The flawed and offensive logic of "Academic Science Isn’t Sexist" in the @nytimes

OK.  It is Halloween night and I am tired and need to get my kids to sleep.  But someone on Twitter just pointed me to an opinion piece just out in the New York Times: Academic Science Isn’t Sexist - NYTimes.com and after reading it I felt I had to write a quick post.

The opinion piece is by Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. Ceci and discusses work by them (and coauthors).  In particular they discuss findings in a massive report "Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape" by Stephen J. Ceci, Donna K. Ginther, Shulamit Kahn, and Wendy M. Williams in Psychological Science in the Public Interest.  I note - kudos to the authors for making this available freely and under what may be an open license and also apparently for making much of their data available behind their analyses.

The opinion piece and the associated article have a ton of things to discuss and ponder and analyze for anyone interested in the general issue of women in academic science.  I am not in any position at this time to comment on any of the specific claims made by the authors on this topic.  But certainly I have a ton of reading to do and am looking forward to it.

However, I do want to write about one thing - really just one single thing -  that really bothers me about their New York Times article.  I do not know if this was intentional on their part, but regardless I think there is a major flaw in their piece.

First, to set the stage -- their article starts off with the following sentences:
Academic science has a gender problem: specifically, the almost daily reports about hostile workplaces, low pay, delayed promotion and even physical aggression against women.  Particularly in math-intensive fields like the physical sciences, computer science and engineering, women make up only 25 to 30 percent of junior faculty, and 7 to 15 percent of senior faculty, leading many to claim that the inhospitable work environment is to blame.
This then sets the stage for the authors to discuss their analyses which leads them to conclude that in recent times, there are not biases against women in hiring, publishing, tenure, and other areas.  Again, I am not in any position to examine or dispute their claims about these analyses - to either support them or refute them.

But the piece makes what to me appears to be a dangerous and unsupported connection.  They lump together what one could call "career progression" topics (such as pay, promotion, publishing, citation, etc) with workplace topics (hostility and physical aggression against women).  And yet, they only present or discuss data on the career progression issues.  Yet once they claim to find that career progression for women in math heavy fields seems to be going well recently, they imply that the other workplace issues must not be a problem.  This is seen in statements like "While no career is without setbacks and challenges" and "As we found, when the evidence of mistreatment goes beyond the anecdotal" and "leading many to claim that the inhospitable work environment is to blame."

Whether one agrees with any or all of their analyses (which again, I am not addressing here) I see no justification for their inclusion of any mention of hostile workplaces and physical agression against women.  So - does this mean that a woman who does well in her career cannot experience physical aggression of any kind?  Also - I note - I am unclear I guess in some of their terminology usage - is their use of the term "physical aggression" here meant to discount reports of sexual violence?   This reminds me of the "Why I stayed" stories of domestic violence.  Just because a women's career is doing OK does not mean that she did not experience workplace hostility or physical or sexual violence.  I hope - I truly hope - that the authors did not intend to imply this.  But whether they did or not, their logic appears to be both flawed and offensive.

UPDATE 1. November 1, 8:30 AM

Building a Storify about this.

UPDATE 2: Nov 3, 2014. Some other posts also criticizing the NY Times piece
UPDATE 3: Nov. 4, 2014.  More posts about the NY Times piece

Rediscovering some critical terms of use in microbial discussions: #microbiomania and #microbophobia

Earlier this week I was trying to come up with a short term to use when referring to the "Overselling of the Microbiome" and related hype. And I came up with one I really really like: microbiomania. The term just captures the essence of hype about microbiomes to me I guess.

So - of course - the first thing to do was to see if anyone else used this term.  And the number one thing I looked at was domain names.  Nope.  Microbiomania.Com and Microbiomania.Org are now mine.  And then I started to search the interwebs. And surprsingly there was not much (in English at least).  But some links showed up to books in Google Books with passages from > 100 years ago.  And this is when the digging got to be fun.  Here are some of the things I found.

1. A section from "The Medical Era"


When copying this section of the search results I discovered Google Books has an embed tool for Google Books though not sure how well it works: here is a try




Anyway - the text of this section of the book reads:

The Paris correspondent of the Chicago Tribune in a recent letter says We hear very little now of microbist or anti microbist theories Dr Koch's so called discovery is regarded with skepticism though not refuted The truth is his assertions are generally held to be not proven Dr Peters the favorite pupil of the great surgeon Dr Trousseau denounces what he calls microbiomania as a social danger and declares that the micro bians doctrine is vain sterile and objectionable in every way as both needlessly alarming and wrongly reassuring 
So I guess there were some folks who did not like the Koch and his silly theories about germs.

2. The Eclectic Medical Journal Volume 48




OCR text:
Microbiomania For five or six years past says Semolla you could not open a journal without encountierng an alleged discovery of one or more pathogenic bacilla and it is not necessary for me to tell you that the surest means of attaining celebrity is to discover in such and such a malady a new bacillus or a minute micrococcus I can not tell you what ridiculous puerilities have been brought forth by the imagination of physicians who are incapable of serious work and according to the rules of experimental medicine mount every new idea as though it were a triumphal car and think that in celebrating and exaggeraring its praises they manifest their love of progress 

Pretty awesome stuff I think.


3. The Louisville Medical Journal also comes up with a hit to microbiomania


Here is the attempt at an embed:



and the OCR interpreted text reads
and microbophobists The feeling against the theory of the microbial origin of cholera is very strong and was expressed by Prof Peter both at the Academy and the School of Medicine in these terms It is a pure satisfaction of natural history to say with the German School that there exists a microbe producer I say that there is a microbe product The parasitic doctrines have engendered a microbiomania which determined a terror which will be the opprobrium of the 19th century
Faris December 12 1884 
Now - nevermind that the OCR is not perfect (where is Faris?).  But not only is this fascinating.  But the beginning of the page has another word that seems worthy of resurrecting: microbophobists,  And this pulls up all sorts of fascinating discussions:



And the related search is perhaps more fascinating: microbophobia



So - in the end I did not come up with a totally new word.  But I do now have two words I really want to use more often and which I will use in the following ways:

  • Microbiomania which I define here as the overselling of the impact (beneficial or detrimental or otherwise) of microbiomes without the evidence to support such impact 
  • Microbophobia which I define here as the overwhelming and unreasonable fear of microbes (of any kinds).  This is similar in concept to "germophobia" but gets around the issue some people have with whether "germ" is a term that should be reserved for pathogens and thus that germophobia could be viewed as the fear of pathogens.  

CEO of Soylent goes even further off the deep end - going after his microbiome

Tags
Well, this is pretty deranged: Soylent CEO Is Lifehacking Water By Pissing In the Sink.  Forget all the wackiness of Soylent and the idea of limiting water intake.  And just look at the part of this on the micro biome
Feces are almost entirely deceased gut bacteria and water. I massacred my gut bacteria the day before by consuming a DIY Soylent version with no fiber and taking 500mg of Rifaximin, an antibiotic with poor bioavailability, meaning it stays in your gut and kills bacteria. Soylent's microbiome consultant advised that this is a terrible idea so I do not recommend it. However, it worked. Throughout the challenge I did not defecate.
So - he took Rifaximin to kill his gut microbiome because he thought that would help him not defecate.  And then because he did not defecate he concluded that the Rifaximin played some role in such anti-defecation?  OMFG.  This is both bad science and some, well, crazy a*s-sh*t.  I - I - I - I just do not know what else to say.

Hat tip to Andrea Kuszewski.

Some suggestions for having diverse speakers at meetings

Been having a lot of discussions online in response to my post (Apparently, the National Academy of Sciences thinks only one sex is qualified to talk about alternatives to sex #YAMMM) tracking the awful gender ratio for speakers and session chairs at meetings run by the National Academy of Sciences in their Sackler series.  Some people were asking what one can do to improve gender diversity at meetings so I thought I would post this which I was meaning to do anyway ...

-------------------------------------------------------

I wrote this in an email to a meeting organizer after I had turned down their invitation due to the imbalance in gender of the speakers (more about this another time --- this is not the same case as the one I wrote about here: Turning down an endowed lectureship because their gender ratio is too skewed towards males #WomenInSTEM). 

Anyway, my colleague wrote a long and very helpful email to me after I withdrew from the meeting when I saw the speaker list.  In the email she detailed things that her organization was trying to do to increase diversity of speakers at meetings.  She ended it with this:
Thus, I take your comment to heart and wanted you to know that I care about this issues as well.  I would love to hear how you balance these inequities at your meetings and learn as much as I can.  Thank you for taking the time to bring this up I know how busy you are and appreciate your candor. Truly looking forward to more scientific exchanges and perhaps some education around gender issues.
And I wrote back, quickly, without digging into the literature or all the posts in the world about this some quick suggestions which I think others might find useful. So here is my response - again - was not meant to cover all the things one can do - just examples:

Thanks so much for the response and I am really glad to see all you are trying to do in this area. 
In terms of how we try to balance inequities at meetings I organize I would note a few simple things
  1. Do not try to invite only the famous people or the people doing the "top" work.  This usually biases one towards more established researchers (as in, older) and this alas also usually is accompanied by distortion of diversity.
  2. DO try to invite people across the breadth of career stages.  Meetings to me should not be only about getting the PIs whose labs are doing the best work to talk.  It should also be about giving opportunities to junior researchers - PhD students, post docs and junior faculty who are doing exciting work - perhaps more focused or smaller scale - but nevertheless exciting.  If one opens up a invited speaker list to people at diverse career stages one generally greatly increases the gender and ethnic diversity. 
  3. DO try to invite people from diverse institutions - research universities, research institutes, companies, non profits, NGOs, the press, non research universities, and more.
  4. DO try to be flexible about times and dates for talks - I have found that women more than men have other commitments (e.g. kids) for which they cannot change dates of activities. 
  5. DO try to provide child care assistance (as you are doing).
  6. DO try to make sure women are on the organizing committee See http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/01/the-easiest-possible-way-to-increase-female-speakers-at-conferences/282858/
  7. DO make sure to provide travel funds.
  8. DO try to include some talks on related areas that may not be the main theme of the conference.  For example history of science and ELSI related topics increase the pool of women and speakers with diverse backgrounds which can be invited.
  9. DO ask the women who turn down invitations if they care to say why.
  10. DO commit to spending a decent amount of time searching for qualified female speakers.  Sometimes there are people who fit ALL the goals of a meeting and they are just missed because women on average have lower public profiles than men doing the same type of work.
Just some ideas off the top of my head.
Jonathan
see also 
http://www.stemwomen.net/jonathan-eisen/ 
and 
http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/p/posts-on-women-in-science.html

