Occasional Sci/Why contributor Margriet Ruurs sends in a couple of amazing links for your holiday pleasure.
First, this clever shorebird could teach human fishers a few lessons in patience and technique!
And here's a series of photographs by London-based photographer Tim Flach that challenges the way we see animals and ourselves.
Enjoy the links and the holiday season!
26 Dec 2014
19 Dec 2014
The Kiss Connection in Spacecraft
By Paula Johanson
If you've ever wondered what connection could there possibly be between chocolate and the space program, well, there is one. According to Colonel Chris Hadfield, the Canadian astronaut, it's the shape of a Hershey's Kiss.
On December 12, Hadfield posted on Facebook a picture of four spaceships, comparing the shape of the re-entry modules. All four have a similar shape. It's actually Hadfield's son Evan who manages most of Hadfield's social media posting, and he does so with grace and efficiency.
The Hadfields wrote a caption for the image:
It was Evan Hadfield who went on to add the following note:
One of the readers of Chris Hadfield’s Facebook page, Scott Corliss, had this to say about the curved bottoms of the re-entry modules:
There's an adult discussion about the shape of the re-entry modules on the Space page on Reddit; for those who like to get a bit technical, click here.
And for those of any age who prefer a more hands-on approach to learning about space, there’s a link to a page here with instructions on how to make a spaceship-shaped treat for a space-themed party, complete with a Hershey's Kiss on top for a re-entry module. Now I know what to make for my brother's next birthday party -- he's been a spaceship fan since before the Apollo launches!
If you've ever wondered what connection could there possibly be between chocolate and the space program, well, there is one. According to Colonel Chris Hadfield, the Canadian astronaut, it's the shape of a Hershey's Kiss.
On December 12, Hadfield posted on Facebook a picture of four spaceships, comparing the shape of the re-entry modules. All four have a similar shape. It's actually Hadfield's son Evan who manages most of Hadfield's social media posting, and he does so with grace and efficiency.
The Hadfields wrote a caption for the image:
The natural shape of spaceships. Apollo vs NASA's current fleet under construction. The Hershey's Kiss shape makes the spaceships inherently stable, and the broad flat bottom helps spread the blistering heat of re-entry. By moving the centre of gravity we can alter how the ships fly, and thus roll and steer them to both reduce g-load and land precisely.
It was Evan Hadfield who went on to add the following note:
All four of the modules shown have the same basic curved bottom, for the heat shield that protects the module while it returns to the Earth's surface. It is the shifting of the centre of gravity that allows it to creates lift – they shift it in the shaping of the capsule. Those two concepts are just different descriptions of the same thing.
One of the readers of Chris Hadfield’s Facebook page, Scott Corliss, had this to say about the curved bottoms of the re-entry modules:
The basic shape and curveture radius for the heat shields were worked out in the early 1960s by Harvey Allen, Max Faget and Caldwell Johnson (as noted in a book, Smithsonian Air & Space Collectors Edition, Fall 2013). Slide rule and engineering paper solutions still work today!
There's an adult discussion about the shape of the re-entry modules on the Space page on Reddit; for those who like to get a bit technical, click here.
And for those of any age who prefer a more hands-on approach to learning about space, there’s a link to a page here with instructions on how to make a spaceship-shaped treat for a space-themed party, complete with a Hershey's Kiss on top for a re-entry module. Now I know what to make for my brother's next birthday party -- he's been a spaceship fan since before the Apollo launches!
12 Dec 2014
The Dalai Lama and Science
By Pippa Wysong
Much of October 2014 was suffused with a sense of unreality because of the unusual trip that was to happen near the end of the month. Hubby and I were to travel to Alabama where Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama was scheduled to appear. We would attend several events, meet the organizers and even get a chance to meet His Holiness in person.
During my career as a science writer, I’ve had the privilege to meet some extraordinary people. But there was something different about the chance to meet the Dalai Lama, even if it was for just a five-second grasping of hands with no real chance to talk one-on-one. This is someone who is truly a global figure, whose name and influence cross all cultures and sectors of society. A true thought-leader.
