Rising tide

The current administration's approach to facts they don't like seems to have three parts:

1. Lie about them.
2. Get all the members of your administration, and any other cronies you can convince, to avoid mentioning them.
3. If the facts come out anyway, blame "Fake News."

If you needed any further proof of this, all you have to do is to look at the recent news release from the United States Geological Survey regarding improving infrastructure on the California coast.  The news release was based on a paper published earlier this year in the journal Scientific Reports, and focused on methodology -- ways to mitigate flood damage and damage from mudslides, for example.

The problem is, if you read the paper itself, you'll see that the press release neglected mention of the study's major conclusion -- that California is in dire danger of catastrophic flooding, with property damage in the hundreds of billions of dollars -- and that the cause is anthropogenic climate change.

Worse still, it wasn't a simple omission.  An earlier version of the press release included facts and figures from the study, including the alarming conclusion that between three and seven times more people and businesses will be at risk than estimated in earlier projections, but the Trump administration "sanitized" the press release by removing every single reference to climate change, and making it sound like the entire study was about thinking ahead and shoring everything up and making everyone safe.

"It's been made clear to us that we're not supposed to use climate change in press releases anymore," one federal researcher said, under conditions of anonymity for fear of reprisal.  "They will not be authorized."

The problem goes all the way to the top.  James Reilly, director of the USGS, authorized the scrubbing of the press release, despite his statement at his 2018 confirmation hearing that he was "fully committed to scientific integrity."

Which, at this point, appears to have been a blatant lie.

Flooding on Assateague Island, Virginia [Image is in the Public Domain]

Trump has been (rightly) criticized for his blatant disregard for scientific research and his overturning of dozens of environmental protections -- loosening standards for pollution, removing corporate oversight, making it more difficult for industry to be sued for cleanup.  Despite this, in a rant earlier this week that was bizarre even by his standards, Trump portrayed himself as an environmental leader, skewing facts (such as his claim that the United States has been a leader in reduction of carbon emissions, when in fact we're the second highest in the world) and rambling on with nearly incoherent bits like this:

You don't have to have any forest fires.  It's interesting.  I spoke to certain countries, and they said, "Sir, we're a forest nation."  I never thought of a country -- well-known countries; "we're a forest nation."  I never heard of the term "forest nation."  They live in forests.  And they don't have problems...  Remember, management.  It's called forest management.  So it's a very important term.  When I went to California, they sort of scoffed at me for the first two weeks and maybe three weeks and not so much four weeks, and after about five weeks they said, "You know, he's right.  He's right."

It's almost a guarantee that if Donald Trump said "I was told..." the next thing that comes out of his mouth will be a lie.  And for what it's worth, elected officials and policy leaders in California have all denied (some of them, after laughing uproariously) that they agreed with anything Trump said about environmental policy.

Remember, this is the guy who said that Finland avoids forest fires because they spend a lot of time raking.

For fuck's sake.

"Don't trust what the government says" has become almost a cliché regarding every resistance movement ever organized, but in this case, it seems like it's not an overgeneralization.  This administration has made a policy of deceit, coverup, corruption, and subterfuge that makes Watergate and Teapot Dome look like kids staging a play for their parents.  The problem here is that in this case, what they're lying about is the long-term habitability of the planet.

Which moves this whole issue from "immoral" to "unconscionable."

**************************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is pure fun for anyone who (like me) appreciates both plants and an occasional nice cocktail -- The Drunken Botanist by Amy Stewart.  Most of the things we drink (both alcohol-containing and not) come from plants, and Stewart takes a look at some of the plants that have provided us with bar staples -- from the obvious, like grapes (wine), barley (beer), and agave (tequila), to the obscure, like gentian (angostura bitters) and hyssop (Bénédictine).