Apparently, the National Academy of Sciences thinks only one sex is qualified to talk about alternatives to sex #YAMMM

Just got this email from Francisco Ayala:
January 9-10, 2015 
In the Light of Evolution IX. Clonal Reproduction: Alternatives to Sex 
Organizers: Michel Tibayrenc, John C. Avise and Francisco J. Ayala 
Beckman Center of the National Academies, Irvine, CA 
Evolutionary studies of clonal organisms have advanced considerably in recent years, but are still fledgling. Although recent textbooks on evolution and genetics might give the impression that nonsexual reproduction is an anomaly in the living world, clonality is the rule rather than the exception in many viruses, bacteria, and parasites that undergo preponderant asexual evolution in nature. Clonality is thus of crucial importance in basic biology as well as in studies dealing with transmissible diseases. 
This Colloquium will bring together specialists in various disciplines, including genetics, evolution, statistics, bioinformatics, and medicine. A balance will be sought between the various disciplines, including clonal animals and plants, animal and human cloning, pathogens, and cancer studies.   
Registration is now open http://www.nasonline.org/programs/sackler-colloquia/upcoming-colloquia/ILE_IX_Clonal_Reproduction.html
Registration fee is $150. 
Graduate students and postdoctoral researchers are eligible for discount fee of $100. 
All meals, break and reception refreshments listed on the agenda are included in the registration fee.
For more information, contact sackler@nas.edu.
Could be interesting right?  Alas, then, I clicked on the link.  And I discovered the meeting could also be referred to as "Only one sex talks about alternatives to sex".  Men are highlighted in yellow. Women highlighted in green. (Note - I am making some guesses as to gender but I think these are reasoably accurate).
Organizers: Michel Tibayrenc, John C. Avise and Francisco J. Ayala 
I. General Considerations  
  • 8:30 AM Overview: The ILE Series. John C. Avise  
  • 8:40 AM Introduction and Chair, John C. Avise  
  • 8:40 AM  Can eukaryotes be considered clonally propagating cell lines with intermittent sex?, Dave Speijer, University of Amsterdam 
  • 9:30 AM Cancer in Parasitic Protozoan Trypanosoma brucei and Toxoplasma gondii, Zhao-Rong Lun, Sun Yat-Sen University 
  • 10:40 AM Mathematical Models of Clonality, Dominik Wodarz, University of California, Irvine 
  • 11:30 AM The Cost of Sex: Why Aren’t We All Clonal?, Claus-Peter Stelzer, University of Innsbruck 
II. Clonality in Multicellular Organisms  1:30 PM Chair, Zhao-Rong Lun
  • 1:30 PM  Genets, Ramets and Unisexual Reproduction in Plants, Spencer C.H. Barrett, University of Toronto
  • 2:20 PM Clonality in Asexual Invertebrate Animals, John M. Logsdon, Jr., University of Iowa
  • 3:30 PM Natural Clonality in Vertebrate Animals, John C. Avise, University of California, Irvine
  • 4:20 PM Artificial Cloning of Domestic Animals, Carol L. Keefer, University of Maryland
Keynote Address 
  • 6:45 PM Introduction, Michel Tibayrenc
  • 6:50 PM Cloning Humans: Biological and Ethical Considerations, Francisco J. Ayala, University of California, Irvine
III. Clonality in the Microbial World  
  • 8:00 AM Chair, Carol L. Keefer  
  • 8:00 AM Clonality and Intracellular Polyploidy in Virus Evolution and Pathogenesis, Esteban Domingo, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
  • 8:50 AM The Impermanence of Bacterial Clones, Howard Ochman, University of Texas, Austin
  • 10:00 AM Clonal Reproduction in Fungi, John Taylor, University of California, Berkeley
  • 10:50 AM Clonal Reproduction in Parasitic Protozoa, Michel Tibayrenc, IRD, Montpellier, France
IV. Clonality, Cancer, and Evolution
  • 12:50 PM Organismal Fitness, Somatic Evolution, and Cancer, James DeGregori, University of Colorado School of Medicine
  • 1:40 PM Cancer and Pathogens as Clonal Processes, Edwin L. Cooper, University of California, Los Angeles
  • 2:50 PM Stem Cell Competitions: Evolution, and Cancer Progression, Irving Weissman, Stanford University
  • 3:40 PM Clonal Reproduction: An Evolutionary Curse or Blessing?, Marcel E. Dorken, Trent University
  • 4:30 PM Concluding Remarks, Francisco J. Ayala, University of California, Irvine
So - whether you count just speakers, or speakers plus session chairs, the gender ratio is not good.  Really there is only one woman as far as I can tell involved with this meeting.  Sadly this is not the only meeting at the NAS Beckman Center with gender issues.  See this post for example Today's YAMMM (Yet Another Mostly Male Meeting) Brought to You by CIFAR & NAS.  Does NAS even make any effort in regard to diversity of speakers?

UPDATE 10/25/14 - Some responses from Twitter






For more on this topic see my other posts on "Diversity in STEM"

UPDATE 2: 10/26 - New NAS Sackler meeting after this one - better but barely in gender ratio

The next Sackler meeting after this one is on "Drawing Causal Inference from Big Data".  Here are the speakers they list with the same colors as used above.
  • Edoardo Airoldi, Harvard University
  • Susan Athey, Stanford University 
  • Leon Bottou, Microsoft Corporation 
  • Danah Boyd, Microsoft Corporation
  • Peter Buhlmann, ETH Zurich 
  • Susan Dumais, Microsoft Corporation
  • Dean Eckles, Facebook 
  • James Fowler, University of California, San Diego  
  • Michael Hawrylycz, Allen Institute 
  • David Heckerman, Microsoft Corporation 
  • Jennifer Hill, New York University 
  • Guido Imbens, Stanford University
  • Michael Jordan, University of California, Berkeley 
  • Steven Levitt, The University of Chicago 
  • David Madigan, Columbia University
  • Thomas Richardson, University of Washington 
  • Bernhard Schölkopf, Max Planck Institute 
  • Jasjeet Sekhon, University of California, Berkeley 
  • Cosma Shalizi, Carnegie Mellon University  
  • Richard Shiffrin, Indiana University 
  • John Stamatoyannopoulos, University of Washington 
  • Hal Varian, Google, Inc. 
  • Bin Yu, University of California, Berkeley 
That is a ratio of 18:5 or 21% women.  Not sure what the gender balance is for people working on "big data" but still, given the Sackler's recent issues with gender ratio in fields with an almost 50:50 ratio of men:women I am not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here.  And I note - the link they provide for Susan Athey goes to the web site of Richard Shiffrin.  So I am just going to assume that the name on the list is correct not the link to Shiffrin.

UPDATE 3: 10/26 - Made a Storify to track discussion of this.

UPDATE 4: 10/26 -- and another recent Sackler meeting

Epigenetic changes in the developing brain: Effects on behavior

This meeting was held March 28-29, 2014 at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C. and organized by Donald W. Pfaff (The Rockefeller University) and Eric Barrington Keverne (King’s College, Cambridge).
  • Introduction and welcome, Donald Pfaff and Barry Keverne
  • Session I. DNA methylation (Chair, Tom Insel)
    • Mechanisms that establish and maintain genomic methylation patterns in mammalian tissues, Tim Bestor, Columbia University
    • Signaling networks that regulate synapse development and dysfunction, Michael Greenberg, Harvard University
    • Impact of early life experiences on DNA methylation: Implications for brain development and behaviour, Frances Champagne, Columbia University
  • Session II. Histone modifications (Chair, Barry Keverne)
    • A histone methylation network regulates epigenetic inheritance, Yang Shi, Harvard University
    • Global Epigenomic Reconfiguration during Mammalian Brain Development, Joseph Ecker, Salk Institute for Biological Studies
    • H3.3 nucleosomal dynamics regulate synaptic development and plasticity in postreplicative neurons, Ian Maze & David Allis, The Rockefeller University
    • Steroid hormone actions on histone tail modifications in the brain, Donald Pfaff, The Rockefeller University
  • 14th Annual Sackler Public Lecture
    • Introduction – Diane Griffin, Vice President, National Academy of Sciences
    • Deconstructing circuits for motor behavior, Thomas Jessell, Columbia University
  • Session III. Genomic imprinting (Chair, Rusty Gage)
    • Genomic imprinting,action and interaction of two genomes in mother, Barry Keverne, Cambridge University
    • Epigenetic regulation of imprinted gene loci, Marisa Bartolomei, University of Pennsylvania Medical School
    • Monoallelic gene expression, Andrew Chess, Mount Sinai Hospital
  • Session IV. Non-coding RNA’s (Chair, Don Pfaff)
    • Linking RNA to Nuclear Architecture, John L. Rinn, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT
    • Human retrotransposons ("jumping genes") in health and disease, Haig Kazazian, Johns Hopkins University
  • Session V. CNS applications (Chair, Tim Bestor)
    • Mobile Element Activity in Evolution and Disease, Fred Gage, Salk Institute
    • The Epigenetic Language of the Circadian Clock, Poalo Sassone-Corsi, University of California, Irvine
    • Epigenomics of Major Psychiatric Disease, Art Petronis, University of Toronto
    • Imprinting mechanisms underlying Prader Willi and Angelman syndromes, James Resnick, University of Florida
  • Closing remarks: Brain Exceptionalism, Tom Insel, Director, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH

So - if you just count all the speaking / session chair slots that comes to 24 slots to men and 3 to women for a wonderful 11% female percentage.  Even if you count just speakers (and not session chairs) the #s don't look good.  Looking pretty bad NAS Sackler meetings.

