In some respects, a person reacting to the words “she’s in a coma” necessitates a cautioned approach. Is he kidding or is he serious? It’s akin to that feeling of discomfort you get when you’re not entirely sure if a woman is pregnant or just large. But to me, the phrase represents more than this confusion – it represents a bookmark in my young family’s life; despite everything else, it marks an occasion where I think we all grew up.

A week before my daughter turned one, my mother-in-law was a victim of a serious car accident. The physics were horrendous: a large truck bearing down, neglecting the stop sign, and momentum transferred T-bone style onto her small sedan, the lack of side airbags a costly afterthought. In that instant, my wife’s mother suffered an injury that would pit her will against a crushed physiology.

And there really is no confusion with the words “traumatic brain injury.” Less still when one talks of bruising, swelling or tearing, all possible when an organ like your brain smacks hard against the wall of your cranium. It was also ironic that confusion, a common side effect of head injury, was really the least of everyone’s worries. Instead, we were intent on her survival, fearful of the worst, and grateful for the institution that is our medical community. We never saw a light, but we’re pretty sure she did.

Meriel was in a coma for three scary weeks, and furthermore remained in the hospital for an additional two months. To be honest, this is a period of time that I recollect with a strange and fitting sense of numbness.

I do remember a few things, though. Of course, the most important memory being that she did survive – a brilliant moment at the time. I also remember my daughter’s first birthday, which understandably was an outing of mute proportions – more so, when you consider that our child was oblivious to everything except the brave colours of some wrapping paper. But more than anything (and perhaps this illustrates the whole surrealness of it all), I remember all the driving – driving weekly from our house to my in-law’s home, four and a half hours each way; driving daily to the hospital, usually in multiples, back and forth, back and forth. I can tell you that the music mix, trapped in the car during this period, certainly got a lot of play.

Which was o.k., because at least it was a good mix. It was lucky that I go to a lot of effort with my mixes. In particular, the song Anytime by Neil Finn stood out. In fact, it still stands out, and in truth, most anything by Neil Finn does for me. It is as if his well tuned sense of melody is in sync with my own neuronal firings – that is, if we still want to talk about brains and the like.

In this case, however, the song also haunted me. Anytime. A clearer sentiment I couldn’t have imagined, especially in the aftermath of what had just happened. It was a sentiment so easy to dwell on, big enough to make you cry, and something that you tried desperately to not connect to your children. It was as if the song perfectly packaged a nugget of wisdom, a much needed warning if you will. And it was telling me in its own beautiful way that we are not invincible. No one is. Not even survivors.

Now, my daughter is almost four, we drive a mini-van, and Meriel is more or less still recovering. It’s odd, and I’m not sure how best to describe this, but it’s as if she is both present and absent. She is also a constant reminder of what all the doctors forewarned, a formidable challenge on how to deal with lesser expectations. And yes, it is a slow recovery, frustrating even, the kind where sadness chooses to sit and wait with you.

Perhaps this is why the song still rings true for me. It’s not as if it’s over – survival is relative after all. We are still constantly being reminded by the cruelty of that moment of happenstance, which we now see with double potency in both our past memories and our present eyes.

And yet, despite this, sometimes I think there is still a small fire in Meriel’s eyes. Despite the chronic pain, the fatigue, the grayness, I sense that there is, somewhere, the will to fight. Or at least I certainly hope so.

In truth, we could all do with a bit more of that fire, a bit more of that will, no matter how painful or frightening, to make us want to live and carry on. It’s like the song says:

“I could go anytime
There’s nothing safe about this life
I could go anytime”

No better excuse, really.

Scientists have an image problem. Just ask any fifth-grader. Chances are, they’ll probably tell you that a scientist is Caucasian, male, can be found wearing a lab coat, and leads a lonely laboratory existence [1]. Perhaps he has eccentric character traits or odd-looking hair [2]. That’s some fairly discouraging news, but hey, what do kids know? The perceptions of adults are what really matter, right? Sadly, it seems that this stereotype is also held by many high-school students, college students, adults [3], and even scientists themselves [2].

A bad image hurts scientists on many levels. Administrators allocating research funding may be swayed by a poor image [2]. Children with a poor view of scientists may be dissuaded from pursuing science as a career [1]. Finally, the general public, which interacts with technology every day of their lives, may have little or no idea about who is working to create the science behind that technology.

Science, of course, is not the only profession with image problems. Lawyers are often stereotyped as greedy, manipulative liars, as a quick Google search of “lawyer jokes” will attest to. Engineers are plagued by a complete lack of image; most people in the general public either do not know what Engineers do, or have the narrow view that “engineers build bridges” [4]. Other professions have it better. If you flip on the TV, you’ll be treated to the heroics of doctors on ER, or special agents on 24.