It's not a scientific tome, more a bit of light reading for anyone who wants to know more about what they're imbibing.  So learn a little about what's behind the bar -- and along the way, a little history and botany as well.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]

Planetary genesis

In yesterday's post, I looked at some new photographs from the Hubble Space Telescope of one of the oddest objects in the universe -- the luminous blue variable Eta Carinae.  But that's not the only stunning new research coming from the astrophysicists.  No less than three studies in the last month have given us a new lens into something that has stirred our imaginations for years -- the characteristics of exoplanets.

The number of exoplanets -- planets around other stars -- has grown steadily since the first one was confirmed in 1995.  Today there are over four thousand exoplanets that have been discovered, and they include every possible twist on size and temperature, from "hot Jupiters" (gas giants that orbit so near their parent star that they complete one revolution in only a few days, and are so hot that they could liquify iron) to cool, rocky worlds like our own, to frozen blobs of methane and ammonia like Uranus and Neptune.  In fact, every time we find new worlds, it seems to open up new possibilities about what could be out there.

Let's start with a study that appeared in Nature Astronomy last week, led by Björn Benneke of the University of Montreal, which found a planet in that mid-range mass that doesn't exist in our Solar System -- a "sub-Neptune" or "super-Earth" that's somewhere between the mass of the Earth and the mass of Neptune (seventeen times Earth's mass).

What is extraordinary about this study is that the astronomers who studied this planet were able to determine the nature of its atmosphere from a hundred light years away.  The planet goes by the euphonious name GJ3470b, and its composition was unexpected.  Instead of being enriched in (relatively) heavy gases like methane and ammonia, like the gas giants in our own system, it was made almost entirely of the lightweight gases hydrogen and helium.  It also is so close to its parent star that it completes one revolution in only three days, so it's surprising that its proximity didn't result in the radiation and heat blowing away all of the lighter gases (which is apparently what happened to the inner planets in the Solar System), even considering that the star is a relatively dim red dwarf.

"We expected an atmosphere strongly enriched in heavier elements like oxygen and carbon which are forming abundant water vapor and methane gas, similar to what we see on Neptune," Benneke said in a press release.  "Instead, we found an atmosphere that is so poor in heavy elements that its composition resembles the hydrogen- and helium-rich composition of the Sun."

This brings up lots of questions about why planets have the atmospheres they have -- a relatively new field from which we are only beginning to have enough data to form some tentative hypotheses.

This brings us to the second study, also in Nature Astronomy, published last month and authored by a team led by Sebastiaan Haffert of the Leiden Observatory.  This team studied PDS70, a relatively young star that's 370 light years away, which is currently in the process of forming planets.  What's the coolest about this one is that we're able to observe the planets developing an atmosphere by siphoning off material from the outer layers of the star.

The authors write:

Newly forming protoplanets are expected to create cavities and substructures in young, gas-rich protoplanetary disks, but they are difficult to detect as they could be confused with disk features affected by advanced image analysis techniques.  Recently, a planet was discovered inside the gap of the transitional disk of the T Tauri star PDS 70.  Here, we report on the detection of strong Hα emission from two distinct locations in the PDS 70 system, one corresponding to the previously discovered planet PDS 70 b, which confirms the earlier Hα detection, and another located close to the outer edge of the gap, coinciding with a previously identified bright dust spot in the disk and with a small opening in a ring of molecular emission.  We identify this second Hα peak as a second protoplanet in the PDS 70 system. The Hα emission spectra of both protoplanets indicate ongoing accretion onto the protoplanets, which appear to be near a 2:1 mean motion resonance...  Finding more young planetary systems in mean motion resonance would give credibility to the Grand Tack hypothesis in which Jupiter and Saturn migrated in a resonance orbit during the early formation period of our Solar System.

Taking a step even further back into planet development, the third study, which appeared in Astrophysical Journal Letters in June, a team led by Takashi Tsukagoshi of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan found a star that is in the early stages of planetary condensation from the "accretion disc" of dust and gas surrounding a young star.  The star, TW Hydrae, is two hundred light years from Earth, and the forming planet is currently a huge blob of luminescent gas whose diameter is about the distance from the Sun to Jupiter.  (The blob is located at a distance from TW Hydrae about equal to the orbit of Neptune.)

