JJUURRAASSSSIICCWWOORRLLDD

autumn 2015

TTHHEE LLIIFFEE IISSSSUUEETTHHEE DDEEFFIINNIITTIIOONN OOFF LLIIFFEELLIIFFEE--SSAAVVIINNGG VVIIRRUUSSEESSLLIIVVEESS OOFF TTHHEE DDEEAADD

FFAACCTT OORR FFIICCTTIIOONN??

TTRRUULLYYEEVVIILL??

GGLLAASSGGOOWW''SSNNEEWW

AANNIIMMAALLHHOOUUSSEE

LLUUCCIIDDDDRREEAAMMIINNGGWWHHAATT''SS TTHHEEPPOOIINNTT??

WELCOME

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG08

We at theGIST would like to thank the Chancellor's Fund forfunding this magazine.

Gifts to the Chancellor’s Fund are directed to where the need isgreatest, supporting mainly student centred projects whichwould otherwise fall out-with core funding. To find out moreabout the Chancellor’s Fund or to give a donation, please seetheir webpage:

www.gla.ac.uk/about/givingtoglasgow/chancellorsfund/

Over the last 10 years the Alumni Fund has awarded in excess of £2 million in funding to support Strathclyde studentsFrom an international student project to bring solar lighting to a community in The Gambia to helping people access education through a scholarship award

Realise your potential and make an impact with the Alumni Fund www.strath.ac.uk/alumnifund

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

WELCOME

We are delighted to present toyou: The Life Issue. Perhaps

the most important topic we haveever discussed. Without it you wouldbe, well, um... dead.

On page 10 we ask thefundamental question: what is life?By looking at the ultimate, yetseemingly insufficient definition, welearn about what counts as life andconfusingly, what doesn’t.

But we’re not just satisfied withlearning about what life is, we alsowant to know how we can change it,play with it, improve it. Thepotential benefits to humanity are

Written by the editors

Over the last 10 years the Alumni Fund has awarded in excess of £2 million in funding to support Strathclyde studentsFrom an international student project to bring solar lighting to a community in The Gambia to helping people access education through a scholarship award

Realise your potential and make an impact with the Alumni Fund www.strath.ac.uk/alumnifund

astounding, but what happens ifthings go a little bit Jurassic World?To find out what is actually possiblewe’ve fact­checked this blockbusteron page 12.

As an inescapable part of life, wehave death, and as it turns out, evenin death we can discover storiesabout life. Before you judge us aswannabe psychics, let us calm (andexcite) you with the prospect ofreading about the science of findingout stuff from ancient skeletons onpage 15.

Sadly, we can’t bring up deathwithout mentioning our own

impending doom. Our very existenceis threatened by the spread ofmultiresistant bacteria, arrogantlyshrugging off our antibiotics andmaking the protection of our own lifeone of the most pressing problemsfor scientists to solve. Luckily, wecan suggest a possible solution thatis already being used in Poland andGeorgia on page 18.

So don’t despair entirely ­ insteadindulge in the wonderful waysscience can inform us, change us andeven protect us. C’est la vie!

the editors

EDITORIAL

All is full of life

In this issue

p4 NEWS

p6 FEATURE

p8 COMMENT

p10 FEATURE

p12 FEATURE

p15 FEATURE

p18 FEATURE

p20COMMENT

p22 FEATURE

Editors­in­Chief:Timothy Revell and IdaEmilie SteinmarkSubmission Editors:Michaela Mrschtik andPeter McGintyHead of Copy­Editing:Rebecca Baird

Layout:Teodora Aldea, MisaelSilva, Yulia Revina, IdaEmilie SteinmarkArt:George Bell, James Marno,Jessica McLaren, ErinWallace

Glasgow's largest science magazine

NEWS

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

What's new in Glasgow?

Pesticide use is becoming increas­ingly controversial, and so re­

searchers from the University ofGlasgow are trying to find a morebenign form of pest control as part ofa large EU project. Their approach isto alter their behaviour rather thankilling them.

Pests are still a major worry dueto growing global demand for cropsand the climate change drivenspread of insects into new areas. Yet

concerns about the safety ofpesticides have forced the scientificcommunity to search for alterna­tives. The Glasgow researchers willinvestigate insect hormones andseek to change insect behaviour tokeep them from infesting crops ­ forexample by controlling the chemicalmessenger insects use to spread themessage of located food. This shouldallow pest controllers to redirect in­sects rather than kill them off.

Another important aspect is se­lectivity. High selectivity would en­able farmers to target harmfulinsects and spare useful ones, suchas pollinating bees, which are essen­tial to agriculture. It is hoped thisapproach will result in more intelli­gent forms of pest control.

Written by Ida Emilie Steinmark

Pesticides rethunk

When a virus travels inside amosquito, it will generally not

cause any damage to its host be­cause of a special defence mechan­ism involving its RNA. Groups atthe University of Glasgow are nowusing a new model virus to study themechanism and hopefully translatetheir findings into something of clin­ical value.

In general, viruses manage to ex­ploit its host’s resources and organ­

ism in order to replicate and thrive,making it dangerous to many anim­als including humans. Yet carrierhosts like mosquitoes go by un­harmed because of an immune de­fence called RNA interference(RNAi). RNAi causes the viral RNAto be copied by the host, and choppedup into pieces that can be used tofind and eliminate the intruder.

The Glasgow researchers are look­ing at the model Semliki Forest Vir­

us to gain further insights into thisand many other arthropod­borneviruses. Understanding and possiblyrecreating the mechanism could en­able us to protect the populationfrom viruses through novel vaccinesor other treatments.

Written by Teodora Aldea

A new RNA attack?

Image

credit:Tyvia

Flickr.com

Imag

ecr

edit:

Ben

See

sevi

aFl

ickr

.com

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

NEWS

What's new in Glasgow?

According to researchers at theUniversity of Strathclyde, bird’s

eye perspective can give you morethan just an overview. They claimthat advanced technology on satel­lites could improve the currentlytime­consuming up­keep of renew­able energy.

For some time, Synthetic ApertureRadar (SAR) systems, present onsome satellites, have helped track il­legal logging and kept a watchful

eye on protected marine environ­ments. SAR systems work by send­ing out radio wave pulses towards atarget and detecting the boomer­anging echo; as the SAR moves overthe target, the signals can be com­puted to give a high resolution im­age. The technology is not hinderedby rain or clouds, and might oftendetect changes faster than on­groundobservers.

Strathclyde scientists are now

reaching out to the energy industrywith their space age ideas. If imple­mented, it could aid in the monitor­ing of existing wind turbines and inthe localisation of suitable areas fornew farms around the globe.

Written by Ida Emilie Steinmark

Satellite binoculars

An app created by the companyof a former University of

Strathclyde student enables ruralfarmers and inexperienced vets toquickly and reliably diagnose ananimal. Whilst being trialled inEthiopia, the app has received thestamp of approval from anindependent study.