UPDATE 5: Copying in my analysis of gender ratio at the most recent Sackler meeting on Symbioses becoming permanent: The origins and evolutionary trajectories of organelles which I refer to above but only via a link out to my post.  Here is the speaker analysis:

  • Organizers: W. Ford DoolittlePatrick Keeling, and John McCutcheon
  • Distinctive Voices Public Lecture presented by Michael Gray, CIFAR Advisor, Dalhousie University
  • Session 1: Genomes (evolutionary rates, oddities, and reduction)
    • Introduction and welcome remarks – W. Ford Doolittle, CIFAR Advisor & Patrick Keeling, CIFAR Program Director and Senior Fellow
    • John McCutcheon, CIFAR Associate Fellow, University of Montana
    • John Archibald, CIFAR Senior Fellow, Dalhousie University, Nuclear organelles 
    • Andrew Roger, CIFAR Senior Fellow, Dalhousie University, Organelle reduction 
    • Siv Andersson, Uppsala University, Alphaproteobacterial genome evolution 
    • David Smith, University of Western Ontario, Roots of genomic architecture variation 
    • Daniel Sloan, Colorado State University, Cytonuclear co-evolution under extreme mitochondrial mutation rates
    • John Allen, University College London, Why keep genomes?
  • Session 2: Integration/Control (trafficking, signaling, transporters)
    • Debash Bhattacharya, Rutgers University, Transporters in organellogenesis 
    • Nancy Moran, University of Texas, Austin, Insect endosymbionts 
    • Geoff McFadden, University of Melbourne, Diversity of protein trafficking
    • Chris Howe, Cambridge University, Why integrate?
    • Steve Perlman, CIFAR Fellow, University of Victoria, Maternal transmission, sex ratio distortion, and mitochondria 
    • William Martin, Düsseldorf University, Endosymbiont and organelle, what’s the difference? 
    • Moriya Okhuma, Riken University, Metabolic integration across endosymbiotic communities
  • Session 3: Theories and Models
    • Eors Szathmary, Loránd University, A fresh look at cooperation in some major transitions, especially the origin of eukaryotes
    • Marc Ereshefsky, University of Calgary, Evolutionary individuality
    • Peter Godfrey-Smith, City University of New York, Individuality and the egalitarian transitions 
    • Maureen O’Malley, University of Sydney, Philosophical Reflections on Endosymbiosis: Implications for Evolutionary Theory
    • Toby Kiers, University Amsterdam, Bacterial cooperativity
  • Closing remarks J. McCutcheon
That is a ratio of 19:4 for speakers slots for men vs. women.  Sensing a pattern anyone?

UPDATE 6: I feel much better now looking at the meeting before the developing brain meeting.  It is so much better (not). 

In the Light of Evolution VIII: Darwinian Thinking in the Social Sciences. January 10-11, 2014 at the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center in Irvine, CA. 
  • Organized by Brian Skyrms, John C. Avise and Francisco J. Ayala
  • I.  Evolution of Social Norms
    • Bargaining and Fairness, Kenneth Binmore, University College London
    • Cooperation, Natalia Komarova, University of California, Irvine
    • Friendship and Natural Selection, James H. Fowler, University of California, San Diego
    • Reputation and Punishment, Michihiro Kandori, University of Tokyo
  • II. Social Dynamics
    • The Replicator Equation and Other Game Dynamics, Ross Cressman, Wilfrid Laurier University
    • Payoff-Based Learning Dynamics, Alvin Roth, Harvard University
    • Strategic Learning Dynamics, David K. Levine, Washington University
    • Cultural Evolution, Marcus W. Feldman, Stanford University
  • Keynote Address:  Public Goods: Competition, Cooperation, and Spite, Simon A. Levin, Princeton University
  • III. Special Sciences
    • Evolutionary Demography, Kenneth W. Wachter, University of California, Berkeley
    • Folklore of the Elite and Biological Evolution, Barry O’Neill, University of California, Los Angeles
    • Economics, Ted Bergstrom, University of California, Santa Barbara
    • Psychology, Dale Purves, Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School
  • IV. Applications
    • Evolutionary Implementation in Mechanism Design, Éva Tardos, Cornell University
    • Some Dynamics of Signaling, Brian Skyrms, University of California, Irvine
    • The Rate of Innovation Diffusion in Social Networks, H. Peyton Young, Oxford University
    • Homophily, Culture, and Coordinating Behaviors, Matthew O. Jackson, Stanford University
That is 15:2 males to females in speaking slots and also three main organizers. 

Update 7: A trend in meetings coorganized by John Avise and Francisco Ayala

I note the meeting above in Update 6 is the second recent meeting coorganized by John Avise and Francisco Ayala with a highly skewed gender ratio.  So I decided to go back and look at other meetings they coorganized.  For example here is the next most recent one.

In the Light of Evolution VII: The Human Mental Machinery

Organized by Camilo J. Cela-Conde, Raúl Gutiérrez Lombardo, John C. Avise and Francisco J. Ayala

This meeting was held January 10-12, 2013 at the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center in Irvine, CA.
  •  I. Theory of Mind 
    • Theory of Mind: Darwin’s legacy, John Searle, University of California, Berkeley
    • Human mind and brain – pathological evidence, Robert E. Clark, University of California, San Diego 
    • Theory of Mind in Other Primates, Robert M. Seyfarth, University of Pennsylvania
  • II. Cognition
    • Evolution of Working Memory, Peter Carruthers, University of Maryland
    • The evolution of episodic memory, Norbert Fortin, University of California, Irvine
    • Natural Basis of Cognition, Terrence J. Sejnowski, Salk Institute for Biological Studies
    • Human and Animal Consciousness, Michael T. Alkire, University of California, Irvine
    • Co-Evolution: Culture, mind and brain, Chet C. Sherwood, George Washington University 
  • Keynote Address 
    • Unusual and Exceptional Capacities of the Human Mind, James L. McGaugh, University of California, Irvine     
  • III. Evolving Piece by Piece: Levels of Modularity in Neurobiology
    • Neuronal Networks of the Moral Judgment, Patricia Churchland, University of California, San Diego
    • Pathological Altruism, Barbara A. Oakley, Oakland University
    • Theory of Justice in Non-Human Primates, Sarah F. Brosnan, Georgia State University
    • Evolutionary Dynamics of Altruism, Martin Nowak, Harvard University
    • Human and Animal Neuroeconomics, Michael Platt, Duke University 
  • IV. Aesthetics 
    • Music and the Brain, Robert Zatorre, Montreal Neurological Institute 
    • Aesthetic and Ethnic Emotions, Oshin Vartanian, University of Toronto, Scarborough
    • Aesthetic Perception: Mind and Brain , Camilo J. Cela-Conde, University of the Baleares Islands, Spain
That is a ratio of 14:3 for speakers of men: women. 

UPDATE 8: The next most recent meeting coorganized by Avise and Ayala

In the Light of Evolution VI: Brain and Behavior
January 19-21, 2012
Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center
Organized by Georg F. Striedter, John C. Avise and Francisco J. Ayala

  • Session I. Brains in History: Descent with Modification
    • Chair, John C. Avise, University of California, Irvine
    • Evolution of Brain Development, Georg Striedter, University of California, Irvine
    • Evolution of Neuronal Cell Types, Nipam H. Patel, University of California, Berkeley
    • Homology and Homoplasy of Behavior and Neural Circuits, Paul S. Katz, Georgia State University
    • Evolution of Cognitive Traits, Lucia F. Jacobs, University of California, Berkeley
  • Session II. Brains in Ecology: Adapatation by Natural Selection
    • Chair, Georg Striedter, University of California, Irvine
    • Adaptation of Neuron-typical Molecules and Processes, Harold H. Zakon, University of Texas, Austin
    • Evolution of Specialized Sensory Systems, Kenneth C. Catania, Vanderbilt University
    • Evolution of Specialized Motor Systems, Andrew H. Bass, Cornell University
    • Evolving Neural Mechanisms of Social Diversity and Cognition, James L. Goodson, Indiana University
  • Keynote Address
    • Introduction, Francisco J. Ayala, University of California, Irvine
    • Evolution of Centralized Nervous Systems, R. Glenn Northcutt, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
  • Session III. Evolving Piece by Piece: Levels of Modularity in Neurobiology
    • Chair, Lucia F. Jacobs, University of California, Irvine
    • Molecular Models in Neurobiology, Kenneth S. Kosik, University of California, Santa Barbara
    • Devolpmental Modules in Nervous Systems, Leah A. Krubitzer, University of California, Davis
    • Neuroanatomical and Physiological Modules, Jon H. Kaas, Vanderbilt University
    • Modularity of Cognitive Processes, Jessica F. Cantlon, University of Rochester
  • Session IV. Human Evolution: Brains and Behavior
    • Chair, Francisco J. Ayala, University of California, Irvine
    • Molecular Aspects of Human Brain Evolution, Todd M. Preuss, Emory University School of Medicine
    • Evolution of Primate Brain Morphology, Suzana Herculano-Houzel, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
    • Evolution of Primate Brain Functions, Lizabeth M. Romanski, University of Rochester
    • The Evolution of Human Cognition, Clark Barrett, University of California, Los Angeles
  • Concluding Remarks
    • Francisco J. Ayala, University of California, Irvine
That isa ratio of 17:6 if one includes all slots (chairs, speakers, etc) or 14:5 if you just include speaking slots. 

