17 Burst results for "Megan Cantwell"

"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

Science Magazine Podcast

05:49 min | 2 weeks ago

"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

"Have different kinds of levels inside the compartment so top and bottom, which means that you have even some samples under shadow conditions or completely in the dark. So that we have also kind of space control. You have to control on ground in the lab, but you have also some space control. And we have even some space control on ground during a simulation of this machine in a ground lab. So we have a number of controls and then the samples complete in space. And they are really like in a kind of box. This one kind of boxes. On one hand, some compartments are filled with the mass analog gas. Yeah, so the atmosphere simulating the atmosphere. And other compartments are completely evacuated. So empty space vacuum. And on the top I have to explain on the top of this box is there are specific last filters which are really simulating the radiation income like it is an atmosphere of a mass. So molecules have been up there. They've been in the trays, and then you get them back to earth. So then what did you find out? How'd they do? So from this particular study, we had a 7 different molecules and mixed with different mineral analogs. The composition of the Martian regulates that we used, we had a more one containing more clays and one containing more cell fates. And we saw that this was very challenging for the detection of this biosignatures because of the overlap of mineral and biogenic dance, for example, in the raman spectra. So that has to be taken into account for the Mars mission. Then our main finding, of course, is that even though we saw that UV radiation in destroy is more or less all the molecules some of them are preserved, even with after 16 months in space. But the main finding is that most of them are still detectable when they were shielded from UV. So when they were just under the surface, a little bit shielded from the UV, they were still completely detectable even mixed with the matrix and even eradicated with the cosmic rays, solar energy particles, the temperature cycles, back from the Martian atmosphere, et cetera. Wow, so you're pretty hopeful that then the service materials on Mars would be, it would provide enough UV protection that any sort of biosignatures would still be detectable below ground. Because we have to think about the time scales, you know, because we have just made this experiment 1.5 years in space, but there you have billions of years on the surface of mass with irradiation. But this means according to what we find that still we have not maybe not to go too much in the deep areas of mass to find something is life started on Mars to find something on kind of bio signatures. Yeah, I would say about one meter two meters. And so the two meters are very good, which were chosen for drilling on Mars. This is something our studies have put in that we are in the good range there. I kind of want to switch gears a little bit here and since I've got both of you here, one of the things I really wanted to ask about is so this kind of work happens over the course of years. There's tons of collaboration to get an experiment into space and run it and wait for things to come back. What draws you to this kind of research? I guess it's the of course the questions as for biology would like to answer is are we alone? Is there life elsewhere? So that's always motivating whatever the time scales we are doing to be able to participate in such studies and see now the progress of the Mars missions and the future more sample return and we are closer than ever of being able to answer these questions. And so our hopefully our generation will have some clues at least about what's possible in our solar system, particularly because we are working with extremophiles. And I have really to emphasize that some of these are very important because some we have studied at doing photosynthesis and even also fixing nitrogen, which means that they are producing oxygen and fixing carbon dioxide. Some of the extremities are able to even live under desiccated conditions here. We are just on one hand searching for life outside, but even looking for these life forms we are studying on earth, which has a potential to live under planetary conditions. What they are doing in how can we use them under this climate change conditions and for biotechnology research, that's what gave us the PCR and the enzymes that were extracted from thermophilic organisms and so on. So it's all fundamental research in a sense. And our applications are coming well in once we have a better understanding about this extremophilic organisms. All right, well, thank you so much for taking the time to talk today. It's great to have both of you here on the podcast. Mikhail baka is a postdoctoral researcher at the institute of planetary research and Jean Pierre Rivera is the head of department for the microgravity user support center at the German aerospace center. You can find a link to the article we discussed here today at science dot org slash podcast. Thanks a lot. And that concludes this edition of the science podcast. If you have any comments or suggestions right to us at science podcast at AAAS ORG. You can listen to the show on the science website at science dot org slash podcast, or search for science magazine on any podcasting app. This show was edited and produced by Sarah crispy, with production help from prodigy, Kevin mcclain, and Megan Cantwell. Transcripts are by scribbly, Jeffrey cook composed the music. On behalf of science and its publisher triple S, thanks for joining us.

Mikhail baka institute of planetary researc Jean Pierre Rivera department for the microgravit German aerospace center AAAS Sarah crispy Kevin mcclain Megan Cantwell Jeffrey cook
"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

Science Magazine Podcast

06:30 min | 2 months ago

"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

"These findings into your prize application? Absolutely. And this was actually, I guess, a bigger challenge than expected. I mean, trying to summarize several years of work into a very short one page summary that would be readable to a very broad audience is definitely a big challenge and I'm very happy that the essay was selected. The michelson philanthropies and science prize for immunologists specifically aimed at early career researchers. Now, accepting that you might be a little bit biased, what are your thoughts on the importance of supporting scientists who are just starting out in their careers? Oh yeah. I mean, how can I not be biased with this with this question? Absolutely. I think it's really by supporting young scientists at the beginning of their career that probably have a lot of new ideas and that could discover and could become the next generation. I guess this is really when you want to give the best opportunities to sort of build the future of science. And so I'm hugely grateful for this support at this stage of my career. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought a lot of attention to the field of immunology. How do you feel about this and do you think it's still a good choice for a research career or is it getting somewhat overcrowded? I guess I feel it's really phenomenal how, despite this terrible pandemic, researchers around the world were able to gather together and to create lots of new collaborations, especially in immunology and the pandemic has really made people realize how important immunology was and it could really affect all of our lives and for me immunology is fascinating not only because of its complexity but also about how it can really affect all of us at many stages of our lives and affect basically every organ and there's also this huge interaction between our immune system and everything else from the outside, all the pathogens but also the non pathogens that is just fascinating and being at the crossroads of so many specialties and fields that are so interesting. I think I could only encourage people to come to immunology. Now I want to talk a little bit about the award itself. How did you feel when you found out that you'd won the grand prize? Oh boy, it was something I really didn't expect it at first and I couldn't believe the email when I read it. I was happy about having this recognition of all the work that we had done for last two years and a half and also happy to give a recognition to all of the collaborators and the people in our lab because this has been the work of a huge team and I was I was really proud and honored to receive this prize. Have you seen any impact of the price recipients were announced? Were you mobbed at the hospital for your autograph? Absolutely. So from the scientific community I've received lots of emails and very nice people who've congratulated us and I hope this prize is going to sort of bring this research that is basic research all the way back to the physicians and really as soon as possible to the patients. And it's really been bringing a lot of light on what we've been doing and on our work on COVID and how we try to understand why. And this is really huge recognition for me and for all the team involved. Do you have any advice for other early career researchers to give them the best chance of success in their careers and maybe in an application to the price next year? Oh boy, that's really a tricky question. I guess what I would say is perhaps when you have an idea, try to pursue it. I mean, most of our ideas are not going to be the right ones, but some of them might. And so, you know, if you believe in it, just go for it. And then for writing the essay, I think it's just make it a simple as possible, sort of readable for your family. If they can read it, I guess everyone can read it. And enjoy it. That's really important, I think. And finally, I wanted to ask about your future work, what are your plans for the next few years after this prize and after this great success in your publication in science? Well, I guess I'd love to continue. I mean, being able to do both clinical practice in the hospital and basic research in the lab is really phenomenal. And now specifically, I'd really love to continue working on these all 20 buddies that explain severe infections. I mean, we've understood partially how they can cause severe viral diseases, but now I guess we want to understand why they're here. Why did they arrive in certain individuals? And can they have any beneficial role? And I guess if we continue to understand the cause of severe infectious disease, we can also hope to understand perhaps the cause of severe autoimmune diseases that are also very frequent. So yeah, this would be really fascinating goal that I hope I'll be able to pursue. Well, Paul, it's been a pleasure speaking to you. Thank you so much for your time and best of luck with your research. Thanks so much for the interview Sean, it's been a real pleasure. As we say in French and I hope to discuss again soon. Thanks to michaelson philanthropies for its support for the michaelson philanthropies and science prize immunology and for making this conversation possible. We hope you've enjoyed it. Until next time. And that concludes this edition of the science podcast. If you have any comments or suggestions, write to us at science podcast at AAAS dot org. You can listen to the show on the science website that science dot org slash podcast, or you can search. For science magazine, on any podcasting app. This show was edited and produced by Sarah crispy. With production help from prodigy and Megan Cantwell, transcripts are by scrubby, Jeffrey cook composed the music. On behalf of science magazine and its publisher, triple AS, thanks for joining us.

