Out of this world

I touched a piece of the oldest rock on Earth today.  It is 4.6 billion years old and is a piece of the rock used as a standard for radiometric dating.

Is that not crazy?  I also held pieces of another planet in my hand, a piece of the meteorite that formed Meteor Crater, and a piece of the core-mantle boundary. The core-mantle boundary was by far my favorite; it was beautiful.

I know I've been subjecting my students to a little more geology than they would like this semester, but this stuff is just as interesting as biology.  There's something about rocks that feel like time travel.  They are a little piece of an environment long gone.  It is from those environments that the world we know today sprang.  There were organisms with an ecology similar to, yet alien from what we as biologists study and understand.

Chemistry is a little the same way for me.  Since matter is neither created nor destroyed, the very air molecules we breathe in today, the compounds that form our cells, the ground under our feet - these things existed in some fashion over eons.  Its like Charlie Brown says to Frieda regarding Pigpen: "Don't think of it as dust. Think of it as maybe the soil of some great past civilization. Maybe the soil of ancient Babylon. It staggers the imagination. He may be carrying soil that was trod upon by Solomon, or even Nebuchudnezzar."

Practical Seismic Petrophysics

Tad Smith is a petrophysicist working in the oil and gas industry.  Chosen as a 2011 Honored Speaker, Smith came to OU to discuss how petrophysicists analyze geological information to reduce the risks associated with drilling for oil and gas.

One of the problems that petrophysicists face is error and noise in the data.  As with any model, simplifying assumptions exist that are not necessarily met in the real world.  Additionally, data collected under field conditions are rarely perfect.  Therefore, petrophysicists have to find ways to deal with these inconsistencies, including working closely with geologists and geophysicists.

Smith delivered this central message to a broad audience that included specialists and non-specialists alike.  He encouraged confidence in his message through a forthright and relaxed demeanor.  Smith presented himself as the professional he is, and so won the trust of the audience.  This professionalism was compounded by Smith's knowledge of his topic.  His Power Point included mostly images and few bullet points to emphasize integral evidence for his audience.  Anything that existed on the slide, Smith explained using analogies and examples. 

The main detractor from Smith's message was a confusing message towards the end of his presentation.  Smith began to summarize his main points, both verbally and visually, only to continue presenting new information for an additional fifteen minutes afterward.  This was the moment he lost the audience.  What had been a brilliant performance geared toward a general audience suddenly became a tedious and overbearing waste of time.

After speaking with several of my students, I agree - Smith should have focused his message more narrowly.  The amount of information presented overwhelmed some lower-level students and the inability to finish on time alienated a previously receptive audience.  Had Smith managed his time more effectively, his clear message of collaboration among professionals to properly assess drilling locations to save time, money, and lives would have stuck more firmly in the minds of students and specialists alike.

Professorial Guilt

Let us take a moment to consider time management and prioritization.  This topic is on my mind, because for the second time, I will not post four times during the week.  To my students, whose grade is (in part) contingent on doing the same, I apologize.

Life happens.  Recently, I have started to move out of my self-centric position to understand that life happens to all of us, and I am just not that special.  Many of you are thinking, "no kidding jerkface."  I know.  I hear you.  Let me just say that martyrdom is a genetic condition among the women of my family.  I'm not sure its even that rare a condition.

The question is, what do you do about "failure?"  To be honest, I am not entirely sure - but this is what I'm learning.

First, you must consider your priorities and life goals.  In this regard, you can judge activities and opportunities that arise and decide where they fit into your already busy life.

Second, you do your very best to plan ahead and not overwhelm yourself.

Third, you face dilemmas squarely in the eye, recognize the consequences for "failure" and make the best decision you can.

Finally, you recognize your humanity, your good intentions, and move on with your life.  Learn from failures.

Like I said, I'm still learning in this area.  In fact, its probably really hypocritical of me to even make this post, but hey - work in progress.  It is what was on my mind.  Maybe I'll revisit and refine some other time.

Isms and the Science Disenfranchised

Throughout this past week, I have been distracted by an ongoing mental conversation about "isms."  This all started when I thought I could involve myself in (what I thought) was a semi-political conversation online.  Apparently I failed.