It all seemed bigger than life, and in fact the opportunity somehow felt surreal. I didn’t tell anyone that I was going or, until now, that I had gone. The invitation to these events came through a colleague of my husband’s who became personally acquainted with His Holiness while trying to start up a hospital in India.
Knowing almost nothing about the history of the 14th Dalai Lama nor of his brand of Buddhism, the Gelug school, I felt unprepared and scrambled to read about him.
I learned several intriguing things. One is that the Dalai Lama is actually a science geek and has an insatiable thirst to learn about areas relating to cosmology, physics, neurology, genetics, and more. In fact, he regularly invites small groups of top scientists to visit his home in Dharamsala in northern India to discuss recent scientific findings and trends. Plus, he makes sure that the education monks get has strong science content.
He has said that if an explanation of the natural world in the Buddhist texts is proven to be incorrect through scientific evidence -- then those sections of the Buddhist texts should be updated to stay current and accurate. In one place, he phrases this as, “...in the Buddhist investigation of reality, at least in principle, empirical evidence should triumph over scriptural authority, no matter how deeply venerated a scripture may be.”
He is co-founder of the Mind and Life Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to exploring relationships between modern sciences, philosophy, the humanities and social sciences. A goal is to explore the effects of contemplative-based practices (such as meditation) on the brain and human biology and behaviour.
This brings us to Alabama, where the University of Alabama (UAB) hosted a public panel discussion, in honour of the Dalai Lama’s visit, on the theme of neuroplasticity – the ability of the brain to adapt and change.
Dialogue on Neuroplasticity and Health took place at the Jemison Concert Hall. The participants were top neuroscientists Edward Taub, PhD; Michael Merzenich, PhD; and Toronto-based psychiatrist Dr. Norman Doidge.
Dr. Taub is a behavioural neuroscientist at UAB, known for making vital breakthroughs in the understanding of the brain and neuroplasticity. He developed CI Therapy, now used on stroke survivors. Dr. Merzenich taught neuroscience at the University of California San Francisco and developed various therapies that affect behaviour, memory, and learning ability. Dr. Doidge authored the bestseller The Brain That Changes Itself. His Holiness periodically interjected with questions and comments.
Public dialogues with leading scientists is not an uncommon thing for the Dalai Lama to do, and through these efforts he is contributing to science literacy – and showing that spirituality and science can be complementary.
Why does a spiritual leader lean so heavily towards the sciences? Because science helps explain how the world around us works, who we are, what we are, and what our relationship is to the world. It also provides tools we can use to help make ourselves and the world a better place.
The Dalai Lama’s key message is about compassion. How can we learn to treat each other better? How can we push aside traits that make us angry, distrustful, or violent? How can we create a society that is peaceful, with people respecting and appreciating the differences in others, and avoid conflict?
One tool that could be added to efforts in these directions is neuroplasticity. Studies show that by doing certain types of brain training, people who suffer debilitating, periodic depression can become less depressed – and even reduce their need for medication. Through meditation, or other techniques that train the brain and alter neuro-wiring, people who were once quick to anger can learn to handle difficult situations more calmly and rationally. Numerous examples of using neuroplasticity are described in Doidge’s book.
As a spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama is keen on areas of science that can help people become happier. And there is no contradiction with the Gelug school going in this direction. The Gelug school is more philosophical than theistic – a specific god isn’t worshipped. Followers learn to find inner peace and enlightenment largely using meditation and teachings of ethics, mixed with its version of spirituality.
Regardless of religion, spirituality, or a lack of either, what everyone has in common is that we want to live peacefully with those around us, ideally in a compassionate society. And the Dalai Lama has embraced science to help in this quest.
Much of October 2014 was suffused with a sense of unreality because of the unusual trip that was to happen near the end of the month. Hubby and I were to travel to Alabama where Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama was scheduled to appear. We would attend several events, meet the organizers and even get a chance to meet His Holiness in person.
During my career as a science writer, I’ve had the privilege to meet some extraordinary people. But there was something different about the chance to meet the Dalai Lama, even if it was for just a five-second grasping of hands with no real chance to talk one-on-one. This is someone who is truly a global figure, whose name and influence cross all cultures and sectors of society. A true thought-leader.