COVID severe infectious disease michaelson Sean Paul AAAS Sarah crispy Megan Cantwell Jeffrey cook science magazine
"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

Science Magazine Podcast

08:20 min | 3 months ago

"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

"On January 15th, 2022, the eruption of a volcano in Tonga produced the biggest explosion in the atmosphere in modern history. In this week's issue of science, two papers dig into how the eruption impacted Earth's atmosphere and oceans. I'm Megan Cantwell here with Emily brodsky, who touches on both these papers and the broader implications of the results from the Tonga eruption in a science perspective. Thanks so much for joining me, Emily. Thanks for having me. So could you start with describing exactly the scale and size of this eruption? So this volcano, hunger Tonga, hunger, higher pie, produce this enormous eruption. It produced the largest plume we've seen in modern history since we've been able to measure how high plumes go and how big they are. It's notable in part because that volcano was underwater. We don't normally think about underwater eruptions as. So catastrophically explosions. And this blew the lid off quite literally. It produced waves that wrapped around the earth, both in the atmosphere and in the ocean and actually in the solid earth as well. Some of the waves that traveled around the world were tsunamis, which appeared in every major water basin, tsunamis most commonly result from earthquakes, but really any large displacement of water can produce them. Do the characteristics of a tsunami differ depending on the source? Most tsunamis are made by just moving a whole lot of seafloor, so it doesn't really matter. If the tsunami is made by an earthquake or a landslide, but in the case of taga, there really was something quite a bit different about how these tsunamis were made. And that's because in addition to moving the seafloor, the eruption also bubbled the atmosphere and that wave moving through the atmosphere effectively blew the tsu dabi across the ocean and it blew it very quickly. And they also did this crazy thing where they hopped over the land. So you would have them, but what else should base it? And then you would see them, but the next ocean basically, they regular suit obvious, don't do that. They need to keep going through the water. What's happening is because the atmosphere is continuous. It can keep going all the way around the world, even if there are land barriers in the way. Yeah, and I mean, usually following an earthquake, there's a bit of a prediction or modeling forecasting that anticipates exactly what the impact will be. So following the Tonga eruption was there a sort of estimate from researchers as to what they were anticipating what's going to happen? Yeah, so since the devastating Indian Ocean earthquake and a couple of tsunami and the Japanese tsunami in 2011, there's been quite a significant investment in being able to accurately forecast the timing and amplitude of tsunamis. And they're pretty good. They're good at what they do. This tsunami came in early, very early. And that's because the process by which these models work basically considers the ocean only. And so did consider this possibility that something in the atmosphere could interact at the air sea interface and push it a lot faster. Did this result in some areas not being warned that something was incoming? Did it have actual impacts on people's lives that this forecasting was off? Fortunately, that initial very fast food lobby was actually pretty small. It caused damage at various places, but it wasn't catastrophic in the same sense as, say, the Japanese or idiot ocean tsunami. In this case, it has more to do with realizing a gap in our knowledge and understanding that it has to do with the direct consequences. There have been other volcanic eruptions in modern history is the gap in our understanding because none of them were large enough to produce this impact on the atmosphere. Yes, it needs to be pretty big in the atmosphere to make this effect. In fact, it probably happened during Krakatoa. Krakatoa was 1883, though, so that's a long time ago. And the data really wasn't anything like the quality we have today. 50 60 years ago had sort of thought that there might be this sort of funny coupling effect and they had done quite a bit of analysis on it, but when you look at the data they were relying on, it was really a handful of tide gauges. It turns out, I think they were probably right. But it was hard to make a really strong case until you had modern data like we have today. I mean, the network of instruments we have today is pretty staggering, right? I mean, what is what all was collecting data after this eruption? So there is the global network of seismometers that measured the waves in the ground. There is a global network of infrasound instruments infrasound is long period, low frequency soundwaves. So those are effectively microphones around the world. There were tide gauges around the world that measured the level of the water, and then there were other sorts of instruments that were satellite measurements of the total electron cottage in the ionosphere. The ionosphere also moved up and down and had a wave propagating on it. The eruption was that big that it was able to connect a couple to the ionosphere. And so that combined dataset is remarkable. Yeah, and that's what one of the papers published this week is about. I mean, what exactly did they find? This dataset is so rich were there any big surprises that came out of it? I think just the pervasiveness, the speed, the complexity of the wave source. That was the big surprise from the network data. But I think it's going to take a long time until we fully understand what it means about the eruptive dynamics. And some of these waves even circled the world multiple times, right? That's just how powerful it was. Absolutely. That's pretty crazy. And it was really interesting to see just how many, I mean, it makes sense, but there were a lot of authors on this paper and all of these different monitoring stations are set up around the world. I mean, is it pretty common following these major seismic or eruptive events that there's a lot of international collaboration? My seismometer by itself is really not very much good. I need to get together with all my other seismologists, colleagues, the international network is what makes it possible. A lot of this infrastructure was put in place for the purpose of modeling nuclear tests and so it is controlled and operated by a variety of different enterprises. They local authorities. So there's a pretty well developed network of collaboration and culture of collaboration so that we can in fact take a global view of problems with nuclear tests. There's a lot more limitations in terms of making the data kind of publicly accessible. So I feel like this is a pretty unique opportunity to have all of these different monitoring stations picking up on something, right? Yes, I think that's right. Are there other ways that researchers can use these seismic signals to better understand processes that are happening on the surface of the earth? Absolutely. There's been a growth in what's known as environmental seismology recently. And that is using seismology and also infrasound to study surficial processes such as rivers, bedload transport and coastal erosion and glaciers and hurricanes, all of those things pound on the ground with some amount of force. And we can use those forces at the seismic waves they produce to actually say something about each of those processes. I'm excited to see all the stuff that comes after this. Thank you so much, Emily. Thank you. Emily Broadsky is a Professor of earth and planetary sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz. You can find a link to her perspective and the two papers we discussed at science.