Farmers in hard­to­get­to areaswill often be faced with an illanimal, like a cow, without proper

access to veterinary care. The appdeveloped by Cojengo, a companystarted by Craig Taylor whograduated for the University ofStrathclyde in 2008, now allowsthem to reliably find the cause thefor the given symptoms and asuitable medication. This could savethe lives of many animals as well asprotect the living of the farmers whodepend on their cattle.

An independent study conducted

by researchers at the University ofPrince Edward Island found that theapp was effective in dealing with80% of common cattle diseases andthat shows a 70% agreement ratewith trained veterinarians.

Written by Ida Emilie Steinmark

Cattle disease app

Imag

ecr

edit:

Free

Inte

lPre

ssvi

aFl

ickr

.com

Image

credit:Lukasvia

Flickr.com

SOCIAL SCIENCES

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

What if you could live your wild­est dreams? You can fly up to

the moon and dance around thestars. You can go to Hogwarts withHarry, Ron and Hermione. You cankiss That Girl. You can even go backin time ­ all you need to do is go tosleep.

Lucid dreaming is, quite simply,the awareness that one is dreamingwhilst in a dream. Depending on thedreamer’s degree of lucidity, theymight simply know they are asleep,or they may be able to manipulateparts of their dream world, allowing

them to do literally anythingthey can possible imagine!

Flying, tasting fire, andeven having sex with a

love interest are allvery common luciddreams. The ideahas been the sub­

Image credit: Erin Wallace

Written by Rebecca Baird

IInn yyoouurr ddrreeaammssRebecca Baird uncoversthe mysterious world oflucid dreaming

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

SOCIAL SCIENCES

ject of literature and academic dis­cussion since the times of AncientGreece and is still prevalent today;from the philosophy of Aristotle toVeronica Roth’s popular novel Diver­gent, and even The Matrix, the ideaof lucidity in a state of altered con­sciousness is one that has never beenfar from the collective conscience ofsociety.

One of the earliest modern ac­counts of lucid dreaming is that ofFrederik van Eeden, a Dutch writerand psychiatrist1 who recorded his

own dreams in an attempt to under­stand the science of dreaming. In his1913 paper, “A Study of Dreams”, hefirst describes lucid dreaming as fol­lows: “I had a full recollection of myday­life, and could act voluntarily,though I was so fast asleep that nobodily sensations penetrated into myperception.”2 van Eeden had origin­ally hoped that his observationswould prompt scientific research intothe phenomenon he experienced, butat the time his findings were metwith scepticism, and discarded untilmany years later in 1980, when ayoung Stephen LaBerge, Ph.D. stu­dent at Stanford University, re­searched lucid dreaming in order toearn his doctorate in psycho­physiology.3 He believed that luciddreaming was a real scientific pro­cess, and through designing and car­rying out psychophysiologicalexperiments, he built up some verystrong evidence to support his the­ory.

Yeah, right. In your dreams!

Lucid dreaming has been supportedby science in a number of ways, butthe experiment which cemented thereality of this phenomenon wasLaBerge’s polygraph experiment, theresults of which were published in1983. In order to prove that luciddreaming was real, LaBerge neededto have lucid dreamers communicat­ing their lucidity in real time – this

was achieved by using a polygraph torecord specific predetermined eyemovements and fist clenches whichwould signal lucidity. Since, by defin­ition, lucid­dreamers can rememberinstructions given in their wakinglife, the subjects of LaBerge’s experi­ments were able to signal lucidityphysiologically via the polygraph,and then give a subjective account oftheir lucid experiences whenawakened. When the data had beentaken, the polygraph results andsubjective accounts were given to a

judging scientist who was unin­formed of the point of the experi­ment. For 90% of the cases, the judgewas able to select the correct thirty­second time­frame within the studywhere lucidity had been reached,based on the correspondencebetween observed and reportedevents.4

Also, in 2009, a study was conduc­ted at the Neurological Laboratory inFrankfurt which revealed that brainactivity was greatly increased duringlucid dreams. An EEG study recor­ded frequencies in the region 40 Hzin people reporting lucid dreaming –around ten times greater than thenormal dream­state range. Further­more, increased activity in the front­al and frontolateral areas of thebrain (the areas associated with self­awareness) was reported during lu­cid dreams, compounding the evid­ence for lucid dreaming as aneurological state.5

Can anyone lucid dream?

The answer is yes – potentially! Oneof the main techniques currentlyused by experienced lucid dreamersto induce lucidity was developed andformalised by The Lucidity Institute:this is known as Mnemonic InducedLucid Dreaming (MILD). The key toMILD is to try to recall a non­lucid,ordinary dream as quickly and com­pletely as possible after awakening.Then, when going back to sleep, one

walks through that dream again inone’s mind, fixating on somethingthat makes it obvious that thisdream is not reality – a trigger.When they see it, they acknowledgethat it means they are dreaming,and continue with their fantasy.6

Many people enjoy having controlof what is seen as one of the mostunpredictable states of conscious­ness; others simply like being able tomanipulate their dream world.However, if you need a concretereason to try lucid dreaming, howabout this one: lucid dreaming canhelp to overcome emotional trauma,repressed feelings, and even beatphobias.6

Imagine that your disability didn’tstop you from interacting sociallywith people your age, or your reli­gious beliefs didn’t inhibit you sexu­ally. Imagine a completelyself­indulgent, private world whereall of your issues could be resolvedwithout any real­life consequence.That’s the world that lucid dreamingprovides us with. It is a therapy allof its own, like writing an angry let­ter and never sending it, or having aconversation with your own reflec­tion. By learning to lucid dream,people have the tools to develop aclearer mind and achieve greateremotional health through dealingwith situations that might be im­possible to face in waking life. Al­though the dream world may not bereal, the memories, emotions and be­nefits of lucid dreaming most defin­itely are.

Rebecca is an undergraduate studyingEnglish and Creative Literature at the Uni-versity of Dundee. This piece was specialistedited by Laura Kane and copy-edited byCharlie Stamenova.

References/search terms:1 Wikipedia: Frederik van Eeden2 Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Re-search, Vol. 26, 19133 lucidity.com/vanEeden.html4 Wikipedia: Stephen LaBerge5 www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com6 www.lucidity.com/LucidDreaming-FAQ2.html

Written by Rebecca Baird

IInn yyoouurr ddrreeaammss

SOCIAL SCIENCES

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

You have probably heard aboutthe controversial plans passed

by the University of Glasgow to in­vest £5million in a brand new ‘anim­al house’ ­ the nickname given to thevarious on­campus locations wherelaboratory animals are held and usedin experiments, primarily by the Col­lege of Medical, Veterinary and LifeSciences (MVLS)1. Many studentsmay not have been previously awareof the existence of these facilities atthe University. They are unsign­posted, tucked away from view, andthe work in them carries on dis­creetly alongside other, more public,scientific research. There is goodreason for this. Although securityconcerns relating to animal rightsactivism have cooled in recent years,the threats are still very real, andthe University rightfully takes thesafety of its employees and studentsincredibly seriously2.

However, this caution is highly

damaging to public understanding ofthe work conducted on animals with­in the college of MVLS. The secretiveair that surrounds animal researchblends seamlessly with misinforma­tion and rumour to produce suspi­cions of unethical practice occurringbehind closed doors. Many peoplemay not realise that the UK’s re­searchers work under some of thestrictest regulations in the world2.Institutions, supervisors, projects,and each individual working withanimals must be independently li­censed, a process that includes edu­cation on ethics.

