Brainy dust

I was sweeping the kitchen floor, when a speck of dust escaped from under my broom and ran for cover. Not fast enough; I was faster.

"Dusty", running still, under glass. She's about 1 to 1.5 mm long, not counting legs. It's hard to measure a critter that won't stop running.

Smithsonian Science posted an article yesterday, entitled "Brains of tiny spiders fill their body cavities and legs, Smithsonian researchers discover." They measured the brains of nine species of spiders, of all sizes, giant to pinhead size, like Dusty, here.

As the spiders get smaller, their brains get proportionally larger, filling up more and more of their body cavities. ... “The smaller the animal, the more it has to invest in its brain, which means even very tiny spiders are able to weave a web and perform other fairly complex behaviors,” said William Wcislo, staff scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. “We discovered that the central nervous systems of the smallest spiders fill up almost 80 percent of their total body cavity, including about 25 percent of their legs.”

I am amazed, but this does help to explain the ability of such a tiny bit of life to hunt, build webs, and escape dangers like my broom. I'm trying to imagine these legs, full of brains down to the knees. And brain surrounding the heart and lungs, the digestive system and muscles.

When she lost half a leg, did she lose IQ points?

Until I had time to photograph the spider, I kept her in a plastic container, 1 inch tall by 1 inch diameter. She spent her time building a messy web; when I opened the container, I found her hanging upside-down in the center, hoping to catch some lunch, no doubt.

I moved her, took photos, and released her to go back to work patrolling corners for dust mites and other invisible (to me) beasts.

A while later, I found a carpet beetle near the bedroom window, and dropped it into the same container without thinking. (I may not be as smart as a spider.) When I went to look at it, I found the poor beetle all tangled up in sticky web.

Carpet beetle, cleaned up. He's almost 3 mm. long.

Walking on the bottom of a leaf. Note the hooked claw.

Weekly Five (Science Links)

A day late, but it is the long weekend. Victoria Day, in other words. Queen Victoria's birthday. Not that we're thinking about her, of course; what we're really celebrating is summer just around the corner.

Here's what I found interesting in science blogs and news this week:

1: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed From NewScientist.com news service, a "round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions." A handy reference.

2: From grrlscientist, at Living the Scientific Life, Gay Flamingos ... Raise a Chick. What the title says. With a great photo of a flamingo chick in a fake egg.

3: From denialism blog, a new blog I am finding fascinating, "Denialists Deck of Cards: The 9 of Spades, "Exploit Others' Ignorance". Although one would wish that they didn't put half the post in the title.

This is part of a series of tactics used by denialists of all stripes. This one, in particular, pinpoints a technique that has had a large and pernicious impact on some members of my family. (I may end up blogging about this.)

4: Joel Pel, in the Science Creative Quarterly, generates and tests the formula that describes Murphy's Law:

Ground-breaking research!

5: At the Cognitive Daily, Greta and Dave Munger report on a glitch in our assessments of popular opinion: How to make your personal opinion seem "popular". They explain (although they don't bring this up) why your kid comes home telling you that "everybody" is buying/going/doing whatever. And when you phone up a couple of other parents, it turns out that their kid (a) says exactly the same thing, (b) definitely is not b/g/d it and (c) can not identify more than one person in the category "everybody". And why one loudmouth can browbeat a whole group into compliance.

Something to think about. Especially, how have we (I) been influenced by one-man peer pressure? How does listening to the same person tell you the same thing every day or once a week (a family member, pastor, news commentator, etc.) lead you to consider his views to reflect the general consensus?

Hmmmm...

Suggestion

From Mike the Mad Biologist:

To help combat pseudoscience,

"Once per week, link to five 'science' posts that you found interesting."

Sounds like a good idea. And do-able.

My Two Cents Worth

... on the Great Framing Debate.

I've been reading the heated (and sometimes outraged) discussion in ScienceBlogs and other sites. The question under consideration, as I understand it, is whether scientists have been at fault in their communication of science topics to the general public; whether (or not) they need to re-package their output.

And I would like to add my tiny voice to the racket. Now, I am not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV, although if I'd had my "druthers", I would have, should have become a microbiologist. Too late now. But I have always read science books and news, and now, blogs. So, as an interested lay person, with a few decades of history to remember, I think I have something to say.

Brian Larnder, of Primordial Blog, is dead on, in my opinion. He writes,

"After all the dust has settled and the ruffled feathers put back in place, the only valid thing that will come out of this whole sorry mess is the point that scientists need to somehow become better at getting their message out to the public. Most would agree, but I think the thing that everyone is missing is that it is not the messengers, but the message that the public has a problem with."

Note that bolded part. (His bolding.) I repeat; it is not the messengers, but the message that the public has a problem with.

Take it through history, as I remember it. I grew up in the 1940s, 1950s. "Science", back then, was almost miraculous; people's voices changed when they said, "Scientists say ..." It was the age of the "miracle drugs", antibiotics and hormones. Everything that ailed you would eventually be fixed with these two, it was thought. "Science" would give us speed, communication, dialogue; in short, a chance at peace. As long as we steered clear of the "Atom bomb" and then the "H-bomb", but that was science, too. "Science" held our life or death in its gloved hands.

It was the age of advertisers donning lab coats, of "9 out of 10 doctors recommend ..." It was the heyday of Popular Science magazine, full of drawings of futuristic car/airplane hybrids and walk-on-water boats. Science was where it was "at".

And people listened, and learned.

Then came Sputnik. Remember that? The Russians putting the first satellite into space? I was in high school at the time, taking Math and Physics and Chemistry because they were fun. But I was the only girl in Math or Physics; the other girls took typing and "Home Ec."

Sputnik changed all that. Suddenly the push was on to train "scientists"; to out-do the Russians, of course. As many as possible were encouraged to consider a career in science. Even girls.

And scientists were courted and praised and invited to "give a talk". We talked DNA at parties, quantum physics in church. (Oh, yes, the latest in science was co-opted to spice up the sermons.)

Fast-forward to today.

We have learned that science has not fulfilled all our dreams. Life is still hard. The bugs are resistant to our antibiotics. The atom hasn't killed us all yet, but it has given us Love Canal and Chernobyl. They tell us that the toys they gave us will poison us, that the flu season will bring new super-bugs, that the oil will run out and the temperature will go up.

This is not what people wanted to hear. "Science" is no longer reassuring. There are no more "miracle drugs".

So they have stopped listening. Or wanting to listen. Better to sing happy songs about God's love, and learn "The Secret". Better to get the latest cell phone and download ever more new songs and pictures. Or hear the trumped-up "intimate secrets" of the no-name-brand celebrity of the day.

Don't talk to them about "science". They will call you "elitist" and "in the pay of ...". They will not invite you to "give them a talk". Not any more, they won't. It's not fun anymore.

And that, in my opinion, is where the problem is; not with the communication skills, or lack of, of those earnestly expounding scientists.

My opinion only. Rant concluded.