We have black start Diesel engine started by air compressor. I need to select/size a drain trap suitable to install in the compressor vessel and what parameters to be checked to ensure the trap will function correctly.
Aprreciate your inputs
Reprogrammed stem cells carry a memory of their past identities | Not Exactly Rocket Science
Imagine trying to rewind the clock and start your life anew, perhaps by moving to a new country or starting a new career. You would still be constrained by your past experiences and your existing biases, skills and knowledge. History is difficult to shake off, and lost potential is not easily regained. This is a lesson that applies not just to our life choices, but to stem cell research too.
Over the last four years, scientists have made great advances in reprogramming specialised adult cells into stem-like ones, giving them the potential to produce any of the various cells in the human body. It’s the equivalent of erasing a person’s past and having them start life again.
But a large group of American scientists led by Kitai Kim have found a big catch. Working in mice, they showed that these reprogrammed cells, formally known as “induced pluripotent stem cells” or iPSCs, still retain a memory of their past specialities. A blood cell, for example, can be reverted back into a stem cell, but it carries a record of its history that constrains its future. It would be easier to turn this converted stem cell back into a blood cell than, say, a brain cell.
The history of iPSCs is written in molecular marks that annotate its DNA. These ‘epigenetic’ changes can alter the way a gene behaves even though its DNA sequence is still the same. It’s the equivalent of sticking Post-It notes in a book to tell a reader which parts to read or ignore, without actually editing the underlying text. Epigenetic marks separate different types of cells from one another, influencing which genes are switched on and which are inactivated. And according to Kim, they’re not easy to remove, even when the cell has apparently been reprogrammed into a stem-like state.
But reprogramming adult cells is just one of two ways of making stem cells tailored to a person’s genetic make-up. The other is known as nuclear transfer. It involves transplanting a nucleus (and the DNA inside it) from one person’s cell into an empty egg. The egg becomes an embryo, which yields stem cells containing the donor’s genome. Kim has found that these cells (known as nuclear transfer embryonic stem cells or ntESCs) are much more like genuine embryonic stem cells than the reprogrammed iPSCs. They’re ‘stemmier’, for lack of a better word.
Kim’s research tells us that creating stem cells through nuclear transfer is not a technique that’s easily disregarded. It certainly steers into trickier ethical territory since harvesting ntESCs destroys the embryo. And it is still trailing behind technically; so far, it has only been successfully done in monkeys and other non-human mammals, and it has been mired in scientific scandal.
Meanwhile, work on iPSCs has raced ahead. The starting pistol was fired in 2006, when a group of Japanese scientists first showed that it was possible to create these cells in mice. The race intensified in 2007, when two research groups independently managed to do the same for human cells. In 2009, mouse iPSCs were used to produce live animals, passing the ultimate test of their stem-like status. Various groups have made the technique more efficient, sped it up, found ways of sorting out the most promising cells, and changed the details so that it doesn’t use viruses (or uses only viruses).
But all along, scientists have realised that there are subtle differences between iPSCs and genuine embryonic stem cells and, indeed, between iPSCs produced from different tissues. For a start, some types of cell are easier to reprogram than others – skin, stomach or liver cells, for example, are easier to convert than cells from connective tissues. And the older or more specialised the cells are, the harder the task becomes.
Kim’s team found that once the cells are converted, there are further issues. They found it easier to produce blood cells from iPSCs that themselves came from blood cells, rather than those derived from connective tissue or brain cells. By contrast, iPSCs made from connective tissue were the better choice for producing bone cells.
Kim thinks that this is because the widely used reprogramming techniques fail to strip away a cell’s epigenetic markers. He focused on one such marker – the presence of methyl groups on DNA, which typically serve to switch off genes, like Post-it notes that say “Ignore this”. Kim found that the methylation patterns of iPSCs are very different depending on the cells they came from. Those that come from brain or connective cells, for example, have methyl groups at places that are needed to produce blood cells, and vice versa. Even iPSCs that come from slightly different lineages of blood cells carry distinctive patterns of methyl marks.
In all of these tests, ntESCs (those produced by nuclear transfer) were far more similar to genuine embryonic stem cells than any of the iPSCs. Their patterns of methylation were a closer match and they were easier to convert into any type of adult cell. This certainly makes sense – when the nucleus is transferred into an empty shell, it its DNA is rapidly and actively stripped of its methyl groups. Its history is erased with far greater efficiency than the reprogrammed iPSCs.