Tonga Megan Cantwell Emily brodsky earthquake Japanese tsunami tsunami Emily Indian Ocean Emily Broadsky University of California Santa Cruz
"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

Science Magazine Podcast

08:05 min | 3 months ago

"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

"And try and ask the question as to how is this different and could it be used? And then eventually potentially talk to investors or pharmaceutical companies or industry to ask the question is why not? This could be used and use that feedback in an iterative way. Are there any particular skills that someone interested in establishing a startup should bring with them or perhaps learn along the way? The thing that we tell our academics when they start in our programs is that they are absolutely required, but insufficient for success. So they are the heart and soul of the commercialization endeavor that they're on and it's actually their ability or the academics ability to understand the new framework of commercialization that is limiting factor. And it is extremely difficult. It's a new world. It's a new way of communicating things that were super important in the lab are less relevant when speaking with investors than in the commercialization world. And the ability to adapt to the environment that commercialization environment you're in is really important. And then to add new people into the mix, working with new people to help make that happen. That's absolutely critical. Because it's very difficult to do alone. What are some of the most common pitfalls that you've seen in the startup process that someone commercializing their work should look out for and how can these be avoided? So when we work with our academics and our program, we point to two things. One is messaging. And the key thing that's missing when commercializing is typically funds for the startup company. So when speaking to investors, many format academics believe that it is the science that drives the investment. And it does, but that comes later. The first step is just driving interest. And that actor requires less science and more vision about the product unmet need and how this is going to change and to change the world. And the second part is in this team approach because it not only matters what you say and how real it is, but it all matter who says it. So when speaking investment are trying to commercialize teaming up with people who have done this before, basically adds more ballast to your messaging and makes it even more real when you say. Now you talked earlier about universities having innovation officers, especially the large universities probably have these and maybe even have incubator facilities. Do you think these have been successful and what if a research is at a smaller university that doesn't have some of these types of support facilities? It has to do with scale. The larger the university, the more deals are more academics that have been working with. The more times they try to commercial at something, the better they become. We have to remember that universities have a vested interest in promoting what's coming from their university. And not everything that comes from the university is investable or commercializable. So those universities that have lots of academics and commercialization opportunities have the best opportunities to find out what's going to have traction and work with them. So I would say that it is difficult when you're at a smaller university because they simply just don't have the scale of operations to be very experienced at it. It's similar to a surgeon doing surgery. The more you do, the better you get at it. So let's say I'm a researcher at a university I have an interesting product that I'd like to commercialize. What would I do as first steps to think about whether it's even worth starting the process, whether I have something that is even possibly commercializable. We would recommend an iterative process. So start the journey by talking to people in the know. And in our experience, investors, people in industry. They do want to help. So if you're not effective, if you're not asking for money, if you're just asking for a review, you want to meet someone, people are willing to help. But I think that's sort of broad outreach to people in the know ask them about their needs, tell them about the science and is there a fit? Is there something here? That at least will start the journey. After that, I would recommend finding accelerator hubs that have scale the work in the area of your area of interest to try and apply to that program and see if that can help accelerate. This time. Now, Bobby, are there ways that researchers can structure their work that they're doing in the lab today to make a future commercial venture more successful? Yeah, I would say it's important to keep the idea that everything you do in the lab could be commercializable in flay. And that it's important to do so as a PI, those PIs that set the film that the things that we do in this laboratory are meant to help society and the commercialization of it is an important part of that process. Those are the labs that tend to do commercialization well because they're always thinking about it and working with it. Of course, you have to patent your discoveries in good time, practice publication, and then develop a network of people that can help. And that beyond the university innovation office that could also be local VCs and local players in the industry that you have good context with to help commercialize your work. Do you have any suggestions about how a scientist can start developing a network in the commercial space if they've been in academia all of their lives they perhaps don't have that particular type of network. There are lots of conferences dedicated to translational science to partnering meetings. I'm not saying it's easy because what we also experience in our programs that many of our academic founders that are former postdocs that are running a startup company, they find this type of cold calling and networking quite difficult because they're outside of their field, but our experience is those that actually go all in and just do it. They tend to do well. So in that respect, it's about going to events where investors who are interested in early state science are present and then introducing yourself and then setting up an opportunity to talk to them at a later time. Do you think that creating a startup is something that anyone is able to do and what questions would I ask myself to determine if I have what it takes? You know, at the PII, this is basically our core belief is that academic founders can be wonderful startup leaders. And that's a key point. So I do think everything that drives an academic to be great at science is youthful in the startup world. I mean, we're talking about smart driven ambitious people that want to do something well. So those are the skills that can be used in the startup as well. I think the two question academics need to ask themselves is what is it that they really enjoy doing? If it is basic discovery and public placements and early state science, then working with the startup or helping your science in a new startup is the way to go. However, if you do enjoy working with new people, trying new things, and I'm thinking more about postdoctoral scientists, they can be excellent startup leader than we work with them at the BI to try and get their startups funded and also for them to maintain the positions in their company as more money is put into the company. Well, Bobby, thank you. This has been very interesting, but we're going to have to end things here. I really appreciate you taking the time to talk with me today. Thank you for the pleasure talking to you. Our thanks to the bio innovation institute for sponsoring this interview. I'm Sean Sanders. Thank you for listening. And that concludes this edition of the science podcast. If you have any comments or suggestions, write to us at science podcast at AAAS dot ORG. You can listen to the show on the science website at science dot org slash podcast. For search for science magazine on any podcasting app. This show was edited and produced by Sarah presby, with production help from potassium and Megan Cantwell. Transcripts are by script, Jeffrey cook composed the music on behalf of science magazine and its publisher, triple AS, thanks for joining us..

Bobby bio innovation institute Sean Sanders AAAS Sarah presby Megan Cantwell Jeffrey cook science magazine
"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

Science Magazine Podcast

04:52 min | 4 months ago

"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

"Superior in some ways to a horse and a donkey. This is at the individual level, they might have a robustness that's not present in those sister species. Yeah, that's right. When you looked at that, what did you see when you compared the parthenogens to the sexual you're producing ones? There was no major difference. There was no evidence that they were superior in any way. One of the species had a higher tolerance to temperature than the other one of the sexual species that crossed. And the pathogens were just in the middle. There weren't extreme. That also surprised me. I've been studying this system since 2003, so about 18, 19 years. And the whole while until we got these recent results, I kind of had the idea that it was all about them becoming a hybrid. Someone's referred to this as becoming an immortal mule. With pathogens that are hybrids and that's what I was expecting. And then we found there was just one point and we did the comparisons and there wasn't any advantage from being a hybrid. Also interesting though, one of the advantages of sex is you're supposed to be able to get rid of bad genes. And so pathogens expected to just keep getting sicker and sicker in a way. It's like a ratchet. It's called Mueller's ratchet where you get a new mutation, but you're not getting rid of any of the old ones. And so you just keep getting loaded up with mutations. And other possibility was to see that they were less fit than their sexuals, but they're not. They're just the same. These aren't just surviving. They actually spread quite a distance in their range. They've gone about 2000 kilometers, but mentioned they live in trees. There's a feature that they've crossed called the nullable plane, which is flattened for no trees. And so somehow they got across that. And these are wingless, by the way. I never mentioned that. They're wingless grasshoppers, so they've just topped that far. I guess after we realized, well, there's no hybrid video. It's not an army of different clones. It's just one. You know, I was really appreciating will. If you were able to start a population from a single female because you don't need to find a mate, you have no inbreeding problems because you're cloning, your population growth rate is doubled. So in fact, you can sort of tolerate double the normal mortality rate. That makes you a very superior colonizer. And I guess that explains how they got across the nullable plane after evolving to be pathogenetic. Well, this really gets at the big why question. Why isn't everybody going clonal at a certain point in their species history? It's a really good question. It's in a way more mysterious after what we found with this grasshopper. This grasshopper is one of the few natural clients we can look at. They're a little bit like fossils. You don't find many of them, but it's one of the best studied ones. So what we think this means is that it must be just really hard to evolve. There must be a really unique set of genetic circumstances for that. You know, I mentioned that doubling of the chromosomes before meiosis, that disturbance of meiosis, there must be some very specific situations where that sort of thing is going to work. And you know, there are other lineages that just never evolve. It's like mammals never evolved pathogenesis. And there's a thing called genomic imprinting which prevents that. Amphibians and fish by almost get there, but they remain sperm dependent. There's a need for a male to mate with the female to trigger the development. So it seems just like a real obstacle course to get to pathogenesis for some reason and that seems to be the reason we don't see it very often. Very interesting. So we're not. We can't say it's rare because it doesn't work anymore. We can't say we don't see partridges because when they come up, they die out because they're not able to cope with their environment. This is kind of saying the opposite is just rare to get them. So that's why we don't see them. Yeah, I mean, these ones we're studying these grasshoppers appear to be about a quarter of a million years old. Maybe after a million things go badly. But in the short term, seems fine. Yeah, I mean, that's something that would be really difficult to understand is how dangerous is this over the long term. Is it riskier the cumulatively, but in the short term, you're doing great? Well, we only see one in a thousand species that are parthenogenetic. So it seems like they do die out. Yeah. But natural selection is all about in the short term and in the short term we're not seeing it popping up everywhere and taking over the world and that is still a mystery. Thanks, Mike. No problems here. It's fun to talk about this stuff. Oh, yeah. Mike Carney is a professor in the school of biosciences at the university of Melbourne, Victoria. You can find a link to this article and a related commentary at science dot org slash podcast. And that concludes this edition of the science podcast. If you have any comments or suggestions, write to us at science podcast at AAAS dot ORG. You can listen to the show on the science website at science dot org slash podcast or search for science magazine on any podcasting app. This show was edited and produced by Sarah presby, with production help from prodigy and Megan Cantwell, special thanks to Megan Cantwell for her interview this week. Transcripts are by scrubby, Jeffrey cook composed the music on behalf of science magazine and its publisher, triple AS. Thanks for joining us..