The question, then, is where does this image problem come from, and what can be done about it? Research has shown that there are numerous influences on an individual’s perception of what a scientist is, including gradeschool curriculum, children’s literature, television, movies, and the print media. Each of these influences is discussed below.

An individual’s first contact with science likely comes during grade school. Research in the 70s and 80s showed that students had the “white, male, eccentric” view of scientists [1] that was discussed earlier. More recent research by Barman et al. has shown that this stereotype has not changed significantly, despite efforts in the past few decades to include women, minorities, and examples of science careers in the curriculum [1]. These researchers suggest that the fundamental way of teaching science needs to change, including inquiry-based learning, and activities that connect science with everyday life. They also suggest the use of videotapes, textbook features, and guest speakers to promote the idea that scientists are a diverse group that does a wide variety of interesting research, as opposed to boring old white men in labcoats.

Another piece of research by McAdam [2] links children’s literature with a negative image of scientists. McAdam focused on children’s fiction, and found that the “eccentric, hairy, white coated male” was common in almost all the stories. She proposed that young children find more appeal in the humour of the “mad scientist” than a serious presentation of science and scientists, and also noted that many authors may have absorbed this image when they were children themselves. McAdam suggested that scientists could cooperate more with both librarians and authors, in order to point out inaccuracies, and give advice on how to better portray scientists and science.

Television can have a significant impact on both children and adults. Long and Steinke [5] analyzed four children’s science television shows: Beakman’s World, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Mr Wizard’s World, and Newton’s Apple. They found that these shows presented a mostly positive view of scientists, by showing that a wide variety of people (including women and minorities) take part in science, and that it can be fun. The shows also avoided any reference to “evil or violent” scientists. The researchers found, however, that some stereotypes still persist. They noted that white males were the main characters in three of the four shows, and that some of these characters had “eccentric and antisocial” characteristics.

One extremely recent television study [7] of seventh grade female students showed a surprising shift, with 50% of the participants drawing a female when asked to draw a scientist. This is a sharp contrast to Barman’s 1996 work on children’s images of scientists [1], and the research preceding that. The authors suggest that TV programs like CSI, which show male and female scientists as equals, are responsible. CSI also shows science careers in a positive light. The authors hypothesize that media has a greater effect on students’ images of scientists than teachers do. They also note that an earlier TV program and book series, The Magic School Bus, did not have the same effect on female students as CSI did. The Magic School Bus had a strong lead woman scientist, but portrayed her as “weird” with unusual hair and clothes [8].

Movies are another important cultural influence, and reach both adults and children. In 2005, Frayling wrote a fascinating paper on how scientists are depicted in film. He explained that in the early 1900s, the “Mad Scientist” was the most common image of scientists in film, with such famous ones as Rotwang (Metropolis, 1926), Frankenstein (Frankenstein, 1931), and Dr. Strangelove (Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, 1964) [9]. Mad Scientists tend to be working on whatever the public is afraid of at the moment [6], and it is interesting to see how their research shifts with society’s fears. The Mad Scientist generally has an unusual appearance (sometimes disabled), uses unorthodox scientific methods, and often has social difficulties [10]. Frayling then moved on to discuss how more serious movies about actual scientists gained popularity in the 1930s and 40s. A number were made (such as Madame Curie, 1943) but generally received mixed reviews [9].

Frayling contrasted the scientist’s image from the first half of the century with that of more recent movies. He argued that recently, scientists in the movies have become “mavericks,” fighting against the government, orthodox scientists, or some faceless institution, and gives Ellie Arroway (Contact, 1997), Ian Malcolm (Jurassic Park, 1993) and John Nash (A Beautiful Mind, 2001) as some examples [9]. Frayling stated that this “maverick” image is no better than the mad scientist one, and although he never explicitly said why, it’s fairly clear that the reason is these stereotypes are still inaccurate. The scientist is still generally being portrayed as unorthodox, socially awkward, and a slave to his or her work, which is not much different from the “Mad Scientist” image, or the fifth graders’ image.

Finally, an excellent analysis of the scientific content of Canadian newspapers was performed by Einsiedel. She found that science stories tended to be short, positive, and focused on the consequences of the discovery or invention. She also noticed that the stories tended to lack information on the scientific methods used, the scientists who performed the work, or any dissenting views [11]. Einsiedel suggested that this treatment of science stories might be due to the fact that science stories are not particularly interesting or financially lucrative to newspaper editors, and because some journalists may have a weak scientific background.

All these different pieces of research, taken together, show that although some progress has been made, scientists do indeed have an image problem, and it’s not just confined to fifth graders. Despite efforts to modernize the curriculum, grade school children still see scientists as white, male and eccentric, and children’s literature generally reinforces this image. Movies have moved from the cartoonish mad scientist to the “maverick” scientist, and although some of the negative stereotypes have disappeared (unusual appearance, disability, white male), many others have persisted (socially awkward, unorthodox, loner). The print media generally gives very little coverage to scientists or the scientific method, making scientists seem further removed from the general public.