The thing that bothers me the most however, is the prevalence of "isms."  An "ism" is any ideology that is completely closed to the possibility or discussion of another framework of thinking.  Most scientists are very familiar, therefore, with "fundamentalism."  Understandably.

However, I am distressed to find that many who argue for scientific reasoning (explanation of observable natural phenomena using observable means) completely shut down those who agree, from a different viewpoint.

For example, there was a recent blog post on attacks against female reproductive health by the religious right, i.e. fundamentalists.  There is however, a large community of those who accept and trust scientific reasoning and also maintain a faith background.  In trying to act as bridges, a number of individuals responded to the arguments of the religious right using phrasing common to a belief culture.  I was dismayed to see two things: 1) the blog poster went and asked others to end the apparently religious part of the conversation, and 2) one of those requested responders answered with "don't argue against science with the Bible and your no-show God."

First of all, that is not what was happening.  All of those using belief-based phraseology were arguing FOR science, not against it.  They were complaining equally about the misrepresentation of the religious right.  As to his argument, it is clearly his prerogative to hold his own belief system and I by no means am trying to degrade his point of view.  However, I felt that he was hypocritical as he answered not with scientific reasoning, but his own belief-based arguments.

I had the opportunity to meet with science writer Deborah Blum this week, author of The Poisoner's Handbook and Ghost Hunters.  She is an extremely intelligent woman with a strong grasp on how to reach the public to increase science literacy.  In talking about the prevalent subculture of people who believe they have experienced the paranormal, she criticized science for shutting these people down.  She termed them the "science disenfranchised" and feels that they are more reachable (in terms of science literacy) than fundamentalists. 

I would add to the list of science disenfranchised faith based/spiritual individuals (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindi, etc.) who are often marginalized directly or indirectly even when they are in support of science.

My kitten smells like pumpkin pie

Its the all-natural cat shampoo we used on him when we took him in.  That stuff really lingers!

You know, last time I checked, I don't think anyone knows how cats purr.  As I currently have said cat purring on my lap, I won't actually go through the trouble of trying to find the textbook of which I am thinking, but the author of said textbook postulated that it had to do with air flow. 

The book itself was about fluid dynamics in nature - i.e. the adaptations of biology (leaf shapes, arteries, body shape) to deal with fluid forces (movement of air and water).  I think my favorite memory of that book was the description of experiments on flea body shape... the researchers used spring guns to literally shoot the fleas into the air.  Go figure.

You know what I want?

A microscope.  Preferably two - one dissecting and one compound.  Nothing fancy; just like the ones we use with our students.

I actually have several microscopes, however, they are not high-quality.  The best is one that I bought at Hobby Lobby; however, it has no condenser, which I think is actually a real problem.  Don't get me wrong - you can see stuff in it, but the image is very low quality. 

I do use it on occasion.  I took a look at the zooplankton that live in my fish tank - they're some sort of ostracod, I think (I told you, the image is not high-quality).  I also looked at the buildup from the kitten's ear to check for mites... nothing.  The little dude just has dirty ears.

I have a couple of other microscopes.  One is at my parent's house and is an early antique microscope kit, likely for children.

Speaking of children, I also have my husband's Fisher Price microscope kit, which I naturally stole (with her knowledge) from my mother-in-law's house as we were redding out. 

(Note: "redding out" is a Pennsylvania Dutch phrase roughly equivalent to the idea of intense cleaning and organization.  "Red up" is more along the lines of cleaning your room.  As a child, my room typically needed redding out as I never really made time to red up.  The whole concept of Pennsylvania Dutch makes my husband crazy, especially when I ask, "Is it all?"  This is shorthand for "Is it all gone, is that the last of it?")

Anyway...

Charting What's Already Here

I was putting together a presentation today and came upon this xkcd comic.

I tried to actually post the artwork on here, but was unable and didn't want to infringe any copyrights doing technological calisthenics.  So, go take a look.  It is a really beautiful thing.

If you scroll over the comic with your mouse, there is an extensive comment from the author/artist on charting what's already here.  I thought this was profound for several reasons; first, we can become trapped in our own little bubbles of despair, where we look out and think excitement and novelty have left us.  In addition, we can be overwhelmed by a vast ocean of experience and observation and dismiss it as being to big and broad to understand, when in reality there is depth and specificity to be found in that ocean.