It all seemed bigger than life, and in fact the opportunity somehow felt surreal. I didn’t tell anyone that I was going or, until now, that I had gone. The invitation to these events came through a colleague of my husband’s who became personally acquainted with His Holiness while trying to start up a hospital in India.
 |
| Symposium poster. Photo by P. Wysong. |
Knowing almost nothing about the history of the 14th Dalai Lama nor of his brand of Buddhism, the Gelug school, I felt unprepared and scrambled to read about him.
I learned several intriguing things. One is that the Dalai Lama is actually a science geek and has an insatiable thirst to learn about areas relating to cosmology, physics, neurology, genetics, and more. In fact, he regularly invites small groups of top scientists to visit his home in Dharamsala in northern India to discuss recent scientific findings and trends. Plus, he makes sure that the education monks get has strong science content.
He has said that if an explanation of the natural world in the Buddhist texts is proven to be incorrect through scientific evidence -- then those sections of the Buddhist texts should be updated to stay current and accurate. In one place, he phrases this as, “...in the Buddhist investigation of reality, at least in principle, empirical evidence should triumph over scriptural authority, no matter how deeply venerated a scripture may be.”
He is co-founder of the Mind and Life Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to exploring relationships between modern sciences, philosophy, the humanities and social sciences. A goal is to explore the effects of contemplative-based practices (such as meditation) on the brain and human biology and behaviour.
This brings us to Alabama, where the University of Alabama (UAB) hosted a public panel discussion, in honour of the Dalai Lama’s visit, on the theme of neuroplasticity – the ability of the brain to adapt and change.
Dialogue on Neuroplasticity and Health took place at the Jemison Concert Hall. The participants were top neuroscientists Edward Taub, PhD; Michael Merzenich, PhD; and Toronto-based psychiatrist Dr. Norman Doidge.
 |
| The Dalai Lama, centre, with scientists. Photo by P. Wysong. |
Public dialogues with leading scientists is not an uncommon thing for the Dalai Lama to do, and through these efforts he is contributing to science literacy – and showing that spirituality and science can be complementary.
Why does a spiritual leader lean so heavily towards the sciences? Because science helps explain how the world around us works, who we are, what we are, and what our relationship is to the world. It also provides tools we can use to help make ourselves and the world a better place.
The Dalai Lama’s key message is about compassion. How can we learn to treat each other better? How can we push aside traits that make us angry, distrustful, or violent? How can we create a society that is peaceful, with people respecting and appreciating the differences in others, and avoid conflict?
One tool that could be added to efforts in these directions is neuroplasticity. Studies show that by doing certain types of brain training, people who suffer debilitating, periodic depression can become less depressed – and even reduce their need for medication. Through meditation, or other techniques that train the brain and alter neuro-wiring, people who were once quick to anger can learn to handle difficult situations more calmly and rationally. Numerous examples of using neuroplasticity are described in Doidge’s book.
As a spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama is keen on areas of science that can help people become happier. And there is no contradiction with the Gelug school going in this direction. The Gelug school is more philosophical than theistic – a specific god isn’t worshipped. Followers learn to find inner peace and enlightenment largely using meditation and teachings of ethics, mixed with its version of spirituality.
Regardless of religion, spirituality, or a lack of either, what everyone has in common is that we want to live peacefully with those around us, ideally in a compassionate society. And the Dalai Lama has embraced science to help in this quest.
5 Dec 2014
Are Canadians interested in science? You tell us!
By Claire Eamer
A couple of weeks ago, Rick Mercer delivered one of his trademark rants in support of science - pure science, whether or not it confers immediate economic benefit. He criticized the federal government for its lack of respect and support for science and said that Canadians are “as passionate and curious as anyone else” when it comes to science.
Now, as a science communicator - both to kids and to adults - that is my experience too. I've talked to kids, teachers, librarians, parents, and passing adults from Vancouver Island to Nunavut in the past few years. Almost all were enthusiastic about science, curious about how things work, fascinated by the natural world, and delighted to learn new things. (The exceptions were two kids from a religious fundamentalist family and one grown-up radio interviewer - but you can't please everyone, I guess.)
But this, it appears, is not everyone's experience.