Interestingly, researchers gave television the greatest credit. Both children’s science programs, and CSI, were identified as (for the most part) portraying scientists accurately and positively. It should be noted, however, that these are only a small portion of the shows on television that depict scientists, and there are certainly still shows where negative images of scientists appear.

What does this mean? Should parents sit their kids in front of the TV and refuse to let them go to school, watch movies, or read, in order to keep their notions of science pure and uncorrupted? That’s probably not the solution. Scientists do need to take more responsibility for their image, and try to make changes in the way that the media portrays them.

More cooperation is certainly needed between scientists and educators, authors, journalists, and television and movie writers. This is suggested by several of the researchers discussed above. Of course, there will always be stereotypes in the media, but ideally the positive images of scientists should outweigh the negative. The majority of scientists are intelligent, passionate, dedicated, amusing people, and if the portrayal of scientists continues to become more and more accurate, then the general public’s perception of who scientists are and what they do will only become better.

References

[1] Barman, C.R., Ostlund, K. L., Gatto, C. C., Halferty, M. 1997. Fifth Grade Students’ Perceptions About Scientists and How They Study and Use Science. AETS Conference Proceedings, p. 688 – 699. Available online

[2] McAdam, J. E. 1990. The Persistent Stereotype: Children’s Images of Scientists. Physics Education 25 (2): 102. Available online

[3] Pion, G. M., Lipsey, M. W. 1981. Public Attitudes Toward Science and Technology: What Have the Surveys Told Us? The Public Opinion Quarterly 45 (3): 303-316.

[4] Dunbar, S. W. 2006. Lecture notes, Applied Science 450, University of British Columbia.

[5] Long, M., Steinke, J. 1996. The Thrill of Everyday Science: Images of Science and Scientists on Children’s Educational Science Programmes in the United States. Public Understanding of Science 5 (2): 101. Available online

[6] “The Scientist on Camera.” Slate.com. Slate Magazine. 11 Nov 2006. Available online

[7] Jones, R., Bangert, A. 2006. The CSI Effect. Science Scope 30 (3): 38. Available online

[8] “Ms. Frizzle.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 11 Nov 2006. Available online.

[9] Frayling, C. 2005. Hollywood’s Changing Take on the Scientist. New Scientist 2518 (24).

[10] “Mad scientist.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 11 Nov 2006. Available online

[11] Einsiedel, E. F. 1992. Framing Science and Technology in the Canadian Press. Public Understanding of Science 1 (1): 89-101.

Title: Introduction to My Research Area

Course Instructor: Me

T Th 10:30 -12:00, Willams 205

Office Hours: by appointment

Course Syllabus: The course will consist of me, talking about my research area, for 15 weeks. Topics to be covered include:

1. My research area.

2. Why my research area is important.

3. Important contributions I have made to my research area.

4. Contributions other researchers have made to my research area, including an objective appraisal of any problems or errors in these studies.

5. Future work in my research area.

6. Other stuff about my research area.

- – -

Grading will be based on two tests (a midterm and a final) along with a written report. The report should focus on one subset of my research area, and describe, in detail: key findings by the key researchers in this subset of my research area. The report should include at least 5 figures, 20 references, and be at least 10 pages long, single-spaced.

By the end of the semester, successful participants in this course will have a deep understanding of my research area and it’s central importance to modern science. Participants will have the opportunity to earn extra credit by working in my laboratory on research projects related to the course.

I am in the process of becoming a scientist.

A female scientist.

I didn’t think that my gender was relevant to my career aspirations. I have plenty of female company (and competition) as an undergraduate science student at UBC. The ratio of women to men in my classes must be close enough to 50/50 that I have never noticed a gender imbalance (nevermind an advantage in heterosexual dating odds for women in my discipline.) Ditto for the distribution of intimidatingly-smart students; the prof-stumping questions come from women just as often as from men. I have worked in research labs that had more female than male grad students. Moreover, I have been taught by female lecturers and never considered the female presence behind the lectern to be noteworthy.

Maybe I should have paid closer attention to the ranks of my female lecturers, to see how many of them were sessional instructors as opposed to tenure track or full professors. While the proportion of doctoral degrees awarded to women over the past three decades has increased steadily, the trend has not been matched by a commensurate increase in the proportion of women winning tenured faculty positions in the sciences. The pool of qualified candidates contains more women than ever before, but they are not advancing into the highest ranks of academia in a proportional way.

In January of 2005, the then-president of Harvard University, economist Larry Summers, made a speech at a conference about diversifying the science and engineering workforce. He outlined his ideas regarding the causes of female under-representation in tenured faculty positions at top-tier research universities, with the intention of provoking discussion. He succeeded on that front; his comments ignited a firestorm of controversy in academia that was intensively reported in the popular press, and ultimately contributed to Summers’ resignation from his post as president.