Science is one of those areas that revels in looking at the things underlying the surface.  While it seems that everything has been done and published, this is untrue.  The universe, our own planet, is vast in both size and scope.  The diversity of phenomena is nigh endless.  Beauty resides in all things, from the ecosystem level on down to within individual cells.  So exciting!

Science and The Learning Cycle

Tonight was our first meeting of the 2011-2012 Graduate Teaching Academy!  This is year two of the program, and likely one of the reasons I get fifty emails a day.

However, I did not pop on here to whine, but to share with you an insight about science and the learning cycle.  I believe the Learning Cycle comes from an educational theorist named Kolb.  This theory posits the following relationship: the learner has a concrete experience on which they reflect and form a working hypothesis.  This hypothesis is tested through application to new situations which lead to new concrete experiences.

This led me to thinking about the scientific process (scientific method for you old-school rule followers) wherein we as scientists observe a phenomenon, on which we reflect by asking questions.  We develop hypotheses, which we test, leading to further observation and data collection.  We continue to reflect and explain and "test" our new findings by comparing them to other experiences in the literature.

In other words, science is all about the learning cycle.  This brings me to two points: 1) everyone can do science and 2) science itself is a collective learning cycle.

First, everyone can do science.  The learning cycle was not developed to explain how a specific population learns, but to explain the learning process for all ages in all places.  This meshes with constructivism, something I am learning more about now.  Very simply, constructivism explains how we build knowledge as individuals.My overarching point is this: scientists are regular people too.  There really is nothing superhuman or extraordinary about them compared to artists or economists or authors.  We all operate using the learning cycle in our own special way.

Second is this idea of science as a collective learning cycle (I know, it sounds like the Borg).  In my mind, this collective learning cycle looks like a learning spiral, much like nutrient cycles in a stream.  One scientist picks up an idea and takes it through the learning cycle, publishing her work.  The next scientist then reads her work and builds on her theories, taking the information/phenomenon in a slightly different direction through another learning cycle.  Thus, science builds on itself through the learning of individual researchers!

Diel Migration

So, many times I use this blog as a space to "warm up" as a writer.  Tonight I have to put together a proposal for an upcoming panel on integrating research and teaching.  This made me think of diel migration.

Plankton is a word that means "drifter."  In other words, any plankton, from tiny microscopic guys to huge things like jellyfish are at the mercy of the current.  The horizontal current, that is.  As long as there are no strong vertical currents, plankton have limited control over their place in the water column.

This control is important because fish that eat plankton are usually visual predators.  This means that zooplankton (tiny animal plankton) need to stay out of the top of the water column during the day, when its light and fish can see them in the water.  However, because phytoplankton (tiny plant plankton) need light to photosynthesize, they are at the top of the water column also.  This is problematic, because zooplankton eat phytoplankton.  The solution?  The zooplankton stay at depth, where its dark, during the day, and migrate up closer to the surface at night to eat.  There are some special circumstances (other predator types) where this migration pattern is reversed, but we don't need to worry about that right now.

The reason I bring this up, is that years ago while I taught the ecology of lakes laboratory, we set up two or three major projects, rather than isolated weekly labs.  One project was always on phytoplankton, which we did in a lab setting, and the other was on zooplankton, which we did in the field.

The first year I was a TA, we actually monitored zooplankton populations at various depths for 24 hours.  The second time I taught this class, we broke the class into groups and each group came with me out to Lake Somerville at a different phase of the moon.

See, the zooplankton respond not to "time" per say, but to light levels.  Therefore, our expectation was that during the full moon, we would see less zooplankton at surface levels than during other phases of the moon.

I have to say, I don't particularly remember our results.  It was a memorable experience though, especially the night that I couldn't get the boat started.  See, ecology of lakes was a course taught in the Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Department, which some refer to as the "hooks and bullets" kids.