Canadian geneticist David Kent, currently at the University of Cambridge in the UK, wrote a blog post politely and articulately disagreeing with Rick Mercer. That triggered an online storm of the best possible kind - some people agreeing with Kent and others disagreeing.
Besides the stream of comments attached to Kent's post - all polite and passionate (including, I hope, my own) - the discussion has continued on other blogs, Facebook pages, and Twitter feeds.
One of the commenters, science communicator Kevin Mogk, felt strongly enough about the discussion to repost his own comments, inviting more discussion. Another referred to his own earlier post with concerns similar to Kent's.
A number of people referenced the Council of Canadian Academies' report, issued in August 2014, on the state of science culture in Canada. Among its findings: "Canadians have positive attitudes towards science and technology and low levels of reservations about science compared with citizens of other countries."
The Canadian science blog and blog aggregator, Science Borealis, recently published a careful and detailed set of counter-arguments to Kent's post.
Theresa Liao, science communicator at the University of British Columbia and a friend of David Kent, posted her own response on her blog, Science, I Choose You!
Among the evidence cited for Canadians' interest in and enthusiasm for science are the excellent books, blogs and articles being produced by Canadian science writers for a Canadian and international audience, including:
If you read this far, you care - and you have an opinion. Please share!
A couple of weeks ago, Rick Mercer delivered one of his trademark rants in support of science - pure science, whether or not it confers immediate economic benefit. He criticized the federal government for its lack of respect and support for science and said that Canadians are “as passionate and curious as anyone else” when it comes to science.
Now, as a science communicator - both to kids and to adults - that is my experience too. I've talked to kids, teachers, librarians, parents, and passing adults from Vancouver Island to Nunavut in the past few years. Almost all were enthusiastic about science, curious about how things work, fascinated by the natural world, and delighted to learn new things. (The exceptions were two kids from a religious fundamentalist family and one grown-up radio interviewer - but you can't please everyone, I guess.)
But this, it appears, is not everyone's experience.
Canadian geneticist David Kent, currently at the University of Cambridge in the UK, wrote a blog post politely and articulately disagreeing with Rick Mercer. That triggered an online storm of the best possible kind - some people agreeing with Kent and others disagreeing.
Besides the stream of comments attached to Kent's post - all polite and passionate (including, I hope, my own) - the discussion has continued on other blogs, Facebook pages, and Twitter feeds.
One of the commenters, science communicator Kevin Mogk, felt strongly enough about the discussion to repost his own comments, inviting more discussion. Another referred to his own earlier post with concerns similar to Kent's.
A number of people referenced the Council of Canadian Academies' report, issued in August 2014, on the state of science culture in Canada. Among its findings: "Canadians have positive attitudes towards science and technology and low levels of reservations about science compared with citizens of other countries."
The Canadian science blog and blog aggregator, Science Borealis, recently published a careful and detailed set of counter-arguments to Kent's post.
Theresa Liao, science communicator at the University of British Columbia and a friend of David Kent, posted her own response on her blog, Science, I Choose You!
Among the evidence cited for Canadians' interest in and enthusiasm for science are the excellent books, blogs and articles being produced by Canadian science writers for a Canadian and international audience, including:
- nominees and winners of the Canadian Science in Society Book Awards and the Lane Anderson Awards
- the Canadian science bloggers listed and featured on the website of the Canadian Science Writers' Association and the Science Borealis blog
- the substantial audiences attracted by CBC Radio's Quirks & Quarks and CBC Television's The Nature of Things
- the crowds of kids and adults who fill science centres, science museums, and open science days at universities and research centres
If you read this far, you care - and you have an opinion. Please share!
28 Nov 2014
DePizan Awards go to Three Amazing Scientists! Who Ahem Happen to be Women...
Posted by Helaine Becker
Earlier this month I had the privilege of attending the award ceremony for the De Pizan Awards, given by the National Women's History Museum in Washington, DC. The awards are named for Christine de Pizan, the first woman in the West to write about women's history (that was in the 14th century!).
This year, the awards went to three incredible women, all of whom worked in STEM fields, and all of whom work to make the world a better place.
