Why do we still vary? | Gene Expression

I notice that last summer Karl Smith asked “Why Are There Short People?” His logic is pretty good, except for the fact that the fitness variation seems to be much starker in males than females (there is some evidence I’ve seen that shorter women can be more fertile, though that’s balanced by the fact that larger women seem to be able to manage gestation better). In any case, height seems to be a fitness enhancing trait which is highly heritable, and yet the variation in height remains!

 

Karl’s readers offered some reasons. What do you think? Mind you, something which immediately comes to mind is that the logic presented for why everyone should be tall and vary only a touch is logic. Not all the assumptions need to hold. For example, has the advantage to height been invariant at all times and places? I have posited for example that the fact that humans became smaller after the Ice Age may have something to do with increased morbidity and declining mortality, where agricultural settlements “hugged” the Malthusian boundary more consistently than hunter-gatherers. In this sort of environment smaller individuals may have gained a fitness advantage because they required fewer resources to make it through the inevitable “starving times.”*

But more generally the fact that height seems widely distributed across the genome brings to mind the role that pleitropy might play. Genes of small effect in height may have larger effect in many other traits which are constrained from shifting in allele frequency too much. In other words, can it be that the G-matrix is somehow maintaining this quantitative trait? I’d be curious what those of you with a quantitative genetic background might have to say….

* Another obvious issue is that larger individuals may be more favored energenetically in cold environments. As the world warmed that constraint was released.

NCBI ROFL: A novel use for babies! | Discoblog

Infant characteristics and anger reduction.

“Konrad Lorenz first suggested in 1943 that certain physical and behavioral characteristics common to infants (babyishness) serve as cues to attract adult attention and care as well as to decrease the likelihood of aggression. The present study was designed to determine whether the visual stimuli of a baby’s face alone are sufficient to reduce anger. The subjects were 60 female students between 18 and 30 years of age. Anger was evoked by setting unsolvable tasks and by noise and maintained by adequate instructions and by continuing noise. Three procedures of measurement (heart rate, retrospective self-report, and interpretation of facial affect by two observers) were designed to show the reactions of the subjects viewing photos of babies and adults. We found a slight increase in heart rate to be an expression of happiness and a massive acceleration to be an expression of anger. The self-report measures and interpretation of facial affect supported the hypothesis that there is a more positive response to infants than to adults, and to cute babies also a more positive one than to less attractive infants. We found weak evidence that babyishness reduces anger. As a consequence of the length of the experiment, subjects who should not be aroused became angry. Thus, it was possible to register a reduction of anger as reaction to cute infants.”

Photo: flickr/1uk3

Related content:
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Get angry. Get noticed.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Experimentally induced anger!
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Want to make your Africanized honey bees more aggressive? Get ‘em drunk!

WTF is NCBI ROFL? Read our FAQ!


Dayton Wants Enterprise

Dayton City Paper Donates Full Page Ad to Space Shuttle Enterprise Petition Effort

"The quest to land retired Space Shuttle Enterprise at the National Museum of the United States Air Force received a major boost when Paul Noah, the publisher of the Dayton City Paper, donated a full page ad supporting the White House petition effort in the Oct. 18th LWV voters guide issue.

The petition launched two weeks ago, has picked up approximately 3,500 supporters and will need to earn a total of 5,000 signatures by October 30th in order to receive consideration from the Obama administration.

View the petition at "We The People" at WhiteHouse.gov"

NASA’s Perception of Size and Commerce

Keith's note: This comment from NASA's Phil McAlister via Jeff Foust on Twitter from the ISPCS (International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight) is somewhat revealing as to NASA's preceptions in terms of the appropriate size of a government oversight office.

@Jeff_Foust: McAlister: Comm'l Crew office capped at 250, which for NASA is a very lean program; "not a standing army but a platoon." #ispcs

According to Wikipedia (and other references) a platoon contains 26-55 individuals. McAlister is off by a factor of 5 to 10. What McAlister is actually talking about is an organization that is somewhere between a large company or a lean battalion in size.