Cooler still is they have photographs:

[Image courtesy of the ALMA Radio Array and the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan]

The current supposition is that the blob will eventually condense into a gas giant about the size of Neptune.

The speed with which we're finding out new information about the formation of stars and planets further reinforces my general impression that exoplanet systems like our own are so common out there as to be nearly ubiquitous.  This, of course, further improves the likelihood that at least some of those planets host life.  Some of it, perhaps, intelligent.  Scientists are currently trying to figure out how to detect "biosignatures" on other planets, and it's harder than you'd think; consider that until a hundred years ago, our Earth would have been "radio silent" and therefore nearly invisible to alien astronomers except by the curious abundance of elemental oxygen in our atmosphere.  (Oxygen is so reactive that if there weren't processes continually pumping it into the atmosphere -- photosynthesis, in our case -- it would all eventually get locked up in stable molecules like carbon dioxide and silicon dioxide.)

So keep your eye on the skies.  When you look at the stars at night, consider that many -- probably most -- of the stars you're looking at have their own planetary systems.  And maybe, just maybe, there is an extraterrestrial out there contemplating the skies over its own home world who is looking back at you.

**************************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is pure fun for anyone who (like me) appreciates both plants and an occasional nice cocktail -- The Drunken Botanist by Amy Stewart.  Most of the things we drink (both alcohol-containing and not) come from plants, and Stewart takes a look at some of the plants that have provided us with bar staples -- from the obvious, like grapes (wine), barley (beer), and agave (tequila), to the obscure, like gentian (angostura bitters) and hyssop (Bénédictine).

It's not a scientific tome, more a bit of light reading for anyone who wants to know more about what they're imbibing.  So learn a little about what's behind the bar -- and along the way, a little history and botany as well.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]

The strangest star in the galaxy

Ever heard of Eta Carinae?

If there was a contest for the weirdest known astronomical object in the Milky Way, Eta Carinae would certainly be in the top ten.  It's a binary star system in the constellation Carina, one member of which is a luminous blue variable, unusual in and of itself, but its behavior in the last hundred or so years (as seen from Earth; Eta Carinae is 7,500 light years away, so of course the actual events we're seeing took place 7,500 years ago) has been nothing short of bizarre.  It's estimated to have started out enormous, at about two hundred solar masses, but in a combination of explosions peaking in the 1843 "Great Eruption" it lost thirty solar masses' worth of material, which has been blown outward at 670 kilometers per second to form the odd Homunculus Nebula.

After the Great Eruption, during which it briefly rose to a magnitude of -0.8, making it the second-brightest star in the night sky, it faded below naked eye visibility, largely due to the ejected dust cloud that surrounded it.  But in the twentieth century it began to brighten again, and by 1940 was again visible to the naked eye -- and then its brightness mysteriously doubled again between 1998 and 1999.

Which is even more mind-blowing when you find out that the actual luminosity of the combined Eta Carinae binary is more than five million times greater than that of the Sun.

This all comes up because the Hubble Space Telescope has just sent astronomers the clearest images of Eta Carinae and the Homunculus Nebula they've yet had, and what they're learning is kind of mind-blowing.  Here's one of the best images:

[Image is in the Public Domain, courtesy of the NASA Hubble Space Telescope]

There are a lot of features of these photographs that surprised researchers.  "We've discovered a large amount of warm gas that was ejected in the Great Eruption but hasn't yet collided with the other material surrounding Eta Carinae," said astronomer Nathan Smith of the University of Arizona, lead investigator of the study.  "Most of the emission is located where we expected to find an empty cavity.  This extra material is fast, and it 'ups the ante' in terms of the total energy of an already powerful stellar blast....  We had used Hubble for decades to study Eta Carinae in visible and infrared light, and we thought we had a pretty full account of its ejected debris.  But this new ultraviolet-light image looks astonishingly different, revealing gas we did not see in either visible-light or infrared images.  We're excited by the prospect that this type of ultraviolet magnesium emission may also expose previously hidden gas in other types of objects that eject material, such as protostars or other dying stars; and only Hubble can take these kinds of pictures."

