The Palm Oil Crisis By Freya Wood

Did you know that palm oil is a component of 50% of all packaged products in supermarkets? Did you also know, palm oil production has devastating environmental consequences including greenhouse gas emissions and endangerment of precious species like orangutans? While the 20th century was drawing to a close, the palm oil industry began to boom—the versatile vegetable oil solving a multitude of problems faced by food and cosmetics manufacturers. However, it’s time to acknowledge the damage caused by this industry and do our part to protect the planet and its biodiversity.

Globally, three billion people use products containing palm oil, individually consuming an average of eight kilograms per year. Palm oil is a colourless, odourless liquid, stable at high temperatures and resistant to oxidation. Its antioxidant properties help prolong the shelf life of products and have additional health benefits, protecting against heart disease and cancer. Palm oil can also be used as a biofuel. In 2009 the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive made it a requirement for biofuels to comprise ten percent of all fuels by 2020. Consequently, EU imports of palm oil increased by 34% from 2009-2011. In the late nineties, governing bodies such as the EU were promoting healthier foods and balanced diets. This led to manufacturers replacing trans fats with palm oil, further increasing its import and consumption. While other vegetable oils are also suitable for these purposes, palm yields five times more oil than rapeseed and six times more than sunflower for the same area of land. This makes it cheaper for customers and generates higher profits for the industry. Consumer pressure on cosmetic companies to stop using animal products may also have inadvertently increased use, as palm oil is used as a replacement for animal tallow. The issue of palm oil is a complex one as it has been introduced in many cases to combat other modern-day issues such as fossil fuel burning, unhealthy foods and animal testing.

85% of palm oil is produced in Malaysia and Indonesia from the oil palm tree Elaeis guineensis. Originally endemic to Africa, the tropical climates of Southeast Asia provide perfect growing conditions for 27 million hectares of oil palm trees— an area equivalent in size to New Zealand. Plantations are created through large scale deforestation and burning of tropical rainforests. This releases millions of tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in quantities far outweighing the carbon offsets from using palm oil instead of fossil fuels. In fact, palm-based fuels release gases with three times the climate impact of regular fossil fuels. In 2015, forest burning in Indonesia caused the country to overtake the USA in terms of greenhouse gas emissions despite the USA being five times larger and far more industrialised. There is also a significant human cost of oil palm plantations, as local people are displaced from their land for industry. Today, 700 land conflicts are ongoing in Indonesia, with livelihoods of local people being destroyed to make way for international corporations.

As consumer demand for palm oil increased, annual production quadrupled from 1999 to 2015. In this same time period, an estimated 100,000 orangutans were killed as their habitats were destroyed and cleared for plantations. Orangutans eat palm seedlings and are considered pests by plantation workers. Some companies even offer monetary rewards up to $100 (£64) for workers who capture orangutans. It is unclear what then happens to these animals. One possibility is that they are sold into the illegal exotic pet trade with young and cute orangutans taken from their mothers who are killed. One conservation program reported treating 15 shot orangutans over the last ten years who had collectively sustained more than 500 pellet wounds.  Orangutans already have low reproductive rates so killing sexually mature females and removing young individuals from natural habitats destabilises populations further. Arfiana Khairunnisa from the Centre for Orangutan Protection in Kalimantan warns that orangutans will become extinct in the wild within five years if we don’t take action.

What can we do to reduce palm oil consumption? The short answer is to buy palm oil free products. However, this is easier said than done due to the sheer volume of products containing it. The Roundtable of Sustainable Palm Oil certifies oil from plantations that protect local communities and the environment. Sustainable products are clearly labelled in supermarkets and buying them will encourage more manufacturers to use sustainable sources. Reducing the impact of existing plantations is an effective way of meeting demand while preventing further deforestation. Developing more prolific oil palm crops with higher yields may allow us to produce more oil without worsening the orangutan’s habitat loss. Action needs to be taken to protect our rainforests and wildlife. Us consumers have the power to pressurise industry and demand ethical and sustainable palm oil.

Space Pork: Why the new Lunar Station is a terrible idea by Luke Richardson

Nasa has announced plans to return to the moon, for good this time. I was incredibly excited to read this plan to build a new space station in orbit around our moon! How awesomely Flash Gordon is that? So it is unfortunate that this new moon station, catchily dubbed LOP-G, is a terrible idea on almost every level. It is a story of physics, money, powerful lobbies and misplaced enthusiasm- but we’ll start with physics.

To get anywhere in the solar system, you have to accelerate. The acceleration of a rocket is fixed by its fuel reserves and its mass. This is called delta-V, given in Kilometers per Second. delta-V must be spent to escape from earth, then spent to slow down again to orbit whatever it is that you’re visiting, and if you want to come home, do the whole thing in reverse. Saturn 5, the most powerful rocket ever flown, had around 18 km/s of delta-V. You need 9.2 km/s to get into earth orbit, so fully half of the Saturn’s performance was lost just to get to orbit.

There are ways to get more delta-V after launch. Spacecraft can steal the momentum of planets to accelerate using gravity assists, but this is complicated and takes years, so is no good for humans. If you could refuel your rocket in space, you could refill your delta-V, travelling further, faster or taking more stuff! There is just one enormous problem: the fuel comes from earth too. It must be flown up at ludicrous expense ($5000/kg), making it cheaper to build a bigger, badder rocket that could get further on its own in the first place.