This means, that I was out in the middle of Lake Somerville at 2:00 am, with male students who grew up fishing and hunting.  Not being able to start the boat (who do you call to come haul you off the lake at 2 am?) does not increase your ethos when you're a small woman who neither hunts nor fishes (not that I'm against either... I just didn't grow up hunting or fishing).  I did get the boat started, after a few muttered pleas for deliverance, but it certainly left an impression in my mind!

Well, that's the end of my story for tonight.  Looks like I'm off to write that panel proposal!

Why Go to College?

This summer, Gary Trudeau published this Doonesbury Comic Strip.

Since then, I've been mulling over the thoughts presented in the strip: What does it mean to be a student?  Why go to college?

These are excellent questions.  A friend of mine believes that in the near future, humans will be physically melded with technology.  In other words, you could access the internet just by thinking about it.  I'm a little doubtful, but like the characters in the cartoon strip, we already have a wealth of information right at our fingertips.

Through happy circumstance, in 2006 I happened to observe a classroom at Texas A&M "taught" by award-winning professor, Dr. Hill.  I say "taught" because I left with the distinct impression that Dr. Hill was more guide and less guru.

In what was initially one of the strangest lectures I had seen in my entire life, Dr. Hill presented on the very same issue touched upon in the Doonesbury strip.  Why go to college?  What was really great was not only did he project into the future, but took us through a tour of the past reactions of teachers to new technology.  Believe it or not, based on the quotes shared, issues of ball point pens vs. inkwells and paper vs. slate apparently nearly derailed the education system.

So, what is the point?  While the stereotypical student may agree with the Doonesbury characters, I hope the real student gives this some thought.  Throughout life, we run up against unfamiliar situations all the time.  We are presented with and must sort through mountains of information each and every day.  In college, these mountains may threaten to overwhelm us.  In the end, however, it all comes down to two basic tenets:

How do we think? and What do we think?

The words, "critical thinking skills" get tossed around in education all the time.  Really, what professors are saying is, "I want my students to process and analyze the material in order to gain deeper and more personal understanding of the topic."  The sequence of processing and analyzing is the how we think.  That deeper and more personal understanding eventually becomes the what we think.  College doesn't exist merely to fill your head with facts like some sort of time capsule.  Information is vibrant and ever growing (think of all the researchers just at OU... they generate new information every day); there is no way we can memorize it all.  College exists to help guide students through the thinking process so that by the time a student graduates, he or she has the skill to find, evaluate, process and analyze information to develop his or her own ideas and opinions.

And that, Charlie Brown, is what college is all about.

Too Tired... Can't Post...

I am barely holding on this evening and may fall out of the chair at any moment.  Wednesdays are long.  Thus, I would like to say something profound and wonderful about science, but cannot.  Lucky for you, I will share this wonderful gem instead from one of my favorite bloggers, "The Dragonfly Woman".  Go read, "From the Literature: Oxygen, Temperature, and Giant Insects."  She does a wonderful job of explaining and critiquing a recent article in ways grandma can understand without being patronizing about it.


Dragonfly Woman is my science blogging inspiration.  She is a Deadly Ninja of Science Communication Master.

Think Science

Today is Labor Day.  It is also my birthday!  To help celebrate, my parents came to town from Maryland.  My dad has been in Oklahoma before, but mostly to help me move and do important dad stuff at my wedding.  Like, cut grass (Outside wedding. Oklahoma. August.).

Anyway, to give him a chance to enjoy Oklahoma, we drove down to Witchita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, most of which was on fire.  However, we did see a lot of awesome nature and I got a sunburn.  I was overconfident in the absolutely BEAUTIFUL day - while it was pleasantly cool, the sun still emitted UV rays.

Our first stop was Crater Lake, near the Cache entrance.  This is where today's title comes from, as there was a young girl, perhaps 10-12 wearing an awesome t-shirt that read "Think Science."  My kind of child.

We did eventually drive over to Medicine Park and up Mt. Scott, which had a lovely view, as usual.  I saw some cool (dry) rock pools in some of the boulders.  When it finally rains, these will fill with water and contain their own unique plankton community.  This is where we can study questions on chaos in nature - i.e. if a butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil, are there tornadoes in Texas?  Those are some really interesting questions, as it only takes a tiny tiny difference in starting conditions to wind up with two totally different endpoints.

