Better boats are out there, which could clean up more oil and faster.

It’s not just that BP and other Gulf companies hadn’t embraced the newer, better cleanup technologies before this disaster occurred. It’s that they aren’t prepared at all for any kind of large spill. That’s what the US government discovered when they performed exercises in the early 2000s to see how companies would respond to a major spill. The After Action report of the 2004 Spill of National Significance (SONS) exercise concluded that, in the Gulf of Mexico:

Oil spill response personnel did not appear to have even a basic knowledge of the equipment required to support salvage or spill cleanup operations…. There was a shortage of personnel with experience to fill key positions. Many middle-level spill management staff had never worked a large spill and some had never been involved in an exercise.

What’s even more sobering is that of the oil spills within the Coast Guard’s jurisdiction (i.e., marine and coastal areas), approximately 50% of the incidents, both in number and the volume of oil spilled, occur in the Gulf of Mexico and its shoreline states.

Why doesn’t the Gulf have the “firehouse mentality” of areas like Puget Sound? Why haven’t they identified the most vulnerable areas and stationed cleanup equipment there, provided up to date training for cleanup personnel, and generally prepared for this kind of disaster?

The answer is simple. As my grandpa phrased it, “they’re cheap bastards.”

The lack of foresight and constant corner cutting by BP led to this disaster. But what’s worse is that they continue to botch the containment and cleanup of the billions of gallons of oil that their mistakes have spilled.

“The real issue,” my grandfather explained to me, “is that they don’t care about solving the problem.” By they, he wasn’t just referring to BP. He was referring to all of the oil companies in the Gulf and the government regulators that are supposed to be ensuring that oil drilling and transport occurs safely. “They throw dispersants on the oil. Do you know what dispersants do? They make the oil neutrally buoyant. Dispersed oil winds up in the water column and, therefore, cannot be deflected by floating booms or harvested with oil skimmers. They make the surface look cleaner, but they don’t do a damned thing to actually clean up the oil.”

Essentially, dispersants are soaps. They emulsify oil, breaking up up and allowing it to mix into water. The idea behind dispersants is that by breaking up the oil and putting it in the water column, it will be degraded faster by the microorganisms that naturally degrade oils and keeping the oil from coating the shoreline.

Starting in May, the US has been spraying oil dispersants at the spill like mad, despite concerns raised by many related to potential dispersant impact on wildlife and fisheries, environment, aquatic life, and public health. The EPA further approved injection of these dispersants directly at the the leak site to break up the oil before it reaches the surface. By the end of may, over 600,000 gallons of dispersants have been applied on the surface, with another 55,000 gallons applied underwater. The two main dispersants being used, Corexit EC9500A and EC9527A are neither the least toxic, nor the most effective, among the dispersants approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. In fact, the UK has banned their use entirely. When BP was asked why they aren’t using better dispersants, they said that Corexit was ‘what they had available.’

The bigger question, though, is why are they using dispersants at all. Multiple studies after the Exxon Valdez spill found that dispersants, detergents, and hot water cleaning of shoreline cause substantially more mortality than oil itself. Even before the Exxon spill, scientists knew that “dispersant-oil mixtures are more toxic than the dispersant alone, and many-fold more toxic than the crude oil.” While better and safer detergents are being developed, their long-term toxicity and effectiveness is still completely unknown, making them risky to use in such high quantities as BP is.

The way my grandpa sees it, the so-called cleanup of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill isn’t about being effective or safe, it’s about looking like they’re doing something. The goal is to make it less visible so the public forgets that it’s happening. It’s all about PR.

I think he’s right.

What needs to happen, in the Gulf of Mexico and throughout the United States, is a change of mindset. We’ve already started moving away from oil to other, more responsible and sustainable energy technologies, but that is only a small part of the solution. The truth is, we’re likely never going to have a zero demand for oil. We certainly won’t do it in the next fifty or a hundred years – it’s just not feasible. While we need to continue to research alternatives, we need to deal with how we handle and regulate oil now, too.

