BAD Science or BAD Science Journalism? – A Response to Daniel Lakens

10 02 2013

ResearchBlogging.orgTwo weeks ago  there was a hot debate among Dutch Tweeps on “bad science, bad science journalism and bad science communication“. This debate was started and fueled by different Dutch blog posts on this topic.[1,4-6]

A controversial post, with both fierce proponents and fierce opposition was the post by Daniel Lakens [1], an assistant professor in Applied Cognitive Psychology.

I was among the opponents. Not because I don’t like a new fresh point of view, but because of a wrong reasoning and because Daniel continuously compares apples and oranges.

Since Twitter debates can’t go in-depth and lack structure and since I cannot comment to his Google sites blog, I pursue my discussion here.

The title of Daniels post is (freely translated, like the rest of his post):

Is this what one calls good science?” 

In his post he criticizes a Dutch science journalist, Hans van Maanen, and specifically his recent column [2], where Hans discusses a paper published in Pediatrics [3].

This longitudinal study tested the Music Marker theory among 309 Dutch kids. The researchers gathered information about the kids’ favorite types of music and tracked incidents of “minor delinquency”, such as shoplifting or vandalism, from the time they were 12 until they reached age 16 [4]. The researchers conclude that liking music that goes against the mainstream (rock, heavy metal, gothic, punk, African American music, and electronic dance music) at age 12 is a strong predictor of future minor delinquency at 16, in contrast to chart pop, classic music, jazz.

The University press office send out a press release [5 ], which was picked up by news media [4,6] and one of the Dutch authors of this study,  Loes Keijsers,  tweeted enthusiastically: “Want to know whether a 16 year old adult will suffer from delinquency, than look at his music taste at age 12!”

According to Hans, Loes could have easily broadcasted (more) balanced tweets, likeMusic preference doesn’t predict shoplifting” or “12 year olds who like Bach keep quiet about shoplifting when 16.” But even then, Hans argues, the tweets wouldn’t have been scientifically underpinned either.

In column style Hans explains why he thinks that the study isn’t methodologically strong: no absolute numbers are given; 7 out of 11 (!) music styles are positively associated with delinquency, but these correlations are not impressive: the strongest predictor (Gothic music preference) can explain no more than 9%  of the variance in delinquent behaviour, which can include anything from shoplifting, vandalism, fighting, graffiti spraying, switching price tags.  Furthermore the risks of later “delinquent” behavior are small:  on a scale 1 (never) to 4 (4 times or more) the mean risk was 1,12. Hans also wonders whether it is a good idea to monitor kids with a certain music taste.

Thus Hans concludesthis study isn’t good science”. Daniel, however, concludes that Hans’ writing is not good science journalism.

First Daniel recalls he and other PhD’s took a course on how to peer review scientific papers. On basis of their peer review of a (published) article 90% of the students decided to reject it. The two main lessons learned by Daniel were:

  • It is easy to critize a scientific paper and grind it down. No single contribution to science (no single article) is perfect.
  • New scientific insights, although imperfect, are worth sharing, because they help to evolve science. *¹

According to Daniel science jounalists often make the same mistakes as the peer reviewing PhD-students: critisizing the individuel studies without a “meta-view” on science.

Peer review and journalism however are different things (apples and oranges if you like).

Peer review (with all its imperfections) serves to filter, check and to improve the quality of individual scientific papers (usually) before they are published  [10]. My papers that passed peer review, were generally accepted. Of course there were the negative reviewers, often  the ignorant ones, and the naggers, but many reviewers had critique that helped to improve my paper, sometimes substantially. As a peer reviewer myself I only try to separate the wheat from the chaff and to enhance the quality of the papers that pass.

Science journalism also has a filter function: it filters already peer reviewed scientific papers* for its readership, “the public” by selecting novel relevant science and translating the scientific, jargon-laded language, into language readers can understand and appreciate. Of course science journalists should put the publication into perspective (call it “meta”).

Surely the PhD-students finger exercise resembles the normal peer review process as much as peer review resembles science journalism.

I understand that pure nitpicking seldom serves a goal, but this rarely occurs in science journalism. The opposite, however, is commonplace.

Daniel disapproves Hans van Maanen’s criticism, because Hans isn’t “meta” enough. Daniel: “Arguing whether an effect size is small or mediocre is nonsense, because no individual study gives a good estimate of the effect size. You need to do more research and combine the results in a meta-analysis”.

Apples and oranges again.

Being “meta” has little to do with meta-analysis. Being meta is … uh … pretty meta. You could think of it as seeing beyond (meta) the findings of one single study*.

A meta-analysis, however, is a statistical technique for combining the findings from independent, but comparable (homogeneous) studies in order to more powerfully estimate the true effect size (pretty exact). This is an important, but difficult methodological task for a scientist, not a journalist. If a meta-analysis on the topic exist, journalists should take this into account, of course (and so should the researchers). If not, they should put the single study in broader perspective (what does the study add to existing knowledge?) and show why this single study is or is not well done?

Daniel takes this further by stating that “One study is no study” and that journalists who simply echo the press releases of a study ànd journalists who just amply criticizes only single publication (like Hans) are clueless about science.

Apples and oranges! How can one lump science communicators (“media releases”), echoing journalists (“the media”) and critical journalists together?

I see more value in a critical analysis than a blind rejoicing of hot air. As long as the criticism guides the reader to appreciate the study.

And if there is just one single novel study, that seems important enough to get media attention, shouldn’t we judge the research on its own merits?

Then Daniel asks himself: “If I do criticize those journalists, shouldn’t I criticize those scientists who published just a single study and wrote a press release about it? “

His conclusion? “No”.

Daniel explains: science never provides absolute certainty, at the most the evidence is strong enough to state what is likely true. This can only be achieved by a lot of research by different investigators. 

Therefore you should believe in your ideas and encourage other scientists to pursue your findings. It doesn’t help when you say that music preference doesn’t predict shoplifting. It does help when you use the media to draw attention to your research. Many researchers are now aware of the “Music Marker Theory”. Thus the press release had its desired effect. By expressing a firm belief in their conclusions, they encourage other scientists to spend their sparse time on this topic. These scientists will try to repeat and falsify the study, an essential step in Cumulative Science. At a time when science is under pressure, scientists shouldn’t stop writing enthusiastic press releases or tweets. 

The latter paragraph is sheer nonsense!