This seems like a clear win for the nuclear transfer method, but Kim thinks there are ways of improving the reprogramming technique to get around this problem. For a start, you can efficiently convert iPSCs derived from one type of cell into another via another round of programming and reprogramming. For example, you could reprogram a brain cell into an iPSC, convert it into a blood cell, reprogram it back into an iPSC again, and get a stock that’s very good at creating blood cells. This does, however, seem like a very roundabout strategy – why not start with blood cells in the first place?
A better solution is to try and strip away the epigenetic marks more directly. Some chemicals can do that, and after treating the iPSCs with such substances for a few days, Kim improved their ability to produce tissues regardless of their origins.
Another group led by Jose Polo found the same epigenetic problem, but they discovered a simpler solution – grow the cells for a long time. When cells are grown in culture, they need to be frequently ‘passaged’. That is, they need to be split among fresh containers so that they don’t run out of room and nutrients. Polo found that continuous passaging solves the epigenetic problem, reprogramming the iPSCs into a far more stem-like state, free from the constraints of their origins. It seems that when iPSCs are created, their epigenetic marks are eventually removed even though the process is gradual and slow.
And after all, the epigenetic memory of reprogrammed cells isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If you want to produce blood in bulk, why not start with iPSCs that are very good at making blood cells but not other types? Indeed, it’s still very difficult to nudge stem cells into becoming specific tissues, and starting off with cells that naturally gravitate towards certain fates could well be a blessing in disguise.
Reference: Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09342 and Nature Biotechnology http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1667
More on epigenetics:
- Shutting off a single gene could improve fertility by activating dormant egg-producing cells
- Crickets forewarn their offspring about predators before they’re born
- Alcohol tastes and smells better to those who get their first sips in the womb
- Child abuse permanently modifies stress genes in brains of suicide victims
- Obesity amplifies across generations; can folate-rich diets stop it?
If the citation link isn’t working, read why here
Danger! Car Salesmen Now in Possession of “Perfect Handshake” Equation | Discoblog
To seal more car deals, Chevrolet UK looked to arm its salesmen with the perfect weapon of confidence: an unstoppable handshake. Here’s the secret they received from Geoffrey Beattie, Head of Psychological Sciences at the University of Manchester:
PH (Perfect Handshake)= ? (e^2 + ve^2)(d^2) + (cg + dr)^2 + ?{(4<s>^2)(4<p>^2)}^2 + (vi + t + te)^2 + {(4<c>^2 )(4<du>^2)}^2
We hope (and suspect) the training posters and equation, supposedly meant for Chevrolet-sellers, are meant for publicity and are not a real attempt to improve customer relations.
The variables, as outlined in a Chevrolet press release:
(e) is eye contact (1=none; 5=direct) 5; (ve) is verbal greeting (1=totally inappropriate; 5=totally appropriate) 5; (d) is Duchenne smile – smiling in eyes and mouth, plus symmetry on both sides of face, and slower offset (1=totally non-Duchenne smile (false smile); 5=totally Duchenne) 5; (cg) completeness of grip (1=very incomplete; 5=full) 5; (dr) is dryness of hand (1=damp; 5=dry) 4; (s) is strength (1= weak; 5=strong) 3; (p) is position of hand (1=back towards own body; 5=other person’s bodily zone) 3; (vi) is vigour (1=too low/too high; 5=mid) 3; (t) is temperature of hands (1=too cold/too hot; 5=mid) 3; (te) is texture of hands (5=mid; 1=too rough/too smooth) 3; (c) is control (1=low; 5=high) 3; (du) is duration (1= brief; 5=long) 3.
The press release details some pretty common sense advice: avoid sweaty palms; don’t squeeze too hard or hold on too long; make eye contact. But putting the formula into action might be tough; if actually meant to inspire confidence (which the release says 70 percent of hand-shakers are lacking), doing the math before every hand-to-hand may instead lead to more perfect head scratching.
Related content:
Discoblog: Alien Math Shows Why Grad Student Doesn’t Have a Girlfriend
Discoblog: How to Make People Believe in ESP: Tell Them Scientists Think It’s Bogus
Discoblog: New Study: If a Dude Sounds Strong, He Probably Is
Discoblog: Can a Brain Scan Predict Your Behavior Better Than You Can?