This idea could work if you could make the fuel in space. Hydrogen and Oxygen are both found in ice, which is found on the moon. Making rocket fuel out of this could work. However, the infrastructure to do this doesn’t exist, and is not planned as part of LOP-G. All the fuel must come from earth, defeating the point. If your spaceship decided to stop at the moon station on the way to mars, and the moon has no fuel, it has just wasted precious delta-V by slowing down to stop in lunar orbit.

It’s even a bad idea for exploring the moon itself: the orbit chosen (a Near Halo Rectilinear Orbit, for the curious) is not the most efficient one for landings, and as there is no fuel on the moon, landers will still have to be expendable. It’s not even safer than Apollo- a crew stuck on the moon is equally doomed, and it is far enough away that no “Lifeboats” could be ready if LOP-G goes down, as there are on the ISS. LOP-G cannot return to earth alone, either.

Why then, is this the plan? NASA is really, really, clever. They landed on the Moon already, with 60s technology! No superfast computers. All design done with paper and rulers. They know LOP-G in its current form is useless! They are not doing it because it is best, but because it employs the most people.

NASA projects employ 10s of 1000s of Americans, and congressmen and women vote for NASA funding to keep jobs in their states. However, they do not care if the resulting space tech is good, only that the aerospace companies in their states don’t lose work. To them, a project that never flies is perfect, a cash-cow that lasts forever. There is a catchy name for this stuff- ‘Space Pork’, projects that only exist to bring home the bacon. Indeed, the mighty SLS, the rocket supposed to build LOP-G is made almost entirely out of Space Shuttle spare parts- shuttle boosters, the same engines, even the same orange fuel tank. This is deliberate by congress- the companies that did so well building shuttles do not want to lose their work, and they have lobbied not to. SLS is $4.5 billion over budget, and four years late, minimum.

SpaceX has demonstrated almost meteoric success, and this lack of political pork really helps. SpaceX does not get money regardless of success: their jobs will not exist if good rockets do not make it into space. Those who fund SpaceX have a stake in seeing the best, most efficient rockets and missions fly- those who fund NASA do not; just the budget to fund the space pork and bring home the bacon. LOP-G is the latest wasteful pork project, and we should not be dazzled by the words “Moon space station” but ask instead what else could have been done with 9 billion dollars (That’s 145 falcon 9 rockets, or 100 falcon heavies). It is time to ditch the old way of space pork and use money more wisely.

The Science of Awards Ceremonies – Can We Predict Our Winners? by Freya Wood

Millions of viewers tune in to the Academy Awards each year: a spectacle of Hollywood glamour, couture fashion, excitement and surprise. As the last big ceremony of awards season, with the same few actors, directors and films nominated as in most award shows—are the Oscars really that unpredictable? And if we can foresee the winners, why do we avidly tune in year on year?

Mathematician Iain Pardoe has developed a statistical model capable of predicting Oscar winners with an impressive 75% accuracy. Since 2005, Iain has correctly predicted all top four award winners (best picture, best director, leading actor and leading actress) in 2008, 2009, 2013 and 2014. Data science company Farsite have also developed a dynamic model which considers static data such as a film’s genre, critical reception and cast as well as real-time award wins and nominations. This model has a slightly higher success rate at 83%. So what factors decide who wins and who goes home empty-handed?

The most significant predictive factor for Oscar winners is their success at preceding awards shows. 25 films have achieved the ‘big five’ since 1996, winning the top prize at the Golden Globes, BAFTAs, Critic’s Choice and Screen Actors Guild (SAG) awards before going on to clinch best picture at the Oscars. The SAG awards are most predictive of the academy awards due to similar voting procedures. Both the SAG and Oscars are voted for by a nominee’s peers in the film industry. Many SAG members are also members of the academy and therefore the voting pool overlaps, causing significant similarity between winners.

To win best picture, nominees generally need a best director nomination. This rule was broken by Green Book this year as Peter Farrelly failed to receive a best director nod. Best picture hopefuls also require a best screenplay nomination in order to win. However, Titanic sunk this rule in 1998 being the only film in 50 years to win best picture without a screenplay nomination.  Curiously, the number of nominations a person has received over their career is a significant predictor for best leading actor but not leading actress. Total number of nominations for a particular film is an important predictor for both best picture and director but interestingly not for either acting accolade. When it comes to best director, winning the Director’s Guild Award almost guarantees an Oscar win, recently demonstrated by Alfonso Cuarόn for Roma. Perhaps unsurprisingly, box office success is not of huge importance when predicting best picture. If it was, 2019’s winner could have been Black Panther, with winning film Green Book placing fourth.