Anyway, after Mt. Scott, we went down to the edge of one of the reservoirs where a herd of free-range longhorns were hanging out with a herd of bison.  Both had young with them and it was neat to see the gangly "little" bison with their tiny horns just sprouting from their heads.  The longhorn calves were cute too; we stuck around long enough to see them start feeding from their mothers.

Finally, before heading back for my birthday dinner, I saw this really funky little bee.  It was all fuzzy yellow with really long legs and a long proboscis, almost like a mosquito.  You can see my picture below.  Like a true science nerd, I took about ten or so shots of the little guy.  I thought it was really cool.

 

Vacuum update: My parents bought me a DYSON for my birthday.  I vacuumed the entire house last night and threw away enough dust and hair to construct another cat.  That vacuum is awesome!

National Merit Scholars and Athletics

So, I think it is no secret that I am currently at the University of Oklahoma, which is a very big football school.  Now, the football gene skipped me in my family, leading some to wonder if I am adopted.  Contrary to the lack of the football gene, I do enjoy being with my family and so when my parents come to visit, I am more than happy to join them in the thin atmosphere of the "actually affordable" seats.

Tonight was one of those nights, and so I sat in the upper end zone of OU's first 2011 season game against Tulsa.  (If there's someone out there who can explain to me why Tulsa is the "Golden Hurricanes, I would be appreciative.)  We did win, by a large margin, and I enjoyed dragging my husband into the action by texting him a "smootch" every time we made a touchdown.  (Yes, that is a Texas A&M thing - that's where I got my masters...)

Anyway, the whole point of this post is that during the pregame, OU brought the two hundred plus 2011 National Merit Scholars out onto the field.  I thought this was awesome, although the fans around me looked askance when I yelled out, "Go academics!"  Because I don't have the football gene, I have a really hard time appreciating the athletics program hoopla that surrounds life at a Big Twelve University.  In fact, it often annoys me.

I watched Extraordinary Measures (2010) the other night.  This is a movie based on a true story where a father works with a research scientist to develop a treatment for Pompe's disease.  Early in the film, the research scientist makes this comment: "the university pays its football coach more than his entire research budget." That is the biggest thing that bothers me about athletics.

Now, I know that athletics pays for itself and more;  I just wish that academic accomplishments got fancy video introductions and theme songs and "Think Like a Champion" banners too.  That would be awesome.  That's why I was so pleased to see the National Merit Scholars out on the field.  Next year maybe they'll get theme music.

I swear though - I am making my own fancy video introduction for when I defend my dissertation.  There is only one Oklahoma.

This is not normal.

You know what's not awesome?  Five cats and a broken vacuum cleaner.  My floor looks like a shag rug in a grain silo (we use corn cat litter; smells better, less dust).  My parents arrive for a visit Saturday and I'm torn between guilt over the condition of the floor and hope that they'll buy me a new vacuum. 

I know what you're thinking too - the cat hair killed the vacuum in the first place.  You would be WRONG.  My husband's hair (he's long haired), my hair, and likely a few cat toys, killed the vacuum.  So there.

My husband and I continued our periodic conversation on sound.  We have one fundamental difference in sound preference - I like total quiet most of the time and he can't live without constant music.  He is good about headphones though - this I sincerely appreciate. 

I am growing accustomed to constant music except for two times: 1) in the morning and 2) right after a really long day of interaction with people.  This morning our discussion was on whether or not this is a learned or inherent (i.e., genetic) behavior.

My mom couldn't stand noise at those two times either.  We never had the TV on in the morning and any time she taught kids for awhile (Girl Scouts, Sunday School, etc.) we played the quiet game.  Now I understand; as a child I was slightly baffled.  This might indicate that my response is learned.

However, I wonder if both her response and mine are genetically based in (let's say) a propensity for headaches/migraines.  She never mentioned migraines, but I (on occasion) have threatened to unplug the refrigerator.  Usually the reason I can't tolerate the sound (in this case, music) is because I have a headache and I can't process all of the sensory input assailing my senses - it's like I need to boot up (in the morning) or wind down and recover (after prolonged social interaction).

I haven't quite decided which of these hypotheses makes more sense... anyone want to weigh in on the matter?