Critical analysis of one study by a journalist isn’t what undermines the  public confidence in science. Rather it’s the media circus, that blows the implications of scientific findings out of proportion.

As exemplified by the hilarious PhD Comic below research results are propagated by PR (science communication), picked up by media, broadcasted, spread via the internet. At the end of the cycle conclusions are reached, that are not backed up by (sufficient) evidence.

PhD Comics – The news Cycle

Daniel is right about some things. First one study is indeed no study, in the sense that concepts are continuously tested and corrected: falsification is a central property of science (Popper). He is also right that science doesn’t offer absolute certainty (an aspect that is often not understood by the public). And yes, researchers should believe in their findings and encourage other scientists to check and repeat their experiments.

Though not primarily via the media. But via the normal scientific route. Good scientists will keep track of new findings in their field anyway. Suppose that only findings that are trumpeted in the media would be pursued by other scientists?

7-2-2013 23-26-31 media & science

And authors shouldn’t make overstatements. They shouldn’t raise expectations to a level which cannot be met. The Dutch study only shows weak associations. It simply isn’t true that the Dutch study allows us to “predict” at an individual level if a 12 year old will “act out” at 16.

This doesn’t help lay-people to understand the findings and to appreciate science.

The idea that media should just serve to spotlight a paper, seems objectionable to me.

Going back to the meta-level: what about the role of science communicators, media, science journalists and researchers?

According to Maarten Keulemans, journalist, we should just get rid of all science communicators as a layer between scientists and journalists [7]. But Michel van Baal [9] and Roy Meijer[8] have a point when they say that  journalists do a lot PR-ing too and they should do better than to rehash news releases.*²

Now what about Daniel criticism of van Maanen? In my opinion, van Maanen is one of those rare critical journalists who serve as an antidote against uncritical media diarrhea (see Fig above). Comparable to another lone voice in the media: Ben Goldacre. It didn’t surprise me that Daniel didn’t approve of him (and his book Bad Science) either [11]. 

Does this mean that I find Hans van Maanen a terrific science journalist? No, not really. I often agree with him (i.e. see this post [12]). He is one of those rare journalists who has real expertise in research methodology . However, his columns don’t seem to be written for a large audience: they seem too complex for most lay people. One thing I learned during a scientific journalism course, is that one should explain all jargon to one’s audience.

Personally I find this critical Dutch blog post[13] about the Music Marker Theory far more balanced. After a clear description of the study, Linda Duits concludes that the results of the study are pretty obvious, but that the the mini-hype surrounding this research is caused by the positive tone of the press release. She stresses that prediction is not predetermination and that the musical genres are not important: hiphop doesn’t lead to criminal activity and metal not to vandalism.

And this critical piece in Jezebel [14],  reaches far more people by talking in plain, colourful language, hilarious at times.

It also a swell title: “Delinquents Have the Best Taste in Music”. Now that is an apt conclusion!

———————-

*¹ Since Daniel doesn’t refer to  open (trial) data access nor the fact that peer review may , I ignore these aspects for the sake of the discussion.

*² Coincidence? Keulemans has covered  the music marker study quite uncritically (positive).

Photo Credits

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174

References

  1. Daniel Lakens: Is dit nou goede Wetenschap? - Jan 24, 2013 (sites.google.com/site/lakens2/blog)
  2. Hans van Maanen: De smaak van boefjes in de dop,De Volkskrant, Jan 12, 2013 (vanmaanen.org/hans/columns/)
  3. ter Bogt, T., Keijsers, L., & Meeus, W. (2013). Early Adolescent Music Preferences and Minor Delinquency PEDIATRICS DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-0708
  4. Lindsay Abrams: Kids Who Like ‘Unconventional Music’ More Likely to Become Delinquent, the Atlantic, Jan 18, 2013
  5. Muziekvoorkeur belangrijke voorspeller voor kleine criminaliteit. Jan 8, 2013 (pers.uu.nl)
  6. Maarten Keulemans: Muziek is goede graadmeter voor puberaal wangedrag - De Volkskrant, 12 januari 2013  (volkskrant.nl)
  7. Maarten Keulemans: Als we nou eens alle wetenschapscommunicatie afschaffen? – Jan 23, 2013 (denieuwereporter.nl)
  8. Roy Meijer: Wetenschapscommunicatie afschaffen, en dan? – Jan 24, 2013 (denieuwereporter.nl)
  9. Michel van Baal. Wetenschapsjournalisten doen ook aan PR – Jan 25, 2013 ((denieuwereporter.nl)
  10. What peer review means for science (guardian.co.uk)
  11. Daniel Lakens. Waarom raadde Maarten Keulemans me Bad Science van Goldacre aan? Oct 25, 2012
  12. Why Publishing in the NEJM is not the Best Guarantee that Something is True: a Response to Katan - Sept 27, 2012 (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com)
  13. Linda Duits: Debunk: worden pubers crimineel van muziek? (dieponderzoek.nl)
  14. Lindy west: Science: “Delinquents Have the Best Taste in Music” (jezebel.com)




Health and Science Twitter & Blog Top 50 and 100 Lists. How to Separate the Wheat from the Chaff.

24 04 2012

Recently a Top 100 scientists-Twitter list got viral on Twitter. It was published at accreditedonlinecolleges.com/blog.*

Most people just tweeted “Top 100 Scientists on Twitter”, others were excited to be on the list, a few mentioned the lack of scientist X or discipline Y  in the top 100.

Two scientist noticed something peculiar about the list: @seanmcarroll noticed two fake (!) accounts under “physics” (as later explained these were: @NIMAARKANIHAMED and @Prof_S_Hawking). And @nutsci (having read two posts of mine about spam top 50 or 100 lists [12]) recognized this Twitter list as spam:

It is surprising how easy it (still) is for such spammy Top 50 or 100 Lists to get viral, whereas they only have been published to generate more traffic to the website and/or to earn revenue through click-throughs.

It makes me wonder why well-educated people like scientists and doctors swallow the bait. Don’t they recognize the spam? Do they feel flattered to be on the list, or do they take offence when they (or another person who “deserves” it) aren’t chosen? Or perhaps they just find the list useful and want to share it, without taking a close look?