Alfonso Cuarón with his Director’s Guild Award for Roma

A piece of advice to filmmakers—if you want to win an Oscar, don’t make an animation, foreign language film, remake or sequel. 93% of all best picture winners have been dramas, with actors nine times more likely to be nominated for a dramatic role. Furthermore, US actors dominate the Oscars, winning 4/5 prizes each year, while only comprising 2/3 nominations. The same trend is seen for British actors at the BAFTAs. But where does this bias come from? Dr Niklas Steffens from the University of Queensland explains that actors are more likely to win awards if they belong to the same social group as voters. Sharing a social group makes the audience more likely to perceive a performance as exceptional regardless of its objective quality. The existence of this bias allows us to predict that Green Book, a drama about Americans in America would win the Academy Award over Black Panther, a superhero action feature about Africans in Africa. Compiling all this information into a single model makes it relatively simple to predict which films and performers are in with a realistic shot of winning.

Olivia Colman’s charming reception of the Best Actress Oscar

If the Oscars are so predictable, why do we continue to tune in with such excitement and anticipation? Stuart Fischoff, Professor of Psychology at California State University suggests it’s down to humankind’s natural sociality. Our attention is drawn by the ‘alpha’ male and females in the group, otherwise known as celebrities. We form emotional attachments to characters and stories as we watch films and by extension, the actors that play them. Perhaps the biggest reason to watch the Oscars is the fear of missing out if we don’t, commonly known as FOMO. As social animals, we crave the approval of others and the feeling of fitting in with a group. Being unable to join in global conversations surrounding a large-scale community event is therefore undesirable. Of course, there is the possibility of surprise, and everyone loves an underdog. Take Olivia Colman for example, Iain Pardoe’s model had her lagging way behind Glenn Close in the race for best leading actress, her win was unexpected but by no means disappointing.

So, no matter how predictable the Oscars may become FOMO will make sure we continue to tune in. Perhaps recent efforts to diversify the Academy Awards will succeed in returning the ceremony to the unpredictable celebration of film and creativity it is supposed to be.

And the Oscar goes to… an American in an American drama about Americans in America. Probably.

 

Sources:

https://www.inverse.com/article/26858-how-to-predict-oscar-winners-statistics-2017-nominations

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/predict-oscars/

https://qz.com/quartzy/1221022/oscars-2018-the-ultimate-statistical-model-for-predicting-the-academy-awards-best-picture-winner/

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/big.2013.0009

https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/psychology-explains-how-win-oscar

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/23/oscar-psychology-academy-awards_n_2750759.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw&guce_referrer_cs=Kmaw9trAKg0rwr9NncVNKg

https://www.businessinsider.com/who-votes-for-oscars-2016-1?r=US&IR=T

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/01/222436/who-votes-sag-awards-aftra-screen-actors-guild-2019

A World Without Sex? by Libby Pool

Zookeepers at Louisville Zoo, USA, were astounded when they found Thelma the python had laid 61 eggs in her enclosure. But why were they so amazed? Laying eggs is quite normal for pythons. What made this event so miraculous was that no male had slithered anywhere near Thelma. How did she produce offspring without an act of copulation?

Thelma had become the first reticulated python in the world to have a ‘virgin birth,’ triggering new genetic research into this peculiar phenomenon. DNA evidence confirmed that Thelma really was the sole parent of the hatchlings. In the words of Bill McMahan, the zoo’s curator of ectotherms, “I guess sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.”

Despite this, such ‘virgin births’ where females produce offspring from an ovum without fertilisation are actually seen throughout nature. Scientifically termed ‘parthenogenesis,’ virgin births have been recorded in species from bees to Komodo dragons and new cases are being recorded all the time. But how can it be possible to fertilise an ovum without a sperm?

The nuts and bolts…

Parthenogenesis may occur in two ways, which you can read about here. In the case of Thelma, she replaced the fertilising sperm with a ‘polar body:’ a by-product of her dividing cells. All offspring are half clones of their mother.

Other examples of parthenogenesis in nature…

Two particularly interesting examples of parthenogenesis occur in species of stick insect and sawfish. Many scientists have predicted that females turn to parthenogenesis as a last resort. When population sizes are low, it becomes less likely that a female will find a mate. This is especially troublesome for shark species that lead solitary lifestyles, roaming open ocean waters and only occasionally bumping into others. One species, the smalltooth sawfish, was found to commit parthenogenesis in the wild in 2015. This discovery came completely by chance. Ecologists studying genetic variation in the population came across young, healthy sawfish created through virgin births. This was quite the revelation! The species is likely using parthenogenesis as a survival strategy against their declining populations. As ecologist, Kevin Feldheim, described, “if they can’t find a mate, it’s possible this mechanism kicks in as a last-ditch effort for these females to pass on their genes.”

Despite this, female stick insects actually choose to go solo in reproduction even when presented with ample mating opportunities. Reproduction can be costly for females, so they’d rather go at it alone. In studies, female giant prickly stick insects have fought off advancing males by kicking their hind legs. They also produced anti-aphrodisiac chemicals to put the boys off.

Do we really need males?

These virgin births beg the question: what does the future hold for males? Male giant prickly stick insects could be at risk of dying out, as females will quite happily reproduce via parthenogenesis, only produce female offspring when they do so. However, in many species including stick insects, evidence suggests males will force females to mate with them. Typically, males win these sexual conflicts more often than females do, giving them a fighting chance at survival. This is thought to be one of the reasons why parthenogenesis remains rare. Another reason is that it typically requires optimal conditions to occur. Thelma, for instance, was kept at perfect temperature with an unlimited food source. She had “the optimal conditions to make the biological leap into solo parenthood” claimed McMahan. Obviously, such perfect conditions rarely occur naturally.