The first was Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior. Trained as an engineer, Jewell has worked tirelessly for environmental issues. The award she received is named for Rachel Carson, scientist and the author of Silent Spring, the book that 'kickstarted' the environmental movement.
 |
| Sally Jewell accepting her award, chokes up as she thanks her 'brave' grade 4 teacher! |
The second winner was Katherine G. Johnson, a pioneering mathematician who calculated the trajectories to the moon for the Apollo space program. She received the Maria Mitchell Award, named for an influential American astronomer and educator (more about Katherine below!)
 |
| Katherine Johnson sent a video acceptance for her award. |
 |
| Johnson's daughters, Kathy and Joylette, shown here with NWHM's President, Joan Wages, accepting the award on Johnson's behalf. |
The third award went to Debbie Sterling, the inventor of Goldieblox. Sterling earned a degree as a Mechanical Engineer. She tells how she had a revelation when visiting a toy store, and being shocked and disgusted by the 'pinkified' toy aisles featuring toys ' for girls' - toys that included ironing boards and dress up princess outfits. She decided she'd use her training as an engineer to create construction toys that would defy stereotype and convention. Check out this PSA which Sterling spearheaded: "This is Your Brain on Princess."
 |
| Debbie Sterling, accepting her award, speaks out against sexism and 'pinkification.' |
Why is this? It's not bad enough that girls and women have been denied opportunities in the STEM fields.
Or that girls and women are told, explicitly and implicitly, that science careers are not for women (witness the pinkified toy aisles, or the teacher who holds up one of my science-related books in front of a class and says, 'You boys will like this one!').
But even when women DO make careers in science, and contribute hugely, like Katherine Johnson, their accomplishments are ignored, swept under the carpet, neglected. Their stories are lost to history, confirming what is patently false: that women don't do science.
Here is the truth:
Women do science. They excel at science. They make great discoveries and advance the knowledge of the human race, just as capably as men.
So I have decided to correct the injustice, in my own small way, by making it my 'mission' to tell stories like Johnson's. I'm a writer, and a science writer. I can do this!
But where to start?
In August, I contacted the Johnson family and told them what I wanted to do. I asked for Johnson's blessing, and permission to interview her and her family about her extraordinary life.
Johnson was delighted - no one had ever asked her if they could write a children's book about her! It turns out she'd volunteered as a literacy tutor for much of her adult life, so the idea of having children be able to read about her...well, let's just say it made her happy to imagine kids being inspired by her story.
That initial conversation brought me to D.C. for the De Pizan awards, where I was able to meet Johnson's family in person for the first time. They have so, so graciously invited me into their lives, and are giving me the opportunity to conduct interviews with them all! I am looking forward both to getting to know this wonderful family better, and to hearing what I am sure are going to be some incredible stories.
I know I'm not alone in wanting to tell stories like Johnson's. The We Need Diverse Books campaign evolved out of frustration at the glacial pace of change in the children's book industry. The campaign seeks to correct the imbalance that exists in children's books, which still predominantly feature subjects and authors that are primarily white and primarily male. (For more info, see stats here.)
So let's get cracking! Please support the We Need Diverse Books Campaign, and the National Women's History Museum!
21 Nov 2014
Why You Don't Bite Your Tongue Every Time You Eat and Other Amazing Tongue Facts
by Jan Thornhill
I went out for dinner with friends a couple of nights ago. Chinese dumplings. Yum! I was so hungry and was eating so fast that I chomped down on my own tongue. Hard. The cut was deep enough that I thought for a minute I might need stitches...except there were more dumplings to eat. Though it hurt like heck (tip: stop eating hot sauce or anything acidic for a day or two after biting your tongue!), I decided to leave it and see what happened. By the end of dinner it had stopped bleeding. By bedtime, the flap that I'd almost sheared off had sealed itself neatly back in place, and by the end of the following day it appeared to be completely healed. Amazing!
Our tongues, it turns out, heal faster than any other part of our bodies except our corneas. Unless you have a severe tongue injury, in which case you should visit the ER, your tongue is so rich in blood vessels that nutrients and oxygen and other repair factors are delivered with such speed that a small self-inflicted wound will completely heal in only a day or two.