Mueller Mike Carney school of biosciences Megan Cantwell university of Melbourne Mike Sarah presby AAAS Victoria Jeffrey cook science magazine
"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

Science Magazine Podcast

03:30 min | 7 months ago

"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

"To support others that they move forward. That was Willie S rockward, chair Professor of physics at Morgan State University, and this is fano mulu more, a physics and astronomy instructor at Ames community college in Greenland, Colorado. Here she explains her life-changing transition from research to teaching and how it has given her a sense of purpose. Working with students has been life-changing for me. Greeley, Colorado, is in the eastern side of Colorado. There are several different types of jobs that attract a lot of immigrants, at least our set of students are so diverse and you hear their stories and you see how hard they work. It's not very frequently that I find a student who says, hey, I want a major in physics. I have a few, so my job at that point is really to make sure that I have all the classes they need to make the transfer. So the transfer to a four year institution has to happen. I also connect them with several internships. And of course, you know, it's a difficult to do that as well because again, our students are not the typical 18 year old. Our students have full-time jobs, our families, I see my role as the facilitator, because I always think of it. It's not lack of talent. It's just lack of opportunity. And actually, it seems like the scientific community is open to hiring people that might not look like them, which is a great thing. I felt like that was not the case when we were in graduate school. It's not always easy to be one of the few. And our program, there are less than a handful of people of color and space physics and solar physics, thinking about the research world. It was just isolating. So it's mainly data analysis. It was just not for me. So I knew that a little less research and more interaction with students was what I felt would work for me. I had a CV full of presentations and my publications. Heavy on research, that wasn't really relevant to transitioning to community colleges. So it was almost like, I had to rewrite all of my CV just because it just didn't fit. I feel like with more physicists who look like me in those teaching spaces, it will make it feel okay for our students. To this day, every time my first day of classes, there are students who are shocked to see me there. They come in and they look at the door, check the door, check their schedule, and then they come and say, is this physics? Because we have physics. Are you done here? I want that to go away. And yeah, even at Ames, I see that changing because they know who I am. So there's no surprise over the look on their face, which used to bother me. But now though, I'm like, come on in and this is a chance for me to knock down those walls. That was fada movie more, a physics and astronomy instructor at Ames community college at greenley, Colorado. Thanks to producer Joel Goldberg for conducting those interviews and editing those segments. Make sure you check out the full package. We'll be linking to it from the episode page at science dot org slash podcast. And that concludes this edition of the science podcast. If you have any comments or suggestions, write to us at science podcast at AAAS dot ORG. You can listen to the show on the science website at science dot org slash podcast, or you can subscribe anywhere you get your podcasts. This show was edited and produced by Sarah crispy, with production help from prodigy, Megan Cantwell, and Joel Goldberg, transcript, Jeffrey cook composed the music on behalf of science magazine, and its publisher. Thanks for joining us..

Ames community college Colorado Willie S rockward fano mulu Morgan State University Greeley Greenland Joel Goldberg fada greenley AAAS Sarah crispy Megan Cantwell Jeffrey cook science magazine
"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

Science Magazine Podcast

03:35 min | 7 months ago

"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

"That you could get from using this type of analysis? We know from book history, for instance, that some books were or some types of books, which is more likely to be destroyed. So one of the classic examples there is that we know that illustrated books. So books with pictures overall must have had a higher survival probability. Now luckily, this formula that we use is what they call a non parametric statistical formula. And we know that it is robust to such differences. At the same time it's a bit of a pity because we know that this method also doesn't give us insight yet into the nature of the loss. And I think that this will be an important extension of our work that now in future years, we try to also explain some of the loss figures that we have obtained. So I immediately want to know if this can be used for, I don't know, Maya, codices, or manuscripts from library cave in China. I mean, is this something you see that could be expanded in that way? We do argue that applicability of this method is far wider than just our little case study in medieval literature. You could say it can be applied to any sort of cultural assemblage as they called it that is hyper diverse and undersampled. The only thing that you really need is you have to be able to count species so to speak. So you need to have discrete entities that you can identify. But as soon as you can do that, you can start applying it across many fields that we believe. Yeah, so beyond books, beyond manuscripts, we could do coins. Coins. Stone tools. Yeah, painters. You can go pretty far with it, I think. That's interesting. So in fact, this child one method, there's nothing specific about it to ecology. It's derived from under a very general statistical framework and that explains it at least in theory is very wide applicability. You're able to ground truth your findings. How many of these narratives remain based on comparing it with what book historians have done, but other things like we talked about stone tools or coins might be harder to kind of do that with. What does it mean when you do learn about the percentage loss? What can you do with that information? So first of all, I think this is curiosity drive research. So it's just interesting to find out because we had no clue, I think, before. So that makes it very exciting. Secondly, I do think it's interesting because it puts a confidence interval on history. So to speak, you get an idea of the bandwidth of the survival. And also it tells you something about how strong trends have to be before you can accept them for the whole population that you can observe anymore. So that I find very interesting that now we know, for instance, I don't know half of the middle Dutch literature has survived that tells you something about this physical power that you can get from tests that you do apply to the surviving data. And I do expect to see some work capitalizing on that idea in the coming years now. All right, thank you so much, Mike. Was a pleasure. Mike has some is an associate professor in the department of literature at the university of Antwerp in Belgium. You can find a link to the paper we discussed at science dot org slash podcast. And that concludes this edition of the science podcast. If you have any comments or suggestions, write to us that side's podcast at ORG. You can listen to the show on the science site as science dot org slash podcast. Or you can subscribe anywhere you get your podcasts. This show was edited and produced by Sarah krusty, who is production help from prodigy, Megan Cantwell and Joel Goldberg, transcripts are by scrubby. Jeffrey cook composed the music on behalf of science magazine and its publisher. Thanks for joining us..