Parthenogenesis does have its advantages. For example, if a species became isolated on an island, it would be able to increase its numbers without the need for sexual reproduction. This has been seen in species of whiptail lizard. However, virgin births can carry huge costs for the offspring they produce. Parthenogenesis is essentially inbreeding, leaving individuals vulnerable to diseases and malformations associated with decreased genetic diversity. For this reason, scientists recommended that Komodo dragons were not kept in captive isolation for fear they may begin cloning themselves. This would reduce genetic diversity in the already vulnerable population. Similarly, a captive pit viper gave birth to one stillborn snake and four undeveloped ova through parthenogenesis. This indicates that ‘virgin births’ are far from ideal and often end in early mortality or maldevelopment.

For now, it seems the boys are safe. Species do require males to maintain viable populations as the health costs of decreased genetic diversity are just too great. Evolution is a clever phenomenon. It has given species a way to reproduce asexually when the chances of mating sexually are dire. This helps populations persist through times of stress. However, it has created mechanisms to control virgin births, preventing them from becoming so common that species suffer from inbreeding depression. Thanks to evolution, we won’t see a world without sex anytime soon.

References:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20141219-spectacular-real-virgin-births

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20151216-virgin-births-are-happening-everywhere

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141023-virgin-birth-pythons-snakes-animals-science/

China’s race to the top in Science by Samuel Liew

As China’s economy is showing signs of regression, President Xi Jinping has called for massive development of the scientific field in the region, “Space exploration is part of the dream to make China stronger.” Knowledge in Science and Technology provides a driving force for sustainable developments in China, responsible for economic reforms and social transformation. Hence, a literate scientific community holds the responsibility to continually put China on stage with other dominant players in Science.

It seems almost decades ago that scientists dreamt of pursuing academia in Science outside of China, where there were more opportunities and funding into research. Nowadays, Chinese scientists can make a global impact from within China itself. This is mostly due to initiatives such as 2008’s Thousand Talents Plan that aimed to lure talented scientists back to China, offering useful resources and full-time positions at prestigious universities. Annual expenditure on Science and Technology in China increased by 30-times as compared to two decades ago, peaking at a whopping $234billion in 2016.

Due to this increase in funding, scientists were encouraged to produce breakthroughs. In 2018, Chinese scientists were successful in cloning macaque monkeys. However, the study lacked viability, as only two live births were successful out of 79 attempts and major publications such as Nature refused to publish the paper due to ethical concerns. Regardless, this achievement in cloning our close evolutionary relative placed China at the forefront of stem cell research. Another researcher, Zuo Wei utilised stem cells to repair lungs damaged due to emphysema. Air pollution is still a major environmental issue in China and results from this research could be useful in helping those deeply affected by it.

Not only has China gained scientific prowess in Biology, but it also aims to be at the forefront of space research. On January 3rd this year, China’s Chang’e-4 spacecraft successfully landed on the far (dark) side of the moon, a first for any country, utilising a pre-positioned relay satellite and a robotic lander vehicle. There are plans to follow up on this success with additional probes being sent to the Moon and an exploration of Mars next year. These space missions are aimed to propel China ahead of the US and Russia in the next decade, possibly to increase its military power, as space assets such as GPS and precision-guided missiles are essential in the success of missions.

In 2016, China built the world’s largest radio telescope, Five-hundred-metre Aperture Spherical Telescope (FAST), which is twice the size of the next largest telescope in Puerto Rico. The radio telescope can sense very faint radio wave frequencies from space in the hopes to discover new gas clouds, galaxies, and quasars. Since the last director, Nan Rendong, passed away in September 2017, there has been difficulty in attracting a new director and other astronomers to oversee this high-profile project in the remote village where the telescope is located. The problems were compounded when the government started to build tourist amenities in a nearby town. Even though mobile phones are prohibited on site, radio frequency interference (RFI) from the nearby town could affect research. Therefore, the fine balance between economic development or valuable scientific research needs to be carefully considered for the success of the infrastructure built.

The number of scientific publications in China has outnumbered that of US in 2016, partly due to increasing incentives within China, which is needed to maintain enthusiasm amongst researchers. However, there is the argument that quantity does not equate quality, as there were allegations that scientists fabricate and plagiarise results to pass their annual performance evaluations. Another worry is that scientists may not abide by ethical guidelines, such as the creation of gene-edited embryos that is resistant to HIV infection by Dr He Jiankui that were then implanted into volunteers. This misconduct is due to the lack of quality control and lax regulatory laws. The Chinese government has thus established an official agency to oversee scientific integrity to raise standards.

The scientific boom in China is reminiscent of that of the West in the 20th century. Has China been catching up instead of forging ahead? For China to forge ahead, they need to constantly and critically evaluate their data and be willing to share information with other countries. There also needs to be a focus of practical translational applications in healthcare or for the greater good when undertaking research, instead of focusing on incentives provided by the government. Can Chinese scientists break free of the embedded authoritarian culture, where they have to answer to higher powers that want results, no matter the cost? Only time will tell. Regardless, all of these achievements boast China as a force to be reckoned with in Science and everyone should keep an eye on the latest innovations that are to come.

References:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/18/china-great-leap-forward-science-research-innovation-investment-5g-genetics-quantum-internet

https://www.wired.com/story/china-fast-worlds-largest-telescope-tourists/

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2019/01/12/can-china-become-a-scientific-superpower

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/world/asia/china-gene-editing-babies-he-jiankui.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2dcjFCvnmU

Why does salt make food taste better? by Sophie Ball

Everyone loves food, not just because it’s vital for our survival, but because it’s a way we socialise with friends and the way we deal with breakups – who doesn’t love a good binge eat. One particular thing we love to binge is salty foods. We love it because our bodies need sodium chloride (salt), simply put.

We use salt in all different manners from regulating fluids to creating nerve pulses. Unlike other minerals, however, we can’t store it so we need to have a daily intake to maintain our salt levels.

Individual cells on our tongue respond to several tastes each with their own sensitivity. Salt can intensify likeable tastes while diminishing unpleasant tastes by allowing these taste receptors to sense flavours they couldn’t detect before. In low concentrations, salt can enhance sweetness, suppressing bitter flavours. While in high concentrations, salt suppresses sweetness yet enhances sumani (which detects glutamic acid, a part of a protein), so is good for savoury dishes.

The ‘myth’ of salt improving the taste of food is actually true. When salt is added to a recipe, the dish doesn’t become salty; rather it alters protein interactions with other components such as fat and water, changing the food’s texture. Cheeses can become more dense, breads more firm and meats more juicy.

Adding salt throughout the cooking process in slow-cooked meats allows the salt to disperse within the food molecules. Similarly, soaking meats in salty water, aka brine, before cooking allows it to soak through the meat to loosen the proteins and give the meat more moisture and flavour. Who knew this would turn into an article about cooking tips?

Enhancing the flavour of foods through salt can also be achieved after the meal has been made. There are many different types of salt to serve different purposes like curing salt for curing meats (obviously), or kosher salt used for making crusts on meat due to its coarser grains. Popcorn or table salt is very fine allowing it to adhere easily to popcorn kernels or French fries.

Too much salt can have severe effects, however. A high salt diet can cause high blood pressure without you knowing, increasing the risk of heart disease and stroke. The NHS recommends having no more than 2.4g of sodium intake (6g of salt) each day for adults, 0.4g more than that of WHO’s (Worldwide Health Organisation) recommendation. This is also following the UK’s national project to reduce salt consumption due to, on average, Brits having 8g of salt each day. This may be due to the amount of high salt foods that are common in our diet compared to other western countries e.g. pasties and, of course, a cup of tea (unless you like a bland cuppa, like me).

So to summarise, salt makes foods taste better because it releases other flavours in the food but too much can cause serious problems, so try to cut down those late-night salty craves!

References

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/09/why-salt-enhances-flavor/

https://www.finecooking.com/article/salt-makes-everything-taste-better

https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/why-does-salt-enhance-flavour/

Bacteria can’t make snow… or can they? by Megan Smith-Cerdán

When you’re skiing in a ski resort with artificial snow, what crosses your mind as you gracefully glide (or fall) down those gigantic slopes? Perhaps you wondered where on Earth all this fake snow even came from? I bet you didn’t think bacteria made it possible.

Scientists have been battling with the creation of artificial snow for many years, the first attempted use being in 1946 where they dropped super-cooled ice crystals over the clouds of Mount Greylock in Massachusetts. Attempts at manipulating the weather developed greatly during World War II when scientists at the General Electric Research Laboratory wanted to create fog to mask ships out at sea. It was in 1932 that Irving Langmuir, a Nobel prize winning chemist, encouraged the likes of Vincent Schaefer to join the General Electric Research Laboratory as his research associate. The race to produce artificial snow had commenced and word got out in 1936 that scientists at the University of Japan had managed to create artificial ice crystals in the laboratory. This was the catalyst Schaefer needed, and in 1940 he successfully created replicas of snowflakes from thin plastic sheeting. Although the war interrupted his particular research focus, soon after Schaefer was experimenting with cloud formation in a closed chamber. When he added dry ice to drop the temperature of the chamber to allow cloud formation, water vapour surrounded the dry ice and to the scientist’s surprise, he had created rain and snow crystals. This is the backstory to Schaeffer’s breakthrough which lead to the experiment over Mount Greylock. It was Schaeffer’s method which was used to infiltrate clouds with dry ice in an attempt to create snow.

If only these scientists knew about the bacterium Pseudomonas syringae. This bacterium contains a protein on its surface which facilitates ice formation at higher temperatures (around -4oC to -2oC). The ice-nucleating protein (INP), found on their surfaces, works by forcing the water molecules it is in contact with into an alignment which promotes freezing and formation of ice crystals. This is a fairly recent discovery made in 1975 by Steve Lindow, a graduate who was studying plant pathology at the University of California at the time. Why would a plant pathologist discover this? It is because these bacteria infect many frost-sensitive plants. They use the proteins on their surface to form ice crystals which pierce into the plants, creating more holes for bacteria to enter through. Once inside, they take up plant nutrients and inject proteins to prevent bacterial recognition and alter functions in the cell- helping bacterial colonies to expand.