One of the most curious things -- one which had not been observed before -- are the streaks clearly visible in the photograph.  These are beams of ultraviolet light radiating from the stars at the center striking and exciting visible light emission from the dust cloud, creating an effect sort of like sunbeams through clouds.

Keep in mind, though, how big this thing is.  The larger of the two stars in the system, Eta Carinae A, has a diameter about equal to the orbit of Jupiter.  So where you're sitting right now, if our Sun was replaced by Eta Carinae A, you would be inside the star.

The question most people have after learning about this behemoth is, "when will it explode?"  And not just an explosion like the Great Eruption, which was impressive enough, but a real explosion -- a supernova.  It's almost certain to end its life that way, and when it does, it's going to be (to put it in scientific terms) freakin' unreal.  Even at 7.500 light years away, it has the potential to be the brightest supernova we have any record of.  It will almost certainly outshine the Moon, meaning that in places where it's visible (mostly in the Southern Hemisphere) for a time you won't have a true dark night.

But when?  It's imminent -- in astronomical terms.  That means "probably some time in the next hundred thousand years."  It might have already happened -- meaning the light from the supernova is currently streaming toward us.  It might not happen for thousands of years.

But it's considered the most likely star to go supernova in our near region of the galaxy, so there's always hoping.

(Nota bene:  we're in no danger at this distance.  There will be gamma rays from the explosion that will reach Earth, but they'll be pretty attenuated by the time they get here, and the vast majority of them will be blocked by our atmosphere.  So no worries that your friends and family might be at risk of turning into the Incredible Hulk, or anything.)

So that's our cool scientific research of the day.  Makes me kind of glad we're in a relatively quiet part of the Milky Way.  Eta Carinae, and the surrounding Carina Nebula (of which the Homunculus is just a small part), is a pretty rough neighborhood.  But if it decides to grace us with some celestial fireworks, it'll be nice to see -- from a safe distance.

**************************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is pure fun for anyone who (like me) appreciates both plants and an occasional nice cocktail -- The Drunken Botanist by Amy Stewart.  Most of the things we drink (both alcohol-containing and not) come from plants, and Stewart takes a look at some of the plants that have provided us with bar staples -- from the obvious, like grapes (wine), barley (beer), and agave (tequila), to the obscure, like gentian (angostura bitters) and hyssop (Bénédictine).

It's not a scientific tome, more a bit of light reading for anyone who wants to know more about what they're imbibing.  So learn a little about what's behind the bar -- and along the way, a little history and botany as well.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]

Mermaid evolution

In further evidence that we're all part of a computer simulation being run by aliens, but the aliens have gotten tired of even trying to make things plausible and now are just fucking with us, we have: racists arguing that Ariel from The Little Mermaid should be white because real mermaids have light skin.

I know I say "I wish I was making this up" a lot, but merciful heavens above, I really wish I was making this one up.  Sadly, this is the truth.  When it was announced that African American actress Halle Bailey was going to be playing Ariel in the upcoming live-action version, racists throughout the United States took a break from sharpening the tips of their pointy white hats to have a complete meltdown.

In fact, I had a brief encounter with one of them on Twitter a couple of days ago.  She had posted this:

I'm sick of political correctness.  Making Ariel black is ridiculous.  The real Ariel was white and had red hair.

I responded:

Perhaps we should review the definition of real.

She responded with admirable articulateness:

Fuck you asshole.

I followed up with a gif that I have had increasing use for lately:

She responded:

FUCK YOU.

So I guess she told me.

Of course, she's not the only one who feels this way, which I found out when I ran into an article in Indy100 describing how the racists were using science to explain why Ariel should be white.