Summers outlined three hypotheses, also found in the scientific literature, to explain why there are so few tenured female faculty in science and engineering. He ranked the hypotheses according to his evaluation of their relevance, with the first two accorded much greater importance. These hypotheses were, in order:

I. High-powered job hypothesis: Traditionally, only males have been willing and able to choose high-status jobs that require absolute dedication, as evidenced by eighty-hour workweeks. Women continue to choose alternate careers with less status but also lesser time demands.

II. Variability hypothesis: There are more highly intelligent males than females, which accounts for the greater proportion of males in the highest ranks of academia.

III. Discrimination hypothesis: There is discrimination against women by predominantly-male hiring committees who prefer to pick candidates like themselves.

Summers faced criticism for all three hypotheses, but the majority of it focused on his assertion that innate differences in intellectual ability between men and women exist, and contribute more to the under-representation of women than does discrimination. His comments regarding innate differences were certainly the most disturbing to me, because there would be no way for me to remedy an innate deficiency.

Summers referred to his most contentious hypothesis as “ different availability of aptitude at the high end,” advanced as the variability hypothesis by other proponents. It is based on the observation that many studies of particular aspects of human cognition, presumably relevant to scientific ability, find greater variation in the male population than in the female population. In these cases, the male bell curve is a bit squashed, with a shorter peak and more men at the extreme tails than in the corresponding female curve. Summers reasoned that because many studies find more variation among males in some cognitive traits that there must be more variation in scientific ability as well. He also reiterated the belief that the “intellectual elite” who become tenured professors in the sciences must come from the extreme tails of the distribution of scientific ability. If there really are more men than women at the extremes of scientific ability, this could explain why there are disproportionately more men in high-ranking positions in academia.

Summers’ conclusions were based on common myths and incorrect assumptions, but he is not the only academic to espouse those beliefs. At least partly in response to the furor Summers stirred up, in 2006 the National Academies Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy released its evaluation of the underlying causes of female under-representation among tenured science faculty. Their evaluation was based on meta-analysis of the literature, and the report included a thorough debunking of the misapprehensions that led Summers astray.

In reference to the variability hypothesis in particular, the National Academies report identified research demonstrating two important points:

1) Differences in variability have diminished over time, in studies of traits considered important to scientific ability, such as mathematical reasoning. As an example, the SAT-Math exam has been administered to precocious middle school students for decades, in order to identify students who would benefit from enriched academic programs. In 1983, the ratio of boys to girls who scored at the extremely high end was 12 to 1. By 2005, the ratio had dropped to 3 to 1. It appears the male population is not much more variable. More importantly, for such changes to occur over the short span of a decade or two, the source of the differences must be social rather than biological.

2) The scientific elite do not necessarily represent the extreme tails of the distribution of ability. To use SAT-Math scores as an example again, analysis shows that the SAT-Math scores of students who later obtained at least a bachelors degree in science or engineering are not terribly exceptional; they come from the top 40% of the test score distribution, not the top few percent. More than one third of future science and engineering grads had SAT-Math scores below that of the average humanities degree-holder. Admittedly, the SAT-Math scores of people who obtain graduate degrees might be more exceptional. However, at every level of SAT-Math achievement, women are half as likely to pursue a science career as men, which suggests that inclination matters more than ability in career choice.

In contrast to Summers’ assessment, the National Academies of Science report identified discrimination and institutional disadvantages to women as the major causes of the under-representation of women among tenured science faculty. The report outlines study after study that show unconscious bias at work. It appears that women candidates are often held to a higher standard than their male competitors. A study of postdoctoral fellowship applications in Sweden in 1997 compared men and women who were judged equally competent, and found that the women required significantly more publications to obtain the same designation of competence.

As I said earlier, I didn’t think that my gender had any relevance to my career aspirations, but I had no idea that women in science were faced with these additional challenges. While I’m relieved that research shows that the obstacles to female success in the highest echelons of academic science aren’t innate, I am also terribly intimidated by the apparent ubiquity of unintentional discrimination and the magnitude of its effects. The path to full professorship is difficult enough, without having to publish twice as many papers in order to compete with male peers.

Fortunately, discrimination can be identified and reduced, and institutions can be restructured. At UBC, the Equity Office tracks the advancement of women in all faculties, in service of the explicit institutional goal of matching the proportion of female faculty hired to their proportion in the pool of qualified candidates. The proportion is currently set at 35%, to match the percentage of doctoral degrees awarded to women across all disciplines at Canadian universities. That goal has been met several times since 1987, and has undoubtedly improved hiring practices in sciences and engineering at UBC.

Similar changes have been underway at institutions around the world for many years. The situation for women academics in the sciences will surely improve, helped along by the spectacular foot-in-mouth performances of academic leaders to spur debate and vigilance.