Retreating back to the subject of artificial snow slopes, in 1987 Snowmax® was the first commercialised artificial snow product. Snowmax® has been on the market for over 25 years, selling a powder which when mixed with water makes fake snow. One of the additives in the powder contains proteins (including INP from P. syringae) that allow water to freeze at higher temperatures. It is a very successful global company; however, it has suffered some criticism over the use of bacteria as an additive. Snowmax® (along with other artificial snow brands) has been banned in some places such as Austria and Bavaria, and since 2005 there has been a moratorium (temporary prohibition of activity) in place in France due to health and environmental concerns. Whilst Carmen de Jong, a hydrologist from the University of Strasbourg in France says that “different studies have shown that Snowmax can have a very negative impact on human health”, others disagree. Professor Richard Braun, who investigated the use of Snowmax® for the Swiss Biolink Institute, stated that it is “…produced from inactivated micro-organisms and is harmless to the health of humans, animals and plants”. However, as a result of global warming around half the Swiss ski resorts use artificial snow and therefore Professor Brown’s opinion may be considered to be biased.

Three predominant threats to human health were considered when the French Agency for Environmental and Occupational Health Safety (Afsset) were called in to assess the risks of bacterial additives in artificial snow- infection, toxicity and allergy. Another consideration was the promotion of growth of other microorganisms in the water due to P. syringae.

Infection- There is no pathogenic capacity of P. syringae to humans seeing as they can’t survive temperatures above 32oC, lower than our average human body temperature (37oC). Apart from the fact they have been used for about ten years for the biological control of post-harvesting blight in fruit, many of which we eat raw.

Toxicity- It is all in relation to the endotoxins found on the surfaces of a classification of bacteria known as Gram-negative (of which P. syringae falls under). Endotoxins trigger inflammatory and haemodynamic (blood flow) responses post-contact with mucous membranes (respiratory, ocular and gastrointestinal) and skin. These responses are what trigger asthma and pulmonary or respiratory dysfunctions. The results of acute toxicity studies on rats showed characteristics such as significantly increased lung weight, but it only caused slight irritation- no infection was found. Additionally, these endotoxins are found in many other bacteria which we as humans are frequently exposed to without any risk, hence it is determined that the products don’t pose any additional toxic danger.

Allergens- It has been noted that P. syringae has some antigenic structures which could trigger immune responses when in contact with mucous membranes, skin or even wounds. Antibodies associated with this immune response have been reported in humans. However, there is still room for more research into the specificity of the immune responses.

Other microbial life- It has been reported that the P. syringae derived products and nutrients in the artificial snow powder can promote the growth of other pathogenic microorganisms found naturally-occurring in the water used to mix the powder with. This means that although the additive bacteria may be harmless, the pathogenic microbial life it supports could be a health risk.

So, the Jury is still out… Will you be skiing this summer?

 

https://www.massmoments.org/moment-details/first-artificial-snow-falls-on-mt-greylock.html

https://www.bspp.org.uk/downloads/education/BSPP_P_syringae_Info.pdf

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/video-these-microbes-are-key-making-artificial-snow

https://www.chemistryviews.org/details/ezine/8935791/Faking_It_The_Science_of_Artificial_Snow.html

http://www.snomax.com/

https://www.thelocal.ch/20151214/artificial-snow-could-make-you-sick-report

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969710000112

Gender and sports, Caster Semenya’s story By Samuel Liew

Caster Semenya has gained international fame for her ability on the track, winning the gold medal in both the 2012 and 2016 Olympics for 800m, amongst other accolades. However, with this extraordinary athletic performance came media scrutiny and discrimination throughout her career.

In 2009, after winning the World Championships and beating previous records, eyebrows were raised left and right on her tremendous ability to excel. Due to a combination of factors that include her rapid athletic progression and appearance, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) inquired a gender verification test to determine if she was truly female.

The tests include measuring functional testosterone levels, hoarseness of one’s voice, development of pubic hair and breasts, and the size of one’s labia, amongst others that aim to determine the degree of masculinity. We can all agree that this must be deeply humiliating, as it is a very personal affair that was thrown into the media spotlight. Moreover, public perception of the difference between gender and sex was and still is very shallow. For Semenya, who identifies and has grown up as female, this was very psychologically challenging and emotionally traumatising.

Semenya was found to have an unusually high testosterone level, which is called hyperandrogenism. The IAAF stated that women with higher testosterone levels confer an unfair advantage against others. This leads to the questions:

• How much testosterone should a woman naturally possess in order to compete professionally in the “female category”?
• Does testosterone enhance performance in sports?

The history of hyperandrogenism in the world of female sports has not been a smooth one. In 2015, Indian runner Dutee Chand was suspended from any race due to her naturally high testosterone levels. She appealed to the court and research from IAFF showed a mere 1-3% performance difference between testosterone levels in female athletes, compared to that of 10-12% between male and female athletes. Thus, the court ruled in favour of Chand and she was allowed to compete again.

Last year, IAFF ruled that athletes with hyperandrogenism are required to medically lower their testosterone levels to “normal female range” in order to compete in the 400m, 800m, and 1,500m. Many have criticised this decision and saw it as a targeted attack on Semenya who competes in middle-distance events. The research to back the ruling compared testosterone levels in high and low performing athletes in different events. The use of event-specific variables lacked validity, as athletes who take part in a specific event may all have low testosterone levels and vice versa.