China department of literature Mike university of Antwerp Belgium Sarah krusty Megan Cantwell Joel Goldberg Jeffrey cook science magazine
"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

Science Magazine Podcast

08:05 min | 8 months ago

"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

"All those tricks using gifts. You ate all that stuff. But you know, this is really kind of a band aid situation because look us researchers that want to actually re understand the effect of those social media posts and how they reach people and so on. We don't even have access to the algorithm. It's like a black box that those private companies have. So I think it's a question that goes beyond just our willingness to be good communicators. The question that actually is in front of us is how the national science foundation and private philanthropies and all those that can fund research can actually have some say in making sure that those private companies give us the access to the algorithm to actually make sure that we can do research that's meaningful. And the research that's meaningful that tell us how those social posts and so on, impact deposits and really nice to share, get published and are used by those fans communicators that want to do a good job. Interestingly enough that fees that we wrote ten years ago was talking about the piece of research we had just completed that showed the nasty effect of root comments on science blog posts and by the way, after our research was published, a lot of science without the comments because they realized that those comments were actually detrimental to the understanding of the things. So research was used to actually go in a way. By the way, I'm really not trying to shut down people's freedom of speech or anything. I will be like that before. Really far from us. The idea to can we actually make sure that we can do research that meaningful and that the online platforms private companies are not really literally having us hostage us audiences as communicators as science communicators because at the end of the day, intelligent algorithms are controlling what people see. So we can do as well as we want. There's no way to actually distribute tango, those effects. It's going to be hard to move forward in a positive way. The parallel that you mentioned at the end of your piece about computers playing chess. Can you talk a little bit about that? I really like that. That was the beginning of the supercomputers and chess playing and test part of lost to supercomputer. It was not able to be better, but as we explained the pieces, nobody blamed Kasparov to be able to beat the supercomputer that was able to analyze data much faster than a human mind. Nobody said, okay, we need to teach chess players to think as fast as computers. Right now we can do in the same way, right? We say, oh, we need people to be able to understand what information is misinformation. We need them to realize the cognitive bias. We need them to be science literate and so on. By the way, we should teach all that stuff. But in the meantime, we should understand supercomputers, right? And we need to make sure that it's not all in the hands of the science communicators and the audiences, but it's also on the side of the algorithms, right? That actually something needs to be done. Yeah. What are the big lessons to take away that everyone should keep in mind when thinking about science communication in the age of social media? The first point I think one of your audience member pointed that out, the necessity for us that are involving communication to break free from what we call information or morphine, which means that we tend to talk to people that think like us that we treat what we do, that are going to be annoyed or excited or hopeful about the same thing as we do. And as you say, you know, engagement with engagement, so the more we share, the more things are shared, we need to know that when we all excited that say that an Atlantic piece is sharing or our views about how we should feel about the pandemic is because we feel the same way as the scion writer in the Atlantic. It's great piece of science writing, but the point is, what does he do as far as convincing people to think otherwise? And I'm talking about the pandemic, but it could be climate change, religious groups and human genetics and so on. So through democracy, we need to really try to actually break those bubbles. And unfortunately, even if we know that we need to do that, it's really hard. And the second thing that we talked about already that is very important for us to think about is how we need to understand how information gets shared amplified and receiving online environment. The way we share things on Twitter, what we say in the way we share it is obviously going to be linked to the way people talk about it and share it. So it's linked to that homophily, but the next step, right? How do we actually make sure that this goes on? And that's the science research, by the way, with a lot of things about that. The third thing that we thought it was really important to keep in mind is being in the last actually since we wrote that last piece really, a researching of urging for science community to rely on storytelling. Narrative. Narratives, and is a big thing. Well, there's a lot of research on that too. With mixed evidence of how successful they are. They are successful. It's just as well, but also you run into the risk of using anecdotal evidence, right? And so that famous quote from this famous scientist and then they all these summarize everybody's thought well not actually and going back to the point of your just member, urging us to actually remember the nuance of scientific knowledge. So anecdotal evidence to retelling yes, but remember, we see one story about the key dying of vaccines. This is super, super likely that has more impact in people's mind than anything else we can do. So we need to actually also remember all the research on science and narratives and they used her condemning misuse and so on and this is something that we really need people to think about. Particularly as they share stories on social media, they get amplified and we share them so that's what the three standards and the challenge is let's remember that what we want is to society that relies on a democratic process. Everybody has the right to see the information that they need to have a fruitful life. And right now, with the way algorithm within approaches and artificial intelligence, free reign on the social media platforms that did free reign from our science communication perspective not in terms of increasing the income platforms make, this is really a challenge that we need all to actually think about and we need to actually make sure that we look away to lead to some democratic consensus of how they should be regulated. So it goes back to that very topical discussion that has gone with broken and Spotify. So it's Spotify in charge of regulating what goes on specify or is it us as a democratic society that should demand some rules as far as what's going on in those private platforms. Instead of a question, I don't have the answer, but certainly this is something we should think about. Wonderful. Thank you so much, Dominique. You very welcome. Thanks for having me. How many Broussard is a professor and chair in the department of life sciences communication at the university of Wisconsin Madison. You can find a link to her insight, all our tweet selections from the next gen psi hashtag and more from the special section at science dot org slash podcast. And that concludes this edition of the science podcast. If you have any comments or suggestions, write to us that science podcast at ORG. You can listen to the show on the science website at science dot org slash podcast. You can subscribe there or anywhere you get your podcasts. This show was edited and produced by Sarah krispie, with production help from prodigy, Megan Cantwell and Joel Goldberg, transcripts or by script, Jeffrey cook composed the music on behalf of science magazine and its publisher. Thanks for joining us..

chess national science foundation Kasparov Atlantic Twitter department of life sciences university of Wisconsin Madiso Broussard Dominique Sarah krispie Megan Cantwell Joel Goldberg Jeffrey cook science magazine
"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

Science Magazine Podcast

02:35 min | 8 months ago

"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

"Has been doing regular training sessions for the auto repay industry. The second point is a public understanding of risk from air pollution, particularly vehicle pollution is actually far less than the public perception of, for example, earthquake, tsunami or other type of risks, public perception is also important to factor in terms of decision making. The Hong Kong government actually has provided subsidies for replacing path in different vehicles. They can get the oxygen sensors replaced for free. For example, by doing this, you actually, I mean, the government, there were several other money in terms of different air pollution induced disease. Do you see this as part of a larger approach to monitoring pollution, monitoring admissions from all kinds of transit systems? I think that there's a very important role for this system to play. For example, one of the challenges we try to address is how to use this technology to identify high meetings of vehicles up to now the robot system technology has been successful. But only in detecting petrol or similar engine powered vehicles such as the LPG, but it is still some upstairs to overcome in terms of these vehicles. And on one plus 40, then we can look at the application beyond world transform. For example, looking at the detecting highly emitting cargo ships. And that's actually a very important question to address. Thank you so much, John. You're welcome. It's our pleasure to be able to speak to the sunset once this audience or even broadly to the general public about very visions. Jon Jo is a Professor of environmental engineering at the center for green technology in the school of civil and environmental engineering at the university of technology, Sydney. You can find a link to the science advances paper we discussed at science dot org slash podcast. And that concludes this edition of the science podcast. If you have any comments or suggestions, write to us at science podcast at ORG. You can listen to the show on the science website at science that org slash podcast. You can subscribe there or anywhere you get your podcasts. The show was edited and produced by Sarah crusty, who has production help from patigi, Megan Cantwell and Joel Goldberg, transcripts or bicycle, Jeffrey cook composed the music on behalf of science magazine and its publisher, triple AS, thanks for joining us..

Hong Kong government tsunami earthquake Jon Jo center for green technology school of civil and environmen university of technology John Sydney Sarah crusty patigi Megan Cantwell Joel Goldberg Jeffrey cook science magazine
"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

Science Magazine Podcast

01:32 min | 8 months ago

"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

"Look at how this works in other parts of the world? As I mentioned, who's considered family is really different across different cultures. And also the norms around saliva sharing are really different. So one question is whether those early experiences might affect the inferences that infants and toddlers make. So if we tested an 8 month old in a totally different culture with these exact same stimuli, would they have the same expectations? And if they don't, then what is it about their environment that's leading them to learn different things about how close relationships work? And if they do, how do those early inferences sort of constrain how people think about family? Thank you so much, Ashley. Thank you. It was a pleasure talking to you. Ashley Thomas is a postdoctoral researcher in the brain and cognitive science department at MIT. You can find a link to the article we discussed at science dot org slash podcast. And that concludes this edition of the science podcast. If you have any comments or suggestions, write to us. At science podcast at ORG. You can listen to this show on the science website at science dot org slash podcast. You can subscribe there or anywhere you get your podcasts. This show was edited and produced by Sarah crespi with production help from patigi, Megan Cantwell and Joel Goldberg. Transcripts are by Scripps. Jeffrey cook composed the music on behalf of science magazine and his publisher, triple AS. Thanks for joining us..