References

Annual Report 2003, UBC Equity Office

Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. National Academies Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. National Academies Press, Washington. (2006)

Brody and Mills, Talent search research: what have we learned? High Ability Studies 16(1): 97-111 (2005)

Summers, Lawrence H. Remarks at National Bureau of Economic Research Conference on Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce. Cambridge, Mass. January 14, 2005. Office of the President.

Weinberger, C. Is the science and engineering workforce drawn from the far upper tail of the math ability distribution? Cited in: Beyond Bias and Barriers, 2006.

Wenneras, C. and A. Wold. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature Commentary 387: 341-343 (1997)

Know anyone with a brain? Know anyone with a problem with their brain?

If you answered yes or no to either or both of those questions, you need to know about microglia. More importantly, however, you need to know about them in order to alleviate my distress. It’s a sucking burden to over and over have it come out at the grocery store that I am a microgliologist and to have no one know what I just said. Not ever. Always just a cocking of the head and a stifled pursing of the lips.

So, what are microglia? They are a type of immune cell that hangs out in our brains. Microglia are known as facilitators, fixers, fighters, and fomenters. At least, in my teaching presentations I call them that – they are the f-words of your brain and mine. To elaborate, microglia facilitate normal development and happy brain function, fix problems, and fight disease, but also sometimes foment bad juju as in Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, stroke, brain injury, schizophrenia, fetal alcohol syndrome, etc. That last f-word, by the way, also explains why you need to know about microglia – it’s a citizenship issue and you need to help humanity fight such bad juju. Thus, if, for instance, you are on a grant issuing board and a proposal for research on microglia comes up, you will now be able to say, “Ah, I know microglia. They are important for normal brain and for fighting pathology of the brain. Give her the cash.”

Now, I am not going to get into a lot of detail about microglia here, as all I really want you to know I already said – they exist and are important in the fight against pathology of the brain. But that doesn’t even reach 300 words, so I can flesh this piece out a bit by mentioning that these teeny immunoinflammatory cells don’t just live in but also constantly move around in our brains. I am, in fact, rather tormented by the knowledge that my brain is a blob of jello riddled with these crawling and climbing, creeping and blorping entities. But I take comfort in the fact that so, too, is your brain, your dog’s brain, your slug’s brain, and, for those of you in Nunavut, your caribou’s brain.

I should also mention that I say they are teeny but that is only relative. Microglia are much smaller than most of the mainstream, Hollywood brain cells such as the rather well-known neuron, for instance. But you probably already guessed something like that based on the name, no? “Micro”, of course, means puny. But “glia”, as you may not know, means glue. Glia is the name given to several types of cell in the brain that aren’t neurons. And that’s all microglia are. Tiny glue holding your head together. The end. Nothing to it. Good ole glia. Who cares. Icky, sticky, gluey, glue, glue.

Ok. So maybe you detected a note of hostility there. The fact is, glia were historically considered mere support cells, and it was once said that glia fill the spaces between neurons. But it has since been argued that perhaps it is just as well said that neurons fill the spaces between glia.

Why were glia and microglia in particular relatively neglected in science? I mean, brain development, brain function, immune and inflammatory goings on in the brain, are pretty important things to know about, are they not? Well, it’s not that microglia were too well hidden to be found until lately. Nope. Microscopists peering into light microscopes found microglia in brain tissue in the late 1800s. And its not that they were really boring and static entities. Rather. Microglia can not only move around but also change back and forth from amorphous blobs that fight disease to cells with multiple highly branched thingies sticking out of them – very funky looking, in fact – that constantly watch over your brain. Despite their amazingness, however, microglia just sort of faded out of the important people’s interest sphere and it wasn’t until about a hundred years had passed since their discovery that really good staining methods for detecting microglia were finally developed and folks started really taking them seriously.

Moreover, the cardinal signs of inflammation we all know and love (redness, swelling, heat, and pain) are difficult to apply to the CNS and it was not until the latter part of the 20th century that modern science even fully recognized immunoinflammatory activity in the central nervous system. So, these fine and upstanding cells, brought to light then thrust back into darkness, were orphaned, waiting for a hundred years between the fronts of neuroscience and immunology, until they were properly claimed by the emerging field of neuroimmunology.

So. Now you know. When we meet in the dairy section, and you ask what I do, I will say what I say and you will say in response, “Ahh. I know microglia. They are vital and dynamic immunoinflammatory cells in the brain. They were ignored for a time in science but have been reclaimed in a conceptual revolution embracing the importance of immune and inflammatory activity in the CNS and are increasingly being seen as targets for therapeutic intervention in many human diseases.” And I will cock my head and neatly purse my lips.