The University’s policy on animalresearch references its commitmentto the three R’s ­ reduction of animalnumbers used, refinement of proced­ures and replacement with alternat­ive experimental methods3.However, it keeps its more detailedcards close to its giant, Hogwarts­like chest, and was the subject ofnegative press when it was revealedthat the numbers of animals used inprocedures at the University ofGlasgow has risen sharply in thepast decade4.

The decision to fund the newbuilding was followed quickly by apetition on change.org, imploring themoney­spenders to reverse their de­cision and re­invest the funds in al­ternate technologies.Another petition calls for an outrightban on the use of animals at theUniversity of Glasgow. The EU hasrecently rejected the signatures of1.2m people who demanded the endof animal testing in Europe5. Read­ing the comments left by the signeesof the Glasgow petition ­ around3,500 ­ it was obvious that a hugeproblem was the lack of understand­ing about animal testing, a problemcompounded by many research insti­tutions’ lack of interaction with thepublic.

The assumption that many peopleoutwith biological science make is a

House of Ill ReputeIn defence of Glasgow's

new animal holding facility

Image credit:Gwen Seemel viaFlickr.com

Written by Wilf Gardner

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

SOCIAL SCIENCES

logical one: by now we surely havesurpassed using animal models. Thesad, simple truth however is thatthis just isn’t the case. TheUniversity of Glasgow does fund re­search into rival techniques, as doesthe Medical Research Council(MRC), the Wellcome Trust and anyother biomedical funding body youcan think of6. Animal experimentsare only licensed when there are nofeasible alternatives2, and these al­ternatives are becoming more andmore sophisticated and useful: math­ematical models of diseases; pro­gramming languages for detailedanalysis of gene expression in hu­mans; entire organs bioengineered tobe grown and experimented with ona lab bench, without an animal in

sight. However, despite all the accep­ted flaws of animal models – andethics aside, there are many ­ theystill provide the most complete test­ing ground for medical therapies.

Currently, a computer simulation,or tissue grown ex vivo, can supple­ment data gleaned from animal re­search, but cannot yet provide theanswers that a full organism does.We need these answers before atreatment is given to humans. Itmay be argued that consenting hu­mans could provide an option afterearly stages of research, but thenumbers would have to be huge toensure the research was of a highstandard. The cost of attracting suchnumbers, in addition to protectingresearchers from insurance claims,could potentially put huge strain oninstitutions for which funding isalready precious7. Furthermore, thisform of testing would surely precluderesearch into more serious afflic­tions: would you sign up for spinalcord injury testing? To the many whobelieve animals should be treated asequals by humans, this may seemarrogant and selfish but the fact isas plain as it is unfortunate: if wewant modern, effective medicine, wemust be selfish.

Of course, we cannot be so selfishthat we don’t do our best for the an­

imals we use. And with this in mind,the injection of money into theUniversity's animal research is agood thing for the most commonlyoverlooked of the three R’s ­ refine­ment. While animal testing is the ne­cessary evil that it currently is, wemust do our best to make the experi­ments conducted are as good as pos­sible, so that animal lives are notwasted and any suffering is minim­ised. Many current facilities at theUniversity of Glasgow are not state ofthe art. They aren’t bad, but a de­signed­for­purpose facility will allowthe technicians who look after the an­imals – with great dedication andcare ­ to perform their jobs more effi­ciently. A key feature of the new facil­ity is the idea of a complete barrier.

Particularly important when workingwith animals with compromised im­mune systems, a barrier facility en­sures a sterile environment, wherenothing enters or leaves withoutsome form of anti­contamination pro­cedure. This ensures the safety of an­imals on procedure and improves thereliability of the experiments. Thecurrent facilities have a quasi­barrier,upheld by strict regulations and thediligence of staff and students, butthe system is a clear target for thatall­important refinement.

This kind of information, whichhelps explain why money is continu­ally spent on animal research despitethe aim of reduction, is too hard tocome by. This needs to change. Or­ganisations like Understanding An­imal Research provide one source ofpublic outreach but universities needto play a bigger part. Media reportson animal testing are often one­sidedand sensationalist, and researchersand institutions finding a proactivevoice would do wonders for the de­bate. Of course, there are some on theother side who don’t want open de­bate either ­ if you believe testing onanimals for human gain is wrongthen you are unlikely to be swayed byhearing about it in more detail. Butfor the general population, who sur­veys suggest generally accept the

need for animal testing, discoursewould ensure a wider understandingof what goes on in research, whyfunding is important, and whatlengths are gone to protect the anim­als involved.

Animal testing ­ regrettably ­ willremain a cornerstone of biomedicalresearch for years to come. Alternatetechnologies for investigating dis­ease are improving at a fantasticrate, and the goal of eliminating theneed for in vivo experiments is be­coming more realistic all the time.But for now we rely on animal test­ing. Neither blocking its funding norremaining tightlipped about its de­tails will do any favours for re­searchers, patients, the generalpublic, or the animals involved. Inorder to keep the standards of bio­medical research high, we must util­ise the best experimental models wehave. For now at least, that meanscontinuing to fund in vivo researchas well as investing in new technolo­gies.

The University is making pro­gress, signing the Concordat onOpenness on Animal Research in theUK and providing figures for thenumber of animals used8. This is astart, but transparency should be el­evated in our list of priorities, sothat the good work done at this andother institutions involving animals,and the steady movement away fromthe necessity of animal research canbe fully appreciated by all.

Wilf is a neuroscience student at theUniversity of Glasgow.This piece was specialist edited by SarahNeidler and copy-edited by Graham Kerr.

References/search terms:1 glasgowguardian.co.uk2 www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk3 www.gla.ac.uk: animal research policy4 glasgowguardian.co.uk: animalexperimentation5 speakingofresearch.com: UK regulations6 www.gla.ac.uk: masters biomedical science7 www.theguardian.com: science policy8 www.gla.ac.uk: openess animal research

Written by Wilf Gardner

LIFE SCIENCES

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

I’ve been thinking a lot about lifelately. Not in the philosophical,

self­reflection kind of way, but in itsmost literal sense. What even islife—do we really know? What aboutthose “things” seemingly on theedge—viruses, maverick cancercells, and aspiring artificial intelli­gence? Join me on a whirlwind tourd'Horizon of life, as we find out whatis alive, what isn’t and what… maybe.

Life, what is it anyway?

Seven pillars support our under­standing of life, though they are acontinual source of debate1. The firstis organisation; living beings arecomposed of interacting parts thatcombine to form a whole: the mostbasic unit widely accepted is a single

cell, a microscopic sac of fluid con­taining structures called organelles.Next is homeostasis, maintainingone’s internal environment throughchemical or behavioural means. Thencomes metabolism, the ability to takein external energy and convert it intoa usable form—be it light or pizza.This leads to the fourth, growth.Fifth is the ability to react to stimuli,which leads inexorably onto thesixth, adaptation, be that movingsomewhere cooler when you are hotor evolution. The last pillar is repro­duction, the ability to produce newindependent organisms, eitherasexually or through the ever­popu­lar means of sex.