Ashley Thomas Ashley MIT Sarah crespi patigi Megan Cantwell Joel Goldberg Jeffrey cook Scripps science magazine
"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

Science Magazine Podcast

04:30 min | 10 months ago

"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

"For young seedlings to sprout. So again, we've really big cycles happening here. Why has this been so hard to figure out we know about these weather patterns? We know about these climate events, and we know we often notice when the trees are going through a masking year. Why has it been so difficult to figure out the relationships? So it's been hard to figure out the relationships because number one, the ecologists and the plant biologists that study masks and don't really know a lot about climate oscillations and people who study climate oscillations don't really know much about biology. The second problem is there hasn't been a compilation of data so that you can see, okay, well, we had masking events all over the western United States in this particular year. So there's no pattern that you can really discern. But that is on the horizon. There is a database that's coming around that's going to help researchers answer some of these questions? Yes, that's right. Researchers in Europe started out by just compiling records of beach and Norway spruce masking events throughout the last 200 years. And once they had all those events mapped out, they could then overlay when the climate oscillations were changing and sort of see a pattern. And now there is even bigger database that has more records in it from more places. And it's includes a lot of species. If these databases can help pick out some of the important correlations for climate, these oscillations, maybe some other factors that people haven't even considered yet. And masting years, what will that mean when we get a better handle on this? Can we predict masking years? What we learn once that correlation is in place. Once we understand what triggers mask thing, we can have a better sense of when mask thing will occur. Once we have that sense, then we can have a better sense of how to prepare for the after effects of mask thing. Like the bad stuff? Oh, the ticks are over abundance of stoats. Yeah, so in New Zealand, there's a good example of this where conservationists use temperature differences from one season to the next to predict masking in the southern beach that covers the south island. When the beach is mass, the number of mice increased and the number of their predator a stove increases as well. But of course, the mask thing last one season and then the mice have nothing to eat. So they decrease the number. And so the stoats then start turning to native birds for food. And conservationists worry about that and need to take action of that. And so if they can predict them asking year, they can then predict when they're going to have to take countermeasures to control the stoke population down the road. What about positive effects of understanding the masting years? Can we take advantage of the fact that we're going to have a bumper crop of acorns in some way? Well, if you're in Europe and you raise your pigs in the old fashioned way, then what you do is you take advantage of these bunker crops and let your pigs run wild in the forest to fatten up. Liz, were you surprised that this was an unresolved question that masking was pretty mysterious? You know, I'm not surprised because there's so many factors that can go into whether or not a tree will produce a lot of seeds, produce no seeds, produce a small amount of seeds that I could imagine that it would be very hard to tease out what the actual trigger is. And why that trigger is this. Thanks, Liz. Well, thank you. It's a very interesting topic. Yeah. Liz PDC is a staff writer for science. You could find a link to the story we discussed at science dot org slash podcast. Don't touch that dial up next, producer Megan Cantwell, talks with researcher Jean Laurent Casanova about what the genetics of the immune system can reveal.

southern beach Europe Norway United States south island New Zealand Liz Liz PDC Megan Cantwell Jean Laurent Casanova
"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

Science Magazine Podcast

08:09 min | 10 months ago

"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

"26th, 2021. I'm Sarah crespi. Each week we bring you news and research, published in science and the sister journals. Have you noticed anything unusual about the trees lately? Maybe they seem a little extra nutty. Turns out on the east coast of the United States, it's a masting here. When trees make more nuts, seeds, pine cones, everything they drop, they're dropping it. Liz PDC is a staff writer for science. In our first segment, we talk about the mystery of masting years. Next, producer Megan Cantwell, talks with researcher Jean Lauren Casanova, about why some people are more vulnerable to severe diseases from viral infections. We're talking one mutation in the immune system could lead you to have a totally different reaction to a virus than somebody else. Finally, in the newest installment of our series of books on race and science, books host Angela Sami talks with author, Beverly Daniel Tatum about her seminal, 2003 book, why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? Now we have Liz pinnie. She's a staff writer for science. Liz, what brought this story to your attention? How did you first hear about what's going on here? Living in the east coast, I have been walking on acorns all fall. And they're dropping like crazy on the tops of my cars on the roofs of my house until I had been thinking about them and then the physiological transactions of the Royal Society came out with a special issue on mask thing. And I thought, okay, this is a sign. I need to do a story. Yeah, I've told a few people that it's a masting year that that means that it corns over producing other trees or making a lot of seeds. And they just like goes on and they say, oh, that's why you know I'm getting acorns on my roof or the squirrels or extra busy. It's really been interesting to kind of see it in action. Right, exactly. We talk about acorns a lot for this year. Are there any other trees that are going a little wild on the east coast right now? Researchers have documented that Bruce's and pines and balsam fur are over producing their cones this year. Okay. So yeah, so there's a lot of things producing a lot right now. We're gonna mostly talk about the east coast of the U.S. because that's where it's happening right now, but could this happen in other places too? So yes, you can have masking years throughout a continent. This happens in Europe a lot. And so what they mean by masking is a whole bunch of trees either of one species or of multiple species decide to flower and produce seeds and nuts at the exact same time or close to the exact same time. And there are many ideas about why they do it some years and not others. So it's a regional coordination and the regions can get pretty big. Yes, yes. One thing we should talk about too is the downstream effects of a masting year who's eating seeds who's eating the seed eaters? Are there other byproducts of a masting year that we should consider? Oh, yes, certainly. One reason researchers think that masking occurs is so that when they have a mask years and they produce a lot a lot of food and nuts, whatever. There's more fruit and nuts on the ground than the squirrels can eat or the birds can eat. So there's plenty left over to germinate the next year. And then the reason that it's good to not do a mask here every year is one. It takes a lot of energy for a tree to produce so many acorns. And so it doesn't have that energy every year. But two if far as produces a lot of nuts and seeds one year and produces very few the next few years, it means that all the rodents that have been feasting on those nuts won't have food for the following two years. And so they're populations get smaller. And so then when they have a mask year, then there's plenty more seeds to be leftover to sprout. Also, it's a long con against their rodent predators. Exactly. But this doesn't just stop at these small animals that eat the seeds. Then you can look at what eats them and even further out, they're actually public health effects to mass years. That's right. So in terms of the public health effects, what they have documented both in the U.S. and in Europe is that when you have a masking year, the next year you have a lot of mice and the next year following you'll have a lot of the ticks that carry Lyme disease because the ticks use my sense of host. So if there's a lot of mice, there's a lot of kicks that can thrive and then later on in fact us. But you also have a situation where because there's now a lot of mice and chipmunks and squirrels, the foxes and the blanks and the owls and even the snakes that eat those animals can also increase in number because there's so much food around. There's a lot of ripple effects. It's not just the trees for one year. There's like two or three or four years of consequences on the trees, but also what eats the trees and what eats those things. It's really kind of a massive phenomenon. Exactly. Well, next to this question of why it might happen. You know, we talked about starving out their predators every couple of years. There's also a related question about the timing. Why are certain years masting years? A lot of theories link this to climate. The one I like here is this one where the trees are almost like predicting the weather in the future and setting out a lot of seeds ahead of that. How do they know what the weather is or what kind of weather might set up trees for amassing here? So they don't actually know what the weather is. But weather can follow certain patterns. And that's because you have these major climatic events. These are called oscillations. And there's two that are important. One is called the North Atlantic oscillation in which the low pressure and high pressure areas at sea level flip flop between the United States, North America and Europe. And when they flip up, they bring different kinds of weather pattern. And so a weather pattern that might be good for encouraging a lot of seeds, say like a wet warm winter, also later on, creates a situation that would be beneficial for those seats sprouting. It's not just, oh, lots of nutrients are around today. Let's drop seeds. It's in the next season when the seeds that we're dropping now are going to germinate the weather is going to be fortuitous. Correct. And what was the other oscillation that you were mentioning? The other one is called the El Nino southern oscillation. And that affects basically things that are around the Pacific. So Southeast Asia, the West Coast of the United States. And you have interactions between these two oscillations that can create yet a different set of weather patterns. What about fires? That's got mentioned a few times in a story that fire actually might be involved in masting years as well. Yes, that's right. So what can happen is if you have the El Nino southern oscillation pattern, create dry weather that drive weather can lead to forest fires. And forest fires can be good for seedlings because it sort of takes out all the competition opens up that ground.