Your tongue's primary job is to move solid food into position between your teeth to be chewed, and then to shift that wad of mashed food, properly called a bolus, toward your throat so you can swallow it. The amazing thing is how precise this complex action is. Though we are capable of consciously controlling how we chew, most of the time when we're eating we're not thinking about what our tongues and jaws are doing at all. So how do we, and other mammals, manage to avoid eating our own tongues? Well, science is making great strides in answering this question. New research with mice has now shown that, while eating, connections between premotor neurons that control jaw and tongue muscles are exquisitely coordinated, making it impossible to automatically close the mouth without the tongue being simultaneously retracted.
As well as helping us to eat, the tongue is also adept at cleaning our teeth and helping us drink. It also works like a piston, allowing us to suck, which is a vitally important function for toothless babies: the tongue produces low pressure when it moves backwards with the mouth closed, which causes fluid to be sucked in. Next time you're having a drink using a straw, try to get some liquid in your mouth without moving your tongue—you'll see that it's impossible.
Bet you can't say this three times fast: "The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep's sick." New research is now offering an explanation for why tongue twisters like this twist our tongues (I think I just made up a new one!).
When we speak, the brain acts like a symphony conductor, perfectly coordinating the complex movements of tongue, lips, jaw, and larynx to produce words. But how does it do it? Using electrodes on brain surgery patients, scientists have recently been able to pinpoint the specific locations of brain activity that coincide with the enunciation of various common English syllables. When these areas of the brain were mapped out, it was found that consonants and vowels are controlled quite differently, even when the sounds enunciated are produced in the same parts of the vocal tract. On top of that, the brain appears to coordinate the formation of words according to the muscles that need to move to produce them instead of by sound, as was previously thought. Front-of-the-mouth sounds, for instance, like "sss" and "shh," are clustered very closely together in the brain, which makes it much easier for our mouths to get confused when trying to produce these sounds in an overlapping series, hence our difficulty in repeating tongue twisters.
Have you ever wondered why your doctor asks you to stick out your tongue? Doctors can actually tell a lot about your health by looking at your tongue. In Western medicine, a darker or lighter than normal tongue can be a sign of serious medical issues, as can dark spots or patchiness. Practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine take the state of one's tongue even more seriously and believe that even subtle changes in the tongue's colour, coating, and shape can tell them so much about other parts of a patient's body that there are whole books devoted to the practice of tongue diagnostics.
 |
| Most, though not all, people can make a simple tongue roll. A few can make multiple rolls. Four is called a "cloverleaf." (Wikipedia) |
Ouch!
I went out for dinner with friends a couple of nights ago. Chinese dumplings. Yum! I was so hungry and was eating so fast that I chomped down on my own tongue. Hard. The cut was deep enough that I thought for a minute I might need stitches...except there were more dumplings to eat. Though it hurt like heck (tip: stop eating hot sauce or anything acidic for a day or two after biting your tongue!), I decided to leave it and see what happened. By the end of dinner it had stopped bleeding. By bedtime, the flap that I'd almost sheared off had sealed itself neatly back in place, and by the end of the following day it appeared to be completely healed. Amazing!
 |
| If you look under your tongue, you'll see how rich it is in blood vessels it. (Miserlou - Wikipedia) |
Why We Don't Bite Our Tongues Every Day
Your tongue's primary job is to move solid food into position between your teeth to be chewed, and then to shift that wad of mashed food, properly called a bolus, toward your throat so you can swallow it. The amazing thing is how precise this complex action is. Though we are capable of consciously controlling how we chew, most of the time when we're eating we're not thinking about what our tongues and jaws are doing at all. So how do we, and other mammals, manage to avoid eating our own tongues? Well, science is making great strides in answering this question. New research with mice has now shown that, while eating, connections between premotor neurons that control jaw and tongue muscles are exquisitely coordinated, making it impossible to automatically close the mouth without the tongue being simultaneously retracted.
As well as helping us to eat, the tongue is also adept at cleaning our teeth and helping us drink. It also works like a piston, allowing us to suck, which is a vitally important function for toothless babies: the tongue produces low pressure when it moves backwards with the mouth closed, which causes fluid to be sucked in. Next time you're having a drink using a straw, try to get some liquid in your mouth without moving your tongue—you'll see that it's impossible.