UPDATE 9: This is NOT just about speaking at meetings.

I note - many of the Sackler meetings turn into special collections in PNAS and thus the limited representation of women speakers (which is a problem) is made worse by then directly affecting publishing in PNAS.

UPDATE 10: 10/27/14. Going back to another Avise/Ayala meeting from 2001

In the Light of Evolution V: Cooperation

Organized by Joan E. Strassmann, David C. Queller, John C. Avise, and Francisco J. Ayala
January 7-8, 2011

(Note Joan Strassmann is one of my favorite scientists and people on the planet - great to see her in a role as coorganizer here)

  • Session I. Foundations of Cooperation
    • John C. Avise, University of California, Irvine, Chair
    • Insect Societies: pinnacles of cooperation - Peter Nonacs, University of California, Los Angeles
    • Families in vertebrates - Dustin R. Rubenstein, Columbia University
    • The major evolutionary transitions In bacterial symbiosis - Joel L. Sachs, University of California, Riverside
    • Kin, kith, and kind: the varieties of social experience - David C. Queller, Rice University
  • Session II. Genetic Basis of Cooperation and Conflict
    • David Queller, Chair
    • Altruism and cheating in a social microbe, Dicytostelium discoideum - Joan E. Strassmann, Rice University
    • A prokaryotic model system -Greg Velicer, Indiana University
    • The evolution of restraint in simple communities - Ben Kerr, University of Washington
    • Selfish genetic elements - Jack H. Werren, University of Rochester
  • Banquet Lecture
    • Francisco J. Ayala, University of California, Irvine, Introduction
    • Evolution of insect society: eat, drink and be scary - Gene E. Robinson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • Session III. Hamiltonian Medicine
    • Joan E. Strassmann, Chair
    • Genomic imprinting, helpers at the nest, and age at menarche David Haig, Harvard University 
    • Pathology from evolutionary conflict - Steven A. Frank, University of California, Irvine 
    • The sociobiology of drug resistance and pathogen virulence - Andrew Read, Pennsylvania State University
    • Microbial sociality: implications for disease - Kevin Foster, Harvard University
  • Session IV. Are Humans Different?
    • Francisco J. Ayala, Chair
    • Cooperation and conflict in traditional cultures - Beverly I. Strassmann, University of Michigan 
    • The cultural niche - Robert Boyd, University of California, Los Angeles
    • Social Bonds to Social Preferences; the foundations for human moral sentiments  - Joan Silk, University of California, Los Angeles
    • What does primate cooperation tell us? - Dorothy Cheney, University of Pennsylvania
  • Concluding Remarks
    • John C. Avise, University of California, Irvine
So - for speaking and chairing slots - that comes to a ratio of 17:5 male to female.  Even with Joan Strassmann being involved as a coorganizer (and she is truly wonderful in a million ways) this meeting still has the NAS and Avise/Ayala pattern of very few female speakers or session chairs, even in fields where ther are many candidates.  Yuck.

I think I would make one recommendation out of this to begin with - John Avise and Francisco Ayala should not be allowed to run any NAS meetings again.  And NAS needs to have and use policies on educating meeting organizers about gender bias and requiring some type of efforts to have reasonable representations of diversity among speakers and chairs.

UPDATE 11: Meetings from 1990s I went to while in graduate school

Just scanned in notes from some of these NAS Beckman Center meetings that I attended while in graduate school at Stanford.  I added them to my collection of "Retroblogging Meetings and Seminars: Posting Scans of Notes".  The meetings then had even worse gender ratios of speakers.

1994: Tempo and Mode in Evolution.  See scans here. All speakers except one were male.
1997: Genetics and the Origin of Species. See scans here.





Microbiology Book for Kids: It's Catching by Jennifer Gardy and Josh Holinaty

A few days ago I wrote about how I wanted to share some information about what I have found to be good childrens' science books (based on reading books to my kids).  Well, here is another one: It's Catching: The Infectious World of Germs and Microbes by Jennifer Gardy and Josh Holinaty.

I first became aware of Jennifer Gardy's talents in making catchy microbe-themed kids material when she released the Youtube video "The A-Z of Epidemiology: germs from Anthrax to Zoonoses. A disturbing bedtime book for kids." which is simply awesome. (Note - great animation by Tom Scott):

 

I watched this video many many many times with my kids - always resulting in painful laughter and entertainment.

I should note that I am collaborating with Jennifer on at least one project (The Kitten Microbiome) and think she is a brilliant scientist and science communicator.  But once I saw her "It's Catching" I realized she really could have a full career as a children's science book and video maker.  It's Catching is both entertaining (like the video) but also educational with information on the history of microbiology and how microbes are studied.  Definitely a good one if you are looking for fun and funny science and/or microbiology themed books for kids.


 

Microbe-themed art of the month: Seung-Hwan Oh portraits w/ mold

OK this is pretty cool (from a microbe-art-science point of view): An Artist Who Paints Portraits With Mold | WIRED.  Seung-Hwan Oh "had to set up a micro-fungus farm in his studio" and he puts film in a warm wet environment (note to self - there could be a new human microbiome aspect of this project depending on what warm wet environment is chosen) and sometimes seeds the system with some mold.  And then he lets nature do its work.

See more about his Impermanence works here. (Really - check out the works - they are wild).

At that site the work is described in the following way:
The visual result of the symbiosis between film matter and organic matter is the conceptual origin of this body of work. The process involves the cultivation of emulsion consuming microbes on a visual environment created through portraits and a physical environment composed of developed film immersed in water. As the microbes consume light-sensitive chemical over the course of months or years, the silver halides destabilize, obfuscating the legibility of foreground, background, and scale. This creates an aesthetic of entangled creation and destruction that inevitably is ephemeral, and results in complete disintegration of the film so that it can only be delicately digitized before it is consumed.
Also see his Tumbl page where one can find many other images like this one:


Hat tip to Kate Scow for posting about this on Facebook.

Kids' Microbiology Book Review: Germ Stories

I was going through some kids' books today and found quite a few that I thought were wonderful and thought - well - I should post about some of them.  So that is what I am going to do.

The first I want to write about is Germ Stories by Arthur Kornberg with Illustrations by Adam Alaniz and Photos by Roberto Kolter.

 

I used to read it to my daughter all the time (she is two years older than my son) and then sometimes, when she was older, she would read it to my son.  A few things I like about this book:
  1. It is not all about pathogens - there are sections on yeast, penicillin, gut microbes and Myxococcus (although it is miswritten as Myxobacterium). 
  2. Everything is done as poetry / songs.  Some are cheesy, but my kids liked them.
  3. Each section on a different microbes has a little poem/song, a drawing, and a picture or two as well as a few mini facts (or I guess, micro facts). 
  4. The material is a bit scary / gross at times but not too over the top.
Anyway - I definitely recommend it if you want a microbiology book that will be good for reading to and reading by kids.

I added this book to a collection I am making via Amazon on "Microbiology Books for Kids".  I will write about some of the other ones at another time.




UPDATE - Wanted other suggestions for good kids' microbiology themed books ...

Harvard, hope and hype: the sad reason behind overselling diabetes stem cell work - raising money

Earlier in the week I got all fired up - not in a good way - about a press release and news stories relating to a new paper from Doug Melton on a insulin producing STEM cell study
With a little more discussion I just got more angry


I was angry both about the overselling of the implications of the paper and the fact that the paper was not published in an open manner. This was despite the stated goals of HHMI which funds some of the Melton Lab work.

I was especially upset that much of the press coverage was reporting on an imminent cure for type I diabetes when this was clearly not imminent. Although I note - some coverage was OK. Like these:

Another good piece of news - HHMI got Doug Melton to post a copy of the paper on a web site
Although this was kind of hidden

Another good thing - Paul Knoepfler, a colleague of mine at UC Davis wrote a blog post for his excellent STEM cell blog about the Harvard study and the hype.

But the hype was still spreading ...
So I felt like there was a continued need to say something about this
I even changed a talk I was giving on Sunday to include a discussion of this paper and the hype as, well, a bad thing
  


And I thought, and kind of hoped, that this might just go away. And then, many people forwarded me this email from Harvard sent out as part of a fundraising campaign. Most of the people who sent it to me sent it in happiness with the possibility of a cure for type 1 diabetes. Here is the email:



Of for $&*#*# sake.  Really.  So now Harvard was going to use this as a fundraising tool.  And they would oversell it even more:

"A giant breakthrough in making that possible" with "that" referring to "finding a cure".  And then they say "these cells can replace or augment daily insulin injections" without saying that this WAS NOT IN HUMANS.  THIS WAS IN MOUSE.  $*#($#) DECEPTIVE LYING SCHMUCKS.

And they end this email with "make a gift today."  How about this Harvard.  I will make donations to anyone but you until you stop marketing in hope and hype and start being responsible.

UPDATE 10/16/14 8 AM PST

Some of the overhyped statements relating to this story:

Harvard Press Story: “We are now just one preclinical step away from the finish line,” said Melton

Rawstory: Stem-cell cure for Type 1 diabetes ‘on par with discovery of antibiotics’

Telegraph: Cure for Type 1 diabetes iminent

Times of India: Type 1 diabetes cure within reach after breakthrough that could spell end of insulin injections for millions

BBC: Giant Leap to Type 1 Diabetes Cure







Total Pageviews

Popular Posts

الجمعة، 31 أكتوبر 2014

The flawed and offensive logic of "Academic Science Isn’t Sexist" in the @nytimes

OK.  It is Halloween night and I am tired and need to get my kids to sleep.  But someone on Twitter just pointed me to an opinion piece just out in the New York Times: Academic Science Isn’t Sexist - NYTimes.com and after reading it I felt I had to write a quick post.