Pluto loses car keys

Pluto steps in dog crap

Pluto’s July horoscope warns of “personal challenges ahead”

Pluto’s rent check bounces

Pluto’s Mustang suffers blown head gasket

Pluto constantly late to work

Pluto’s girlfriend of three years leaves Pluto

Pluto charged with solicitation of a prostitute

Pluto becomes increasingly depressed

Pluto seeks answers in a bottle of Wild Turkey

Today, there is a significant interest in alternatives to fossil fuels. This has arisen given the increasing public concern over the environment as well as the general scientific consensus on the greenhouse effect caused by CO₂ emissions. Consequently, any realization of a renewable energy source that is an effective alternative to gasoline and diesel would prove significant.

Plant material is a renewable energy source. Trees, shrubs and herbs grow all over the world, and in climates such as the tropics, even all year round. Via photosynthesis they convert CO₂ and sunlight into lignocellulose – lignocellulose is the bulk material of a plant cell.

Lignocellulose is constituted of cellulose (long chains of glucose, up to 30.000 units – figure 1), hemicellulose (the single units resemble glucose but are slightly different) and lignin (figure 2). Lignin is derived from the latin word lignum, meaning “wood”, and is constituted of a structurally complex mixture of polyphenols, called monolignols (Figure 3). Lignin is what makes plants “stand” by effectively providing structural support. Cotton, for example, is pure cellulose without any lignin. Therefore cotton is soft, and nothing like wood.

Figure 1: Cellulose (from wiki)

Figure 2: Lignin (from wiki)

Figure 3: Examples of monolignols (from wiki)

The cellulose in plants is what makes lignocellulosic material so interesting in bioethanol production: The cellulose can be degraded back into glucose with enzymes and in turn, organisms such as yeast are able to (under anaerobic conditions) ferment the glucose into ethanol. Once the ethanol has been distilled, it can then utilized to run vehicles or machinery that function via a modified combustion engine.

Overall, this is tantamount to a process that can create an alternative renewable energy source for the transport sector, literally in a manner similar to the production of alcoholic beverages.

The origins of the use of ethanol as a combustion fuel began in 1878, when the first spark-ignition engine was developed. Soon after, Ford developed an ethanol utilizing car, the Ford T. Currently USA and Brazil have large scale production of bioethanol, which is actually used as fuel in the transport sector. Unfortunately, this production is based only on the starch and sugar obtained from maize and sugar cane, which constitutes a small part of the total plant material – about 1-2 % in most cases. As well, this production is not very energetically favourable, with approximately 50 -70% of the energy yield lost to the production process. As a result, this use of maize and sugar cane is currently not a very attractive alternative to fossil fuels.

However, if it was possible to utilize the rest of the plant’s lignocellulosic material, then conceivably almost all of the plant could be used to produce the ethanol, representing a 50 to 100 fold increase in efficiency. In effect, the world’s most abundant form of biomass could become available for bioethanol production. Cereal straw, maize cops, saw dust, logging residues, municipal solid waste or energy crops, could all contribute.

Unfortunately the process of fermenting lignocellulosic material is not as simple as the process of fermenting starch and simple sugars. Indeed, the lignocellulosic material has to first be degraded into much smaller molecules, i.e. single sugar monomers, in order to be fermented effectively. Whilst degradation of lignocellulosic material by high pressure, high temperature and usually sulphuric acid hydrolysis can be effective, it is a very costly way of releasing these sugar residues. The method itself requires a lot of energy, and use of sulphuric acid is problematic being extremely corrosive to equipment and contributing to large amounts of waste product in the form of calcium sulphate.

Consequently, alternatives are currently being investigated. Here, a strategy is to mimic nature, whereby it is known that many organisms are capable of degrading plant material using enzymatic processes. Such organisms include fungi and bacteria and the enzymes capable degrading lignocellulosic material are generally called cellulases. In effect, they “tear” up the fibres containing cellulose and degrade it to smaller sugar residues.

As well, small pieces of lignin, e.g. monolignols from the degradation of lignocellulose also pose a problem during fermentation. These have an inhibitory effect on the fermenting organism, baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces cereviseae) – the aromatic rings of the monolignols (i.e. the six membered ring) are actually toxic to yeast.

Again, nature also has a possible answer for this obstacle. Enzymes such as laccases can modify the monolignols. In particular, fungi, such as certain white rot species, have forms of laccases capable of degrading lignin so that metabolism can occur. As well, laccases have been reported to facilitate processes that allow the monolignols to aggregate to a degree such that they are then too large to enter any yeast cell. Consequently, the use of this enzyme can possibly be applied in the industry to neutralize the inhibitory effect on yeast by lignin.