In case you don't believe me, how about this example of brilliant, peer-reviewed research on real mermaids:

My opinion on why mermaids are white is that they live so deep underwater that sunlight hardly reaches them, thus the lack of melanin.  It doesn't matter what ocean they're from cos they could've been migrating seasonally like fishes.  But maybe im thinking too much.

No, trust me, "thinking too much" is the last thing you'd ever be accused of.

Then there was this sterling piece of logic:

For those saying mermaids don't exist and Ariel being black is not impossible, you know what does exist?  Science. 

Mermaids are part fish.

Fishes live in the sea.

There is no sunlight under the sea.

Therefore, mermaids wouldn't evolve pigmented skin to protect against it!!!

Mermaid evolution.  And no sunlight under the sea.  So everything that lives in the sea is white.

Because science.

Then there was this:

Ariel can't even be black because of science behind it because of her and her ancestors living in water and so they are never exposed to strong sun rays.  the stupidity behind this... 

Which got this response, put better than I possibly could have:

bitch there is literally a singing crab in the movie & u worried about scientific accuracy.  stfu.

For sheer disconnect with reality, however, you can't beat this one:

My children were raised with Ariel.  She's an icon in the eyes of many children & adults of today.  To change her race is absurd.  That would be like someone making a movie about Opra [sic] Winfrey, and hiring a white girl to play Opra.  Opra is an icon.  We wouldn't want to change her.

Besides being an icon, Oprah Winfrey is, unlike Ariel the Mermaid, a real person.  For fuck's sake.

The news isn't all bad, though.  The most touching response to all the howling racists came from Twitter user Morgan Jarrett, @msmorganjarrett:

As a white-skinned redhead, I have very strong feelings about #TheLittleMermaid.  Ariel changed my ginger world.  The mean "jokes" ended.  I became envied for my hair.

And you know what?  I want little black girls to experience that same feeling with new Ariel.

 Beautiful.  Now there's how people should be responding.

So to all the racists who have your knickers in a twist: fine, don't go see the movie.  I don't think Disney's going to miss you.  Go back to your little white caves with your little white friends, confident that the entire universe should be arranged so as to comfort your prejudices.  File under "political correctness" any movement in the United States toward acknowledging the people in the world -- which, by the bye, make up well over 50% of the Earth's population -- who have darker skin than you do.

But know this.  Your numbers are dwindling.  Most of us are just fine with people who don't look like us, talk like us, or dress like us.

And that includes mermaids.

*********************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is about a subject near and dear to me: sleep.

I say this not only because I like to sleep, but for two other reasons; being a chronic insomniac, I usually don't get enough sleep, and being an aficionado of neuroscience, I've always been fascinated by the role of sleep and dreaming in mental health.  And for the most up-to-date analysis of what we know about this ubiquitous activity -- found in just about every animal studied -- go no further than Matthew Walker's brilliant book Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams.

Walker, who is a professor of neuroscience at the University of California - Berkeley, tells us about what we've found out, and what we still have to learn, about the sleep cycle, and (more alarmingly) the toll that sleep deprivation is taking on our culture.  It's an eye-opening read (pun intended) -- and should be required reading for anyone interested in the intricacies of our brain and behavior.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]

Mirror, mirror

The idea of there being a mirror universe has been a staple of science fiction for as long as I can remember.  Many people think immediately of evil Spock with a beard, but my first contact with the idea was when I was seven and first saw the episode of Lost in Space called "The Anti-Matter Man."  The two universes were connected by a creepy, surreal, fog-covered bridge:

The characters from our universe had duplicates in the other -- evil, of course, with an evil, amoral John Robinson, a trash-talking Robot, and a version of Major Don West who looked like he was an escapee from an institute for the criminally insane.

Oh, and the evil Major West had a beard.  Of course.

It was definitely one of their more atmospheric and effective episodes.  Not that there was that much competition in that regard, considering that the previous episode, "Castles in Space," featured a cringe-worthy pseudo-Mexican bounty hunter (complete with a sombrero) who is searching for a runaway princess Dr. Smith had set free from a block of ice by covering it with an electric blanket, and said bounty hunter (did I mention he had silver skin?) gets the Robot drunk by pouring tequila onto his circuit boards.