The opinion piece is by Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. Ceci and discusses work by them (and coauthors).  In particular they discuss findings in a massive report "Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape" by Stephen J. Ceci, Donna K. Ginther, Shulamit Kahn, and Wendy M. Williams in Psychological Science in the Public Interest.  I note - kudos to the authors for making this available freely and under what may be an open license and also apparently for making much of their data available behind their analyses.

The opinion piece and the associated article have a ton of things to discuss and ponder and analyze for anyone interested in the general issue of women in academic science.  I am not in any position at this time to comment on any of the specific claims made by the authors on this topic.  But certainly I have a ton of reading to do and am looking forward to it.

However, I do want to write about one thing - really just one single thing -  that really bothers me about their New York Times article.  I do not know if this was intentional on their part, but regardless I think there is a major flaw in their piece.

First, to set the stage -- their article starts off with the following sentences:
Academic science has a gender problem: specifically, the almost daily reports about hostile workplaces, low pay, delayed promotion and even physical aggression against women.  Particularly in math-intensive fields like the physical sciences, computer science and engineering, women make up only 25 to 30 percent of junior faculty, and 7 to 15 percent of senior faculty, leading many to claim that the inhospitable work environment is to blame.
This then sets the stage for the authors to discuss their analyses which leads them to conclude that in recent times, there are not biases against women in hiring, publishing, tenure, and other areas.  Again, I am not in any position to examine or dispute their claims about these analyses - to either support them or refute them.

But the piece makes what to me appears to be a dangerous and unsupported connection.  They lump together what one could call "career progression" topics (such as pay, promotion, publishing, citation, etc) with workplace topics (hostility and physical aggression against women).  And yet, they only present or discuss data on the career progression issues.  Yet once they claim to find that career progression for women in math heavy fields seems to be going well recently, they imply that the other workplace issues must not be a problem.  This is seen in statements like "While no career is without setbacks and challenges" and "As we found, when the evidence of mistreatment goes beyond the anecdotal" and "leading many to claim that the inhospitable work environment is to blame."

Whether one agrees with any or all of their analyses (which again, I am not addressing here) I see no justification for their inclusion of any mention of hostile workplaces and physical agression against women.  So - does this mean that a woman who does well in her career cannot experience physical aggression of any kind?  Also - I note - I am unclear I guess in some of their terminology usage - is their use of the term "physical aggression" here meant to discount reports of sexual violence?   This reminds me of the "Why I stayed" stories of domestic violence.  Just because a women's career is doing OK does not mean that she did not experience workplace hostility or physical or sexual violence.  I hope - I truly hope - that the authors did not intend to imply this.  But whether they did or not, their logic appears to be both flawed and offensive.

UPDATE 1. November 1, 8:30 AM

Building a Storify about this.

UPDATE 2: Nov 3, 2014. Some other posts also criticizing the NY Times piece
UPDATE 3: Nov. 4, 2014.  More posts about the NY Times piece

الخميس، 30 أكتوبر 2014

Rediscovering some critical terms of use in microbial discussions: #microbiomania and #microbophobia

Earlier this week I was trying to come up with a short term to use when referring to the "Overselling of the Microbiome" and related hype. And I came up with one I really really like: microbiomania. The term just captures the essence of hype about microbiomes to me I guess.

So - of course - the first thing to do was to see if anyone else used this term.  And the number one thing I looked at was domain names.  Nope.  Microbiomania.Com and Microbiomania.Org are now mine.  And then I started to search the interwebs. And surprsingly there was not much (in English at least).  But some links showed up to books in Google Books with passages from > 100 years ago.  And this is when the digging got to be fun.  Here are some of the things I found.

1. A section from "The Medical Era"


When copying this section of the search results I discovered Google Books has an embed tool for Google Books though not sure how well it works: here is a try




Anyway - the text of this section of the book reads:

The Paris correspondent of the Chicago Tribune in a recent letter says We hear very little now of microbist or anti microbist theories Dr Koch's so called discovery is regarded with skepticism though not refuted The truth is his assertions are generally held to be not proven Dr Peters the favorite pupil of the great surgeon Dr Trousseau denounces what he calls microbiomania as a social danger and declares that the micro bians doctrine is vain sterile and objectionable in every way as both needlessly alarming and wrongly reassuring 
So I guess there were some folks who did not like the Koch and his silly theories about germs.

2. The Eclectic Medical Journal Volume 48




OCR text:
Microbiomania For five or six years past says Semolla you could not open a journal without encountierng an alleged discovery of one or more pathogenic bacilla and it is not necessary for me to tell you that the surest means of attaining celebrity is to discover in such and such a malady a new bacillus or a minute micrococcus I can not tell you what ridiculous puerilities have been brought forth by the imagination of physicians who are incapable of serious work and according to the rules of experimental medicine mount every new idea as though it were a triumphal car and think that in celebrating and exaggeraring its praises they manifest their love of progress 

Pretty awesome stuff I think.


3. The Louisville Medical Journal also comes up with a hit to microbiomania


Here is the attempt at an embed:



and the OCR interpreted text reads
and microbophobists The feeling against the theory of the microbial origin of cholera is very strong and was expressed by Prof Peter both at the Academy and the School of Medicine in these terms It is a pure satisfaction of natural history to say with the German School that there exists a microbe producer I say that there is a microbe product The parasitic doctrines have engendered a microbiomania which determined a terror which will be the opprobrium of the 19th century
Faris December 12 1884 
Now - nevermind that the OCR is not perfect (where is Faris?).  But not only is this fascinating.  But the beginning of the page has another word that seems worthy of resurrecting: microbophobists,  And this pulls up all sorts of fascinating discussions:



And the related search is perhaps more fascinating: microbophobia



So - in the end I did not come up with a totally new word.  But I do now have two words I really want to use more often and which I will use in the following ways:

  • Microbiomania which I define here as the overselling of the impact (beneficial or detrimental or otherwise) of microbiomes without the evidence to support such impact 
  • Microbophobia which I define here as the overwhelming and unreasonable fear of microbes (of any kinds).  This is similar in concept to "germophobia" but gets around the issue some people have with whether "germ" is a term that should be reserved for pathogens and thus that germophobia could be viewed as the fear of pathogens.  

الأربعاء، 29 أكتوبر 2014

CEO of Soylent goes even further off the deep end - going after his microbiome

Well, this is pretty deranged: Soylent CEO Is Lifehacking Water By Pissing In the Sink.  Forget all the wackiness of Soylent and the idea of limiting water intake.  And just look at the part of this on the micro biome
Feces are almost entirely deceased gut bacteria and water. I massacred my gut bacteria the day before by consuming a DIY Soylent version with no fiber and taking 500mg of Rifaximin, an antibiotic with poor bioavailability, meaning it stays in your gut and kills bacteria. Soylent's microbiome consultant advised that this is a terrible idea so I do not recommend it. However, it worked. Throughout the challenge I did not defecate.
So - he took Rifaximin to kill his gut microbiome because he thought that would help him not defecate.  And then because he did not defecate he concluded that the Rifaximin played some role in such anti-defecation?  OMFG.  This is both bad science and some, well, crazy a*s-sh*t.  I - I - I - I just do not know what else to say.

Hat tip to Andrea Kuszewski.

الاثنين، 27 أكتوبر 2014

Some suggestions for having diverse speakers at meetings

Been having a lot of discussions online in response to my post (Apparently, the National Academy of Sciences thinks only one sex is qualified to talk about alternatives to sex #YAMMM) tracking the awful gender ratio for speakers and session chairs at meetings run by the National Academy of Sciences in their Sackler series.  Some people were asking what one can do to improve gender diversity at meetings so I thought I would post this which I was meaning to do anyway ...

-------------------------------------------------------

I wrote this in an email to a meeting organizer after I had turned down their invitation due to the imbalance in gender of the speakers (more about this another time --- this is not the same case as the one I wrote about here: Turning down an endowed lectureship because their gender ratio is too skewed towards males #WomenInSTEM). 

Anyway, my colleague wrote a long and very helpful email to me after I withdrew from the meeting when I saw the speaker list.  In the email she detailed things that her organization was trying to do to increase diversity of speakers at meetings.  She ended it with this:
Thus, I take your comment to heart and wanted you to know that I care about this issues as well.  I would love to hear how you balance these inequities at your meetings and learn as much as I can.  Thank you for taking the time to bring this up I know how busy you are and appreciate your candor. Truly looking forward to more scientific exchanges and perhaps some education around gender issues.
And I wrote back, quickly, without digging into the literature or all the posts in the world about this some quick suggestions which I think others might find useful. So here is my response - again - was not meant to cover all the things one can do - just examples:

Thanks so much for the response and I am really glad to see all you are trying to do in this area. 
In terms of how we try to balance inequities at meetings I organize I would note a few simple things
  1. Do not try to invite only the famous people or the people doing the "top" work.  This usually biases one towards more established researchers (as in, older) and this alas also usually is accompanied by distortion of diversity.
  2. DO try to invite people across the breadth of career stages.  Meetings to me should not be only about getting the PIs whose labs are doing the best work to talk.  It should also be about giving opportunities to junior researchers - PhD students, post docs and junior faculty who are doing exciting work - perhaps more focused or smaller scale - but nevertheless exciting.  If one opens up a invited speaker list to people at diverse career stages one generally greatly increases the gender and ethnic diversity. 
  3. DO try to invite people from diverse institutions - research universities, research institutes, companies, non profits, NGOs, the press, non research universities, and more.
  4. DO try to be flexible about times and dates for talks - I have found that women more than men have other commitments (e.g. kids) for which they cannot change dates of activities. 
  5. DO try to provide child care assistance (as you are doing).
  6. DO try to make sure women are on the organizing committee See http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/01/the-easiest-possible-way-to-increase-female-speakers-at-conferences/282858/
  7. DO make sure to provide travel funds.
  8. DO try to include some talks on related areas that may not be the main theme of the conference.  For example history of science and ELSI related topics increase the pool of women and speakers with diverse backgrounds which can be invited.
  9. DO ask the women who turn down invitations if they care to say why.
  10. DO commit to spending a decent amount of time searching for qualified female speakers.  Sometimes there are people who fit ALL the goals of a meeting and they are just missed because women on average have lower public profiles than men doing the same type of work.
Just some ideas off the top of my head.
Jonathan
see also 
http://www.stemwomen.net/jonathan-eisen/ 
and 
http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/p/posts-on-women-in-science.html