To help you to recognize and avoid such spammy lists, here are some tips to separate the wheat from the chaff:

  1. Check WHO made the list. Is it from an expert in the field, someone you trust? (and/or someone you like to follow?)
  2. If you don’t know the author in person, check the site which publishes the list (often a “blog”):
    1. Beware if there is no (or little info in the) ABOUT-section.
    2. Beware if the site mainly (only) has these kind of lists or short -very general-blogposts (like 10 ways to….) except when the author is somebody like Darren Rowse aka @ProBlogger [3].
    3. Beware if it is a very general site producing a diversity of very specialised lists (who can be expert in all fields?)
    4. Beware if the website has any of the following (not mutually exclusive) characteristics:
      1. Web addresses like accreditedonlinecolleges.com, onlinecolleges.com, onlinecollegesusa.org,  onlinedegrees.com (watch out com sites anyway)
      2. Websites with a Quick-degree, nursing degree, technician school etc finder
      3. Prominent links at the homepage to Kaplan University, University of Phoenix, Grand Canyon University etc
    5. Reputable sites less likely produce nonsense lists. See for instance this “Women in science blogging”-list published in the Guardian [4].
  3. When the site itself seems ok, check whether the names on the list seem trustworthy and worth a follow. Clearly, lists with fake accounts (other then lists with “top 50 fake accounts” ;)) aren’t worth the bother: apparently the creator didn’t make the effort to verify the accounts and/or hasn’t the capacity to understand the tweets/topic.
  4. Ideally the list should have added value. Meaning that it should be more than a summary of names and copy pasting of the bio or “about” section.
    For instance I have recently been put on a list of onlinecollegesusa.org [b], but the author had just copied the subtitle of my blog: …. a medical librarian and her blog explores the web 2.0 world as it relates to library science and beyond.
    However, sometimes, the added value may just be that the author is a highly recognized expert or opinion leader. For instance this Top Health & Medical Bloggers (& Their Twitter Names) List [5] by the well known health blogger Dean Giustini.
  5. In what way do these lists represent *top* Blogs or Twitter accounts? Are their blogs worth reading and/or their Twitter accounts worth following? A nobel price winner may be a top scientist, but may not necessarily be a good blogger and/or may not have interesting tweets. (personally I know various examples of uninteresting accounts of *celebrities* in health, science and politics)
  6. Beware if you are actively approached and kindly requested to spread the list to your audience. (for this is what they want).It goes like this (watch the impersonal tone):

    Your Blog is being featured!

    Hi There,

    I recently compiled a list of the best librarian blogs, and I wanted to let you know that you made the list! You can find your site linked here: [...]

    If you have any feedback please let me know, or if you think your audience would find any of this information useful, please feel free to share the link. We always appreciate a Facebook Like, a Google +1, a Stumble Upon or even a regular old link back, as we’re trying to increase our readership.

    Thanks again, and have a great day!

While some of the list may be worthwhile in itself, it is best NOT TO LINK TO DOUBTFUL LISTS, thus not  mention them on Twitter, not retweet the lists and not blog about it. For this is what they only want to achieve.

But what if you really find this list interesting?

Here are some tips to find alternatives to these spammy lists (often opposite to above-mentioned words of caution) 

  1. Find posts/lists produced by experts in the field and/or people you trust or like to follow. Their choice of blogs or twitter-accounts (albeit subjective and incomplete) will probably suit you the best. For isn’t this what it is all about?
  2. Especially useful are posts that give you more information about the people on the list. Like this top-10 librarian list by Phil Bradley [6] and the excellent “100+ women healthcare academics” compiled by @amcunningham and @trishgreenhalgh [7].
    Strikingly the reason to create the latter list was that a spammy list not recognized as such (“50 Medical School Professors You Should Be Following On Twitter”  [c])  seemed short on women….
  3. In case of Twitter-accounts:
    1. Check existing Twitter lists of people you find interesting to follow. You can follow the entire lists or just those people you find most interesting.
      Examples: I created a list with people from the EBM-cochrane people & sceptics [8]. Nutritional science grad student @Nutsci has a nutrition-health-science list [9]. The more followers, the more popular the list.
    2. Check interesting conversation partners of people you follow.
    3. Check accounts of people who are often retweeted in the field.
    4. Keep an eye on #FF (#FollowFriday) mentions, where people worth following are highlighted
    5. Check a topic on Listorious. For instance @hrana made a list of Twitter-doctors[10]. There are also scientists-lists (then again, check who made the list and who is on the list. Some health/nutrition lists are really bad if you’re interested in science and not junk)
    6. Worth mentioning are shared lists that are open for edit (so there are many contributors besides the curator). Lists [4] and [7] are examples of crowd sourced lists. Other examples are truly open-to-edit lists using public spreadsheets, like the Top Twitter Doctors[11], created by Dr Ves and  lists for science and bio(medical) journals [12], created by me.
  4. Finally, if you find the spam top 100 list truly helpful, and don’t know too many people in the field, just check out some of the names without linking to the list or spreading the word.

*For obvious reasons I will not hyperlink to these sites, but if you would like to check them, these are the links

[a] accreditedonlinecolleges.com/blog/2012/top-100-scientists-on-twitter

[b] onlinecollegesusa.org/librarian-resources-online

[c] thedegree360.onlinedegrees.com/50-must-follow-medical-school-professors-on-twitter

  1. Beware of Top 50 “Great Tools to Double Check your Doctor” or whatever Lists. (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com)
  2. Vanity is the Quicksand of Reasoning: Beware of Top 100 and 50 lists! ((laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com)
  3. Google+ Tactics of the Blogging Pros (problogger.net)
  4. “Women in science blogging” by  ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/science)
  5. Top Health & Medical Bloggers (& Their Twitter Names) List (blog.openmedicine.ca)
  6. Top-10 librarian list by Phil Bradley (www.blogs.com/topten)
  7. 100+ women healthcare academics by Annemarie Cunningham/ Trisha Greenhalgh (wishfulthinkinginmedicaleducation.blogspot.com)
  8. Twitter-doctors by @hrana (listorious.com)
  9. EBM-cochrane people & sceptics (Twitter list by @laikas)
  10. Nutrition-health-science (Twitter list by @nutsci)
  11. Open for edit: Top Twitter Doctors arranged by specialty in alphabetical order (Google Spreadsheet by @drves)
  12. TWITTER BIOMEDICAL AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS & MAGAZINES (Google Spreadsheet by @laikas)






Silly Sunday #50: Molecular Designs & Synthetic DNA

23 04 2012

As a teenager I found it hard to picture the 3D structure of DNA, proteins and other molecules. Remember we didn’t have a computer then, no videos, nor 3D-pictures or 3D models.