80beats: Want Someone to Take a Decision Seriously? Hand Them Something Heavy
Image: flickr / Aidan Jones
'Ouchless' Microneedles Deliver Pain-Free Vaccines
From Discovery News - Top Stories:
For most people, the worst thing about getting a vaccination is the big, scary hypodermic needle. So researchers have invented a new vaccine-delivery system that replaces the large single needle with 100 tiny dissolvable ones embedded in a Band-Ai
Study: Geoengineering Can’t Adjust Earth’s Thermostat to Everyone’s Liking | 80beats
Schemes to hack the planet and save us from global warming have two layers of obstacles to overcome. First, is it technologically and physically possible to do what’s proposed? And then there’s the second: Is it politically possible to tinker with the planet?
Those who would argue “absolutely not” to the latter got a boost by a new study out in Nature Geoscience. Katharine Ricke and her team modeled the effects of one of the most popular geoengineering plans: seeding the atmosphere with aerosols to reflect away some of the sun’s rays, mimicking the way a massive volcanic eruption can cool the Earth. Ricke found that the effects on rainfall and temperature could vary wildly by region—and that what’s best for one country could spell disaster for another.
For example, Ricke says, her study found that levels of sulphate that kept China closest to its baseline climate were so high that they made India cold and wet. Those that were best for India caused China to overheat. She notes, however, that both countries fared better either way than under a no-geoengineering policy [Nature].
Given the complex connectivity of the climate system, it’s not possible to fix everything to everybody’s liking. While the team’s study shows that geoengineers could control either temperature or precipitation pretty well by fine-tuning their atmospheric seeding, they couldn’t control both at once.
“People won’t agree on what level of geoengineering is desirable,” says Myles Allen of the University of Oxford, who was involved in the study. “It works, but it won’t work the same way for everyone” [New Scientist].
Nevertheless, the drumbeat for geoengineering isn’t quieting. Two books that came out this spring, Jeff Goodell’s “How To Cool the Planet” and Eli Kintisch’s “Hack the Planet”, delved into the idea. Several more out this year try to predict what the Earth will be like in the warmer future, and whether you should go ahead and buy that summer vacation property in Canada. Last September Britain’s Royal Society issued a report calling for investment in geoengineering as a backup plan in case nations fail to constrain their emissions. And that was before the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit.
But, as climate models improve, scientists could get a better picture of the fallout from such a dramatic action as seeding the atmosphere with aerosols, according to climate guru Ken Caldeira.
“I don’t think climate modelling is at the point where we should trust one single model at that scale,” Caldeira says. “But I think the results are robust in the sense that it’s the kind of issue that people will need to face. The qualitative idea is that you’re going to have differential results in different regions, and that’s going to cause people to want different amounts of this stuff up there, if they want any of it up there at all” [Nature].
Related Content:
80beats: Bill Gates Funds Seawater Cloud Seeding, “The Most Benign Form of Geoengineering”
80beats: Iron-Dumping Experiment Is a Bust: It Feeds Crustaceans, Doesn’t Trap Carbon
80beats: If We Can’t Stop Emitting CO2, What’s Our Plan B?
DISCOVER: 5 Most Radical Ways to Squelch a Climate Crisis (photo gallery)
DISCOVER: It’s Gettin’ Hot in Here: The Big Battle Over Climate Science
Image: iStockphoto
Combination Air Relief Valve Sizing
I am trying to size an air relief valve on a 12-inch water main. My specs have no explanation for sizing. I am having a hard time finding anything on google or other sites. Can anyone point me to an industry standard? I routinely design water mains from 8 to 48-inches and would like an industry
BORA! | The Loom
The force of blog nature known as BORA! has decided he does not like the Pepsi aftertaste and is leaving Scienceblogs. I’m just back from a wonderfully rain-soaked vacation in Ireland, so I’m scrambling to get back up to speed. I won’t update my post on the scienceblogs diaspora till this afternoon. But in the meantime, read the epic farewell from BORA!