For the record, I didn't make any of that up.

This whole thing comes up because there are some physicists who are trying to demonstrate the existence of a mirror universe -- an unseen parallel reality coexisting with our own -- and that this might explain the mysterious "dark matter" that seems to permeate all of space, but which no one's been able to detect other than by its gravitational signature.

A team led by physicist Leah Broussard has designed an experiment at Oak Ridge National Laboratories to see if she can find evidence of a mirror reality, looking for neutrons that have been transformed into particles with the opposite parity.  In a paper in arXiv, the authors write:

The theory of mirror matter predicts a hidden sector made up of a copy of the Standard Model particles and interactions but with opposite parity.  If mirror matter interacts with ordinary matter, there could be experimentally accessible implications in the form of neutral particle oscillations.  Direct searches for neutron oscillations into mirror neutrons in a controlled magnetic field have previously been performed using ultracold neutrons in storage/disappearance measurements, with some inconclusive results consistent with characteristic oscillation time of τ∼10~s.  Here we describe a proposed disappearance and regeneration experiment in which the neutron oscillates to and from a mirror neutron state.

What Broussard is doing is to fire a beam of electrons past a powerful magnet and into a wall.  If her idea is correct, the collision will cause some of the electrons to transform into their mirror versions, and appear on the other side of the wall.

She got her idea from a peculiarity that has been observed in neutron decay -- that in a beam such as the one Broussard is using, neutrons have an average life that is ten seconds longer than if they're simply at rest in a laboratory.  There's no Standard-Model explanation of why this should be; all neutrons should behave in exactly the same way.  But Broussard says that this discrepancy is exactly what you'd expect if some of the neutrons in the beam are being transformed into their mirror versions -- and then become invisible to ordinary detectors.

Even Broussard admits that the idea is kind of far-fetched, but given that every other effort to elucidate the nature of dark matter -- or even establish its existence beyond its gravitational effects -- has met with zero success, it's worth looking at.

So it'll be interesting to see what turns up.  I can't help but hope that she gets positive results, because it's about time we finally get something concrete about dark matter.  Besides, the idea of there being a mirror universe is pretty cool.  Even if that means we might have to watch out for evil Major West with a beard.

*********************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is about a subject near and dear to me: sleep.

I say this not only because I like to sleep, but for two other reasons; being a chronic insomniac, I usually don't get enough sleep, and being an aficionado of neuroscience, I've always been fascinated by the role of sleep and dreaming in mental health.  And for the most up-to-date analysis of what we know about this ubiquitous activity -- found in just about every animal studied -- go no further than Matthew Walker's brilliant book Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams.

Walker, who is a professor of neuroscience at the University of California - Berkeley, tells us about what we've found out, and what we still have to learn, about the sleep cycle, and (more alarmingly) the toll that sleep deprivation is taking on our culture.  It's an eye-opening read (pun intended) -- and should be required reading for anyone interested in the intricacies of our brain and behavior.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]

Altering the message

It's always a little startling when something is discovered that ends up explaining... well, damn near everything.

If I exaggerate, it's not by much.  I'm referring to epigenetics, which is the modification of DNA or RNA by chemical changes that don't alter the gene sequence itself.  Usually this is accomplished by adding various "markers" to the strand that then change how it is expressed.  These alterations are at least sometimes inheritable; in 2008, a group of geneticists at Cold Spring Harbor came up with the definition of epigenetics as a "stably heritable phenotype resulting from changes in a chromosome without alterations in the DNA sequence," and that's pretty much the one that still is used today.

[Image is in the Public Domain]

It has led to some pretty startling discoveries.  In a paper in Nature in 2014, geneticist Moshe Szyl showed evidence that mice that were taught (using mild electric shocks) to fear an odor gave birth to offspring that feared the odor as well -- and that heightened fear response lasted for two further generations.  Szyl found that a particular olfactory gene was "demethylated" by the conditioning -- had a marker called a methyl group removed -- and this enhanced the mice's ability to detect the odor, and modified their response to it.  This led to some serious speculation that the children and grandchildren of people who had been through atrocities like the Holocaust might inherit similar enhancements, leading to significant changes in behavior.