I tried to fill the gap, by making DNA-molecules of (used) matches and colored clay, based on descriptions in dry (and dull 2D) textbooks, but you can imagine that these creative 3D clay figures beard little resemblance to the real molecular structures.

But luckily things have changed over the last 40 years. Not only do we have computers and videos, there are also ready-made molecular models, specially designed for education.

O, how I wished, my chemistry teachers would have had those DNA-(starters)-kits.

Hattip: Joanne Manaster‏ @sciencegoddess on Twitter: 

Curious? Here is the Products Catalog of http://3dmoleculardesigns.com/news2.php

Of course, such “synthesis” (copying) of existing molecules -though very useful for educational purposes- is overshadowed by the recent “CREATION of molecules other than DNA and RNA [xeno-nucleic acids (XNAs)], that can be used to store and propagate information and have the capacity for Darwinian evolution.

But that is quite a different story.

Related articles





Friday Foolery #49: The Shortest Abstract Ever! [2]

30 03 2012

In a previous Friday Foolery post I mentioned what I thought was the shortest abstract ever.

 “Probably not”.

But a reader (Trollface”pointed out in a comment that there was an even shorter (and much older) abstract of a paper in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. It was published in 1974.

The abstract simply says: Yes.

It could only be beaten by an abstract saying: “No”, “!”, “?” or a blank one.





Friday Foolery #44. The Shortest Abstract Ever?

2 12 2011

This is the shortest abstract I’ve ever seen:

“probably not”

With many thanks to Michelynn McKnight, PhD, AHIP, Associate Professor, School of Library and Information Science, Louisiana State University, who put it on the MEDLIB-L listserv, saying :  “Not exactly structured …. but a great laugh!”

According to Zemanta (articles related to this post) Future Twit also blogged about it.

Related articles





Friday Foolery #42 So You Think You Can Dance Your PhD Thesis?

5 11 2011

It’s hard to explain your research to non-scientists. My PhD defense was preceded by a slide show (yes, that was once-upon-a-time that we didn’t use Powerpoint). It was the only part the public could follow a bit. But it is too long, static and detailed.

That cannot be said of these videos, where PhD’s from all over the world interpret their graduate research in dance form.

The videos below are the winners of the 2011 edition of the Dance your PhD contest. For the 4th year, this contest is organized by Gonzolabs & Science. See http://gonzolabs.org/dance/

There are 4 categories—chemistry, physics, biology, and social sciences

The overall winner of 2011 was Joel Miller (category physics), a biomedical engineer at the University of Western Australia in Perth. Miller apparently compensated his poor dancing skills and the lack of a video by applying stop-motion animation (stringing together about 2,200 photos to make it look as though his “actors” were dancing). His video shows the creation of titanium  alloys that are both strong and flexible enough for long-lasting hip replacements.
I love the song by the way. It fits perfectly to the dance scene.

You can see all winning videos here and all 2011 (this years) PhD videos here. You can also check out the 2010 and the 2009 PhD dances.

The other winners of 2011 were  FoSheng Hsu (chemistry category) who guides viewers through the entire sequence of steps required for x-ray crystallography,  Emma Ware (social science) who studies the traditional ‘stimulus-release’ model of social interaction using pigeon courtship (a beautiful pas a deux) and Edric Kai Wei Tan (biology) with the funny dance about Smell mediated response to relatedness of potential mates, simply put “fruit fly sex”.

Being Dutch, I would like to close with the Dutch winner of the biology category in 2010, Maartje Cathelijne de Jong who dances her PhD, “The influence of previous experiences on visual awareness.”





An Introduction to the Library for Graduate Students

6 11 2010

Below is a presentation I gave at the “World of Science”. This is a 3-day course for graduate students that aims to provide them the fundamental knowledge and skills needed for scientific research, and to prepare them for their thesis at our hospital, the AMC.

The 3-day program comprises a series of presentations on aspects of medical and biomedical research. These include the position of the pharmaceutical industry, the role of scientific journals, the ethical and legal framework of medical research, and the organization and funding of scientific research in the Netherlands. There is also an introduction to the scientific strategy of the AMC, presented by the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine.

Furthermore there are group discussions, workshops, and individual assignments.

The course is held outside the AMC. It provides a unique opportunity for a closer and more personal meeting with each other and with leading AMC scientists, to discuss such matters as the choices they made in their careers.

I had 15 minutes (actually 20 minutes) to tell something about the library. (It used to be 30 min. but wasn’t received so well). That is too short to explain searching to them. Furthermore that is dealt with in our courses, so why give it all away?

I choose to show them how the library could serve them, in an interactive and loose way.

First I asked them how they saw the library. Many, if not all, used our website. Pfff, that was a relieve!

I spend most time talking about searching, showing  examples of searches that failed. Which is the best way to show them they might need some extra education in this respect.

The atmosphere was very good & informal, there were many questions and it was sometimes quite hilarious, not only because of the presentation itself, but because I almost managed to ruin the screen (fell against it) and because I walked away with the microphone.

I had the opportunity to listen to the next speaker too, a young scientist who recently finished his thesis. His talk was great to listen to. He talked about his experience (which was not really representative imho, because it was quite a success story) and he gave the would-be PhD’s 10 handy tips. All in a very entertaining way.

But for now, here is my presentation.





Fighting “Powerpoint-Death” by Science, Prezi or…?!

24 08 2010
Audience response radio frequency keypad with ...

Image via Wikipedia

Recently Kevin Clauson [@kevinclauson] made another great presentation, called the “Science behind Engaging Students in Class”. The presentation focuses on the use of “clickers” or an audience response system (ARS) to engage the audience (here mainly students in a class). It is an expanded version of “How to Fight Lecturalgia“.

First Kevin asks the audience questions about their knowledge/use of ARS -using the ARS system, of course-. Next he goes more deeply into the need to engage the audience (attention span, boredom) and then he addresses the successes and pitfalls of ARS.

Each statement has a scientific underpinning, and a reference to it.

For instance, one conclusion is that use of ARS improves performance with analytical type exam questions, but not with memorization exam questions.

Kevin stresses that ARS  it is just another tool, albeit a powerful one.

Of course you have to avoid the usual presentation-killer aspects of PowerPoint, like including too many slides, bullets and data, as so wonderfully illustrated by the famous “Dead by Powerpoint” presentation. I included it below, in case you’ve never seen it.