This definition seems clear, butunfortunately life gets a little fuzzyaround the edges. Some problems areperhaps more philosophical: an indi­

vidual ant will largely fail to meet allseven requirements, but the colonywill, so which is the unit of life?However, other situations are moreproblematic.

The viral variable

Whether through movies, coverage ofoutbreaks like Ebola, or lying in bedbeset by illness, you will have experi­enced viruses—but are they livingbeings? These small fragments of ge­netic material (DNA or RNA),wrapped up in a protein coat and oc­casionally a lipid (fat) overcoat, ex­hibit some of our key pillars: theyreproduce copies of themselves, ad­apt, evolve, and contain genetic ma­terial, surely a signature of life? Butthey are simple to the extreme.

Viruses are obligate parasites;they invade living cells and hijacktheir internal machinery, turningthem into little virus factories. Whileparasitism is common across the treeof life, viruses are different: withouta host cell, they are little but a fewmolecules—is this life? Debate hasraged, but ultimately most agree:without a host cell viruses cannot ex­hibit the key requirements for life, sothey are not alive…but they arepretty close—viruses are on the edgeof life2.

Perhaps viruses resemble ourearliest ancestors, a kind of pre­life,or maybe they are descended from it.Like many other parasites maybeviruses used to be more complex andjust lost the bits they didn’t need.Another possibility is that they arederived from small transposable ele­ments, fragments of genetic materialshared between single celled organ­isms. No one knows their origin, butwe do know that viruses are just toosimple to be alive.

IT'S ALIVE!... maybe

Written by James Burgon

Renee Prisble via Flickr.com

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

LIFE SCIENCES

Tenacious tumours

Cancer occurs when a cell in yourbody develops a mutation and startsuncontrollably reproducing, creatinga tumour that sucks up resourceswhile invading and destroying sur­rounding tissue. It is a horrible dis­ease fostered onto you by your ownbody. But, what happens if your can­cer is not… well, yours?

In 1996 a strange disease was ob­served in populations of Tasmaniandevils, characterised by large cancer­ous tumours around the mouth: Dev­il Facial Tumour Disease3. Eventhough cancer is considered to bedistinctly personal these tumourswere hopping from one devil to thenext, annihilating populations acrossthe island.

Devils are not the only ones suf­fering from transmissible cancers. Asearly as the 1970’s American soft­shell clams have been beset by ashellfish leukaemia that can quit itsdying host and set up home in a newone, and Syrian hamsters are afflic­ted by a transmissible cancer spreadvia the bite of a mosquito. Perhapsthe most outstanding is the Caninetransmissible venereal tumor, a free­living immortal cell line that is any­where between 200­2500 years old3.What else is this but a living parasit­ic organism? It meets all of our re­quirements, and while dependent onother organisms to survive this is nomore than any other cellular para­site.

Only four transmissible cancersare known, and by their existencethey are making us question thedefinition of life. Why there are sofew is debatable, but we could bewitnessing new species emergingfrom the very cells of their prey.

The life artificial

In 2010 controversial American ge­neticist Craig Venter and a team ofscientists made headlines withclaims of creating the first “syntheticbiological organism”. This new lifewas a self­replicating, syntheticallycreated version of the bacterium My­coplasma mycoides4. However, theyused a top­down approach, essen­tially synthesising a tweaked versionof a known organism. While they didcreate something that we recogniseas life, it was more re­engineeringthan creating. Can we take a bottom­

up approach and create truly unique,synthetic, biological life? Currentlynot, but with technological advanceswe should not rule it out4.

Perhaps more interesting is thepossibility of waking the ghost in themachine—can life exist beyond thebiological? Artificial intelligencepushes this boundary. While abstractthinking is needed, machines argu­ably could (or do) exhibit many of ourpillars—but as we build them thesecriteria seem ill­suited for a non­bio­logical concept of life. For machinesto be considered alive we need themto do something different—we needthem to think. The father of moderncomputing, Alan Turing, proposed atest to find out if a machine could doso5: a human interrogator has fiveminutes to talk to a hidden inter­viewee electronically, after whichthey must decide: human or ma­chine? If the interrogator cannot dis­tinguish the computer from thehuman you have a self­aware think­ing machine.

While technology continues to rap­idly improve, no computer has comeclose to passing the Turing Test—butwhat if one did? Would it be life? Isthought enough? British neurologistSir Geoffrey Jefferson stated thatmachines could never be alive, theycould not share our emotions—joy,despair and love were beyond them;Turing responded that he could saythe same about anyone6. He was oneof the first to accept what weare—biological machines. He couldno more understand what went on inSir Jefferson’s mind than a self­aware robots processor—hence thesimplicity of his test. I think there­fore I am; I think, therefore I amalive?

It’s life Jim… but who knows whatthat is?

Life can be messy, but that makes itall the more fascinating. Biology is abig, sprawling tangle of complicatedhalf rules and exceptions, but under­pinning it all is a concept of life. Wetend to think we know what this is,we have our seven criteria and sortof intrinsically know that there is aclear boundary between living andnonliving—but the detail dissents.Our seven pillars are more likeguidelines than requirements, andour definition of life remains murky,challenged, and perhaps not wholly

biological. Whether it’s the half­lifeof viruses, autonomous tumours orthe awakening of a consciousnesscode, the green of life is ringed bythe grey of… maybe.

James is a PhD student in evolutionary biologyat the University of Glasgow. This piece wasspecialist edited by Michaela Mrschtik andcopy-edited by Mark Connor.

References/search terms1 Life's Working Definition: Does It Work?Astrobiology Magazine. 2007.2 Villarreal, L.P. Are Viruses Alive? ScientificAmerican. 2008.3 Young, E. Selfish Shellfish Cells CauseContagious Clam Cancer. NationalGeographic. 2015.4 Coghlan, A. Craig Venter close to creatingsynthetic life. New Scientist. 2013.5 Sharkey, N. Alan Turing: The experimentthat shaped artificial intelligence. BBC News:Technology. 2012.6 Abumrad, J. and Krulwich, R. The TuringProblem [audio]. Radiolab. 2012.

Written by James Burgon

Imag

ecr

edit:

Ren

eeP

risb

levi

aFl

ickr

.com

LIFE SCIENCES

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

The science of

Jurassic World

FACT OR FICTION?Image credit: Benton MJ (2010) Studying Function and Behavior in the Fossil Record via Wikimedia Commons

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

LIFE SCIENCES

Filling the gaps: a dinosaur hybrid

InGen does not go so far as to claimextraction of complete dinosaur gen­omes through their amber­drillingtechnique. In the first movie, theymerge multiple genomes of the samespecies together and then fill thegaps in the code with frog genes. InJurassic World, [spoiler alert!] genesfrom additional species are added tomake the finished product more“thrilling”. What could go wrong?Though ultimately a bad move in thefilm, creating a hyper­intelligent,murderous beast that can camou­flage and avoid thermal imaging(oops!), this technique of comparingsimilar genomes to fill in unknown

sequences is commonly used in ge­netics research.

