08 December 2017

Twice in a lifetime: South Texas snowfall!

Last time, I only saw the aftermath.

This time, I got to see it happen.


Snow!


There hadn’t been snow in a century before 2004, and now twice in less than 20 years? This is crazy.


It started around 9:00 am, and ran for a couple of hours. It was big fluffy flakes that was coming down quite thick at one point.


I asked everyone I saw, “Are we having fun yet?!” Everyone was having fun. Everyone was happy. One student said, “This is the best thing that could have happened during finals!”


There were snowball fights outside the library.


Alas, it dod not last long. After a couple of hours, it had stopped. But there was so much snow on the trees, that as it melted, it sounded like a downpour.


Last time, I made a snowman. This time, I made something different:


A South Texas snow angel!

I can’t believe I got to see snow twice in South Texas during my time there. Today was pretty magical.

I’ve been inside for an hour now, and my fingers are still numb.

Related posts

Something wonderful
After the (snow)fall
Once in a lifetime

04 December 2017

End of a project


Eight years ago and three months ago, I started a project to accommodate Jessica Murph’s request to do fieldwork (she was a student in the NSF REU program I ran then). It was a simple project to try to figure out some basic biology of the local sand crab species, Lepidopa benedicti.

Jessica finished her year in the program, and I kept going. And going.

Along the way, the project yielded three papers (Murph and Faulkes 2013, Faulkes 2014, 2017). The last paper covered up this project from 2011 to the end of 2015, and I have gathered two more years of data, making it seven calendar years of continuous monthly samples.

It’s a project where I genuinely felt I learned a lot. There was, at the start of this project, very little known about any species of this family. This project was a good first step in understanding the natural history not just of L. benedicti, but the family. And I found a species that had never been documented in the area before.

There were times when things got crazy when I could just think to myself, “I have to go to the beach.” They were good opportunities to decompress.

That project came to a close for the foreseeable future yesterday.

Posting here has been slow this semester, because I stuff that I didn’t want to blog about. It’s good stuff, not bad! I have some big plans that start early next year that I am very excited about.

But for every door that opens, one closes. These projects will be taking me away from South Texas, and I’m not going to be able to visit my field site for a while. I can’t go collect and measure “my” sand crabs.

I’ve had other projects that have ended before, but I can’t think of another that ran so long. It’s tough knowing that I still have questions that I will only be able to answer by collecting, and not knowing if or when I might be able to pick up the project again. Even if I do, I won’t have the bragging rights of a nice, continuous record.

On the plus side, I do still have two more years of field data in the can that I can analyze. I hope that I might be able to squeeze one more paper out of this project.

But I’m still a little sad.

References

Faulkes Z. 2014. A new southern record for a sand crab, Lepidopa websteri Benedict, 1903 (Decapoda, Albuneidae). Crustaceana 87(7): 881-885. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685403-00003326

Faulkes Z. 2017. The phenology of sand crabs, Lepidopa benedicti (Decapoda: Albuneidae). Journal of Coastal Research 33(5): 1095-1101. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-16-00125.1

Murph JH, Faulkes Z. 2013. Abundance and size of sand crabs, Lepidopa benedicti (Decapoda: Albuneidae), in South Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist 58(4): 431-434. https://doi.org/10.1894/0038-4909-58.4.431

Photo by Karren Faulkes. Thanks, mom.

07 November 2017

Tuesday Crustie: Lawdy, lawdy, look who’s 40!

Sometimes we underestimate how long our pets might live.


This female pet hermit crab, Jonathan Livingston Crab (name given before sex determined), is at least 40 years old.

Ths article is great. I love this part:

Jon’s great age is an amazing accomplishment, but can you really have a relationship with a crab? Ormes says Jon can tell her apart from other people, and he clearly seeks out her company. “He follows me places. When I’m out on the lanai [enclosed porch] on my computer he comes out there and climbs on my feet, if I go to the morning room he comes out there and walks around the table,” she says. “If I go out and leave him out of his tank, I come home and he’s at the front door.”

Hat tip to Frank Dirrigl.

External links

26 October 2017

Throwaway lines


For one student, it was, “Keep it simple. Science is hard enough as it is.”

For another student, it was, “It’s a skill, like anything else. You can learn it and get better at it.”