It also contains recommendations how to  improve your PowerPoint.

This following video elaborates on the same theme. It is called “Life after Death by PowerPoint”. Not an appropriate name, because it only magnifies Powerpoints killer-points. You might enjoy it though (if you can put up with the canned laugh).

Below is another presentation about the science of presentations. And although I noticed little science in it, I did find the CEO-presentation interesting because it discusses the use of live tweeting (and blogging) to give “contagious talks” (you know Twitter going “viral”).





More about the Research Blogging Awards

24 03 2010

In my previous post I mentioned that the winners of the very first edition of the Research Blogging Awards are now known.

In Beyond the book* you can hear the First Research Blogging Awards announced (see post).
Here are the podcast and the  transcript of the live interview with the Award organizers Dave Munger of ResearchBlogging.org and Joy Moore of Seed Media.

Dave and Joy talk about blogs in the research space and the reasons behind some of the winners, which include Not Exactly Rocket Science, Epiphenom, BPS Research Digest and Culturing Science.

In the interview Dave and Joy not only talk about the winners but also discuss why it is important that science bloggers write about peer review and form a community. It is also meant “to give people the broader picture about the state of research blogging today online and how all of this is helping to promote science and science literacy and culture throughout the world.”

Two Excerpts from the Transcripts by Moore (which highlights why research blogging is important:

(…..) and what we’re seeing, and it’s quite exciting, is that bloggers, scientist bloggers around the world are putting a lot of very, very thoughtful effort into spontaneously writing about peer reviewed research in a way that is very similar to what you’ll see in say the news and views sections of some of the top science journals. And so what we’re able to see is not only a broader spectrum of coverage of peer reviewed research and interpretation, but we’re also seeing the immediate accessibility to that interpretation through the blogs and it’s open and it’s free and so it’s really opening up the accessibility to views and interpretations of research in a way that we’ve never seen before.

(…..)  One of the most critical aspects of being not only a scientist, but also a blogger is ensuring that you get your work out there and you have recognition and attribution for it and therefore, to continue to encourage the Research Blogging activity, we feel that we can help play a role by ensuring that the bloggers are recognized for their work.

*Beyond the Book is an educational presentation of the not for profit Copyright Clearance Center, with conferences and seminars featuring leading authors and editors, publishing analysts, and information technology specialists.




Stories [5] – Polly Matzinger, the Bunny & the Dog

22 03 2010

Stories is a new series that tells a selection of my personal stories, mostly from the time I was a student or worked as a scientist.
I wrote the draft of this post a year ago. The theme of the Grand Round hosted by Ramona Bates at Suture for a Living
posts that have to do with women in medicine as patients, as providers, as scientists” prompted me to take up the thread.

The present story took place at my first job as a scientist in the early eighties. I worked with Pavol Ivanyi, a well known immunologist, specialized in inbred mice strains and the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex, i.e. major transplantation antigens). Once a week we held a sort of Journal Club, that took place in our office, a small and dark room without any windows. There was a table, a blackboard and our desks. Pavol often wore the same brown woolen sweater. We had no computers, not to mention powerpoint presentations. We just had a flip-over and a blackboard.

Once it was my turn. The paper I discussed was written by P. Matzinger as first author and if I remember it well R. Zamoyska.

Little was known at that time about how the immune response reacted to foreign material but not to “self”. The MHC plays a major role in this and P Matzinger had  truly original ideas about how this worked.
I guess I must have been nervous, because it was quite a difficult theoretical paper (for me at that time).

Many times I said: “he thinks, he had the bright idea, he proposes, he concludes…”.

After I finished my presentation, Pavol took a deep breath and said frowning:

“…..It is not a HE.”

I gazed with a kind of wonder. He continued with his typical Czech accent, serious but with a twinkle in his eyes.

“It is a SHE” …….

“It is a she and …. a very beautiful one”

Then he told us that Polly Matzinger, for that was her name, was once a Playboy bunny and a waitress at a bar frequented by scientists. A well known professor noticed her talent and persuaded her to become a scientist and get her PhD.
She appeared to be a very original, but also controversial lady. Pavol knew her well.

Pavol carried on:

“Polly has written a paper together with Galadriel Mirkwood* (see pdf here). Do you know who that is?

I nodded: “No” (how should I know?). The name Galadriel, one of the elves of  Lord of the Rings, might have been a hint.

“Mirkwood is her Afghan Hound, it is a dog, She found that her dog was as much involved in research as many other coauthors.”

727px-polly__annie1

According to Ted Anton’s book Bold Science, the dog was put on as a coauthor for this Journal of Experimental Medicine paper [1], because  she refused to write in the usual scientific passive voice (‘steps were taken’) but was too insecure to write in the first person (‘I took the steps’). Once discovered, papers on which she was a major author were then barred from the journal until the editor died and was replaced by another (see Wikipedia).

But as a matter of fact, one of her main ideas originated from observing her sheepdog (she is a sheepdog expert as well, and a jazz musician, carpenter, lab technician and problem-dog trainer). “I suddenly realized that there was a cell in the body which behaves like a good sheepdog – the dendritic cell. The dendritic cell would be activated by a cell dying in its midst and kickstart the immune response. And that puts the model together”. (The Independent)

Polly Matzinger is famous for her Danger Model, published in many prominent journals, like Science,  Ann N Y Acad Sci, J Immunol, Transplant Proc, Nature Med, Nature Immunology (see refs).

The BBC even made a Horizon -edition about her and her ideas. Horizon, as you may know, is a current and long-running BBC popular science and philosophy documentary program. She does now how to stand out, although sometimes this desire to stand out can overshadow her skills as a scientist and presenter according to some.

Her Danger theory challenges core beliefs about how our immune system works.

The paradigm developed by Janeway (and the Nobel Price winners Medawar/Burnet) is that non-self (foreign) triggers an immune response, while self does not. According to Polly the “self/non-self” model is not adequate.

A system that attacked everything foreign would lead to the system attacking the food we eat; a mother’s body would reject the foetus it carried. Instead, Matzinger thinks, what the body (and notably the dendritic cells) notices is danger.

This is how she explains her danger theorie in the New York Times (1998):

Q. How does your Danger Model differ from the standard Self/Nonself Model of the immune system?

A. It isn’t really insurrectionary — it’s just a different way of looking at things. Let me use an analogy to explain it. Imagine a community in which the police accept anyone they met during elementary school and kill any new migrant. That’s the Self/Nonself Model.