The gap­filling concept is demon­strated nicely by recent attempts tosequence the woolly mammoth gen­ome3. Fragments of the mammothgenome from specimens preserved inpermafrost were matched up withAsian elephant genomes to identifygenes that differed between the twospecies. Some of these mammoth­specific genes have even been suc­cessfully inserted into elephant cellsgrown in a Petri dish. This is a hugestep towards being able to ‘de­ex­tinct’ the mammoth using elephantsas a vehicle, but there is no way ofknowing whether the added geneswill translate to mammoth­like

Written by Nina Divorty

Imagine a world where creaturescan be brought back from extinc­

tion and genetically modified tomake them bigger, scarier and moreimpressive than before. Where sci­entists happily tinker with dinosaurgenomes, chopping and changing theDNA code to delight audiences whotravel from far and wide to witnessthe spectacle. It’s the stuff of sciencefiction. Or is it?

The Jurassic Park franchise andits most recent installment, JurassicWorld, are based on complex ideasabout cloning and genetic modifica­tion. When the world first saw Jur­assic Park in 1993, this seemed afuturistic dream – just believableenough to accept in movie theatres,but in the lab or the lecture theatre?Surely not. But at that time, sciencewas already making huge advance­ments in genetic engineering, and inthe intervening decades we haveachieved many amazing feats of bio­logy and genetics. Dolly the sheepwas cloned in 1996, the human gen­ome project was completed in 2003,and the first organism with a fullysynthetic genome was created in2010. In the last year, a new tech­nique for editing genes in live cellshas made waves throughout thebioscientific community ­ ‘CRISPR’technology can be used to cut anyDNA sequence and paste it back to­gether to insert, delete or changepieces of the code1. So how much ofthe science in the Jurassic Worlduniverse is fiction, and how much isbased on fact?

Source DNA: suspended in amber

In the original Jurassic Park, In­Gen’s scientists extract dinosaurDNA from blood consumed by mos­

quitoes preserved in amber. Whilephysically possible, since blood­suck­ing mosquitos certainly existed atthe same time as dinosaurs, thepracticalities of extraction wouldmake cloning very difficult. Even ifthe fragile DNA structure had sur­vived millions of years of harsh con­ditions, it would be very hard toprevent contamination by the mos­quito’s own DNA, or that of moremodern organisms. Even attempts toextract insect DNA from relativelyrecent amber samples have hadhighly variable and not very convin­cing results. Either the DNA is sofragmented it cannot be correctlypieced together, or the sample is con­taminated with DNA from other spe­cies.

Are there alternative sources ofdinosaur DNA? A well­timed paperclaiming to find blood cells in dino­saur fossils was published in theweek before Jurassic World was re­leased2. Although these samples,found by luck during a study on bonefossilisation, are unlikely to containintact DNA, blood and other soft tis­sues in better­preserved specimensmight. At the very least this findingshows that fossils needn’t be formedunder special circumstances to pre­serve soft tissues. Time will tellwhether we are really able to extractDNA from these, but for the moment,getting our claws on dino DNA isstill a sci­fi fantasy.

Verdict: FICTION

LIFE SCIENCES

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

Image credit: George Bell from the Comic Writers & Artists Society at the University of Strathclyde

1929: German scientists insert body cells into egg cells

1952: Twenty­seven tadpoles cloned from Northern Leopardfrogs

1963: The world's first cloned fish is born in China

1996: Dolly the sheep is born in Scotland ­ after 434 cloning at­tempts

2000: Cloned piglets see daylight.Beijing Genomics Institute now clone 500 pigs a year

2003: Afghan hound, Snuppy, becomes the first cloned dog

2012: A Pashmina goat, Noori, is cloned in Kashmir

when exposed to an otherwise non­toxic sugar, will degrade its modifiedDNA5. This can be used either toeradicate all unnatural DNA, or todegrade whole chromosomes and killthe organism. Of course, these tech­niques are currently only possible inbacteria, and getting them to work ina complex organism like a T­rexwould present new challenges. Theseare just some of the ways scientistsare trying to make genetically modi­fied technology safe to release intothe environment.

Verdict: FICTION

On the whole, the science explain­ing Jurassic World’s dinosaurs iscrude and exaggerated. Ultimatelythough, the concepts behind it arerooted in fact, based on real researchhappening at the cutting edge of ge­netic engineering. It’s easy to forgetas we watch the Indominus Rexwreak havoc on Isla Nublar, butsometimes the truth is almost asstrange as fiction.

Nina is a PhD student in pharmacology andcardiovascular science at the University ofGlasgow. This piece was specialist edited byEuan Wilson and copy-edited by RebeccaLaidlaw.

References/search terms:1 Nature News: CRISPR technology2 Nature Comms: Bertazzo et al. 20153 Nature News: Mammoth genome4 Nature: Mandell et al. 20155 Nature Comm: Caliando et al. 2015

Written by Nina Divorty

traits unless a whole organism canbe produced.

Of course, mammoths are muchyounger than dinosaurs, and thistechnique would be significantlyharder in the absence of such a closeliving relative. Mammoths and ele­phants are more than 99% genetic­ally identical, and only 5 millionyears of evolution apart. The young­est dinosaurs lived more than 66million years ago. Dinosaurs are

now thought to be a lot more closelyrelated to birds than to fish, reptilesor amphibians, so emus (one of themost ancient bird species) or evenchickens might be our best template.If we did find a source of dinosaurDNA, and enough samples from thesame species could be assembled in­to a near­complete genome, wemight one day get to the stage weare currently at with mammoths.

Verdict: FACT

Genetic safeguards

The most obvious flaw with JohnHammond’s questionable businessmodel is the almost total lack ofhealth and safety consideration.Most people wouldn’t resurrect giantcarnivorous monsters without givingat least a little thought to how to

control them. In Jurassic Park, In­Gen uses the ‘lysine contingency’,mutating a gene to prevent the dino­saurs from producing the amino acidlysine. This would apparently causethem to slip into a coma and die ifnot supplied with lysine by the keep­ers. Unfortunately, lysine is actuallyan essential amino acid in animals,meaning it can’t be made by the body.All animals must obtain lysine fromfood. It can be found in most protein­

rich food sources, such as the cowsand goats (and the occasional hu­man) fed to the dinosaurs in the film.

Would real scientists be recklessenough to create artificial lifewithout a reliable means to controlit? Using the methods we have now,it should be relatively easy to engin­eer self­destruct mechanisms intocloned organisms. One approach issimilar to the lysine contingency, butmuch more sophisticated. Scientistshave genetically modified bacteria tomake their proteins from an unnat­ural amino acid that is completelyabsent from the environment4. Thesebacteria truly do rely on a supple­ment provided by their ‘keepers’, anddie if it is withdrawn. Kill switchesthat respond to certain chemicals canalso be engineered into the genome.One lab has made bacteria that,

Dead mentell true tales

Teasing secrets from dead, cold hands...Ida Emilie Steinmark tells the story

PHYSICAL SCIENCES & MATHS

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

Written by Firstname Lastname

Dead mentell true tales

Teasing secrets from dead, cold hands...Ida Emilie Steinmark tells the story

Imagecredit:JessicaMclaren

PHYSICAL SCIENCES & MATHS

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

Ramsgate, Kent. You’re standingin a muddy field, drenched to

the skin, looking down on an ancientskeleton. Its bones lie spread out onthe ground, the skull grinning up atyou. The rain soaks your sweater;questions seep into your mind ...