In conclusion, at this point in time, bioethanol production using enzymatic tools still needs more refinement. Ways of optimizing the process have to be further investigated as it still contains large inefficiencies at almost all the steps entertained in this essay. Therefore, the challenge still exists for scientists to make the industrial degradation of lignocellulosic material more efficient and less costly, so that it can be a profitable, realistic, and needed alternative to the use of fossil fuels.

premise | suggest | edits | Wilco Effect

- A WEB EXPERIMENT -

(In no particular order)

1. Cigarettes are bad for you.

2. Men and Women are equal.

3. Global Warming is real, and (by the way) it’s all our fault.*

4. It’s not all relative.

5. Gin is better than Whiskey. Whiskey is better than Gin.

6. Intelligent Design is wrong.

7. Over consumption is a serious problem.

8. The Millennium Development Goals are worthy*.

9. Wilco is good, sometimes exceptional, but often inconsequential.

10. Shit happens (ditto for sex and death).

11. Creationism is silly. (also, see 6)

12. SUVs are just stupid.

13. It is always wiser to side with an overwhelming expert consensus than with a celebrity endorsement.

14. On the whole, disorder increases.

15. Basically, everything/everyone should follow the physical laws of the universe.

16. Science, for better or for worse, is all around.

- – -

If you agree with the above statements, please link to this page by tagging the word “truth” (yes, just like that),and spread the word.

truth | suggest | premise

VERSION 2.0 (21/12/09)

(In no particular order)

1. Cigarettes are bad for you.

2. Men and Women are equal.

3. Global Warming is real, and (by the way) it’s all our fault.*

4. It’s not all relative.

5. Gin is better than Whiskey. Whiskey is better than Gin.

6. Intelligent Design is wrong.

7. Over consumption is a serious problem.

8. The Millennium Development Goals are worthy*.

9. Wilco is good, sometimes exceptional, but often inconsequential.

10. Shit happens (ditto for sex and death).

11. Creationism is silly. (also, see 6)

12. SUVs are just stupid.

13. It is always wiser to side with an overwhelming expert consensus than with a celebrity endorsement.

14. On the whole, disorder increases.

15. Basically, everything/everyone should follow the physical laws of the universe.ⁱ

16. Science, for better or for worse, is all around.

Footnotes
i. The physical laws of the universe are now on twitter (@physicallaws)

VERSION 1.9 (23/06/08)

(In no particular order)

1. Cigarettes are bad for you.

2. Men and Women are equal.

3. Global Warming is real, and (by the way) it’s all our fault.*

4. It’s not all relative.

5. Gin is better than Whiskey. Whiskey is better than Gin.

6. Intelligent Design is wrong.

7. Over consumption is a serious problem.

8. The Millennium Development Goals are worthy*.

9. Wilco is good, sometimes exceptional, but often inconsequential.

10. Shit happens (ditto for sex and death).

11. Creationism is silly. (also, see 6)

12. SUV’s are just stupid.

13. The truth is worth more than an iPod^*. It is always wiser to side with an overwhelming expert consensus than with a celebrity endorsement.ⁱ.

14. On the whole, disorder increases.

15. Science, for better or for worse, is all around.

Footnotes
i. For example: this one.

VERSION 1.8 (02/09/07)

(In no particular order)

1. Cigarettes are bad for you.

2. Men and Women are equal.

3. Global Warming is real, and (by the way) it’s all our fault.*

4. It’s not all relative.

5. Gin is better than Whiskey. Whiskey is better than Gin.

6. Intelligent Design is wrong.

7. Over consumption is a serious problem.

8. The Millennium Development Goals are worthy*.

9. Wilco is good, sometimes exceptional, but often inconsequential.

10. Shit happens (ditto for sex and death).

11. Creationism is silly. (also, see 6)

12. SUV’s are just stupid.

13. R2D2 would easily beat Chewbacca in a fight The truth is worth more than an iPod^*i.

14. On the whole, disorder increases.

15. Science, for better or for worse, is all around.

Footnotes
i. The Star Wars thing didn’t seem to elicit a response, so the editors decided to get rid of it. Replaced with something to do with winning an iPod.

VERSION 1.7 (12/07/07)

(In no particular order)

1. Cigarettes are bad for you.

2. Men and Women are equal.

3. Global Warming is real, and (by the way) it’s all our fault.*

4. It’s not all relative.

5. Gin is better than Whiskey. Whiskey is better than Gin.

6. Intelligent Design is wrong.

7. Over consumption is a serious problem.

8. The Millennium Development Goals are worthy*.

9. Wilco is good, sometimes exceptional, but often inconsequential.

10. Shit happens (ditto for sex and deathⁱ).

11. Creationism is silly. (also, see 6)

12. SUV’s are just stupidⁱⁱ.

13. R2D2 would easily beat Chewbacca in a fightⁱⁱⁱ.

14. On the whole, disorder increases^iv.

15. Science, for better or for worse, is all around.

Footnotes
i. Numerous references to death in the comments section of this original post, starting here.
ii, iv. link
iii. link

VERSION 1.6 (28/02/07)

(In no particular order)

1. Cigarettes are bad for you.

2. Men and Women are equal.

3. Global Warming is real, and (by the way) it’s all our fault.*

4. It’s not all relative.

5. Gin is better than Whiskey. Whiskey is better than Gin.

6. Intelligent Design is wrong.

7. Over consumption is a serious problem.

8. The Millenium Development Goals are worthy*.

9. Wilco is good, sometimes exceptional, but often inconsequential.

10. Shit happens (ditto for sex).

11. Creationism is silly. (also, see 6)

12. Sloths are not purple.ⁱ

12. Science, for better or for worse, is all around.

Footnotes
i. Sloths can sort of be purple (thanks KK).