In the Danger Model, tourists and immigrants are accepted, until they start breaking windows. Only then, do the police move to eliminate them. In fact, it doesn’t matter if the window breaker is a foreigner or a member of the community. That kind of behavior is considered unacceptable, and the destructive individual is removed.

The community police are the white blood cells of the immune system. The Self/Nonself Model says that they kill anything that enters the body after an early training period in which ”self” is learned.

In the Danger Model, the police wander around, waiting for an alarm signaling that something is doing damage. If an immigrant enters without doing damage, the white cells simply continue to wander, and after a while, the harmless immigrant becomes part of the community.

She emphasize for instance that tumors are often not seen as dangerous and therefore not attacked by the immune system, until they outgrow their blood supply, undergo chemotherapy, or otherwise are harmed. Then the damaged tumor cells release endogenous danger signals that help trigger the adaptive response. (see this excellent blog post at Mystery Rays from Outer Space for more detailed discussion).

Her theory also implies that transplants could be permanently accepted if the danger signals could be blocked at the time of the transplant with a short course of drugs. Indeed some of her experiments point that way.

Others insist that it is not much different from the original theory, if one implies the need of a second signal (danger-signals, besides the recognition of non-self).

However, whether she is right or wrong doesn’t really matter in the long run.

Indeed like she said in the NY times:

“It is said the scientist who is willing to stick his neck out and be clear will contribute to the field whether he or she is wrong or not, because if they are wrong someone will do the experiments to prove they’re wrong and in the process will learn something about nature. So whether I’m right or wrong doesn’t matter.”

Her truly original ideas have stimulated the progress of science. She is an outstanding scientist. According to her own definition science is ” about describing nature, and so is art: We’re painting nature.(…) Actually, it’s a sandbox and scientists get to play all of our lives.

She is a scientist who is changing our world.

References

  1. Matzinger, P. and Mirkwood, G. (1978). In a fully H-2 incompatible chimera, T cells of donor origin can respond to minor histocompatibility antigens in association with either donor or host H-2 type. Journal of Experimental Medicine, 148, 84-92.
  2. Ted Anton. Bold Science: Seven Scientists Who Are Changing Our World (Paperback) 193 pages; Publisher: W. H. Freeman (May 1, 2001) ISBN-10: 0716744481 ;ISBN-13: 978-0716744481
  3. Matzinger P. The danger model: a renewed sense of self. Science. 2002 Apr 12;296(5566):301-5.
  4. Matzinger P. An innate sense of danger. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2002 Jun;961:341-2. Review. No abstract available.
  5. Alpan O, Rudomen G, Matzinger P. The role of dendritic cells, B cells, and M cells in gut-oriented immune responses. J Immunol. 2001 Apr 15;166(8):4843-52.
  6. Celli S, Matzinger P. Liver transplants induce deletion of liver-specific T cells. Transplant Proc. 2001 Feb-Mar;33(1-2):102-3. No abstract available.
  7. Guimond M, Veenstra RG, Grindler DJ, Zhang H, Cui Y, Murphy RD, Kim SY, Na R, Hennighausen L, Kurtulus S, Erman B, Interleukin 7 signaling in dendritic cells regulates the homeostatic proliferation and niche size of CD4+ T cells. Nat Immunol. 2009 Feb;10(2):149-57. Epub 2009 Jan 11.




Friday Foolery #14: Pronouncing Hoechst

4 12 2009

Ever had that? You ‘re giving a scientific lecture and you mispronounce one or a few words. Sometimes you know a word is hard to pronounce, but, knowing that, it even gets harder to pronounce the word correctly. For instance, I find it hard to pronounce certain gynecological and dermatological diseases.

Sometimes you don’t know that you mispronounce certain words. Perhaps because you never spoke the words out loud, just read the text. These words need not be very exotic.

Once it was my turn to lead the journal club at the genetics department. Afterwards the Professor, Gert Jan van Ommen, came to me and said: “It was a nice talk, but please never say “mature” in the way you say “nature” again!

Foreign firm names may also be hard to pronounce. The following video from Benchfly illustrates that.

Hattip: @nutrigenomics on Twitter (see tweet)

Benchfly is a resource, initiated by the chemist Alan Marnett in 2009, dedicated to providing researchers with current protocols to support their lives both in and out of the lab. For instance by instructive videos.

One such video protocol is “how to send DNA”. Ingenious, but I wonder if it is legally permitted to send it abroad (customs). But who ever tried to send DNA samples styrofoam box hunts via FedEx will welcome this tip. Pity it doesn’t work with cell cultures….

By the way David Rothman pointed at the pronunciation guide Forvo (http://forvo.com/): all the words in the world pronounced by native speakers.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]




Hot News: Curry, Curcumin, Cancer & Cure

3 11 2009

347513745_54fd37f269 curcuma curry

*Hot* News via Twitter and various news media a few days ago. Big headlines tell the following in respectively The Sun, Herald, Ireland, BBC News / NHS Health and Reuters:

Curry is a ‘cure for cancer

Spices in curry may help cure cancer

Curry spicekills cancer cells

Scientists say curry compound kills cancer cells

The message of these headlines is quite different and so are the articles themselves (covered more in depth by @jdc325 at the BadScience Blog “Stuff and Nonsense” (see here)). They vary from “curry being a cure for cancer” to “a possible effect of one of its compounds on cancer cells”.

So what was (not) done?

  1. Cancer was not cured.
  2. It was not a human trial.
  3. The study didn’t test effects on living laboratory animals, like mice, either.
  4. The study was done in the test tube, using individual cancer cell lines.
  5. The cells tested were (only) esophageal cancer cell lines.
  6. Testing the drugs efficacy was not the main aim of the study.
  7. Curry (a complex spicy mixture) wasn’t used.
  8. Curcumin was tested, which makes up 3% of “turmeric”, that is one of the spices in curry.
  9. That curcumin has some anti-carcinogenic effects is not new (see my tweet linking to 1120 hits in PubMed with a  simple PubMed search for curcumin and cancer: http://bit.ly/3Qydc6)

So why the fuss? This doesn’t seem to be a terribly shocking study. Why the media picked this one up is unclear. It must have been, because they were sleeping (missed all the previous studies on curcumin) and/or because they are fond of these kind of studies: except from the experimental details- these studies translate so well to the general public: food – cure – cancer.