I'd love to see a NASA management tree and job description for each of these 250 positions in the commercial crew office. If NASA was truly interested in the use of commercial means to accomplish its mission - but also interested in the underlying managerial philosophy inherent in private sector operations - then NASA would learn to mirror the way that the private sector works. Or at least try. These comments make me question if they ever will. I wonder what the government/supplier ratio will be in terms of government oversight for Shuttle Vs commercial crew and cargo flights. Add in the people across NASA matrixed to the commerical crew office and I will bet that the total workforce greatly exceeds 250.

Reader note: "Someone check my math but the full taxpayer cost of 250 NASA civil servants is approx. $75 M per year. Does this come off the top of the appropriated funds (Senate Appropriations recently set at $500 M for 2012)? That's a 15% overhead for the program office alone - not to mention the Center technical oversight."

Reader note: "250 CS employees would be about $55M. I know our center uses about $220k for an FTE. Don't know the exact number since it changes. $300k/FTE is way high."

Keith's 21 Oct 8:37 am EDT Update: Early this morning Anlyn Bankos from NASA's commercial office sent me an email with two reports attached "NASA's Return on Investment Report October 2011" and "CCDev 2 Milestone Schedule". When I sent an email asking for the URLs at the NASA Commercial Office I got this message back from Bankos "I will be out of the office from Wednesday, February 16-Friday, February 18. If you have any questions, please contact Dick Smart.". Wow. Its October. I guess they are not very busy - at least not busy enough for their "customers" to notice that this message is 6 months out of date.

Keith's 21 Oct 2:00 pm EDT Update: NASA's Return on Investment Report October 2011 and CCDev 2 Milestone Schedule are now online at NASA. It took 6 hours for them to make a simple website update.

Commercial Crew Hearing Next Week (Update)

Full Committee Hearing: NASA's Commercial Crew Development Program: Accomplishments and Challenges

Wednesday October 26, 2011, 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Panel One
- John Elbon, Vice President and General Manger, Space Exploration Division, The Boeing Company
- Steve Lindsey, Director, Space Exploration, Sierra Nevada Space Systems
- Elon Musk, CEO and CTO, Space Exploration Technologies
- Charles Precourt, Vice President and General Manager, ATK Space Launch Systems
- George Sowers, Vice President, Business Development and Advanced Programs, United Launch Alliance
Panel Two
- Bill Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, NASA

Crowdsourcing Science with Zooniverse and NEEMO

Crowdsourcing Science with Zooniverse and NASA at the NEEMO-15 Underwater Asteroid Mission

"Analyzing the vast amount of data that NASA brings back from its missions is an enormous task. In order to improve collaboration internally, as well as engage citizens in NASA's mission, the Open Government team is experimenting with different ways to process mission data quickly. The NASA OpenGov team has enlisted the help of established NASA partners Zooniverse and Vizzuality, who have pioneered the analysis of large datasets through crowdsourcing, using the power of elegant interfaces, to engage citizen scientists in the NEEMO mission."

NASA Approves SpaceX Launch Abort PDR

SpaceX Completes Key Milestone to Fly Astronauts to International Space Station

"Today, SpaceX announced it has successfully completed the preliminary design review of its revolutionary launch abort system, a system designed for manned missions using its Dragon spacecraft. This represents a major step toward creating an American-made successor to the Space Shuttle. NASA's approval of the latest design review marks the fourth successfully completed milestone under the agency's Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program and demonstrates the innovation that's possible when NASA partners with the private sector."

NASA and Commercial Space Utilization: Stumbling or Strategy?

Did NASA Hide In-space Fuel Depots To Get a Heavy Lift Rocket?, TCMnet

"Last week, a 69 page NASA Powerpoint presentation on the costs of in-orbit fuel depots was leaked to SpaceRef.Com. The July 21, 2011 document, a preliminary report of a more detailed in-house NASA study that at least one Congressman has requested and been promised, says it would be dramatically faster and cheaper to use existing rockets in combination with in-orbit fueling to get to the Moon, an asteroid, and other deep space destinations than to build the heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS) rocket. The Tea Party in Space (TPIS) is calling it an "integrity issue" for NASA."