If you think this sounds Lamarckian, you're not wrong.  It turns out there is a way to inherit acquired characteristics.  It doesn't work the way Lamarck thought it did, but there was a grain of truth in what the man said.

This comes up because of a paper in Science this week describing evidence that epigenetic marking influences everything from embryonic development to cancer susceptibility to memory formation.  In fact, one such modification -- called m6a -- can do all three depending on which RNA strand it's acting on.  The last one is the most interesting to me; a team led by Chuan He of the University of Chicago found that if you knocked out an enzyme that reads m6a in mice, they have memory defects but are otherwise normal.  They then injected a virus carrying the normal reader gene into the mice -- and the defects went away.

This sounds to me like the basis of as much of a revolution as Mendel's discovery of the gene itself, and the discovery of DNA's structure and function by Rosalind Franklin, Marshall Nirenberg, James Watson, Francis Crick, and Maurice Wilkins.  The idea that a relatively small alteration to our DNA could create inheritable changes without altering the base sequence runs so contrary to both Mendelian inheritance and the "Central Dogma of Molecular Biology" that it looks like it'll force significant revisions to every bit of genetics we thought we understood.

My guess is that they're only beginning to test the depth of this discovery.  "We just need … a lot more knowledge about these things,” He said.  "We need to stay open-minded. The field is still very young."

So maybe I need to change my declaration in yesterday's post that "the twentieth century was [past tense] the century of the gene."  If my intuition is right, we might be on the brink of a whole new chapter -- hell, a whole new textbook -- in our understanding of how genes work.  All of which reiterates something I've believed for years -- that if you're interested in science, you'll never run out of new discoveries to be amazed at.

*********************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is about a subject near and dear to me: sleep.

I say this not only because I like to sleep, but for two other reasons; being a chronic insomniac, I usually don't get enough sleep, and being an aficionado of neuroscience, I've always been fascinated by the role of sleep and dreaming in mental health.  And for the most up-to-date analysis of what we know about this ubiquitous activity -- found in just about every animal studied -- go no further than Matthew Walker's brilliant book Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams.

Walker, who is a professor of neuroscience at the University of California - Berkeley, tells us about what we've found out, and what we still have to learn, about the sleep cycle, and (more alarmingly) the toll that sleep deprivation is taking on our culture.  It's an eye-opening read (pun intended) -- and should be required reading for anyone interested in the intricacies of our brain and behavior.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]

Uncanniness in the brain

When The Polar Express hit the theaters in 2004, it had a rather unexpected effect on some young movie-goers.

The train conductor, who (like several other characters) was voiced by Tom Hanks and was supposed to be viewed in a positive light, freaked a lot of kids right the hell out.  It was difficult for them to say exactly why.  He was "creepy" and "sinister" and "scary" -- even though nothing he explicitly did was any of those things.

The best guess we have about why people had this reaction is a phenomenon first described in the 1970s by Japanese robotics professor Masahiro Mori.  Called the uncanny valley, Mori's discovery came out of studies of people's responses to human-like robots (studies that were later repeated with CGI figures like the conductor in Express).  What Mori (and others) found was that faces intended to represent humans but in fact very dissimilar to an actual human face -- think, for example, of Dora the Explorer -- are perceived positively.  Take Dora's face and make it more human-like, and the positive response continues to rise -- for a while.  When you get close to a real human face, people's reactions take a sudden nosedive.  Eventually, of course, when you arrive at an actual face, it's again perceived positively.

That dip in the middle, with faces that are almost human but not quite human enough, is what Mori called "the uncanny valley."