And the headlines do it much better than the actual title of the article:

Curcumin induces apoptosis-independent death in oesophageal cancer cells

I experienced the same when my study was picked up at a cancer conference by BBC-health, whereas other far more pioneering studies were not: these were harder to grasp and to explain ‘to the public’ and without any possible direct health benefit.

What was already known about curcumin and cancer? What was done in the present study? What is new? And is curcumin really a promising agent?

Already known.

Curcumin (diferuloylmethane) is a polyphenol derived from the plant Curcuma longa, commonly called turmeric. It gives the curry it bright yellow color. Curcumin has a plethora of beneficial effects in vitro (in the test tube) and in animal studies, including anti-microbial,  anti-arthritic and  anti-inflammatory effects, but most interesting is its anti-carcinogenic effect. It has potential for both prevention and therapy of cancer, but the evidence for preventive effects is most convincing. The mechanisms playing a role in the anticarcinogenic effect are also multifold and complex. Possible mechanisms include: Inhibition/protection from DNA damage/alterations, Inhibition of angiogenesis, Inhibition of invasion/metastasis, Induction of apoptosis, Antioxidant activity, Induction of GST, Inhibition of cytochromes P450, I NF-jB, AP-1, MMPs, COX-2, TNF-a, IL-6, iNOS, IL-1b, the oncogens ras/fos/jun/myc, MAPK, ornithine decarboxylase, Activation of Nrf2, Induction of HO-1, Activation of PPAR-c  and Immunostimulant/immunorestorer effect……….[2]

New Findings

This is to put in perspective that the researchers found yet another possible mechanism (although others have found evidence before, see introduction [1]). Using a small panel of esophagus cancer cells, they first showed that the cells were selectively killed by curcumin. Next they showed that the major mechanism wasn’t apoptosis, cell death by suicide, but cell death by a mechanism called “Mitotic catastrophe”, a type of cell death that occurs during mitosis (cell division) (see free review in Oncogene [3]). As with apoptosis many steps have to go wrong before the cell will undergo mitotic catastrophe. The researchers show that curcumin-responsive cells were found to accumulate poly-ubiquitinated proteins and cyclin B, consistent with a disturbance of the ubiquitin–proteasome system: ubiquitin labels proteins for degradation by proteasomes, thereby controlling the stability, function, and intracellular localization of a wide variety of proteins.

In other words, this study is mainly about the mechanisms behind the anti-cancer effects of curcumin.

Cure?

Of course this paper itself has no direct relevance to the management of human esophagus cancer. The sentence that may have triggered the media is:

“Curcumin can induce cell death by a mechanism that is not reliant on apoptosis induction, and thus represents a promising anticancer agent for prevention and treatment of esophageal cancer.”

Which is of course to far-fetched. The authors refer to the fact that esophageal cancers are often resistant to cell death induction with chemotherapeutic drugs, but this only indirectly points at a possible role for curcumin.

It has to be stressed that no human study has convincingly shown an anti-tumor effects of curcumin. Studies that have been done are observational, i.e. show that people taking higher concentrations of curcumin in their diet have a lower incidence of several common cancer types. However, such studies are prone to bias: several other factors (alone or in together) can be responsible for a anti-cancer effect (see previous post [5] explaining this for other nutrients).

The Current grade of evidence for a preventive or therapeutic effect is C, which means “unclear scientific evidence” (see MedlinePlus).

Although there are several trials under way there is reason to be skeptical about the potential of curcumin as cancertherapeutic agent.

  • The limited bioavailability and extensive metabolism of curcumin suggest that many of its anticancer effects observed in vitro may not be attainable in vivo. On the other the gastro-intestinal system is he most likely place for an effect of curcimin taken by the oral route. [2]
  • Although relatively high concentrations of curcumin have not shown significant toxicity in short-term studies, these concentrations may lead to toxic and carcinogenic effects in the long term.[2]
  • The therapeutic effects are dose-dependent. As often seen with these bioactive compounds, toxic effects can occur at supra-optimal amounts. Indeed curcumin has shown to be toxic and carcinogenic under specific conditions. At low and high doses curcumin behaves as an anti-oxidant and a pro-oxidant (toxic) respectively. [2, 6 ]
  • Often more ingredients add to the therapeutic effect, or more foods/habits [5].
  • The FDA has a shortlist of “187 Fake Cancer “Cures” Consumers Should Avoid”, compounds containing curcumin are on that list [7].

Conclusion

So, concluding, a study that unraveled one of the mechanisms whereby curcumin can kill cancer cells, led to an exaggerated and sometimes completely wrong coverage in the media. Why this was done is unclear, but the ultimate result of such misplaced drumroll will only lead to disbelief or carelessness.

Shame on you, media!!ResearchBlogging.org

Photo credits

http://www.flickr.com/photos/trentstrohm/347513745/

References

  1. O’Sullivan-Coyne, G., O’Sullivan, G., O’Donovan, T., Piwocka, K., & McKenna, S. (2009). Curcumin induces apoptosis-independent death in oesophageal cancer cells British Journal of Cancer, 101 (9), 1585-1595 DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605308
  2. López-Lázaro, M. (2008). Anticancer and carcinogenic properties of curcumin: Considerations for its clinical development as a cancer chemopreventive and chemotherapeutic agent Molecular Nutrition & Food Research DOI: 10.1002/mnfr.200700238
  3. Castedo, M., Perfettini, J., Roumier, T., Andreau, K., Medema, R., & Kroemer, G. (2004). Cell death by mitotic catastrophe: a molecular definition Oncogene, 23 (16), 2825-2837 DOI: 10.1038/sj.onc.1207528
  4. Stuff and Nonsense – Curry can cure cancer, say scientists (2009/10/28)
  5. The best study design for dummies (2008/08/25)
  6. Huge disappointment: Selenium and Vitamin E fail to Prevent Prostate Cancer.(post on this blog about the SELECT trial – 2008/11/16)
  7. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/ucm171057.htm

You may also want to read:

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]




Peter Palese on H1N1/Influenza, Porcine and Otherwise

9 09 2009

Seen on MicrobeWorld, posted by Chris Condayan: a video in which Peter Palese, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at Mt. Sinai, explains H1N1/swine flu, the natural herd immunity that all humans share against it, and the reasons why the elderly stand at a lesser risk of contracting the virus.