Some, like the IAFF, view it as a medical condition that confers an advantage in sport and thus has to be controlled, whilst some like Semenya, see it as a genetic gift. Semenya said, “God made me the way I am and I accept myself.” These powerful words aim to rally support for her as she challenges the new restrictions in court and forces us to rethink gender-based regulations in sports.

Former World No. 1 tennis player, Billie Jean King said, “Forcing women with naturally high testosterone to give up ownership of their bodies and take drugs to compete in sport is barbaric, dangerous, and discriminatory.”

As a student of Biomedical Science, understanding biological processes is complex and merely attributing Semenya’s success to high testosterone levels is a completely reductionist perspective. Even with a different body chemistry compared to the norm, there still needs to be consistent perseverance and hard work, something Semenya has proved over and over again. Moreover, the author of the 2017 paper that led to the IAFF to change its regulations acknowledged that there has been no direct causation between the effects of testosterone on enhanced athletic performance in women.

This case has opened up conversations on what it means to be female in sports. Medical reports of Semenya has never been released but there have been suggestions that she has androgen insensitivity syndrome, meaning someone is genetically male but does not respond to or has a defect in the testosterone receptor gene during development, thus develops as female. Gender is complex and not a single trait – in this case, testosterone levels – can define a person’s gender. Semenya identifies as female and should be acknowledged as one. Kate Fagan, a sports commentator said, “I know Semenya is a woman because people are trying to control her body.” Some argue that men are not subjected to the same gender scrutiny and sports authorities are consistently obsessed with the definition of womanhood.

The one message to come out of this is the importance to understand gender fluidity and expression, and their difference between sex. Ignorance and the lack of knowledge can lead to insensitivity. Women and men with any genetic variations should be celebrated for their natural talents, not held back.

References

https://qz.com/africa/1558596/caster-semenya-challenges-world-athletics-gender-rules/

https://bjsm-bmj-com.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/content/bjsports/52/23/1540.full.pdf

https://bjsm-bmj-com.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/content/51/17/1309

https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/caster-semenya-does-limiting-testosterone-in-female-athletes-make-sport-fairer/

https://deadspin.com/the-debate-about-caster-semenya-isnt-about-fairness-1785355953

https://deadspin.com/the-obsession-with-caster-semenyas-body-was-racist-from-1832994493

How to not become a Zombie – through pills, exercise and fasting by Abdullah Iqbal

What causes aging?

Is it possible to reverse it?

What can you do to live a longer and healthier life?

One theory about aging involves the accumulation of senescent cells or I as I like to call them ‘zombie cells’ because these cells are very different from normal cells (emphasis on very). Instead of functioning as a normal cell does their gene expression changes which just means they produce different proteins.

Can’t be that bad? Oh, but it is because these proteins are pro-inflammatory which means they cause a whole host of effects such as uncontrolled tissue death. But worst of all is the spread of zombie cells which is like a rotten strawberry in a bowl of fruits, releasing toxins that cause the healthy cells to become dysfunctional.

The negative effects of zombie cell accumulation have been proven in recent experiments by Ming Xu and others at the Mayo Clinic. By injecting previously healthy young adult mice with one million senescent cells caused a significantly lower maximal walking speed, hanging endurance, and grip strength 1 month after transplantation compared to mice transplanted with control cells.

One million may sound like a lot but the average mouse is made up of over a trillion cells.

Chronic inflammation can lead to a whole host of diseases from rheumatoid arthritis to Alzheimer’s.

What scientists are doing to stop this?

Don’t worry there is a lot of research in this field.

One company Oisín is planning on loading a suicide gene into nanoparticles (tiny packets that can be modified to make sure that the drug is not broken down on its way to its target.) that will be delivered to all cells bit only activated in cells that express high levels of a marker for zombie cells called P16.

However, we must be careful for “Not every cell that expresses high p16 is senescent; and not every senescent cell has high p16,” says James Kirkland, a researcher who studies aging at the Mayo Clinic.

Another technique is senolytics which is the process of killing senescent cells using drugs. Two drugs which have been tested on human adipose fat) cells are dasatinib and quercetin. Xu said. “We observed a reduction in the inflammatory cytokines in these tissues, while key adipokines were not affected. This demonstrates that these senolytic drugs can decrease inflammation without a global killing effect.”

Adipokines are cell proteins which are released by cells and have anti-inflammatory effects which lead to the production.

Higher levels of adiponectin (an adipokine) are associated with greater insulin sensitivity and metabolic health. You wouldn’t want senolytic drugs to inhibit adiponectin at the same time as they are influencing inflammatory cytokines levels.

 

What you can do to remove your zombie cells?

Yes, there are ways that you can ensure you age healthily. It may be hard to implement at the start but remember it will be worth it in the end.

Exercise and fasting have both been shown to reduce the number of senescent cells.

Don’t think you have to go all out and fast for days because intermittent fasting has been shown to in animal models to promote autophagy, or cellular “self-eating” that helps clear out damaged cellular components including misfolded proteins.

