Here’s an amazing video on the evolution of animal genitalia. What a cool fusion of science and art on a fascinating topic!
Who owns science?
This may not be a question you think much about. But did you know that, as a taxpayer, YOU are generating scientific knowledge? You fund the research we all rely on in our daily lives: from the science that ensures the safety of our food and medicine to the sustainable management of our fisheries and protection of our environment. Science is by its very nature a public good and should be treated as such because you, as a citizen, helped create it.
Your access to the science you helped create is in jeopardy. It is stripped away when federally imposed gag rules limit how much scientists can tell you about their work. It is eroded by grant, hiring, and contract freezes, which restrain what research scientists can do, keep agencies from hiring the best candidates, reduce economic growth and development, and waste resources. Regardless of our political affiliations, we are all impacted when science comes under fire, and every one of us – scientist or not – should respond when the integrity and transparency of science is threatened.
Recent executive orders jeopardizing scientific integrity motivated a March for Science this coming Saturday, which has been perceived as controversial and partisan. I would like to refute these claims, to clarify the purpose of the March, and to demonstrate its importance and necessity. After all, this is not a scientists’ march, it is a march for science.
First, the March itself does not politicize science. Instead, it is a means for pushing back on the misconception that science is partisan because the importance and ownership of science transcends political affiliations. At its core, science is a way of understanding the real world – a methodology founded on rigorous, objective observation – not party affiliations, biases, or opinions. Similarly, the March for Science is not a culture war or a partisan rally that should devolve into “us” vs. “them” debates. The March is about standing for what is rightfully ours – equal access to science and publicly funded results. It is a reminder that the science we pay for – not opinions that we don’t – should inform our policies.
Second, the March should not be contentious. Science and evidence-based policies are too important for Americans to remain passive or quiet. This is particularly true when we consider that policies not grounded in science will disproportionately impact marginalized communities, thereby increasing inequality in our society. Given what is at stake, now is not the time to be quiet, complacent, or cynical. The March brings a national voice to the importance of evidence-based policies that protect and support our underrepresented communities, environment, and economy. Ultimately, being pro-science is patriotic: it says you value all Americans.
Third, the March should not be conducted in an echo chamber of like-minded folks (i.e. the elite and educated) and should not serve to simply expand such a space. Scientists come from all walks of life and are impacted greatly by political actions against underrepresented groups, including minorities and immigrants. The March provides a space to speak against policies that exacerbate inequality. Much like society, science thrives on diversity to drive innovation and creativity and solve our most pressing problems. Let us use the March to highlight the work that remains to be done to make science inclusive and end systemic, institutionalized prejudices.
Finally, opponents of the March present a false dichotomy between local engagements or mass protests. Both are equally important in our defense of science and evidence-based decision making in our political system. Focusing only on local efforts incorrectly assumes all communities have equal access to science. The March can serve as a way to speak for these under-served communities, thereby promoting equal and open access to science.
As an owner of science, you can decide how you want to participate in upholding the scientific integrity and transparency that we collectively benefit from as a society. Whether you choose to participate through local action or joining the March, what is most important is that we all engage and stay engaged. Science does not belong to any political party. Science belongs to all of us, and it’s about damn time we take it back.
This Father’s Day give your dad a gift to remember – an understanding of the evolution of his gametes
With Father’s Day quickly approaching, I think it’s time we had a little talk about the evolution of dad’s gametes. Before you get creeped out, don’t think of this as being just about your dad, but rather any dad or male of an organism that reproduces sexually (sorry, bacteria!).
While not all dads are the same across the animal or plant kingdoms, they do all share one common feature – sperm. The production of this gamete type is what defines the male within every species. What defines females is their ability to produce eggs. The most important distinction between these two gamete types is their investment in size; sperm are small, eggs are large. It is their union into a zygote that characterizes sexual reproduction. But how did these two gamete types come to be?
It all starts with parasitism. Ah, the romance.
One theory is that before females or males existed, all gametes were of the same type and size. Size is an important trait for gametes because being large translates into more nutrition for a developing zygote, which assures it higher survival. Such survival is highly favored by natural selection and, thus, larger gametes also came to be favored. But might there be a cost if gametes are all under the same selective pressure to become large?
Consider a vast ocean with a single target – a giant ocean liner. Your goal is to reach this easy-to-spot target, which you can achieve through building one of two vessels given a set amount of materials: you can either invest your resources into producing a few more giant ocean liners, or you can take these resources and parse them into a large fleet of torpedo-like mini-submarines ready to divide and conquer. Finding a large vessel with another large vessel will prove a difficult task. For one, they’re less maneuverable. Moreover, they’re less likely to encounter one another since they cover less area. But time is of the essence, and a bunch of smaller vessels all working toward a common goal will more frequently encounter their target and, ultimately, will win the race.