Talking Tongues
 |
Owen Price's 1665 illustration of human speech.
|
Bet you can't say this three times fast: "The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep's sick." New research is now offering an explanation for why tongue twisters like this twist our tongues (I think I just made up a new one!).
When we speak, the brain acts like a symphony conductor, perfectly coordinating the complex movements of tongue, lips, jaw, and larynx to produce words. But how does it do it? Using electrodes on brain surgery patients, scientists have recently been able to pinpoint the specific locations of brain activity that coincide with the enunciation of various common English syllables. When these areas of the brain were mapped out, it was found that consonants and vowels are controlled quite differently, even when the sounds enunciated are produced in the same parts of the vocal tract. On top of that, the brain appears to coordinate the formation of words according to the muscles that need to move to produce them instead of by sound, as was previously thought. Front-of-the-mouth sounds, for instance, like "sss" and "shh," are clustered very closely together in the brain, which makes it much easier for our mouths to get confused when trying to produce these sounds in an overlapping series, hence our difficulty in repeating tongue twisters.
Stick Out Your Tongue!
 |
| Two pages from a treatise on the diagnostic value of the appearance of the tongue by Mosai Tsuchida (1765-1837) (Wikipedia) |
Fun Tongue Facts
 |
| Fountain in Pontevedra, Spain (Joseogon) |
- In many parts of the world, sticking your tongue out at someone is considered childish or rude behaviour. It is such an insult in Italy that in 2009 a man was fined almost $2,000 for sticking his tongue out at his neighbour! In Tibet, however, sticking one's tongue out is a friendly greeting. This practice began centuries ago as an offering of proof that someone is friendly, not an incarnation of Lang Darma, a cruel, black-tongued, 9th century king.
- Proportionately, the human tongue is has the most powerful muscles in the body. The record weight lifted by a tongue is 12.5 kg by Thomas Blackthorne.
- The bumps on your tongue are called papillae. These papillae are covered with taste buds, which are collections of nerve-like cells that connect to nerves that transmit information about taste to your brain. We each have between 3,000 and 10,000 taste buds in our mouths.
- The tongue is the most sensitive part of our body for touch. This high sensitivity allows us to test various aspects of food, such as shape and heat, and also protects us by magnifying unwanted objects, such as fish bones or small stones.
- The tongue can move in all directions, up, down, sideways, and back and forth. It can also roll, curl, hollow, and make grooves.
- Contrary to what was once believed, the tongue senses sweet, salty, sour, bitter, and umami tastes all over its surface, not just in specific areas.
- On average, men's tongues are longer than women's.
Fun Animal Tongue Facts:
- A blue whale's tongue weighs as much as an adult elephant!
 |
| Blue whale's have the biggest tongues on the planet. (NOAA) |
- A chameleon's tongue can extend twice the length of its body and can move faster than the human eye can follow, hitting its target in about 30 thousandths of a second.
- When a dog exercises, its tongue increases in size with greater blood flow and hangs out of its mouth. Moisture on the tongue along with panting help to cool the blood before it circulates back through the dog's body.
 |
| The longest dog tongue belonged to a boxer named Brandy. It was 17 inches long! |
- A cat's tongue has backwards-facing, hooked spines that help it comb its fur, removing dirt and parasites.
- Hummingbirds have long, forked tongues covered in grooves. New high-speed photography shows exactly how this special tongue draws liquid into a hummingbird's mouth. See video here.
 |
| Hummingbirds have very specialized tongues that allow them to sip nectar from deep flowers. (Dick Daniels) |
- An anteater's tongue is covered in sticky saliva while it feeds and can be flicked in and out of its mouth, entrapping ants and termites, up to 150 times a minute.
And, Finally, Something Really Gross
A dastardly parasite called Cymothoa exigua, or the tongue-eating louse, enters its fish victims through the gills. Once inside the fish's mouth, the female attaches itself to the tongue, eventually removing so much blood from it that the tongue atrophies. "How horrible!" you might say. But it's not quite as bad a situation for the fish as it sounds. Once the tongue is gone, this little crustacean latches onto the muscles of the remaining stub and BECOMES THE FISH'S NEW TONGUE! In this position, the parasite lives out its life, feeding on blood from the fish or mucus.