Back at the lab, you turn yourback to your new friend (whomyou’re now affectionately callingArchie), and write on the white­board:

Date ­ Birth ­ Sex ­ Death

The bone whisperer

Though non­archaeologists rarely getexcited by dating methods unless itinvolves Italian food, you appreciateit. Time is so vast that almost anyevent, any person, loses its meaningwithout a date stamp. The all­im­portant context requires dating, andArchie, you think, deserves context.

To date him, you feed pure carbon,converted from his bone, into a massspectrometer which will give you itsconcentration of carbon­14. In livingtissue there is a set ratio between

carbon­12 and carbon­14. Whensomething dies, it stops taking incarbon, and while the non­radio­active carbon­12 remains unaltered,carbon­14 slowly decays, allowing theratio between the two to change. Bycomparing the ratio found in livingtissue with Archie’s, you calculate

how long ago Archie died1.The result of your calculation:

three thousand years. You lean back.You, the bone whisperer. Archie diedabout 1000 years BC, smack in themiddle of the Bronze Age. You ima­gine each bone giving you a tiny highfive.

Ancient passports

You always enjoy telling non­archae­ologists what they don’t know: thatmost corpses carry passports. Not the

traditional kind that they’d be able topresent to a scary man in a uniformasking for “Papiere, bitte!”. No, thisone is way better: it’s in their teeth.

Archie, bless him, died with astring of nice pearls on his jaw. Youpull one out and hold it up to thelight. This little thing ­ his first mol­

ar ­ carries the secret to his life’swhereabouts... It gives you the samehumble feeling as when you look upat the stars and feel small. You’reholding Archie’s first memory in apair of pliers.

Archie’s tooth contains an elementcalled strontium, in a ratio of two ofits isotopes. When Archie was little,he drank strontium through water ­like we all do ­ and his teeth used itin their coating. The strontium ratioin the water, and therefore insideArchie’s teeth, reflects that of his

Written by Ida Emilie Steinmark

The sub-pubic angle isthe angle found in thepubic arch. Imagecredit: Grey's Anatomyvia WikimediaCommons

PHYSICAL SCIENCES & MATHS

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

then geological region2. Like a blue­print of his childhood playground.

You run the mass spectrometeragain, waiting for it to break thesample down into its constituentparts. But the results show that hischildhood strontium ratio doesn’tcorrespond to the area in which hewas found. Maybe Archie was a mi­grant?

Pelvis is king

You’ve phoned your friend Taylor todrop by. Her white coat flaps behindher ­ totally not in line with safetyregulations.

“Where’s the fella?” she asks. Younod in the direction of Archie, whom

you’ve laid out as best you can. Sheleans forward and squints her eyes.Let the sexing begin.

“Pretty skinny­boned,” she says.“But the pelvis is pretty obvious. Seethis bit? It’s called the sub­pubicangle, right where the two mainbones meet. His is around 90 de­grees, not exactly child­bearing hips.Also, the skull has a very ridgedbrow and sticks out a bit at the back.I’d put my money on male.”

“What about age?” you ask her.She tilts her head.

“Well he’s got long bones and theskull is fused, so he’s an adult. Hehas his third molar, and it’s in goodcondition. 25, 30 years, maybe?”

You nod. “That’s what I thought. Icompared the pelvis to a reference,so my estimate is between 20 and35.”

You smile at your agreement, andshe fistpumps you on her way out.

“That’s a nasty hole, that is,” shesays and nods towards his head be­fore the door slams behind her.

Putting it bluntly

It is a nasty hole. Several, in fact.You bend your knees to level yourline of vision and look closely. Brutal.

You decide to get to the bottom ofthis. Was it simply a terrible fall?Could someone have killed him?

Maybe a bear attack? You straightenup. You will find this out. For Arch­ie’s sake.

You ask a friend if you can use hisCT scanner. You get the green light,and you carefully place Archie’s frac­tured skull on a tray trolley, not un­like those muffin­ and crisps­filledones flight attendants push downnarrow airplane aisles, and roll off.

As Archie’s head disappears intothe giant X­raying donut, you reflecton this whole living­dying­and­being­found thing. Maybe Archie wouldn’thave liked his final resting place tohave been disturbed, but in reality,he would have been totally and ut­terly forgotten without you. In a way,you have revived him, given him a

second chance of telling someone hisstory. He might be dead, but you’rebringing him back to life.

An image takes shape on thescreen. Three main holes of entry arevisible. You ask the computer to com­pare them ­ they are almost indistin­guishable, yet they have differentangles of impact. Your friend, apathologist, walks in to check on you,and you ask for a consult.

“Definitely blunt trauma. See howthey’re all the same? That’s the sameweapon, no doubt about it,” he says,pointing. “The different angles sug­gest he’s been hit again and again.Nothing else looks like it. Also, hedied of it ­ there’s no healing at all,no bone remodelling.” You lean to theside and look into the scanner room.Wee Archie, you think. Poor, weeArchie.

Case closed

You’re back in front of your white­board. You’ve written a summary ofwhat you have learned about Archie:

Died around 1000 BC. Found in afield in Ramsgate but doesn’t origin­ate from the area; likely a migrant.Male, scrawny. Killed by three bluntblows, delivered to the head.

Next to Archie is a big box. You’re

meant to pack him away, write upyour findings and put them into con­text. Archie likely fits in with abunch of other European migrantswhich were recently uncovered3. Youlike the idea of Bronze Age migra­tion ­ it’s so modern, in a way. Ormaybe timeless, rather.

Yet, you can’t help feeling sad.That feeling of being the bearer­of­news, the bearer­of­truth even, fadeswhen you think of packing himaway. Like filing him in an archive(and not under ‘A’ for Archie, but un­der ‘R’ for Ramsgate). You knowyou’re being silly, he’s been dead forthree thousand years! And archae­ology isn’t really about “remember­ing people’s stories” and “givingthem a second chance”, now is it? It’sabout the accumulation of humanknowledge, about peeking into ourown past, to know about ourselves.

You sigh and decide the world istoo cynical. After a quick glance outthe door to make sure you’re alone,you crawl onto the table and place afoot on either side of Archie’s laid outskeleton. You fish out your phoneand lean forward …

“Say cheese, Archie!”

Ida Emilie is a chemistry undergraduate at theUniversity of Glasgow. This piece wasspecialist edited by Jessica Bownes and copy-edited by Nina Divorty.