There were both things I said to students in part of bigger conversations about something else. I thought were throwaway lines. But these students told me that those comments were important to them.

One student kept going back and thinking, “Simplify.” And had success when he did so.

The other student had a “fixed mindset”: that there was a certain amount of skill you had, and when you reached that point in a subject, you were done. Your intellectual ladder was only so tall, it only let you climb over so many walls. My throwaway line helped her switch to a “growth mindset”: practice. Work at it. You can improve.

Sometimes, as an educator, you put a lot of work into the content of courses. You have to write learning objectives, figure out how to explain some tricky concept, work on grading rubrics... and sometimes, the course content is absolutely not the thing sticks with the students.

Sometimes, it’s the random, tangential comments that students tell you later were the things that mattered to them. And I think are highly undervalued in education. You can’t predict or plan for those. But they can happen in the little unscripted moments, particularly when you have a good working relationship and dialogue with students.

For me, it was, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” It was reading an article or letter in a journal someplace, but that became a mantra for me when I was working on manuscripts. I realized I was waiting too much to make things just so when they were never going to get that way. It was a throwaway line that dramatically changed my productivity.

04 October 2017

I come to bury the GRE, not to praise it

I’ve seen a few graduate programs announce that they are not going to require students submit GRE scores any more. These announcements are widely met with praise. The GRE has minimal predictive value in long term grad school success, and it is biased against a lot of groups. And the costs stops a lot of people from applying to grad school.

Interestingly, at the start of last year, the dean of our graduate college announced that several programs were being required to add the GRE to their admission requirements. This was imposed on at from outside the institution at the state level. I can’t remember if it was UT System or the THECB.

Full disclosure. When I became the graduate program coordinator of our master’s program, I pushed and got our department to start requiring the GRE. My rationale at the time was that this was the “industry standard.” We wanted our students to go into doctoral programs, and we reasoned that we would be helping students pave the way for doctoral work by having them do it sooner rather than later.

Also, I was reacting to students who would come in the day before classes started and say, “Can I be a grad student?” At the time, there was no application deadline. And students who did that tended not to persist in the program. So requiring the GRE forced students to plan ahead, not go a grad school because there was nothing good on television that day.

I have since come around to see the many problems with the GRE. But I don’t think our department would be allowed to get rid of it, seeing how many departments were force to require it.

But this is something I think about.

The GRE tried to solve a couple of problems. It failed to solve them, but those problems still exist. And I don’t know how to solve them. The problems are:

  • Grading policies vary wildly across institutions. (See this blog post.)
  • People interpret the same grades in different ways depending on the institution’s perceived rigour and prestige. (See this blog post.)
  • Recommendation letters are usually uniformly glowing.
  • People tend to trust recommendations “in network” from people they know either personally or by reputation.

Students from famous universities who have rubbed shoulders with famous professors and can convince them to send a form letter get deep advantages in grad school acceptance. In other words, we end up selecting for students for grad school who already have a lot of “social capital.” If we want to diversity science, this is not the way to go about it. Diverse students come from diverse institutions, as Terry McGlynn has noted.

In theory, the GRE could have acted as a leveler for the playing field. It didn’t. But the problem it could have tackled is one that we still need to tackle. What can help level the playing field for students against “prestige”?

Related posts

What grades should look like
The “Texas transcript” is a good idea, but won’t solve grade inflation

External links

Students, Rejoice — Standardized Testing May Soon Be Dead

02 October 2017

The little known ways neurons communicate


I just looked in the introductory textbook we use for general biology, and it provides a good explanation of chemical neurotransmission between neurons. If you’ve studied basic biology, a diagram like this probably looks familiar:


I was impressed that the textbook mentioned for chemical neuromodulation. The presynaptic cell releases chemicals across the synaptic cleft, but the receptors don’t open ion channels. Instead, they interact with metabotropic receptors that cause biochemical cascades inside the neurons. These cause any variety of slow, long-lasting effects.

But there are at least three more ways that neurons can communicate.

Third, there are gasotransmitters: small, short lived gases that are made on the spot and zip through cell membranes like they weren’t even there. There are at least four different gases that do this (reviewed in Wang 2014). Nitric oxide is the best known in nervous systems.

Fourth there are electrical synapses. Neurons can be connected by gap junctions, which create pores in the membranes that allow ions to flow freely from one neuron to another. Consequently, an action potential spreads from one cell to the next as though they were one big cell. These were first described in crayfish, by the way (Furshpan & Potter 1957).