Oil companies have been taking advantage of loose regulations for too long. They need to be forced to prepare for the damage their products can cause. You would think that after the disaster in Alaska that we would have learned our lesson – that anywhere where oil is drilled, pumped or transported would have put in place well trained emergency response teams and extensive equipment ready to react to large spills. But apparently, we haven’t learned from our mistakes. This time, I hope that we do.

This post has been chosen as a Research Blogging Editor’s Selection, featured in the 33^rd edition of Scientia Pro Publica, and now won the Post with the Most!

PS: For amazing coverage of the oil spill in general, check out my blog-buddies over at Deep Sea News and the growing list of fantastic posts/feeds/etc from Southern Fried Science

Citations:

• Jonathan L. Ramseur (2010). Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters: Background, Governance, and Issues for Congress Congressional Research Service , 7-5700 (RL33705)

• USCG Spill Compendium (2005). Cumulative Data And Graphics For Oil Spills (1973-2004)
• Ralph A. Bianchi, Edward E. Johanson, & James H. Farrell (1973). The Application of Skimmers, Piston Films,and Sorbents for Open Water Spills Offshore Technology Conference
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security, & U.S. Coast Guard (2004). California SONS 2004 After Action Report
• Paine, R., Ruesink, J., Sun, A., Soulanille, E., Wonham, M., Harley, C., Brumbaugh, D., & Secord, D. (1996). TROUBLE ON OILED WATERS: Lessons from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 27 (1), 197-235 DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.197
• SWEDMARK, M., GRANMO, A., & KOLLBERG, S. (1973). Effects of oil dispersants and oil emulsions on marine animals Water Research, 7 (11), 1649-1672 DOI: 10.1016/0043-1354(73)90134-6
• CM Tarzwell (1971). Toxicity of oil and oil dispersant mixtures to aquatic life. Water pollution by oil. London, The Institute of Petroleum. P. Hepple (Ed.) , 263-272

Photo by Sara LeeAnn Banevedes

I don’t think Brian Alexander is a bad guy or a misogynist. He writes the Sexploration column for MSNBC, so sure, his job is all about selling sex stories to the public. He even wrote a book about American sexuality. But I don’t personally think he has a burning hatred for women, or views them as objects placed on this Earth for the sexual satisfaction of men. However, I very easily could, given how he chose to report on a recent study published in Science about men’s physiological responses to the chemicals present in women’s tears.

The headline alone was enough to make me gag —
“Stop the waterworks, ladies. Crying chicks aren’t sexy.” The sarcastic bitch in me just couldn’t help but think Why THANK YOU Brian! I’ve been going about this all wrong. When I want to get some from my honey, I focus all my thoughts on my dead dog or my great grandma and cry as hard as I can. No WONDER it isn’t working!

I didn’t even want to read the rest of the article.

But I did.

It doesn’t get better.

Alexander’s reporting of the actual science was quick and simplistic, and couched in sexist commentary (like how powerful women’s tears are as manipulative devices). And to finish things off, he clearly states what he found to be the most important find of the study:

“Bottom line, ladies? If you’re looking for arousal, don’t turn on the waterworks.”

It’s no wonder that the general public sometimes questions whether science is important. If that was truly the aim of this paper, I’d be concerned, too!

Of course, Brian Alexander missed the point. This paper wasn’t published as a part of a women’s how-to guide for getting laid. Instead, the authors sought to determine if the chemicals present in human tears might serve as chemosignals like they do for other animals — and they got some pretty interesting results.

Note; I’m writing this guest post because this week, I’ll be a visitor in Christie’s current stomping grounds, Hawaii, attending the summer meeting of The Crustacean Society. Christie, meanwhile, is on the mainland. Since we are sort of switching places, we thought it might be fun to switch blogs. So here I am at Observations, and she’s promised me a guest post for my blog, NeuroDojo.

Hawaii is famous for its beaches. When most people see a beach, they think of relaxation. Tanning, swimming, bikinis, maybe a little Frisbee or beach volleyball.

When I see a beach, I think of shovelling and sweating.

Doing a doctorate changes you, man.

I developed my somewhat warped relationship with beaches during my graduate work. I worked on the locomotion of beach dwelling sand crabs. People who live by beaches might know some of the species as “water fleas” or “mole crabs,” which are usually sand crabs in the genus Emerita.