الجمعة، 24 أكتوبر 2014

Apparently, the National Academy of Sciences thinks only one sex is qualified to talk about alternatives to sex #YAMMM

Just got this email from Francisco Ayala:
January 9-10, 2015 
In the Light of Evolution IX. Clonal Reproduction: Alternatives to Sex 
Organizers: Michel Tibayrenc, John C. Avise and Francisco J. Ayala 
Beckman Center of the National Academies, Irvine, CA 
Evolutionary studies of clonal organisms have advanced considerably in recent years, but are still fledgling. Although recent textbooks on evolution and genetics might give the impression that nonsexual reproduction is an anomaly in the living world, clonality is the rule rather than the exception in many viruses, bacteria, and parasites that undergo preponderant asexual evolution in nature. Clonality is thus of crucial importance in basic biology as well as in studies dealing with transmissible diseases. 
This Colloquium will bring together specialists in various disciplines, including genetics, evolution, statistics, bioinformatics, and medicine. A balance will be sought between the various disciplines, including clonal animals and plants, animal and human cloning, pathogens, and cancer studies.   
Registration is now open http://www.nasonline.org/programs/sackler-colloquia/upcoming-colloquia/ILE_IX_Clonal_Reproduction.html
Registration fee is $150. 
Graduate students and postdoctoral researchers are eligible for discount fee of $100. 
All meals, break and reception refreshments listed on the agenda are included in the registration fee.
For more information, contact sackler@nas.edu.
Could be interesting right?  Alas, then, I clicked on the link.  And I discovered the meeting could also be referred to as "Only one sex talks about alternatives to sex".  Men are highlighted in yellow. Women highlighted in green. (Note - I am making some guesses as to gender but I think these are reasoably accurate).
Organizers: Michel Tibayrenc, John C. Avise and Francisco J. Ayala 
I. General Considerations  
  • 8:30 AM Overview: The ILE Series. John C. Avise  
  • 8:40 AM Introduction and Chair, John C. Avise  
  • 8:40 AM  Can eukaryotes be considered clonally propagating cell lines with intermittent sex?, Dave Speijer, University of Amsterdam 
  • 9:30 AM Cancer in Parasitic Protozoan Trypanosoma brucei and Toxoplasma gondii, Zhao-Rong Lun, Sun Yat-Sen University 
  • 10:40 AM Mathematical Models of Clonality, Dominik Wodarz, University of California, Irvine 
  • 11:30 AM The Cost of Sex: Why Aren’t We All Clonal?, Claus-Peter Stelzer, University of Innsbruck 
II. Clonality in Multicellular Organisms  1:30 PM Chair, Zhao-Rong Lun
  • 1:30 PM  Genets, Ramets and Unisexual Reproduction in Plants, Spencer C.H. Barrett, University of Toronto
  • 2:20 PM Clonality in Asexual Invertebrate Animals, John M. Logsdon, Jr., University of Iowa
  • 3:30 PM Natural Clonality in Vertebrate Animals, John C. Avise, University of California, Irvine
  • 4:20 PM Artificial Cloning of Domestic Animals, Carol L. Keefer, University of Maryland
Keynote Address 
  • 6:45 PM Introduction, Michel Tibayrenc
  • 6:50 PM Cloning Humans: Biological and Ethical Considerations, Francisco J. Ayala, University of California, Irvine
III. Clonality in the Microbial World  
  • 8:00 AM Chair, Carol L. Keefer  
  • 8:00 AM Clonality and Intracellular Polyploidy in Virus Evolution and Pathogenesis, Esteban Domingo, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
  • 8:50 AM The Impermanence of Bacterial Clones, Howard Ochman, University of Texas, Austin
  • 10:00 AM Clonal Reproduction in Fungi, John Taylor, University of California, Berkeley
  • 10:50 AM Clonal Reproduction in Parasitic Protozoa, Michel Tibayrenc, IRD, Montpellier, France
IV. Clonality, Cancer, and Evolution
  • 12:50 PM Organismal Fitness, Somatic Evolution, and Cancer, James DeGregori, University of Colorado School of Medicine
  • 1:40 PM Cancer and Pathogens as Clonal Processes, Edwin L. Cooper, University of California, Los Angeles
  • 2:50 PM Stem Cell Competitions: Evolution, and Cancer Progression, Irving Weissman, Stanford University
  • 3:40 PM Clonal Reproduction: An Evolutionary Curse or Blessing?, Marcel E. Dorken, Trent University
  • 4:30 PM Concluding Remarks, Francisco J. Ayala, University of California, Irvine
So - whether you count just speakers, or speakers plus session chairs, the gender ratio is not good.  Really there is only one woman as far as I can tell involved with this meeting.  Sadly this is not the only meeting at the NAS Beckman Center with gender issues.  See this post for example Today's YAMMM (Yet Another Mostly Male Meeting) Brought to You by CIFAR & NAS.  Does NAS even make any effort in regard to diversity of speakers?

UPDATE 10/25/14 - Some responses from Twitter






For more on this topic see my other posts on "Diversity in STEM"

UPDATE 2: 10/26 - New NAS Sackler meeting after this one - better but barely in gender ratio

The next Sackler meeting after this one is on "Drawing Causal Inference from Big Data".  Here are the speakers they list with the same colors as used above.
  • Edoardo Airoldi, Harvard University
  • Susan Athey, Stanford University 
  • Leon Bottou, Microsoft Corporation 
  • Danah Boyd, Microsoft Corporation
  • Peter Buhlmann, ETH Zurich 
  • Susan Dumais, Microsoft Corporation
  • Dean Eckles, Facebook 
  • James Fowler, University of California, San Diego  
  • Michael Hawrylycz, Allen Institute 
  • David Heckerman, Microsoft Corporation 
  • Jennifer Hill, New York University 
  • Guido Imbens, Stanford University
  • Michael Jordan, University of California, Berkeley 
  • Steven Levitt, The University of Chicago 
  • David Madigan, Columbia University
  • Thomas Richardson, University of Washington 
  • Bernhard Schölkopf, Max Planck Institute 
  • Jasjeet Sekhon, University of California, Berkeley 
  • Cosma Shalizi, Carnegie Mellon University  
  • Richard Shiffrin, Indiana University 
  • John Stamatoyannopoulos, University of Washington 
  • Hal Varian, Google, Inc. 
  • Bin Yu, University of California, Berkeley 
That is a ratio of 18:5 or 21% women.  Not sure what the gender balance is for people working on "big data" but still, given the Sackler's recent issues with gender ratio in fields with an almost 50:50 ratio of men:women I am not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here.  And I note - the link they provide for Susan Athey goes to the web site of Richard Shiffrin.  So I am just going to assume that the name on the list is correct not the link to Shiffrin.

UPDATE 3: 10/26 - Made a Storify to track discussion of this.

UPDATE 4: 10/26 -- and another recent Sackler meeting

Epigenetic changes in the developing brain: Effects on behavior

This meeting was held March 28-29, 2014 at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C. and organized by Donald W. Pfaff (The Rockefeller University) and Eric Barrington Keverne (King’s College, Cambridge).
  • Introduction and welcome, Donald Pfaff and Barry Keverne
  • Session I. DNA methylation (Chair, Tom Insel)
    • Mechanisms that establish and maintain genomic methylation patterns in mammalian tissues, Tim Bestor, Columbia University
    • Signaling networks that regulate synapse development and dysfunction, Michael Greenberg, Harvard University
    • Impact of early life experiences on DNA methylation: Implications for brain development and behaviour, Frances Champagne, Columbia University
  • Session II. Histone modifications (Chair, Barry Keverne)
    • A histone methylation network regulates epigenetic inheritance, Yang Shi, Harvard University
    • Global Epigenomic Reconfiguration during Mammalian Brain Development, Joseph Ecker, Salk Institute for Biological Studies
    • H3.3 nucleosomal dynamics regulate synaptic development and plasticity in postreplicative neurons, Ian Maze & David Allis, The Rockefeller University
    • Steroid hormone actions on histone tail modifications in the brain, Donald Pfaff, The Rockefeller University
  • 14th Annual Sackler Public Lecture
    • Introduction – Diane Griffin, Vice President, National Academy of Sciences
    • Deconstructing circuits for motor behavior, Thomas Jessell, Columbia University
  • Session III. Genomic imprinting (Chair, Rusty Gage)
    • Genomic imprinting,action and interaction of two genomes in mother, Barry Keverne, Cambridge University
    • Epigenetic regulation of imprinted gene loci, Marisa Bartolomei, University of Pennsylvania Medical School
    • Monoallelic gene expression, Andrew Chess, Mount Sinai Hospital
  • Session IV. Non-coding RNA’s (Chair, Don Pfaff)
    • Linking RNA to Nuclear Architecture, John L. Rinn, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT
    • Human retrotransposons ("jumping genes") in health and disease, Haig Kazazian, Johns Hopkins University
  • Session V. CNS applications (Chair, Tim Bestor)
    • Mobile Element Activity in Evolution and Disease, Fred Gage, Salk Institute
    • The Epigenetic Language of the Circadian Clock, Poalo Sassone-Corsi, University of California, Irvine
    • Epigenomics of Major Psychiatric Disease, Art Petronis, University of Toronto
    • Imprinting mechanisms underlying Prader Willi and Angelman syndromes, James Resnick, University of Florida
  • Closing remarks: Brain Exceptionalism, Tom Insel, Director, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH

So - if you just count all the speaking / session chair slots that comes to 24 slots to men and 3 to women for a wonderful 11% female percentage.  Even if you count just speakers (and not session chairs) the #s don't look good.  Looking pretty bad NAS Sackler meetings.