Bobber's 106-MPH DIY Motorcycle
We featured a few home-built bikes by 69-year old Bob Decker a few years ago that were built to look like a Simplex and an Indian Chief yet used a conventional V-twin lawn mower engine with a centrifugal clutch. Now 72-year old Bob Decker offers his latest creation from scratch, another throwb
When Sci-Fi Plays Play With Your Identity | Science Not Fiction
Science fiction is often associated with depictions of technology which, to quote Arther Clarke’s third law, is “so advanced that it seems like magic to us.” But science fiction’s other side is less about techno-gizmology and more about pushing us to think about what it is to be human. It asks what it would be like to live with different social norms (think of the group family structure in Caprica, or the androgynous society of Ursula Le Guin’s Left Hand of Darkness), different notions of identity (think of Star Trek’s “The Borg”, Avatar), and of reality itself (The Matrix).
The examples I’ve mentioned are from literature, movies, and TV. What about theater? Science fiction rarely shows up on the stage. But there are exceptions. This past week I was a guest instructor in a class called “Theater for Nerds” in Northwestern University’s summer program in theatre arts for high school seniors. It’s a class created by JC Aevaliotis for in-depth readings of plays that work at the intersection of art and another discipline (history, philosophy, science)–nerdy stuff indeed. I was invited to help discuss a play called On Ego, a collaboration between playwright Mick Gordon and neuropsychologist Paul Broks. The play is an exploration of different ideas about how we can go from what David Foster Wallace called the “2.8 pounds of electrified pate” that is our brain to something so vaunted as a sense of self. One idea, called “ego theory,” holds that there is an inner essence, denoted by “I”; the other idea, called “bundle theory” holds that there is no inner essence, but instead we are long series or bundle of interconnected sensations and thoughts. The underlying brain processes such as memories, feelings, thoughts, are sprinkled across diverse regions of the brain with no special point of convergence. Instead, we “come together in a work of fiction” – our brain is a story-telling machine, and the “self” is a story.
The play uses a thought experiment rooted in science fiction, and originally posed by philosopher Derek Parfit. You get beamed by a teleporter to a different location. But, a malfunction occurs and your original version is not destroyed. Which one is your “true” self? An ego theorist, who believes there must be a persistence of an inner “I” to maintain identity, would say the original; a bundle theorist, who thinks that the self is just the bundle of memories and experience, all faithfully copied by the teleporter, would say the copy is no less “you” than the original.
A beautiful ambiguity is introduced through Alice, the wife of the protagonist of the play, Alex. Alice has Capgras Syndrome. In Capgras there is a disconnection between the part of our brain that does facial recognition and the part of the brain that gives you an emotional response when you see someone familiar. Facial recognition occurs, but not the emotional reaction. This isn’t noticeable for strangers, but when your wife or husband appears, the strangeness of not feeling any emotional reaction causes people with Capgras to claim that the person before them is an imposter. Alex has a teleporter accident, where his “original” is not destroyed, but his copy goes on to visit Alice. But Alice refuses to believe that Alex is her husband. Is this the Capgras talking, or is she someone who believes in the “I” as persisting inner essence and has detected that Alex is, in fact, a “fake”?
The play manages to pack in all of these deep questions into a tight and dramatic story. It’s a great role model for how scientists might collaborate with story makers in a deeper way than increasing the plausibility of a far-out plot point or helping to fact check dialog. What makes this collaboration between science and art so successful is that the science fiction of the teleporter and science fact of Capgras are needed for the story to work as a piece of theater. They serve to dramatically present open questions about what it is to be human in a way that will leave the audience with a lot to think about.
In a future (pun intended) post, I’ll look at what some recent sci-fi movies and TV series (Avatar, Surrogates, Caprica) say about the nature of the self.
Boring for Water
please tell can we select a point for boring by visual inspection. we know the approximate depth of groundwater found in that area but our four trials ended in failure. three of them due to mistake of labour and in the fourth bore we encountered big stones.
Cylindrical Concrete Tank Design
Hi,
Does anyone have a design example of a reinforced concrete tank done to the British Standards?
The Tanks can have a flexible base or a fixed base. The Dimensions are not critical at the minute.
I just need to know how to calculate hoop stress and then the reinfor
SpaceShipTwo Makes First Flight With Crew Aboard
From Wired:
SpaceShipTwo staged a dress rehearsal for its glide flight and flew with a crew for the first time. Anticipation mounted yesterday as word spread that SpaceShipTwo, attached to its mother ship Eve, departed the Mojave Air and Space Port. Many, including us, were anxi
Ring Main
Dear All
For 11KV feeders we have open ring main system and each feeder is provided with earthfault & overcurrent protection .In addition to this each section of the cable between ring main unit is provided with earth fault indicator(EFI). recently it is observed during fault at substation
Power Consumption
i want to know about how to calculate power consumption.