Sarah crespi Liz PDC Megan Cantwell Jean Lauren Casanova viral infections Angela Sami Beverly Daniel Tatum Liz pinnie United States Royal Society Europe Liz east coast Bruce Lyme disease North Atlantic North America Southeast Asia West Coast
"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

Science Magazine Podcast

03:56 min | 11 months ago

"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

"Is very skilled kind of experiment that we make sure that we know what if the vaccine is working or not. We mentioned before that this doesn't work in mice. And the natural world that they aren't able to become immune or tick resistant, what about if you use the vaccine on them? Did that work? In this case, we could not see that redness. The detachment was not different from the control group, so that's how we knew that the vaccine is not really working that well in this group. So where do people fall in the spectrum? Are we more like a Guinea pig or more like a mouse when it comes to our reaction to these kind of deer texts? I mean, we have far from both of them, but they're true. Yes. We need to do a lot of studies before we come down to humans. Right now, the lab is working for rabbits. It's even higher than Guinea pigs. Is there any evidence of the natural acquisition of take resistance or tick immunity in people? It's not clear, really. We had this discussion before in our group that reacted in a human. But most of the people, if they are a bitten by a multiple times in their lifetime, suppose you are chronic hiker, you go every week. And you do have exposure to text every week or every month. So they do develop some redness, they know next time when there's a big bite. But there's no documented proof I would say. Well, it does sound positive, though, that it might actually work for people too, but studies probably need to confirm that. There is a vaccine against the bacteria that causes Lyme disease. The one that was approved is actually just continued, but there are others now in clinical trials. Why focus on a vaccine against pix saliva rather than the pathogen itself, the bacteria? There have been many attempts before to make the vaccines against pathogens, pathogen proteins. But here we are trying to target abroad community of pathogens. We know that they can transmit different kind of pathogens. Like babesia and a plasma, borrelia, for us and virus, they can transmit many kind of agents. So abroad and they take vaccine strategy but we have full is the timing going to work out the same way for these other pathogens that text may carry. If it's carrying the Lyme disease bacteria, it does take a while for it to come across, but what about the other pathogens? Yeah, some of the virus they transmit really fast within a few hours like less than 5 hours. So we don't know yet. It takes a not feeding well. That is the idea. If they are not able to interact with host, can they transmit the pathogen? This is still possibility. And they can always be optimizations in the vaccine. Thanks Andrew. Thanks. This was really nice talking to you. On the leave Sajid is a staff scientist at the national cancer institute in Bethesda Maryland. The work we talked about was actually done while she was an associate research scientist at Yale school of medicine. You can find a link to the science translational medicine article we discussed at science dot org slash podcast. And that concludes this edition of the science podcast. If you have any comments or questions, write to us. At science podcast at AAAS dot O rg. You can listen to the show on the science site at science dot org slash podcast. You can subscribe there or anywhere you get your podcast. The show was edited and produced by Sarah crespi with production help from prodigy, Megan Cantwell and Joel Goldberg. Transcripts or by Scripps? And Jeffrey cook composed the music on behalf of science magazine and his publisher, triple AS, thanks for joining us..

Guinea Lyme disease bacteria Lyme disease Sajid Yale school of medicine national cancer institute Bethesda Andrew Maryland Sarah crespi Megan Cantwell Joel Goldberg Jeffrey cook Scripps science magazine
"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

Science Magazine Podcast

02:02 min | 11 months ago

"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

"For letting them stay alive and get older and older. Does that mean something about the limitations on this for understanding other animals because so few of them continue to reproduce infinitely with age? I think in some extent, yes, it would affect the evolutionary forces that are controlling age. But I think, ultimately, the result is differences in lifespan, which can be applicable between multiple species. Got it. Can other species be analyzed this way? Are there any other interesting sets of species with this range of lifespan that we could do this analysis on? Other groups have looked at this same question in mammals. So this is a much larger group and much older, but they have a wide range of lifespans as we all know. I think there are other groups of fish that where you could look at. But I think rockfish are sort of exceptional in their lifespan because they are some of the oldest living vertebrates. What do you guys gonna do next? Now we are going to leverage the genomes that we developed so we sequenced all these genomes. But we haven't really dug into any individual species. So now we're going to start thinking about using these genomes to understand the more local evolutionary history of particular species of rockfish. Thanks, Greg. Thanks, Sarah. Greg Owens is an assistant Professor of biology at the university of Victoria. You can find a link to the paper we discussed at science dot org slash podcast. And that concludes this edition of the science podcast. If you have any comments or suggestions for the show, write to us at science podcast at AAAS that ORG. You can listen to the show on the science website at science dot org slash podcast, and you can subscribe anywhere you get your podcast. This show was edited and produced by Sarah crespi. With production help from prodigy, Megan Cantwell, and Joel Goldberg. Transcripts or vice grippy, Jeffrey cook composed the music on behalf of science magazine and its publisher, triple AS. Thanks for joining us..

Greg Owens university of Victoria Greg Sarah AAAS Sarah crespi Megan Cantwell Joel Goldberg vice grippy Jeffrey cook science magazine
"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

Science Magazine Podcast

03:38 min | 11 months ago

"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

"Of the carbon recalibration. The Intel group is really busy to plan for the next the next iterations. But it's not tedious, but we need to measure more and more fine new archive find new trees, find new spare times, find new marine archives. This is an ongoing process. The only key thing that we did not mention that I don't know if team did is ten years ago came a discovery that the carbon 14 can also behave on a very rapid and annual can have jumps. In fact, at an annual time scale, the jump in the production. And this was based on research that was performed by a group in Japan. And this has been confirmed. And more of these events have been found in the trees that are measured in the frame of anchor, and we have discovered many other of these events that are very brief in fact. But the corresponding fact to a massive change of the production of carbon 14, the present theory about them is that the corresponding to massive injection of particles, they are called solar particle Evans, and they are completely unprecedented. Astronomers have not seen them over the past decades, so there is no instrumental record of that, but these Evans are really a true new thing. And this is the reason why in the frame of an we want to remeasure all the true rings at annual resolution. This is a massive effort. I mean, if you can consider, we have 50,000 years to sample. And in the future, we need to do that at annual resolution. For the moment, it's not done, but this is the only way to discover this very special event that's also part of the solon variability. Let me ask you a little bit more about that. So there was this discovery of fluctuations year to year in carbon 14 and the thought is that it's something happening with the sun. And when you say year to year, do you mean you'll have a spike one year out of ten or how frequent is that variation? For the moment, there are a handful of these events that have been discovered. But there are many more probably because for the moment, the record has not been looked at sufficient precision and resolution. I mean, here is only the resolution. We need to measure the carbon 14 in every ring every year. And this is a massive effort, especially because you need to do that at very high precision very high accuracy on three rings and you need to replicate that in different trees at different latitudes and different locations. But this is happening. This is a spike that is happening in one year. In fact, 50,000 samples would not be enough basically. No, it's not. You need to probably ten times more. Wow. All right, thank you so much, edouard. Edouard Bard is a professor at the collage de France. You can find a link to the review we discussed at science dot org slash podcast. And that concludes this edition of the science podcast. If you have any comments or suggestions, write to us at science podcast at AAAS dot ORG. You can listen to the show on the science website at science dot org slash podcast. You can subscribe anywhere you get your podcast. The show was edited and produced by Sarah crespi, with production help from prodigy, Megan Cantwell and Joel Goldberg, transcripts or bicycle, Jeffrey cook composed the music. On behalf of science magazine, and its publisher, AS, thanks for joining us..