Most of my work was in the lab, as the animals were pretty hardy and survived well in sea tables, but this did mean we had to occasionally go from Vancouver Island down to California to collect animals.

The good news was that the two main species of sand crabs I worked with were very abundant. But the most opportune time to collect them was at low tide, which somehow always seemed to fall just before daybreak on our collecting trips. My relationship with beaches changed after a couple of those 5:00 am wake-up calls, and not for the better.

During a Ph.D., you make it your goal to become knowledgeable on your subject, so I tried to read up on every paper on the sand crab superfamily I could find. There weren’t many, and those that did exist were often taxonomic descriptions in nineteenth century journals and specialty journals. And I discovered some odd species that way. Zygopa, a sand crab with only one eye. Stemonopa, a sand crab with eyestalks longer than its carapace. And Mastigochirus.

I would love to see live Mastigochirus.

These genus is pretty obscure, even for sand crabs, which are a fairly obscure group to begin with, truth be told. There are only two species in the genus. But you won’t even find the genus name Mastigochirus listed in a massive taxonomic database. You’ll find some places that both Mastigochirus and Mastigopus, but the second name is an out-of-date name for the genus (Boyko & McLaughlin 2010), and isn’t valid.

Before this post, you would only find a single drawing of the genus on Google Images, which I think is M. gracilas. Today, I’m proud to double that number by including a scan of an Australian species, M. quadrilobatus (from Haig 1974). But there are no photographs, and none of a live one. And the last couple of days, I thought, “Hey, that could be my lame claim to fame: to be the first person to photograph Mastigochirus and put it on the web!” (Go on, say it: “Nerd.“)

It’s a reminder, though, that not everything is on the web.

Why am I eager to see this genus and not the other extraordinary ones I mentioned?

It’s those long legs. Yes, thanks to my doctoral work, I’m a leg man. (As I said: grad school changes you, man). Sand crabs use their legs for digging and swimming in very complicated ways, particularly in this family. In Emerita, the first pair of legs are flattened and paddle shaped, and they use them like rudders to steer when they swim. I look at those long legs in Mastigochirus, and am intensely curious to see how they are used. They don’t seem to be great for swimming. They seem almost comical to think of them providing much help in digging. What are they used for?

Simple-minded questions abound when you study sand crabs. For most species (except Emerita), we have essentially no idea of the basic biology of the species beyond the descriptions of their bodies needed for a species description. What does Mastigochirus eat? The other two sand crabs in its family have very different feeding habits: Emerita is a mild-mannered filter feeder. Hippa will come come out of the sand and swim to bait.

I got thinking about all of this because I thought Mastigochirus might live in Hawaii. But re-reading Haig (1974), she described both species living in the Indo-West Pacific. I think I was confusing its distribution with another sand crab genus, Hippa, which definitely does live in Hawaii.

I don’t know if I’ll get a chance to see any sand crabs while I’m in Hawaii. A scientific conference is work, even when in a lovely place like Hawaii. But if you see guy on Waikiki beach with a shovel and no interest in working on a tan, kicking over and staring intently at the sand, come by and say hi.

References

Boyko CB, McLaughlin PA. 2010. Annotated checklist of anomuran decapod crustaceans of the world (exclusive of the Kiwaoidea and families Chirostylidae and Galatheidae of the Galatheoidea) Part IV-Hippoidea. The Raffles Bulletin Of Zoology Supplement No. 23: 139-151. http://arthroinfo.org/pdfs/31608/31608.pdf

Haig J. 1974. A review of the Australian crabs of the family Hippidae (Crustacea, Decapoda, Anomura). Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 71: 175-189.

Here’s the full list of entires. There are a ton of great ones – you should read them all! But, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t want you to vote for one of the three from this blog (see below). The last one – Why Do Women Cry – is my personal favorite, but of course vote how you wish! The voting closes Wednesday at 11:59pm eastern time, so whether you vote for me or vote for another post, vote soon!

• How Do You ID a Dead Osama Anyway?
• Reflections on the Gulf Oil Spill: Conversations With My Grandpa
• Why do women cry? Obviously it’s so they don’t get laid

Again, this is the voting link. Go now! VOTE!