Intermittent fasting may also help reduce inflammation and oxidative stress processes associated with cellular senescence. For example, oxidative stress shortens telomeres, the protective DNA caps at the ends of your chromosomes, which can lead to a cell becoming senescent.

Researchers have also found that exercise reduced the number of p16-positive senescent cells in transgenic mice fed a fast food diet.

 

Problems?

Research into reversing aging or stopping it for good raises many questions, because if we do discover a way to increase our lifespan or end aging. What effects will this have on society, culture and our already struggling planet?

We need to discuss these questions before we produce any viable treatments arrive, so we are ready for the consequences instead of being caught unaware as we have with climate change.

Bibliography

Ming, X .,et al (2018) ‘Senolytics improve physical function and increase lifespan in old age’, Nature Medicine, 24(), pp. 1246- Toussaint, O. , Salmon, M. , Pascal, T. , Magalhaes, J. P. and Chainiaux, F. (2005).  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-018-0092-9

Stress‐induced Premature Senescence (SIPS). In eLS, (Ed.). doi:10.1038/npg.els.0003865 1256. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-018-0092-9

Paige Brown Jarreau (2018) Don’t Be a Zombie: Senolytics, Exercise and Fasting Fight Off Senescent Cells, Available at: https://medium.com/lifeomic/dont-be-a-zombie-senolytics-exercise-and-fasting-fight-off-senescent-cells-cc720d88240 (Accessed: 02/03/19).

Zoë Corbyn (2018) Want to live for ever? Flush out your zombie cells , Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/06/race-to-kill-killer-zombie-cells-senescent-damaged-ageing-eliminate-research-mice-aubrey-de-grey (Accessed: 03/03/19).

My batteries are low and it’s getting dark: Opportunity by Luke B Richardson

Opportunity lasted fifty-six and a bit times longer than it was supposed to. It had a broken wheel, it’s instruments had run out of the radioactive power that made them function, and the memory in its computer had lost the ability to write anything down. It had also found Mars’ first meteorite, provided some of the first compelling evidence for water once existing on Mars, and even took pictures of its moons. The little rover, which only stands as high as your waist and as wide as a patio table, had achieved beyond it’s designer’s wildest dreams.

Opportunity and Spirit were twin rovers. Spirit was to be launched first, and was very much the “Lead” rover, with Opportunity being a nice bonus if both succeeded. Less than half of the probes sent to the surface of Mars had survived, so the two rovers were insurance. Both were named by nine-year-old Sophie Collis, who had won an essay competition, then packed onto two separate rockets and launched at a cost of $830 million for the pair.

Spirit and Opportunity were expected to last 90 sols, which aren’t quite the same as days on Earth. The Martian day is 24 hours and 37 minutes long, meaning for every 39 Mars days, 40 Earth days pass. Curiosity lasted for 5111 Sols, or 5243 Earth days. The rovers are agonisingly slow, averaging 0.022 mph. This is because of the great distance between the rovers, even radio signals take about half an hour to be transmitted. The rovers drive themselves, stopping every 10 seconds for 20 seconds to scan for obstacles. Even at this glacial speed, Opportunity has moved 28.06 miles on Mars, an all-time record.

Opportunity’s crowning achievement was the discovery of solid evidence for water on Mars. On sol 23, while digging its first hole, it found small shiny, spherical stones, known as spherules. Analysis of these revealed them to be lumps of Haematite, an Iron based ore that only readily forms in bodies of water. Nasa later judged that the rocks the rover was driving on were sedimentary, and formed by waves lapping at the shore of an incredibly ancient sea. While Opportunity found no direct evidence of life once existing on the red planet, all life as we know it requires liquid water, questioning the possibility. Sedimentary rock takes millions of years to form, meaning this ocean existed for a long time. Long enough, perhaps, for life.

The computers on the rover were outdated when they launched, using a processor from 1990 that was hardened to resist radiation. The memory capability of the rover was insufficient, thousands of times smaller than today’s average laptops. Around Sol 3730, the miniscule 256 Megabyte memory developed “Amnesia”, scrambling any data that was stored there beyond use. This meant the rover had to store everything in the even smaller 128 megabytes of ram, and everything written in ram is lost when it turns off. The rover relied on this memory for the rest of the mission, with much data lost to power outages.

As Mars gets very cold; around -125 ℃, the batteries stop working as the plastic of its circuit-boards shrinks and cracks. To stop this, some parts of the rover must be heated when the temperature gets this low. These heaters use a lot of power, so are only used when absolutely needed. This was fine when the rover had lots of sun for power, but when hibernating to survive the dust storms it had no access to light leaving the rover powerless. The only way to turn off the heater entirely was to turn the whole computer system off, leaving the rover unaccessible for communication.

Around sol 5105, the largest dust storm ever seen started to blot out the sun. By sol 5111, the whole planet was engulfed, and no power came to the panels. If the heater was not broken, the rover could’ve waited in the storm sipping power while still being able to communicate. As it was, all that could be done was to turn the rover off, and hope the sun became bright enough to reactivate the rover. The solar panels were too covered in dust as this energy never came. NASA declared opportunity lost on 13/02/2019, 16 years after launch and fourteen years, nine months and twenty-one days after its mission was planned to end.