Evans Intel Japan Edouard Bard collage de France edouard AAAS Sarah crespi Megan Cantwell Joel Goldberg Jeffrey cook science magazine
"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

Science Magazine Podcast

07:43 min | 1 year ago

"megan cantwell" Discussed on Science Magazine Podcast

"Out from the limited data available at this point. Yeah, I think that's true. We make a lot of assumptions about what happens to families when somebody leaves due to incarceration. Often based on ideas around, if a person, for example, is convicted of a nonviolent event or a violent offense, and we actually just don't have the data to be able to say any of that with any level of veracity. We know on average, having someone incarcerated can be bad for families. And we know that there are alternatives to incarceration that could work a lot better even for individuals who might be providing some risk to families may be a family member who needs additional mental healthcare help. But we can't really say much because we just don't have the data to be able to assess that out. Are there different ways to think about how this affects kids versus the parents versus the romantic partners of the people in prison? When we do think about families, we often focus on children and that makes a lot of sense. There's a lot more data availability to understand those relationships and when we think about children, we think about them in a particular light because they don't have a lot of autonomy. They rely on families to protect them. But we need to also be thinking about the impacts that incarceration has on women who are left behind. Their health is also deteriorating. They are also facing lots of economic problems and also thinking about women, not just in terms of romantic partners, but also grandmothers and mothers who also often are the ones who are holding things down when when people are put behind bars, which majority are men. Of course, there's an increasing number of women who are also attached to the criminal legal system and that's something that we're worried about. I'm worried about but also many people are focusing on in their research. So don't just focus on kids. There's a ways in which they're stigma to be a woman, especially a romantic partner or a mother because it seems like you're responsibility. Why are you with this person? And I think that's, you know, I think can be tricky. The survey data is not fine enough to say if this happens to this family, we're gonna see this output. If this happens to the family incarceration versus remediation or rehab, we can't say enough about what was effective that would be because of the lack of data. There is a growing body of data to suggest we need to be thinking about the consequences of mass incarceration for families. But we still lack the kinds of survey data that we need to really be able to answer this question in more precise ways. What's the difference between families who have a family member who goes to prison versus are experience or able to engage in a program that's in the community to deal with the conviction? We need better data to understand those things. Let's talk about this from a policy perspective. So why is it important to know the impact of mass incarceration on families when thinking about policy? Well, one is because I think the policy conversation is pretty narrow when we do think about mass incarceration or talk about it, again, we are focusing on the individuals who are connected to the criminal legal system. Those who've been incarcerated. But there is a growing body of research at this point there are large quantities of papers that suggest that we can not just focus on the individual who's actually in the system, but the family members, the children, the mothers, the grandmothers, the sisters, are also experiencing negative impacts, even if we're thinking cost benefit analysis wise, we don't have the correct inputs in those analyses if we don't include families and communities who are also dealing with these larger consequences of incarceration of community members and family members. Looking at the data that's available now. Obviously, more needs to be gathered. But what would some preliminary policy recommendations be if you wanted to help families to lessen the impact? One is thinking about what happens prior to incarceration. Can we improve economic conditions and social supports available to individuals who might experience a family member incarcerated? How can we improve access to high quality child care for families in particular mothers, even if a family member is already behind bars, but prior to those experiences? I think is one. What are alternatives to incarceration that we need to be thinking about? There's also lots of research to suggest that incarceration is used as a catch all for lots of other issues that community space that don't necessarily need to use incarceration. How can we improve mental healthcare access? How can we improve other sorts of community level supports that can also serve as ways to help restabilize individuals and integrate them into society without having to turn to jails and prisons? I think those are two big ones that we can think about and that many people are talking about in the policy space right now. Can we do more than survey people to find out what's going on with prisons with families with people who were incarcerated? In science and often in social science, there's great value. And especially in work where we're talking about policy, there's a great value placed on thinking about causal connections. And that is clearly important. We need to think about causality, especially when we're thinking about interventions and policies solutions to some of these really complex issues in terms of how do we address mass incarceration and also its impacts on the families, but that we need to really value ethnographic work that has also provided us with really deep insight into the ways in which family members have been impacted or the mechanisms that link these experiences to those outcomes. You know, as scientists, social scientists, but all scientists who care about the human condition and these kinds of questions that we need to be using ethnographic research in the same way we use econometric models and other forms of data analysis to understand things like mass incarceration and the collateral consequences of incarceration. They go hand in hand. We wouldn't be where we are in terms of the research if we didn't have people who were actually talking to individuals impacted by incarceration. We may not have even thought about those individuals to be honest because I think a lot of ethnographers are the people who remind us about all the people who are part of a story. Thank you so much, Eddie. Hadwig Lee is a Professor of sociology at the University of Washington, St. Louis. You can find a link to her review and the rest of the special issue on mass incarceration. At science dot org slash podcast. And that concludes this edition of the science podcast. If you have any comments or suggestions, you can write to us at science podcast at AAAS ORG. You can listen to the show on the science site at science dot org slash podcast. On the site, you'll find links to their research and news discussed in the episode. You can subscribe anywhere you get your podcast. This show was edited and produced by Sarah crespi, with production help from patigi, Megan Cantwell and Joel Goldberg. Transcripts or by Scripps? Jeffrey cook composed the music. On behalf of science magazine and its publisher triple AS thanks for joining us..

Hadwig Lee University of Washington Eddie St. Louis Sarah crespi patigi Megan Cantwell Joel Goldberg Jeffrey cook Scripps science magazine
"megan cantwell" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

01:51 min | 1 year ago

"megan cantwell" Discussed on KQED Radio

"Very topical for some parts of the U. S right now. Right. I'm talking about the cicada broods. There's news that they might come out more often with warmer weather. Tell us what's going on there. Yeah, So it's a big deal year for cicadas. The massive brood 10 has emerged from the Earth to yell at each other and us and really everything at absolutely peak volume. And those cicadas are one of 12 broods that emerge every 17 years in the U. S. But there are three other broods that emerge on a 13 year cycle instead. And researchers have found that the cicadas that are on that 13 year cycle they're actually evidence that cicadas can change the length of their life cycles. So there's this really great video about this on science by Megan Cantwell. And the theory is that those 13 years cicadas Are offshoots of 17 year cicadas that adapted for a warming period. In the climate that happened some 200,000 years ago. The researchers who studies the caters think the bugs with that 17 year itch can emerge four years early or four years late in response to environmental shifts. And if that gets selected for and enough generations, it can become a genetic trait, not just a necessary short term response. So in 2017, some of the brood 10 cicadas that were in the Washington D. C area actually emerged early, and there is some evidence that warming from climate change might affect this and make those early emergencies more likely. Wow. So we could get earlier recipes for Circe. Two tacos we could. In fact, that was actually another thing that I found. I went looking to see. Like, you know, we're there. Early European colonist reports of brood 10 cicadas..

Megan Cantwell Washington D. C 2017 U. S Earth 13 year 13 years 17 year U. S. Two tacos 200,000 years ago 12 broods one 13 year cycle 17 years 10 cicadas European four years three other broods 10