In the gamete world, slow and steady will never win the race either. Large gametes are less efficient at finding their target precisely because their strategy of being large constrains them to be fewer in number. On the other hand, by not investing resources into their size, the smaller gametes are freed up to be more abundant. Occurring in greater numbers means they are much more likely to encounter their larger counterparts – an excellent racing strategy if you’re a gamete.
Now, let’s imagine the potential pairings of these different gamete types from the perspective of natural selection. The important rules of the race are two-fold: the more zygotes the better, and enhanced survival of the zygote is key.
In a remarkable feat, suppose two large gametes finally do find one another.
Sure, the fusion of their genetic material will result in a few mighty-super-survivor zygotes because of their equal investments in being large and nutritious. Unfortunately for them, however, their big investments will come at the expense of being rare, so their union will result in fewer zygotes.
Likewise, though the union of two small gametes would be more probable given their abundance, neither gamete can provide sufficient nutrition for zygote survival.
Consequently, neither of these unions between like-gametes would be favored by selection over time.
It’s these unfortunate pairings that help explain how natural selection additionally came to favor the evolution of a smaller gamete, sperm. What remained and became the evolutionary norm was the most productive and efficient strategy – the fusion of two disparate gamete types – large and small. Now, where there were once only ocean liners, there were also millions of torpedo-like mini-submarines.
And now for the unsettling part. In addition to representing a trade-off between quality and quantity, gamete size also embodies a trade-off in offspring investment. While large gametes evolved for nourishment of the zygote, small gametes evolved to be cheats. They downsized to be better able to find the large gamete, which was then entrapped into providing all of the sustenance for the zygote. So here is the rub that necessitated parasitism. By favoring both egg and sperm, selection actually ensured their unequal contributions to the zygote.
Hence, the very reason sperm likely evolved was to exploit the resources of eggs. And it is ultimately the selection of these two very different investment strategies that led to the origin of females and males, moms and dads.
So this Father’s Day, when you’re having trouble finding the right words to say, keep it simple. Thank him for his parasitic little sperm cell. It made all the difference.
Here is an article about one prof’s attempts to increase transparency about the faculty hiring process at Harvard. It’s a great first step toward demystifying this process and hopefully will encourage more women and minorities to apply. Now, if only others would follow suit…
Hiring committees take note: this article also links to an online test where you can test your own implicit biases!
The topic: Sociality and signal evolution
The gist: There’s a trade-off between social recognition (the ability to learn, memorize, and recognize individuals within a group due to repeated interactions) and elaborate, external quality signals (think peacock feathers or lion manes, which don’t require repeated interactions but still can communicate important info about the individual giving the signal). Social group size may drive selection to favor either social recognition (in smaller groups, in which repeated interactions with individuals are common) or external quality signals (in larger groups, in which interactions with randos are common).
One question that remains is how social network size within a larger social group can affect signal evolution. If social networks within a larger social group are relatively small, can selection on signals parallel that within small social groups? Or is it the quantity of interactions (with either unknown or known members or both) in larger groups that primarily drive signal evolution type?
Why care? This research can give us a predictive framework to understand species’ use of signals (be they visual, auditory, or chemical) given what their social structure looks like and vice versa. Also, the framework can have far-reaching implications for understanding social behavior within most animals, including us humans. Because of the inherent trade-off between the two, social recognition may limit the evolution of quality signals, which may explain why we don’t see quality signals in humans (at least non-cultural ones).
The bottom line: Understanding signal use is important for understanding social behavior because it gives us an idea of how individuals interact with one another in a social group and how information about potential rivals, allies, or mates is gathered and used.
This video is incredibly cool – 2,500 time-lapsed photos of honeybee development in its comb. From wee to, well, less wee.
I’m amazed at the ingenuity of this project. Read the article to learn more about how an artist turns experimentalist to capture this incredible footage.
Really makes me want to bust out my camera and make pretty, pretty things with animals.
I love this for so many reasons.
I’ll give you one.
This video captures how diverse scientists are.
I’ll bet if you closed your eyes to imagine a scientist, you’d think of this:
Or, you know, some human variation of these two.
But not all scientists are men. And not all of us work in a lab.
And even if we do, not all of us wear a white lab coat.
All shapes. All sizes. All colors.