1 Week and Counting: Zephyr’s Record-Breaking, Solar-Powered Flight | 80beats
Earlier this month, we described the successful flight of Solar Impulse, a manned solar plane that flew for over 26 hours before a safe landing in Switzerland. Now comes news of another feat of solar-powered derring-do. Currently circling above Arizona, a British-built unmanned solar plane dubbed the Zephyr has now flown for a record-breaking seven days straight. Zephyr’s developer, the defense company QinetiQ, hopes the plane can stay aloft and double its own record for a total of fourteen days.
With a 74-foot wingspan, this latest version of the Zephyr is fifty percent bigger than its predecessors. Its designers hope that the plane will one day find use both for military reconnaissance and also for scientific research. Without a payload, it weights about 110 pounds. Says project manager Jon Saltmarsh:
“Zephyr is basically the first ‘eternal aircraft.’… The launch was absolutely beautiful; it was just so smooth,” said Mr Saltmarsh. “We had five people lift it above their heads, start running and it just lifted away into the sky.” [BBC]
The plane is currently circling over its take-off location, a U.S. military installation called the Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona’s Sonoran Desert. It uses paper-thin silicon solar arrays that cover its wings for power in the day, which also charge lithium-sulphur batteries for power when the sun goes down.
QinetiQ chose this time and place for its test because the plane can soak up the sun only 32 degrees north of the Equator in the midst of summer’s longer days.
The sun is tracking as nearly dead overhead as it ever does over US territory just now, meaning that the Zephyr is getting far more energy from its cells than it would farther north or at other times of year. One should note that in operational use the Zephyr will have to power a payload as well as itself–and for much of the year in many locations it will have to do this with less output from its cells than it is getting now. [The Register]
The Zephyr has already flown for four times as long as the unmanned aircraft that previously held the official endurance record, the United States’ Global Hawk. This one-week flight also doubles the unofficial record held by a previous version of the Zephyr.
Related content:
80beats: Sunshine-Powered Plane Takes Off for a 24-Hour Test Flight
80beats: Flying the Sunny Skies: Solar-Powered Plane Completes Two-Hour Test Flight
80beats: Meet the “Puffin,” NASA’s One-Man Electric Plane
80beats: Two New Eyes in the Sky Will Keep Watch on Earth’s Climate
DISCOVER: Who’s Flying This Thing?
Image: QinetiQ
Plastic Enclosure Over Metallic Enclosure
I am interested to know the advantage of Plastic Enclosure over the metallic enclosure for metring panel / distribution panel specially in context of EMI or electrical inteferances.
Charanjeet Singh / India
Feds Detect an Oil Seep, Say BP’s Cap May Not Be Working | 80beats
If three months of waiting for BP to fix its oil leak have taught us anything, it’s not to get too optimistic about potential fixes. On Thursday, BP installed a cap that appeared to cut off the flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, but yesterday the federal government officials overseeing the leak response said (pdf) that there appear to be hydrocarbons leaking from the seafloor near the well, and possibly methane detected above the well.
The upshot is that BP has until tomorrow (Tuesday) to investigate this possible leak. If it is there, the government could force BP to reopen the cap and resume pumping oil up to tankers on the surface.
The discovery of a seep and the unspecified anomalies suggest that the well could be damaged and that it may have to be reopened soon to avoid making the situation worse [The New York Times].
BP says it soon will have the capacity to capture more than 60,000 barrels of oil per day, so it’s prepared for action if the government asks it to restart pumping oil. The company, however, isn’t on the same page as its government overseers about the cap’s performance:
On Sunday, [Chief Operating Officer Doug] Suttles said that no leaks had been detected and that pressure had built to 6,778 pounds per square inch. That was mostly good, he said, although officials had initially expected the well’s pressure to climb higher, to 8,000 or 9,000 pounds per square inch. If nothing changed, Suttles said, the company hoped to make its “test” of the closed cap open-ended. He said that if the company reopened the well to connect it with ships on the surface, that would cause the well to leak into the gulf for as many as three days [Washington Post].