Fifth, there are ephatic signals, where the electrical potentials generated by spikes in one neuron create electrical potentials in adjacent neurons, even with no synapses or gap junctions between them. It’s just a spread of electrical activity. This was described at least as early as 1940 (Katz & Schmitt 1940), but I am ashamed to admit I had never heard of this until a few years ago (Su et al. 2012), even though the original effect was shown in the 1940s using motor neurons in crab legs! And learning about those was a big chunk of my doctorate.

I often find myself griping about how many people assume that brains work like computers. And I think part of that is because signalling by chemical neurotransmission seems very computational. I wish more people knew that there are at least four other ways that neurons can interact and influence each other. Maybe they wouldn’t be so quick to think that downloading our brain activity into computers is going to be easy.

References

Furshpan EJ, Potter DD. 1957. Mechanism of nerve-impulse transmission at a crayfish synapse. Nature 180(4581): 342-343. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v180/n4581/pdf/180342a0.pdf

Katz B, Schmitt OH. 1940. Electric interaction between two adjacent nerve fibres. The Journal of Physiology 97(4): 471-488. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1940.sp003823

Su C-Y, Menuz K, Reisert J, Carlson JR. 2012. Non-synaptic inhibition between grouped neurons in an olfactory circuit. Nature 492: 66-71. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11712

Wang R. 2014. Gasotransmitters: growing pains and joys. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 39(5): 227-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2014.03.003

Picture from here.

29 September 2017

My K-index


Matthew Hahn reminded me of a paper that proposed the “Kardashian index” for scientists. I don’t like the paper. It demeans outreach by implying that a high score (author Hall suggested more than 5) is an attention seeker who contributes little and should get back to the lab. There’s some pretty crummy sexist overtones in the choice of “Kardashian” as a descriptor. There was much criticism of this paper when came out, which I’m not going to rehash here.

But I didn’t know there was an online calculator. (Hat tip to Genome Biology.) And yes, I’m curious enough to enter in my numbers. My score was 17.46; the highest of anyone in Hahn’s Twitter thread by quite a ways.

I like trying to do outreach, and I know I do niche research. So this is not surprising to me.

If you love science, love methods sections


Mensh and Kording (2017) have a new paper on scientific writing. It’s very good. I agree with most of their advice. But not this.

You should also allocate your time according to the importance of each section. The title, abstract, and figures are viewed by far more people than the rest of the paper, and the methods section is read least of all. Budget accordingly.

No. Do not skimp time spent on your methods sections.

I get where this advice is coming from. It’s the same sentiment that has lead some journals to put their methods section at the end, or to stuff parts of papers away in online “supplemental information.”

But we read papers for lots of different reasons. I read lots of papers that are only tangentially related to me out of curiosity. But when there is a paper that is in my field, that I need to understand, I dig deep into those methods sections.

I’ve run into so many cases where something that looked like a solid finding looked very shaky once you realized how the data were collected. While Mensh and Kording are right that few people read the methods, it neglects that those who do are going to be the most intense and critical readers.

A recent feature in Nature showed that weak detailing of methods was leading to irreproducible results (my emphasis).

In one particularly painful teleconference, we spent an hour debating the proper procedure for picking up worms and placing them on new agar plates. Some batches of worms lived a full day longer with gentler technicians. Because a worm’s lifespan is only about 20 days, this is a big deal. Hundreds of e-mails and many teleconferences later, we converged on a technique but still had a stupendous three-day difference in lifespan between labs. The problem, it turned out, was notation — one lab determined age on the basis of when an egg hatched, others on when it was laid.

The article give multiple examples of how hard it is to standardize methodologies, but how important it is to achieving consistent results. This older Drugmonkey post, makes a similar point.

The methods section is where the rubber meets the road in terms of actually conducting science. If you don’t get that methods section right, you’re wasting the time of people who come afterwards.

References

Mensh B, Kording K. 2017. Ten simple rules for structuring papers. PLoS Computational Biology 13(9): e1005619. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619

Lithgow GJ, Driscoll M, Phillips P. 2017. A long journey to reproducible results. Nature 548: 387–388. https://doi.org/10.1038/548387a

External links

The most replicated finding in drug abuse science