References/search terms:1 HowStuffWorks: carbon dating2 pmc.ucsc.edu: strontium isotope analysis3 Telegraph.co.uk: bronze age migration

Written by Ida Emilie Steinmark

LIFE SCIENCES

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

It is the year 2050, and healthcaresystems are strained. Most opera­

tions have been abolished; they arenow considered too dangerous be­cause they often result in deadlywound infections. Lung and bladderinfection have become commonchronic conditions with little hopefor treatment. This year, 10 millionpeople are dying from infections thatwere once curable. Even the onesthat survive the flood of diseases areplagued by knock­on effects of bac­terial infections in humans and live­stock – food shortages, particularlyof meat, are rife. Life in this age isnot easy, and too often it ends early.

This scenario may sound likesomething taken straight out of adystopian novel. Quite the contraryis the case: This vision of the futureis not just science fiction, it could be­come reality. The gloomy predictioncomes from a Review on Antimicrobi­al Resistance report, which describeson the potential impact of antibiotic(and antimicrobial) resistance in the

year 2050. The big picture: withoutworking antibiotics, we may face ableak future.

Antibiotics revolutionised medi­cine 70 years ago. These drugs aresome of the cornerstones of modernmedicine. Many treatments andmedical procedures ­ including oper­ations, cancer chemotherapy and or­gan transplantation ­ are safebecause of them. However, problemsare developing: an increasing num­ber of bacterial infections no longerresponds to traditional antibiotictreatment.

This is mostly our own fault. Themisuse of antibiotics in livestock andoveruse in the clinic has driven therapid rise of antibiotic­resistantbugs. This coupled with the stagna­tion of discovery and development ofnew antibiotics (only two new classesof antibiotics have been discoveredsince 19622), has left us with few op­tions to fight bacteria that are resist­ant to several classes of antibiotics.With the appearance of these mul­

tiresistant ‘superbugs’ we are racingto find new solutions to prevent fall­ing back into pre­antibiotic times. Wemay, however, still have an ace upour sleeve: fighting the infection withan infection.

Despite bacteria’s role in causingdisease, these bugs can catch infec­tions themselves. Viruses which at­tack bacteria, called phages (short forbacteriophages), are among the mostcommon organisms in nature3. Oncethey enter a bacterium, they can hi­jack its biological processes and con­vert their hosts into phageproduction factories ­ which may killthe unlucky victims. Phages only in­fect bacteria, and even though theycan be found inside our bodies, theydo not harm us.

So why not use this magic bulletfor therapy? Parts of the worldalready do. Phage therapy is not arecent discovery: it has been used fornearly 100 years. It was only discon­tinued in Europe and the US in the1940’s, after the discovery of the

Image credit: vinyleraser via Flickr.com

Written by Michaela Mrschtik

Going viralCould viruses become the new antibiotics?

Michaela Mrschtik investigates

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

LIFE SCIENCES

therapeutic potential of the antibiot­ic Penicillin. Research on phageshas since continued in the former So­viet Union (particularly in today’sGeorgia) and in Poland, wherephages are still used to treat bacteri­al infections4.

Like other viruses, phages arenatural agents. They are not gener­ated, but they are usually extractedfrom their habitats. Phages can befound anywhere, but they are en­riched in places where bacteriathrive ­ such as sewage, soil or ourguts3­ and therapeutic phages can beextracted from these reservoirs.Once collected, they are purified andtested to isolate the ones that de­

stroy disease­causing bacteria.Phages that have bacteria­killing ef­fects are then stored for later use.

Phages usually have a narrowhost spectrum, meaning that eachvirus can only infect one or a fewbacterial species5. This specificity isboth a blessing and a curse in thecontext of therapy. Our bodies arehome to trillions of bacteria (yes,trillions ­ they even outnumber thehuman cells in our bodies by approx­imately 1:10) and their presencehelps us in many ways. Antibioticsoften wipe out most of our naturalbacterial inhabitants, and this canhave negative knock­on effects onour health. Fecal transplants ­ bac­teria from the stool of healthydonors6 ­ are recent attempts tocounter this unwanted fallout of an­tibiotics. As phages are very selectivewith their hosts, we could use phagetherapy to keep our beneficial bac­teria healthy while eliminating onlythe disease­causing intruder. Thisalso means that each infection has tobe treated with its specific phage ora phage cocktail. If an infection hasno phage mix readily available, itcan take days or even weeks to pro­duce one that will work on the dis­ease­causing bug. Often, this timecannot be spared when a patient iscritically ill. To be prepared toswiftly deal with local infections, theEliava Institute in Georgia has an

extensive bank of tested phages, butthis collection needs to be regularlyupdated to stay effective as local bac­teria evolve and as new bugs arrivefrom abroad.

To complicate matters further,bacteria are not completely helplessagainst phage attacks. They haveevolved an immune system that canhelp them fight viral infections ­ thenow­famous gene editing toolCRISPR­Cas9 is derived from thisdefence system7. If we use a singlephage to treat an infection, bacteriamay become resistant to the virusbefore it could eliminate all of them.This is the reason why phage ther­apy is often administered as a cock­

tail, and not as single agent.Despite these limitations, tackling

antibiotic­resistant bacteria withphage therapy could be a viable op­tion. But there are two additional,entirely different hurdles to thetherapeutic use of phages: regulatoryissues and profitability. Phages arebiological entities that are capable ofevolving, which complicates their ap­proval by drug regulation agencies inEurope and the US. Additionally,naturally occurring phages cannoteasily be patented, which makespharmaceutical for­profit develop­ment of phage therapy in its currentform unlikely.

To get around these issues, re­search efforts are directed towardsgenerating engineered ­ and there­fore patentable ­ phages that expresstherapeutic components. One recentexample of this is the creation of amodified phage which has beenequipped with bacteria’s own modi­fied immune system ­ the CRIS­PR/Cas9 gene cutting tool ­ usedagainst the bugs to destroy antibioticresistance genes in E. coli bacteria8.When an antibiotic resistant bacteri­um is infected with this phage, itsresistance can be disrupted, makingit vulnerable to antibiotic treatmentagain.

Routine use of modified phages astherapy is still far off. For now, if youdo catch a multiresistant infection ­

they are already everywhere, so youmay want to start worrying ­ yourbest bet may be to pay a visit to Po­land’s or Georgia’s Phage TherapyCentres (in case you're already con­cerned, here are their websites:www.iitd.pan.wroc.pl and www.pha­getherapycenter.com). Increases inhealth tourists are already expected.

Michaela is a cancer research PhD student atthe Beatson Institute. This piece was special-ist edited by Catriona Thompson and copy-ed-ited by Rebecca Baird.

References/search terms1 http://amr-review.org2 Not Exactly Rocket Science: antibiotic res-istance teixobactin3 Nature: Clokie et al., Bacteriophage, 20114 Abedon et al., Bacteriophage, 20115 Sulakvelidze et al., Bacteriophage therapy,20016 TheGIST: transpoosions7 TheGIST: CRISPR8 IFLS, Justine Alford: engineered viruses

Written by Michaela Mrschtik

SOCIAL SCIENCES

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

Written by Firstname Lastname

People of truth?

Image

credit:Dylan

Meconis

visFlickr.com

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

SOCIAL SCIENCES

What comes to mind when youthink ‘scientist’? Most likely

you’re thinking of a lab coat, crazyhair and multi­coloured chemicals intest tubes. But do you normallythink of misconduct? Recently itseems like science scandals of onesort or another are constantly in thenews.