Besides the leak-or-no-leak discussion, there’s a telling bit of political posturing going on behind the scenes. Throughout BP’s three months of futility at trying to stop the main leak, we’ve covered the difficulty in getting an accurate measure of the amount of oil gushing into the Gulf. First it was 1,000 barrels per day, then 5,000, and then scientists who finally got access to video footage guessed figures in the tens of thousands. At present, the official estimate is between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels. But:
If the well is never reopened and connected to ships on the surface, it could complicate the U.S. government’s efforts to calculate the “flow rate” — the speed at which the oil was leaking. That would be vital to determining BP’s liability for the spill [Washington Post].
We’re also getting close to August, when BP says its relief wells—the proposed final solution to the leak—will intercept their target. We hope.
Related Content:
80beats: Photos from the Gulf’s Great Sea Turtle Relocation
80beats: BP’s Cap Has Stopped the Oil Leak—For Now
80beats: One Cap Off, One Cap On: BP Tries Another Plan To Catch Leaking Oil
80beats: Next from X Prize: An Award for Cleaning up BP’s Oil Spill?
Image: NASA
Obama and Glenn Meet To Talk Space
Obama to meet with John Glenn today, Orlando Sentinel
"President Barack Obama plans to meet with former astronaut and senator John Glenn this afternoon to discuss the administration's new plan for NASA. White House officials did not reveal specifics of the meeting, although Glenn recently wrote a letter that supported more space shuttle flights and the development of a new heavy-lift rocket that could blast future astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit."
Statement of Senator John Glenn (ret.) Regarding NASA Manned Space Flight, earlier post
"These are critical days for the future of Manned Space Flight. Conflicting views and advice come to the President and Congress from every quarter in the aerospace and science communities. There is good reason for the concern. The U.S. for the first time since the beginning of the Space Age will have no way to launch anyone into space - starting next January."
Under The Microscope: Feminism, Scientists and Sexiness | The Intersection
Earlier this year Nicholas Kristof wondered aloud (via twitter), “Why are most pundits men?” In another context, we might ask why men compose 97% of OpEds in the Wall Street Journal. Both involve the hesitancy of women to express opinions. Yet prominent female voices in our culture matter tremendously because they help to define our place in society. But if men get cast into the spotlight, you might say that women are examined under the microscope. As an author, blogger, researcher, and former Hill staffer, I regularly observe problems with the status quo across arenas. Rather then help women find their voices, we tend to send those testing the waters of public punditry dashing back out of focus.
Having spent my formative years as a run-of-the-mill tomboy, I never considered using the “feminist” label and naively assumed that since I was as good at science and math as the boys, my sex wouldn’t matter. But a funny thing happened when I entered academia; I learned that when a woman expresses herself visibly in any traditionally male-dominated field, the platform comes with the expectation that she will address gender issues. And over time it becomes a necessity. Last week Luke Muehlhauser caused a stir when he included me on a list of “sexy scientists.” Early on that thread, “Hansen” noted:
Oh dear, you may be in serious trouble now for placing Sheril Kirshenbaum on that list.
The link leads to “Singled Out“: My response from March 2009 to the remarks about my appearance heard ’round the science blogosphere when Chris and I joined the Discover network. Luke followed up with a second post asking whether he’s sexist, a third summarizing the hundreds of comments piling in, and a fourth on objectification. He also emailed me personally and seems genuinely interested to hear my perspective. So I’ve decided to weigh in and explore the topic with readers.
Long before I set out to write a book dealing with human sexual behavior, I knew that evolution primed us to notice the alluring qualities of other members of our species. These are often indicative of health and fertility and women are held to different standards of judgment than men. But even if biology has an influence on how we behave, it’s not an adequate scapegoat. After all, we also have a large cerebral cortex that allows us to choose the way we interact in our communities.
In my profession today I work closely with many talented men. We write on related topics and speak to similar audiences. Yet, I’m regularly reminded that I face many challenges they don’t have to deal with. No one jokingly whispers about their receptivity to sex during conferences just loud enough to overhear. No one questions whether they were hired so the boss could to get some “tail.” These kinds of experiences are common for women in and out of the ivory towers. We rarely complain for fear of being considered troublemakers or worse. We work hard and don’t want special treatment or penalization, so we turn a deaf ear, aware that some will never see past what’s on the surface. We stop speaking up and a negative feedback loop continues to reinforce gender roles over time.
