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”).

Advertisements




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.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

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….

Vodpod videos no longer available.

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

Vodpod videos no longer available.

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

Vodpod videos no longer available.

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]