Found the video interesting? There are a lot more interesting posts, images and video’s on MicrobeWorld to read or watch.

Established in 2003, MicrobeWorld is an interactive multimedia educational outreach initiative from the American Society for Microbiology, a non-profit organization that “promotes awareness and understanding of key microbiological issues to adult and youth audiences, and showcases the significance of microbes in our lives.”

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]




Friday Foolery [3] Showing the invisible

4 09 2009

I always found it difficult to think abstract. It was not until physics class at college, that I started to understand physics formulas,  because our professor gave practical examples from real life, i.e. he made me understand why the sky was blue. Mathematics was all right as long as we stayed in two dimensions, but stereometry was already one dimension too much. Molecules, chemical bonds and atomic structure were also vague especially when wave-particle duality came into play. It was even hard to imagine what DNA really looks like. At one stage I even tried to make a DNA structure at home from matches and colored clay. But the model was so fragile, that it crashed before the first minor groove was finished.

Nowadays, students are so lucky: a computer, the internet, beautiful graphs, videos, 3D-animations.

Below a mixture of recent  and some old animations and 3D representations, that highlight our understanding of numbers and dimensions, the infinite small and the infinite large.

First 3D image of an individual molecule and its bonds!

A real breakthrough was the visualization of the atomic backbone of an individual molecule (pentacene) and its atomic bonds. As reported in the August 28 issue of Science magazine, IBM Research Zurich scientists (in collaboration with Peter Liljeroth of Utrecht University), accomplished this by using an atomic force microsope (ATM) operated in an ultrahigh vacuum and at very low temperatures ( 268oC or 451oF). According to the researchers this is reminiscent of X-rays that pass through soft tissue to enable clear images of bones.

Below you see:

  • the chemical structure of pentacene with 22 carbon atoms (Wikipedia).
  • the force map image of pentacene (IBM).
  • a video-interview with the researchers explaining their research (IBM-Labs).

3-9-2009 23-52-44 pentacene ibm

Hattip: @jensmccabe (twitter) and Greg Laden (twitter and blog)
More info: www.physorg.com and gizmodo.com

The Galaxy mapped

Now quite the opposite infinity: the universe: “what 100,000 nearby large (i.e., Milky Way sized and larger) galaxies, look like reduced each reduced to a point” (translation by @dreamingspires) or “will give you an idea how totally insignificant we are” (@scanman). These tweople referred to Etann Siegel’s blog “It starts with a bang”.

One of the original researchers (Dominique Proust) has also posted a short description of the study and an image on the internet which shows the clustering pattern of about 100,000 nearby galaxies, revealed by the 6dF Galaxy Survey (see here) : “Each galaxy is shown as a dot. The galaxy we live in is at the centre of the pattern” (an enlargement of the image is here).

The astronomers came from all over the world (Australia, the UK, USA, South Africa, France and Japan). Their survey “will reveal not only where the galaxies are but also where they’re heading, how fast, and why. “It’s like taking a snapshot of wildebeest on the African plain. We can tell which waterholes they’re heading to, and how fast they’re travelling,” said D. Heath Jones of the Anglo-Australian Observatory (AAO), lead scientist for the Six-Degree Field Galaxy Survey (6dFGS)”

Dimensions

1, 2, 3 ….no here are 10 dimensions explained

but the 4th dimensions will do for me

Powers of 10

A classical video: the powers of ten. It dates from 1977. I have seen it during college and it made a lasting impression.
Powers of Ten explores the relative size of things from the microscopic to the cosmic. The 1977 film travels from an aerial view of a man in a Chicago park to the outer limits of the universe directly above him and back down into the microscopic world contained in the man’s hand.

There is even a website “powers of ten”. At the right you can click on a power of ten. Like 10 ¹³ and 10 -¹³

13

Measuring in meters, this power of ten is equal to 10 billion kilometers. We see the outer planets as they circulate counterclockwise, all in nearly the same plane.

Measuring in seconds, this power of ten equals

  • Space 10 billion kilometers
  • 317, 097 years.
  • Unmanned Space Probes
  • Johannes Keppler
  • Space First Images Of Jupiter through Time

-13

Measuring in meters, this power of ten is equal to .1 picometer or 100 fermis. We see the kernel of a carbon atom, bound by six neutrons and six protons. This nucleus is dubbed carbon-12.

Measuring in seconds, this power of ten equals 100 femtoseconds.

  • 100 fermis
  • 100 femtoseconds
  • Lasers
  • Niels Bohr

Also the Wikipedia explains large numbers and astronomically large numbers. The Dutch Wikipedia gives more examples from daily life:

Do you still need some help in mathematics? Here is a tip from a Dutch educator @trendmatcher: your free online 24/7 math help, meant to help high school students with their homework. (There is also non-free material)

More frivolous:

Modern steps through time (via @scanman and @drves) : kalman.blogs.nytimes.com

And a  Twitter visualization tool that shows about 11,000 “good morning” tweets over a 24 hour period, between August 20th and 21st. All tweets are color-coded: green blocks are early tweets, orange ones are around 9am, and red tweets are later in the morning. Black blocks are ‘out of time’ tweets which said “good morning” (or a non-english equivalent) at a strange time in the day. Seen at the blog of @zbdigitaal (Edwin)
The original post and the video can be found here

REFERENCES:
Leo Gross, Fabian Mohn, Nikolaj Moll, Peter Liljeroth, and Gerhard Meyer. “The Chemical Structure of a Molecule Resolved by Atomic Force Microscopy.” Science, 28 August 2009: Vol. 325. no. 5944, pp. 1110 – 1114. DOI: 10.1126/science.1176210.

The 6dF Galaxy Survey: Final Data Release (DR3) and Southern Large Scale Structures
Jones D Heath., Read Mike A., Saunders Will., Colless Matthew., Jarrett Tom., Parker Quentin., Fairall Anthony., Mauch Thomas., Sadler Elaine., Watson Fred., Burton Donna., Campbell Lachlan., Cass Paul., Croom Scott., Dawe John., Fiegert Kristin., Frankcombe Leela., Hartley Malcolm., Huchra John., James Dionne., Kirby Emma., Lahav Ofer., Lucey John., Mamon Gary., Moore Lesa., Peterson Bruce., Prior Sayuri., Proust Dominique., Russell Ken., Safouris Vicky., Wakamatsu Ken-ichi., Westra Eduard., Williams Mary: 2009,
submitted to Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]







Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 607 other followers