Just consider the political arena: While candidates should never be chosen based on a number of X chromosomes, it would benefit everyone if women became more involved in the decision-making process given we represent about 50% of the population. But watching the way Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton were each cast as stereotypes, ogled, and photo-shopped by the media during their 2008 campaigns, I often wondered to myself why any little girl would dream of being in that position someday?
So Mr. Kristof, that’s likely why there aren’t more female pundits and commentators. Increasing our numbers will involve changing cultural expectations by highlighting the accomplishments of a wider spectrum of women to demonstrate what we are capable of.
Returning to the hullabaloo over last week’s “sexy scientists” list, I honestly don’t think any real harm has been done to me personally. And it’s worth pointing out that in 2005 when Chris was named one of Wired Magazine’s “Sexiest Geeks,” no one complained. So while this may not be the way I’d most like to be featured, far worse items pop up across the Internet about me on a regular basis. To survive in the blogosphere, you grow a thick skin and keep in mind that there’s more to life than what happens online.
That said, I would like to see Luke, and others, think more carefully about the ripple effects of such posts. He can moderate his own site, but also doesn’t have to deal with the related extended commentary now percolating about the web because of his actions. For example, I’m currently receiving comments such as “I’d hit that,” which are promptly deleted, but do make me uncomfortable regardless. And since I can only filter content here, who knows what else is being added to message boards and websites elsewhere. In other words, it’s important to remember that words travel well beyond one’s own blog and can quickly get out of hand. That’s the nature of new media communication–you can’t control or keep up with what’s out there. So it’s important to acknowledge that there are often unintended consequences down the line for those unknowingly involved.
Additionally, in response to Luke’s commentors, I’ll clarify that I’m not offended by being called a “woman in science.” It’s an accurate description. (In fact, in a few months I’ll be moderating a L’Oreal/Discover panel on Capitol Hill about that very topic). When I wrote that “I’d rather not be labeled a woman in science,” I meant that I would prefer that others recognize there are more dimensions to who I am and what I do than those assigned by base pairs.
What I know for sure is that we need to find more ways to acknowledge women who speak up, take a nontraditional path, defy expectations, and contribute to society in and out of science. And there are better ways to do so than commentary on our physical assets. But I also want to emphasize that I appreciate the way Luke is taking the time to explore a topic that doesn’t get nearly enough attention. When someone is willing to engage others and turn over ideas on sexism and gender–especially when they are attempting to understand the other side–it can be quite a constructive dialog. Further, this conversation isn’t really about photos on a blog post. It’s vastly more complex and deals with social and cultural mores and the objectification of females in our society.
In conclusion, given women will remain under the microscope indefinitely, I hope increasing numbers aim for high magnification for reasons beyond appearances. To achieve more equal representation in all realms, it will be necessary to identify and celebrate a diverse set of talented and motivated individuals so that they may become the role models our children deserve. Superficial beauty is ephemeral after all, so we we ought to spend more time focusing on the qualities that matter more and last indefinitely. And if we succeed, today’s visible voices will motivate the career aspirations of tomorrow’s leaders across the gender divide from Mars to Venus.
* * * * * * * * *
Related Posts:
(I will continue to update this list, so please add links in comments)
SeXy Science- You’re Doing It Wrong by rocketscientista
Because You Think Being A Girl Is Degrading by Nerdista
Sexism and Objectification by ramblingperfectionist
I have been objectified! by PZ Myers
Creating a “Photos of sexy women” post does not make one a skeevy sexist creep by Joé McKen
The 16 Sexiest Atheists by Geoff
Cientistas sensuais e lindas by Frank Coelho de Alcantara
If You Think I’m Sexy And You Like My Data by SheThought.com
Hot Scientist Babes Gate by Physioprof
Save us from the armchair philosopher with a blog. by Janet D. Stemwedel
Top 15 science hotties and labia-punching by Evil Monkey
Sex(ism) in Science by AmoebaMike
Now at Fark
WISE Discovers 95 New Near-Earth Asteroids
From Discovery News - Top Stories:
It's WISE to know your neighborhood, especially when countless pieces of rock are flying around. Millions of tiny meteors bombard the Earth every day, but burn up in the atmosphere long before they can cause anything other than a pretty light i