The explanation many psychologists give is that a face being very human-like but having something non-human about the expression can be a sign of psychopathy -- the emotionless, "mask-like" demeanor of true psychopaths has been well documented.  (This probably also explains the antipathy many people have to clowns.)  In the case of the unfortunate train conductor, in 2004 CGI was well-enough developed to give him almost human facial features, expressions, and movements, but still just a half a bubble off from those of a real human face, and that was enough to land him squarely in the uncanny valley -- and to seriously freak out a lot of young movie-goers.

This all comes up because of a study that appeared this week in The Journal of Neuroscience, by Fabian Grabenhorst (Cambridge University) and Astrid Rosenthal-von der Pütten (University of Aachen), called "Neural Mechanisms for Accepting and Rejecting Artificial Social Partners in the Uncanny Valley."  And what the researchers have done is to identify the neural underpinning of our perception of the uncanny valley -- and to narrow it down to one spot in the brain, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which is part of our facial-recognition module.  Confronted with a face that shows something amiss, the VMPFC then triggers a reaction in the amygdala, the brain's center of fear, anxiety, perception of danger, and avoidance.

The authors write:

Using functional MRI, we investigated neural activity when subjects evaluated artificial agents and made decisions about them.  Across two experimental tasks, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) encoded an explicit representation of subjects' UV reactions.  Specifically, VMPFC signaled the subjective likability of artificial agents as a nonlinear function of human-likeness, with selective low likability for highly humanlike agents.  In exploratory across-subject analyses, these effects explained individual differences in psychophysical evaluations and preference choices...  A distinct amygdala signal predicted rejection of artificial agents.  Our data suggest that human reactions toward artificial agents are governed by a neural mechanism that generates a selective, nonlinear valuation in response to a specific feature combination (human-likeness in nonhuman agents).  Thus, a basic principle known from sensory coding—neural feature selectivity from linear-nonlinear transformation—may also underlie human responses to artificial social partners.

The coolest part of this is that what once was simply a qualitative observation of human behavior can now be shown to have an observable and quantifiable neurological cause.

"It is useful to understand where this repulsive effect may be generated and take into account that part of the future users might dislike very humanlike robots," said Astrid Rosenthal-von der Pütten, who co-authored the study, in an interview in Inverse.  "To me that underlines that there is no ‘one robot that fits all users’ because some users might actually like robots that give other people goosebumps or chills."

This puts me in mind of Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation.  He never struck me as creepy -- although to be fair, he was being played by an actual human, so he could only go so far in appearing as an artificial life form using makeup and mannerisms.  It must be said that I did have a bit more of a shuddery reaction to Data's daughter Lal in the episode "The Offspring," probably because the actress who played her (Hallie Todd) was so insanely good at making her movements and expressions jerky and machine-like.  (I have to admit to bawling at the end of the episode, though.  You'd have to have a heart of stone not to.)

So we've taken a further step in elucidating the neurological basis of some of our most basic responses.  All of which goes back to what my friend Rita Calvo, professor emeritus of human genetics at Cornell University, said to me years ago: "If I was going into science now, I would go into neurophysiology.  We're at the same point in our understanding of the brain now that we were in our understanding of the gene in 1910 -- we knew genes existed, we had some guesses about how they worked and their connection to macroscopic features, and that was about all.  The twentieth century was the century of the gene; the twenty-first will be the century of the brain."

*********************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is about a subject near and dear to me: sleep.

I say this not only because I like to sleep, but for two other reasons; being a chronic insomniac, I usually don't get enough sleep, and being an aficionado of neuroscience, I've always been fascinated by the role of sleep and dreaming in mental health.  And for the most up-to-date analysis of what we know about this ubiquitous activity -- found in just about every animal studied -- go no further than Matthew Walker's brilliant book Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams.

Walker, who is a professor of neuroscience at the University of California - Berkeley, tells us about what we've found out, and what we still have to learn, about the sleep cycle, and (more alarmingly) the toll that sleep deprivation is taking on our culture.  It's an eye-opening read (pun intended) -- and should be required reading for anyone interested in the intricacies of our brain and behavior.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]