Is This NASA Document Saving or Killing Manned Private Spaceflight?, Popular Mechanics

"NASA, which wants to send its astronauts aboard privately built spacecraft, recently released the first draft of a document detailing how it would ensure those ships are safe. The contract is a tome of legalese, but buried inside the hundreds of pages are provisions that have some private space companies worried that NASA's oversight could slow them down."

Florida’s Governor Visits KSC

Governor Scott tours Kennedy Space Center for first time, 13 News

"Florida's governor toured the Kennedy Space Center for the first time since taking office Tuesday to get a look at progress of the next generation of NASA spaceflight. He also talked about ways to lure more companies to the Space Coast and Florida to employ jobless space shuttle workers. Scott and his cabinet walked through the Operations and Checkout Building where the Orion spacecraft is being built and fine-tuned for future deep space missions."

Florida governor visits NASA facility to talk jobs, CNN

"It's no longer your daddy's NASA," said Carroll, who also heads Space Florida, the state's aerospace advocate. "It's going to be the 21st century NASA for our grandchildren."

- Florida is Getting Greedy About Human Space Flight, earlier post
- Virginia's Invisible Spaceport, earlier post

NASA’s Ongoing (But Closely Held) Interest In SLS Alternatives

Keith's note: As you can see from these charts taken (out of context) from the 13 July 2010 NASA HEFT presentation "EELV Capacity Analysis", NASA clearly did quite a bit of comparison and contrast between various existing expendable launch vehicles - foreign and domestic - analyses that did not always include use of a SLS-class heavy launch vehicle. Indeed, one chart is titled "International Partners Have Lots of Capacity". The rest of this presentation contains procurement-sensitive information and will not be published here.

That said, it is obvious that even a year ago pragmatic thought was given to how a variety of launchers could be used for human, cargo, and other launch purposes including ways that mission profiles (DRM 4) usually associated with a HLV could be accomplished in whole or in part by the use of expendable launch vehicles. A more detailed look at what was being reviewed last year can be found at "Human Exploration Framework Team Presentation Online".

- NASA Studies Show Cheaper Alternatives to SLS, earlier post
- Using Commercial Launchers and Fuel Depots Instead of HLVs", earlier post
- The HLV Cost Information NASA Decided Not To Give To Congress, earlier post

Yet Another NASA EPO Website With No Clear Purpose

"Beth Beck and Agela Triano worked together to create NASA SpaceSmart, an activity-based communication tool to measure shifts in public opinion about space. Beth is NASA's Space Operations Outreach Manager and Angela is a Marketing Solutions Account Executive at GES. Learn ways to engage and interact with your audience as you communicate your brand message, while tracking what topics "move the needle" in how they view your brand. SpaceSmart is one of many projects Beth created as an opportunity to make this world a better place while demonstrating the relevance between life on Earth and the extreme environment of space."

Keith's note: SpaceSmart has a Twitter account at @SpaceSmart but it hasn't tweeted since 7 Feb 2011. Not very current - or "SpaceSmart". This project also has a website nasaspacesmart.com whose domain is registered to PurcellMultimedia in Lewisville, Texas. This website points to Facebook page that does not seem to exist. There is no mention of this effort at NASA.gov. Why hasn't HEOMD EPO Lead Beth Beth told anyone about this? If you pay $10 you can hear her talk about it here.

This SpaceSmart thing seems to be accomplishing nothing - so what is it that Beth Beck is going to talk about on behalf of the agency? The Twitter page says "I'm SpaceBot. NASA is still developing the world I live in. You can join me there soon. Stay tuned." The last time Beth embarked on an automated website we got NASA Buzzroom and all of the inappropriate content it automatically published at NASA.gov. Isn't NASA supposed to be coordinating all of these EPO and public engagement activities?