.jpg) |
| The tongue-eating louse, Cymothoa exigua, is the only known parasite that acts as a working replacement for a host organ! (Frank Schulenburg) |
References & Resources:
Edward Stanek IV, Steven Chang, Jun Takatoh, Bao-Xia Han, and Fan Wang. "Monosynaptic Premotor Circuit Tracing Reveals Neural Substrates for Oro-motor Coordination," eLife, June 3, 2014. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.02511
"Why tongue twisters are hard to say" - Nature.com
14 Nov 2014
Struck by Lightning: Creative Insight in Chemistry
 |
| Chemical Heritage Foundation [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons |
by Judy Wearing
Imagine your garden variety chemistry scientist at work. Did you conjure up a picture similar to mine? A man, in a white lab coat with several golden-brown stains on the front, or a ripped pocket. He’s well worn, and slightly careless with his appearance because he’s got better things to do with his time, i.e., make lots of precise measurements of mysterious powders and liquids, which he swirls in large beakers, very carefully because if anything splashes he’ll carry the scars of the resulting flesh wounds forever. He bends over a lot, paying close attention to his mixtures and balances, and hence has a hunched back. He is rather antisocial, or at least socially-stinted as he does not use words much in everyday life; his writing centres around equations and long names of compounds with unaesthetic suffixes like ene and ic. He is considerably less romantic than my imaginary physicist, and far more esoteric than my biologist. He is the first to leave the pub, never buys the beer, and is unlikely to believe in fairies.
I don’t know any chemists, and I cannot conjure a single scrap of remembrance of any of the half dozen undergraduate chemistry profs who tried to teach me their discipline, such was the impression they made. I am quite sure that my imagined, biased, and uninformed stereotype is false. In fact, I am ashamed that I possess it in the first place – it is wrong, and I know better, for lots of reasons, one of which is that I’ve spent a good chunk of time with scientists of many stripes. They are generally nice people of both sexes with active social lives and a range of talents and abilities. I’d be more embarrassed to admit such a stereotype if I was not convinced it is so common to possess it, and that many will recognize or appreciate aspects of the image portrayed.
This stereotype, like many others through which we unwittingly perceive the world and the people in
 |
| Friedrich August Kekule |
"I was sitting writing on my textbook, but the work did not progress; my thoughts were elsewhere. I turned my chair to the fire and dozed. Again the atoms were gamboling before my eyes. This time the smaller groups kept modestly in the background. My mental eye, rendered more acute by the repeated visions of the kind, could now distinguish larger structures of manifold conformation; long rows sometimes more closely fitted together all twining and twisting in snake-like motion. But look! What was that? One of the snakes had seized hold of its own tail, and the form whirled mockingly before my eyes. As if by a flash of lightning I awoke; and this time also I spent the rest of the night in working out the consequences of the hypothesis…Let us learn to dream, gentlemen."
Kekulé was not under the influence of drugs, hallucinogenic or otherwise. And his description of the
.jpg)
These rational, scientific men are all evoking some external and sudden force to describe their creative insights. To avoid a new stereotype of chemists who stand out in the rain waiting to be struck by lightning in order to achieve scientific fame, here is how other scientists have described a moment of clarity:
“…as if from the clear sky above me – an idea popped into my head as emphatically as if a voice had shouted it.”
“in all directions…happy ideas came unexpectedly without effort like an inspiration.” Von Helmholtz, physicist
“Again and again the imaginary plan on which one attempts to build up order breaks down and then we must try another. This imaginative vision and faith in the ultimate success are indispensable. The pure rationalist has no place here.” Max Planck, physicist.
The experiences of these men and women are not reserved for the particularly fanciful or brilliant. In Platt and Baker survey of chemists, 33 % stated they received frequent assistance from intuition, while 50% occasionally experienced these insights. If you, like me, have a stereotype of the rational scientist, you will be mildly surprised by the more fanciful workings of their minds. These anecdotes suggest three conclusions:
- creativity is important for all sorts of mental processes, across disciplines - both science and art;
- a person who is an excellent analytic thinker can also be an excellent creative thinker; and,
- at least some common aspects of creativity happen in our brain without us being conscious of it, which gives the sensation of a vanilla shock. Or, being struck by lightning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)