UPDATE 5: Copying in my analysis of gender ratio at the most recent Sackler meeting on Symbioses becoming permanent: The origins and evolutionary trajectories of organelles which I refer to above but only via a link out to my post.  Here is the speaker analysis:

  • Organizers: W. Ford DoolittlePatrick Keeling, and John McCutcheon
  • Distinctive Voices Public Lecture presented by Michael Gray, CIFAR Advisor, Dalhousie University
  • Session 1: Genomes (evolutionary rates, oddities, and reduction)
    • Introduction and welcome remarks – W. Ford Doolittle, CIFAR Advisor & Patrick Keeling, CIFAR Program Director and Senior Fellow
    • John McCutcheon, CIFAR Associate Fellow, University of Montana
    • John Archibald, CIFAR Senior Fellow, Dalhousie University, Nuclear organelles 
    • Andrew Roger, CIFAR Senior Fellow, Dalhousie University, Organelle reduction 
    • Siv Andersson, Uppsala University, Alphaproteobacterial genome evolution 
    • David Smith, University of Western Ontario, Roots of genomic architecture variation 
    • Daniel Sloan, Colorado State University, Cytonuclear co-evolution under extreme mitochondrial mutation rates
    • John Allen, University College London, Why keep genomes?
  • Session 2: Integration/Control (trafficking, signaling, transporters)
    • Debash Bhattacharya, Rutgers University, Transporters in organellogenesis 
    • Nancy Moran, University of Texas, Austin, Insect endosymbionts 
    • Geoff McFadden, University of Melbourne, Diversity of protein trafficking
    • Chris Howe, Cambridge University, Why integrate?
    • Steve Perlman, CIFAR Fellow, University of Victoria, Maternal transmission, sex ratio distortion, and mitochondria 
    • William Martin, Düsseldorf University, Endosymbiont and organelle, what’s the difference? 
    • Moriya Okhuma, Riken University, Metabolic integration across endosymbiotic communities
  • Session 3: Theories and Models
    • Eors Szathmary, Loránd University, A fresh look at cooperation in some major transitions, especially the origin of eukaryotes
    • Marc Ereshefsky, University of Calgary, Evolutionary individuality
    • Peter Godfrey-Smith, City University of New York, Individuality and the egalitarian transitions 
    • Maureen O’Malley, University of Sydney, Philosophical Reflections on Endosymbiosis: Implications for Evolutionary Theory
    • Toby Kiers, University Amsterdam, Bacterial cooperativity
  • Closing remarks J. McCutcheon
That is a ratio of 19:4 for speakers slots for men vs. women.  Sensing a pattern anyone?

UPDATE 6: I feel much better now looking at the meeting before the developing brain meeting.  It is so much better (not). 

In the Light of Evolution VIII: Darwinian Thinking in the Social Sciences. January 10-11, 2014 at the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center in Irvine, CA. 
  • Organized by Brian Skyrms, John C. Avise and Francisco J. Ayala
  • I.  Evolution of Social Norms
    • Bargaining and Fairness, Kenneth Binmore, University College London
    • Cooperation, Natalia Komarova, University of California, Irvine
    • Friendship and Natural Selection, James H. Fowler, University of California, San Diego
    • Reputation and Punishment, Michihiro Kandori, University of Tokyo
  • II. Social Dynamics
    • The Replicator Equation and Other Game Dynamics, Ross Cressman, Wilfrid Laurier University
    • Payoff-Based Learning Dynamics, Alvin Roth, Harvard University
    • Strategic Learning Dynamics, David K. Levine, Washington University
    • Cultural Evolution, Marcus W. Feldman, Stanford University
  • Keynote Address:  Public Goods: Competition, Cooperation, and Spite, Simon A. Levin, Princeton University
  • III. Special Sciences
    • Evolutionary Demography, Kenneth W. Wachter, University of California, Berkeley
    • Folklore of the Elite and Biological Evolution, Barry O’Neill, University of California, Los Angeles
    • Economics, Ted Bergstrom, University of California, Santa Barbara
    • Psychology, Dale Purves, Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School
  • IV. Applications
    • Evolutionary Implementation in Mechanism Design, Éva Tardos, Cornell University
    • Some Dynamics of Signaling, Brian Skyrms, University of California, Irvine
    • The Rate of Innovation Diffusion in Social Networks, H. Peyton Young, Oxford University
    • Homophily, Culture, and Coordinating Behaviors, Matthew O. Jackson, Stanford University
That is 15:2 males to females in speaking slots and also three main organizers. 

Update 7: A trend in meetings coorganized by John Avise and Francisco Ayala

I note the meeting above in Update 6 is the second recent meeting coorganized by John Avise and Francisco Ayala with a highly skewed gender ratio.  So I decided to go back and look at other meetings they coorganized.  For example here is the next most recent one.

In the Light of Evolution VII: The Human Mental Machinery

Organized by Camilo J. Cela-Conde, Raúl Gutiérrez Lombardo, John C. Avise and Francisco J. Ayala

This meeting was held January 10-12, 2013 at the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center in Irvine, CA.
  •  I. Theory of Mind 
    • Theory of Mind: Darwin’s legacy, John Searle, University of California, Berkeley
    • Human mind and brain – pathological evidence, Robert E. Clark, University of California, San Diego 
    • Theory of Mind in Other Primates, Robert M. Seyfarth, University of Pennsylvania
  • II. Cognition
    • Evolution of Working Memory, Peter Carruthers, University of Maryland
    • The evolution of episodic memory, Norbert Fortin, University of California, Irvine
    • Natural Basis of Cognition, Terrence J. Sejnowski, Salk Institute for Biological Studies
    • Human and Animal Consciousness, Michael T. Alkire, University of California, Irvine
    • Co-Evolution: Culture, mind and brain, Chet C. Sherwood, George Washington University 
  • Keynote Address 
    • Unusual and Exceptional Capacities of the Human Mind, James L. McGaugh, University of California, Irvine     
  • III. Evolving Piece by Piece: Levels of Modularity in Neurobiology
    • Neuronal Networks of the Moral Judgment, Patricia Churchland, University of California, San Diego
    • Pathological Altruism, Barbara A. Oakley, Oakland University
    • Theory of Justice in Non-Human Primates, Sarah F. Brosnan, Georgia State University
    • Evolutionary Dynamics of Altruism, Martin Nowak, Harvard University
    • Human and Animal Neuroeconomics, Michael Platt, Duke University 
  • IV. Aesthetics 
    • Music and the Brain, Robert Zatorre, Montreal Neurological Institute 
    • Aesthetic and Ethnic Emotions, Oshin Vartanian, University of Toronto, Scarborough
    • Aesthetic Perception: Mind and Brain , Camilo J. Cela-Conde, University of the Baleares Islands, Spain
That is a ratio of 14:3 for speakers of men: women. 

UPDATE 8: The next most recent meeting coorganized by Avise and Ayala

In the Light of Evolution VI: Brain and Behavior
January 19-21, 2012
Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center
Organized by Georg F. Striedter, John C. Avise and Francisco J. Ayala

  • Session I. Brains in History: Descent with Modification
    • Chair, John C. Avise, University of California, Irvine
    • Evolution of Brain Development, Georg Striedter, University of California, Irvine
    • Evolution of Neuronal Cell Types, Nipam H. Patel, University of California, Berkeley
    • Homology and Homoplasy of Behavior and Neural Circuits, Paul S. Katz, Georgia State University
    • Evolution of Cognitive Traits, Lucia F. Jacobs, University of California, Berkeley
  • Session II. Brains in Ecology: Adapatation by Natural Selection
    • Chair, Georg Striedter, University of California, Irvine
    • Adaptation of Neuron-typical Molecules and Processes, Harold H. Zakon, University of Texas, Austin
    • Evolution of Specialized Sensory Systems, Kenneth C. Catania, Vanderbilt University
    • Evolution of Specialized Motor Systems, Andrew H. Bass, Cornell University
    • Evolving Neural Mechanisms of Social Diversity and Cognition, James L. Goodson, Indiana University
  • Keynote Address
    • Introduction, Francisco J. Ayala, University of California, Irvine
    • Evolution of Centralized Nervous Systems, R. Glenn Northcutt, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
  • Session III. Evolving Piece by Piece: Levels of Modularity in Neurobiology
    • Chair, Lucia F. Jacobs, University of California, Irvine
    • Molecular Models in Neurobiology, Kenneth S. Kosik, University of California, Santa Barbara
    • Devolpmental Modules in Nervous Systems, Leah A. Krubitzer, University of California, Davis
    • Neuroanatomical and Physiological Modules, Jon H. Kaas, Vanderbilt University
    • Modularity of Cognitive Processes, Jessica F. Cantlon, University of Rochester
  • Session IV. Human Evolution: Brains and Behavior
    • Chair, Francisco J. Ayala, University of California, Irvine
    • Molecular Aspects of Human Brain Evolution, Todd M. Preuss, Emory University School of Medicine
    • Evolution of Primate Brain Morphology, Suzana Herculano-Houzel, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
    • Evolution of Primate Brain Functions, Lizabeth M. Romanski, University of Rochester
    • The Evolution of Human Cognition, Clark Barrett, University of California, Los Angeles
  • Concluding Remarks
    • Francisco J. Ayala, University of California, Irvine
That isa ratio of 17:6 if one includes all slots (chairs, speakers, etc) or 14:5 if you just include speaking slots. 