Keith's update: I came across these confusing presentations from 2010 and 2011 that describe what NASA SpaceSmart is supposed to do - whenever it actually starts doing whatever it is supposed to do. Lots of numbers and charts but no description of what this little droid mascot "SpaceBot" represents or what Space Smart actually does or will do. Global Experience Specialists, Inc. (GES) is apparently the NASA contractor on this. Two Twitter accounts are listed as being sources for more information. @joannascorsone does not seem to Twitter very much and @trianotwntxs protects their Tweets and only has 25 followers. This doesn't strike me as a team that does a whole lot of social media interaction - at least not on Twitter.

The nasaspacesmart.com website openly says "Space Smart™" If you do a quick trademark search you will see that there are 50 applications to trademark "Space Smart" or close variants thereof. 17 applications are still live. So ... does this NASA activity actually own the trademark that it is claiming -- or has their application been denied? Did NASA apply for this trademark?

Keith's update: There is another Twitter account associated with this effort @spacesmartbot. Alas, it is not very smart. It only tweeted 22 times - the last time being 24 June 2010. Then it shut down (I guess). Curiously, that last tweet says "[] I don't think exploration isn't in the country's best interest." Hmm. Bad robot grammar.

Oh well. More stuff to FOIA.

Understanding House Science Committee Republican Deficit Recommendations

Republicans Send Deficit Reduction Recommendations to Select Committee (NASA excerpts)

"We propose reductions of $177 million (based on the FY12 request) by taking the following actions:

* Cancellation of OCO-2 mission (received $89.0 million in the FYI 1 CR; $91 million savings in FY 12; $149 million savings over five years). Life cycle cost savings could be higher as NASA struggles to define a launch vehicle to carry OCO-2 to orbit.

* Reduce by 20% "Other Missions and Data Analysis" account within the Earth Systematic Missions (received $274 million in the FY11 CR; $74 million in savings in FY 12; $584 million in savings over five years). The FY12 request represents a 66.8% increase over FY2010 enacted, with an average annual increase thereafter of 32%.

* Reduce by 20% "Venture Class Missions" account within the Earth System Science Pathfinder Missions (received $32 million under the FY11 CR; $12.4 million savings in FY12; $144 million savings over five years). Venture Class Missions is a new activity for NASA, begun in response to a recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences. It is, in essence, a new start. While we support the program's goals, we simply propose that growth in the spending profile be moderated."

Keith's note: Of course the Republican staffers on this authorizing committee could have picked any mission with a similar cost range to cut but they chose OCO-2 because its mission is directly related to global change issues. Alas, the National Academy of Sciences sees the replacement of OCO-1 as being important. I guess that just makes it a bigger target for climate change deniers. Why get data, eh? Take a look at the other cuts that are recommended. It is clear that there is an anti-Earth science bias running throughout. If you were to collect all of the input that the Super Committee as received from here and there you'd see all manner of proposed cuts - some obvious, some wacky, and many overtly partisan. Keep that in mind when you read this.

Dangers That Lurk in the Cloud

How safe is your data in the cloud? Multi-factor authentication locks can provide security, but don't help with accessibility if the servers are down. Expert Jeremy Pollard concludes it's best to keep your company secrets close to home and use the cloud for public documents.

The preceding article i

What is Your Pet Peeve?

In working with automation, what one thing would make your task easier? More flexible cables? Single controllers? Built-in safety features? Out of all your automation, if you could change one thing, what would it be?

The preceding article is a "sneak peek" from Robotic Systems, a newsletter from Gl

Is Thorium the Answer?

Some experts think thorium is the key to a reliable electrical future, arguing that thorium could be used as a low-cost, high-output, and extremely safe alternative to traditional nuclear power. What do you think? Do you think it can live up to the hype?

The preceding article is a "sneak peek" from

Will the Real Steve Jobs Please Stand Up?

In the wake of Steve Jobs' death, the avalanche of accolades seems endless. There is no doubt that he fundamentally changed computing and consumer electronics and that his influence will be felt far into the future. But he also has his detractors. One columnist commented: "The Steve Jobs who founded