VERSION 1.5 (07/02/07)

(In no particular order)

1. Cigarettes are bad for you.

2. Men and Women are equal.

3. Global Warming is real, and (by the way) it’s all our fault.*

4. It’s not all relative.

5. Gin is better than Whiskey. Whiskey is better than Gin.ⁱ

6. Intelligent Design is wrong.

7. Over consumption is a serious problem.

8. The Millenium Development Goals are worthy*.

9. Wilco is good, sometimes exceptional, but often inconsequential.

10. Shit happens (ditto for sex).

11. Creationism is silly. (also, see 6)

12. Sloths are not purple.

13. Science, for better or for worse, is all around.

Footnotes
i. link, link, link

VERSION 1.4 (03/02/07)

(In no particular order)

1. Cigarettes are bad for you.

2. Men and Women are equal.

3. Global Warming is real, and (by the way) it’s all our fault.*ⁱ

4. It’s not all relative.

5. Gin is better than Whiskey.ⁱⁱ

6. Intelligent Design is wrong.

7. Over consumption is a serious problem.

8. The Millenium Development Goals are worthy*.

9. Wilco is good, sometimes exceptional, but often inconsequential.

10. Shit happens (ditto for sex).

11. Creationism is silly. (also, see 6)

12. Sloths are not purple.

13. Science, for better or for worse, is all around.

Footnotes
i. link
ii link

VERSION 1.3 (28/01/07)

(In no particular order)

1. Cigarettes are bad for you.

2. Men and Women are equal.

3. Global Warming is real.

4. It’s not all relative.

5. Intelligent Design is wrong.

6. Over consumption is a serious problem.

7. The Millenium Development Goals are worthy*.

8. Wilco is good, sometimes exceptional, but often inconsequential.

9. Shit happens (ditto for sex).ⁱ

10. Creationism is silly. (also, see 5)

11. Sloths are not purple.ⁱⁱ

12. Science, for better or for worse, is all around.

Footnotes
i. link
ii link

VERSION 1.2 (23/01/07)

(In no particular order)ⁱ

1. Cigarettes are bad for you.

2. Men and Women are equal.

3. Global Warming is real.

4. It’s notⁱⁱ all relative.

5. Intelligent Design is wrong.

6. Over consumption is a serious problem.

7. The Millenium Development Goals are worthy*.

8. Wilco is good, sometimes exceptional, but often inconsequential.ⁱⁱⁱ

9. Shit happens.

10. Creationism is silly. (also, see 5)

11. Science, for better or for worse, is all around.

Footnotes
i. link
ii. link, link
iii. link, link

VERSION 1.1 (19/01/07)

1. Cigarettes are bad for you.

2. Men and Women are equal.

3. Global Warming is real.

4. It’s all relative.

5. Intelligent Design is wrong.

6. Over consumption is a serious problem.

7. The Millenium Development Goals are worthy^*(link).ⁱ

8. Wilco is good, sometimes exceptional.ⁱⁱ

9. Shit happens.

10. Creationism is silly. (also, see 5)ⁱⁱⁱ

11. Science, for better or for worse, is all around.

Footnotes
i. link
ii. link
iii. link

VERSION 1.0 (19/01/07)

Cigarettes are bad for you.

Men and Women are equal.

Global Warming is real.

It’s all relative.

Intelligent Design is wrong.

Over consumption is a serious problem.

The Millenium Development Goals are worthy.

Wilco is good.

Shit happens.

Creationism is silly.

Science, for better or for worse, is all around.

As translated into musical notation

REFERENCE:
The all pervasive principle of repetitious recurrence governs not only coding sequence construction but also human endeavor in musical composition (1986) Susumi Ohno and Midori Ohno. Immunogenetics 24:71-78

ABSTRACT:
Organisms which have evolved on this earth are governed by multitudes of periodicities; tomorrow is another today, and the next year is going to be much like this year. Accordingly, the principle of repetitious recurrence pervades every aspect of life on this earth. Thus, individual genes in the genome have been duplicated and triplicated often to the point of redundancy, and each coding sequence consists of numerous variously truncated as well as variously base-substituted copies of the original primordial building block base oligomers and their allies. This principle even appears to govern the manifestations of human intellect; musical compositions also rely on this principle of repetitious recurrence. Accordingly, coding base sequences can be transformed into musical scores using one set rule. Conversely, musical scores can be transcribed to coding base sequences of long open reading frames.