UPDATE 9: This is NOT just about speaking at meetings.

I note - many of the Sackler meetings turn into special collections in PNAS and thus the limited representation of women speakers (which is a problem) is made worse by then directly affecting publishing in PNAS.

UPDATE 10: 10/27/14. Going back to another Avise/Ayala meeting from 2001

In the Light of Evolution V: Cooperation

Organized by Joan E. Strassmann, David C. Queller, John C. Avise, and Francisco J. Ayala
January 7-8, 2011

(Note Joan Strassmann is one of my favorite scientists and people on the planet - great to see her in a role as coorganizer here)

  • Session I. Foundations of Cooperation
    • John C. Avise, University of California, Irvine, Chair
    • Insect Societies: pinnacles of cooperation - Peter Nonacs, University of California, Los Angeles
    • Families in vertebrates - Dustin R. Rubenstein, Columbia University
    • The major evolutionary transitions In bacterial symbiosis - Joel L. Sachs, University of California, Riverside
    • Kin, kith, and kind: the varieties of social experience - David C. Queller, Rice University
  • Session II. Genetic Basis of Cooperation and Conflict
    • David Queller, Chair
    • Altruism and cheating in a social microbe, Dicytostelium discoideum - Joan E. Strassmann, Rice University
    • A prokaryotic model system -Greg Velicer, Indiana University
    • The evolution of restraint in simple communities - Ben Kerr, University of Washington
    • Selfish genetic elements - Jack H. Werren, University of Rochester
  • Banquet Lecture
    • Francisco J. Ayala, University of California, Irvine, Introduction
    • Evolution of insect society: eat, drink and be scary - Gene E. Robinson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • Session III. Hamiltonian Medicine
    • Joan E. Strassmann, Chair
    • Genomic imprinting, helpers at the nest, and age at menarche David Haig, Harvard University 
    • Pathology from evolutionary conflict - Steven A. Frank, University of California, Irvine 
    • The sociobiology of drug resistance and pathogen virulence - Andrew Read, Pennsylvania State University
    • Microbial sociality: implications for disease - Kevin Foster, Harvard University
  • Session IV. Are Humans Different?
    • Francisco J. Ayala, Chair
    • Cooperation and conflict in traditional cultures - Beverly I. Strassmann, University of Michigan 
    • The cultural niche - Robert Boyd, University of California, Los Angeles
    • Social Bonds to Social Preferences; the foundations for human moral sentiments  - Joan Silk, University of California, Los Angeles
    • What does primate cooperation tell us? - Dorothy Cheney, University of Pennsylvania
  • Concluding Remarks
    • John C. Avise, University of California, Irvine
So - for speaking and chairing slots - that comes to a ratio of 17:5 male to female.  Even with Joan Strassmann being involved as a coorganizer (and she is truly wonderful in a million ways) this meeting still has the NAS and Avise/Ayala pattern of very few female speakers or session chairs, even in fields where ther are many candidates.  Yuck.

I think I would make one recommendation out of this to begin with - John Avise and Francisco Ayala should not be allowed to run any NAS meetings again.  And NAS needs to have and use policies on educating meeting organizers about gender bias and requiring some type of efforts to have reasonable representations of diversity among speakers and chairs.

UPDATE 11: Meetings from 1990s I went to while in graduate school

Just scanned in notes from some of these NAS Beckman Center meetings that I attended while in graduate school at Stanford.  I added them to my collection of "Retroblogging Meetings and Seminars: Posting Scans of Notes".  The meetings then had even worse gender ratios of speakers.

1994: Tempo and Mode in Evolution.  See scans here. All speakers except one were male.
1997: Genetics and the Origin of Species. See scans here.





الخميس، 23 أكتوبر 2014

Microbiology Book for Kids: It's Catching by Jennifer Gardy and Josh Holinaty

A few days ago I wrote about how I wanted to share some information about what I have found to be good childrens' science books (based on reading books to my kids).  Well, here is another one: It's Catching: The Infectious World of Germs and Microbes by Jennifer Gardy and Josh Holinaty.

I first became aware of Jennifer Gardy's talents in making catchy microbe-themed kids material when she released the Youtube video "The A-Z of Epidemiology: germs from Anthrax to Zoonoses. A disturbing bedtime book for kids." which is simply awesome. (Note - great animation by Tom Scott):

 

I watched this video many many many times with my kids - always resulting in painful laughter and entertainment.

I should note that I am collaborating with Jennifer on at least one project (The Kitten Microbiome) and think she is a brilliant scientist and science communicator.  But once I saw her "It's Catching" I realized she really could have a full career as a children's science book and video maker.  It's Catching is both entertaining (like the video) but also educational with information on the history of microbiology and how microbes are studied.  Definitely a good one if you are looking for fun and funny science and/or microbiology themed books for kids.


 

الأربعاء، 22 أكتوبر 2014

Microbe-themed art of the month: Seung-Hwan Oh portraits w/ mold

OK this is pretty cool (from a microbe-art-science point of view): An Artist Who Paints Portraits With Mold | WIRED.  Seung-Hwan Oh "had to set up a micro-fungus farm in his studio" and he puts film in a warm wet environment (note to self - there could be a new human microbiome aspect of this project depending on what warm wet environment is chosen) and sometimes seeds the system with some mold.  And then he lets nature do its work.

See more about his Impermanence works here. (Really - check out the works - they are wild).

At that site the work is described in the following way:
The visual result of the symbiosis between film matter and organic matter is the conceptual origin of this body of work. The process involves the cultivation of emulsion consuming microbes on a visual environment created through portraits and a physical environment composed of developed film immersed in water. As the microbes consume light-sensitive chemical over the course of months or years, the silver halides destabilize, obfuscating the legibility of foreground, background, and scale. This creates an aesthetic of entangled creation and destruction that inevitably is ephemeral, and results in complete disintegration of the film so that it can only be delicately digitized before it is consumed.
Also see his Tumbl page where one can find many other images like this one:


Hat tip to Kate Scow for posting about this on Facebook.

الأحد، 19 أكتوبر 2014

Kids' Microbiology Book Review: Germ Stories

I was going through some kids' books today and found quite a few that I thought were wonderful and thought - well - I should post about some of them.  So that is what I am going to do.

The first I want to write about is Germ Stories by Arthur Kornberg with Illustrations by Adam Alaniz and Photos by Roberto Kolter.

 

I used to read it to my daughter all the time (she is two years older than my son) and then sometimes, when she was older, she would read it to my son.  A few things I like about this book:
  1. It is not all about pathogens - there are sections on yeast, penicillin, gut microbes and Myxococcus (although it is miswritten as Myxobacterium). 
  2. Everything is done as poetry / songs.  Some are cheesy, but my kids liked them.
  3. Each section on a different microbes has a little poem/song, a drawing, and a picture or two as well as a few mini facts (or I guess, micro facts). 
  4. The material is a bit scary / gross at times but not too over the top.
Anyway - I definitely recommend it if you want a microbiology book that will be good for reading to and reading by kids.

I added this book to a collection I am making via Amazon on "Microbiology Books for Kids".  I will write about some of the other ones at another time.




UPDATE - Wanted other suggestions for good kids' microbiology themed books ...

الأربعاء، 15 أكتوبر 2014

Harvard, hope and hype: the sad reason behind overselling diabetes stem cell work - raising money

Earlier in the week I got all fired up - not in a good way - about a press release and news stories relating to a new paper from Doug Melton on a insulin producing STEM cell study
With a little more discussion I just got more angry


I was angry both about the overselling of the implications of the paper and the fact that the paper was not published in an open manner. This was despite the stated goals of HHMI which funds some of the Melton Lab work.

I was especially upset that much of the press coverage was reporting on an imminent cure for type I diabetes when this was clearly not imminent. Although I note - some coverage was OK. Like these:

Another good piece of news - HHMI got Doug Melton to post a copy of the paper on a web site
Although this was kind of hidden

Another good thing - Paul Knoepfler, a colleague of mine at UC Davis wrote a blog post for his excellent STEM cell blog about the Harvard study and the hype.

But the hype was still spreading ...
So I felt like there was a continued need to say something about this
I even changed a talk I was giving on Sunday to include a discussion of this paper and the hype as, well, a bad thing
  


And I thought, and kind of hoped, that this might just go away. And then, many people forwarded me this email from Harvard sent out as part of a fundraising campaign. Most of the people who sent it to me sent it in happiness with the possibility of a cure for type 1 diabetes. Here is the email:



Of for $&*#*# sake.  Really.  So now Harvard was going to use this as a fundraising tool.  And they would oversell it even more:

"A giant breakthrough in making that possible" with "that" referring to "finding a cure".  And then they say "these cells can replace or augment daily insulin injections" without saying that this WAS NOT IN HUMANS.  THIS WAS IN MOUSE.  $*#($#) DECEPTIVE LYING SCHMUCKS.

And they end this email with "make a gift today."  How about this Harvard.  I will make donations to anyone but you until you stop marketing in hope and hype and start being responsible.

UPDATE 10/16/14 8 AM PST

Some of the overhyped statements relating to this story:

Harvard Press Story: “We are now just one preclinical step away from the finish line,” said Melton

Rawstory: Stem-cell cure for Type 1 diabetes ‘on par with discovery of antibiotics’

Telegraph: Cure for Type 1 diabetes iminent

Times of India: Type 1 diabetes cure within reach after breakthrough that could spell end of insulin injections for millions

BBC: Giant Leap to Type 1 Diabetes Cure