In 2008, 95 out of the 1.4 millionpapers published were retracted1. Al­though retractions are small in num­ber, it is not uncommon to comeacross them on a day to day basis.Retracted papers and the reason fortheir retraction are published by Re­traction Watch; the reasons for re­traction vary from imagemanipulation to unreliable data.

In April of this year Richard Hor­ton, a medical doctor and editor of

The Lancet, published a comment inThe Lancet in which he stated that‘much of the scientific literature, per­haps half, may simply be untrue’. Hewas not only referring to cases ofmisconduct but also to other aspectsof scientific research, such as toosmall sample sizes or invalid analys­is. He went on to describe how thescientific literature is sculpted by thequest to tell a good story and by au­thors trying to shape their data to fittheir hypothesis2. But is this reallythe case?

In 2014 two papers published byscientists from the RIKEN institutein Japan were retracted fromNature. These papers put forwardthe idea that adult cells could betransformed into pluripotent stemcells, thus giving them the ability todifferentiate into any other cell.Nature’s independent news team re­ported that errors were found in thefigures, parts of the methods sectionwere plagiarised and attempts toreplicate the findings failed3,4. Anenquiry by the RIKEN institute con­cluded that although some of the in­accurate work published was theproduct of genuine error, there werecases of deliberate misconduct found.

The stem cell retraction was anexample of bad science which wasquickly caught and retracted, butsometimes research misconduct canhave very severe consequences bey­ond the laboratory setting. In 1998,Dr Andrew Wakefield published fab­ricated data showing a link betweenAutism and the MMR vaccine. Later,

Wakefield and the 12 other co­au­thors were found guilty of deliberatefraud which appeared to be for finan­cial gain5. It took more than 10years to retract their paper andwithin that time vaccination rates inparts of the USA and the UKdropped below the level needed tomaintain herd immunity (the level ofimmunity needed for the whole pop­ulation to be protected, even if someof them are not immune themselves).The Wakefield case has been calledthe “most damaging medical hoax ofthe last 100 years” as it has been ahigh contributor to the falling vac­cination rates and the continuouslyhigh vaccination scepticism6.

The World Conference on Re­search Integrity met in June 2015 toassess the latest scandals to hit the

scientific community. One topic un­der discussion was the recent highprofile retraction of a political sci­ence paper from the journal Scienceby one of the co­authors. The study,published in December 2014, sugges­ted that opinions on gay­marriagecould be changed through canvassing(face to face interactions with the re­searcher’s target audience in order totry to persuade them to his or herpoint of view, normally used in polit­ical campaigns), with long term ef­fects being seen in approval ratingsif the canvasser is also gay7.However this paper was retractedafter one lead author of the studycame under scrutiny and failed toprovide his original survey data.This latest retraction from Sciencewas picked up by the global mediaprompting the New York Times towrite an article entitled ‘Scientistswho cheat’ and the Guardian to writea piece entitled ‘Fooling ourselveswith science: hoaxes, retractions andthe public’, bringing scientific mis­conduct to the attention of the gener­al public.

Research misconduct is a verycomplicated issue and cannot besimply judged on paper retractionnumbers. One reason for this is thatthe peer review system is notequipped to catch misconduct. Illus­trating this is a systematic review byDr Daniele Fanelli (University of Ed­inburgh) published in PLOS One. Itfound that nearly 2% of scientistsadmitted to fabricating or falsifyingdata and nearly one­third admitted

to questionable research practices8.When researchers are asked aboutincidences they have seen, fabrica­tion and falsification of data increas­e to 14%. These numbers appearhigh and it is important to remem­ber the limitations of self­reports.Nevertheless, this study suggeststhat retractions, however public theymay be, don’t provide the wholestory.

So does all this negative mediacoverage give scientists a bad name?Well, it is not all doom and gloom ­the public doesn’t necessarily thinknegatively of scientists. A recentstudy by the Royal Society of Chem­istry showed that public perceptionsof scientists are largely positive9. Aswell as this, a study by Pew Re­search found that the majority ofadults (76%) in the USA thoughtthat science had made life easier formost people. However, they alsothought that too few scientists weregood at communicating their find­ings10. These findings underline theimportance of scientific engagementwith the public, if for no other reas­on than that the the public are someof the key financial supporters of sci­entific research. The taxpayer paysfor a large amount of researchthrough government funding; theymight enjoy finding out where theirmoney is going. Furthermore, sci­ence communication will help boostscience’s image.

It is hard to say how much thesehigh profile cases will affect the im­age of scientists in the future;however, it is important that we, asscientists, maintain our integrityand not give the public reasons tomistrust us. With scientific powercomes scientific responsibility andwe can’t let the public down!

Catriona is a PhD student in microbialbiochemistry at the University of Glasgow. Thispiece was specialist edited by James Burgonand copy-edited by Mary Kristen Layne.

References/search terms:1 Harman, K (2010) Scientific American2 Horton R. (2015) The Lancet3 Nature Editorial (2014) STAP retracted.4 Report on STAP cell research paper5 Rao et al (2011) MMR vaccine and autism6 Fine et al (2011) Herd Immunity7 LaCour et al (2014) Science (retracted)8 Fanelli, D (2009) Plos One9 Nature Editorial: Misplaced Faith10 Funk et al (2015) Views on science

Written by Catriona Thompson

People of truth?Im

agecredit:D

ylanM

econisvis

Flickr.com

SOCIAL SCIENCES

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

Written by Jennifer Hamilton

Psychopaths

Jennifer Hamiltonreports from the edge ...

Image credit: Irina Duarte via Flickr.com

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

SOCIAL SCIENCES

“I’m not a psychopath, Ander­son. I’m a high functioning so­

ciopath. Do your research.” Thisremark, spit sneeringly by Holmes ata forensic team member, is one of themost quoted lines from the hit BBCshow 'Sherlock'. But is there reallyany difference between psychopathsand sociopaths?

The definition of a psychopath isgenerally agreed upon, but psycholo­gists disagree about the meaning ofthe word ‘sociopath’. Some psycholo­gists say that sociopaths and psycho­paths are the same thing and that

sociopath is just an out­dated term,while others think that sociopathsare a product of their environmentwhile psychopathy is caused by ab­normalities in the brain ­ althoughwhat these specific abnormalities areis still under debate. Whether theyare the same condition or not, bothare a subset of a psychological dis­order called Antisocial PersonalityDisorder (ASPD)1. This causes suf­ferers to have no regard for therights of others. People with ASPDhave no problem with breaking thelaw or lying to friends and family be­cause they feel very little remorse orguilt, or possibly none at all.

Psychopaths have these traits, butthey can be very hard to spot due totheir high level of charm and their

ability to act normal. Psychopathsdon’t feel empathy or guilt – makingit hard to form meaningful emotionalrelationships – but after years of ob­serving how everyone else showsemotion, they are able to fake it. Es­sentially wearing a mask to trick so­ciety. This means that psychopathscan seem completely normal andlead inconspicuous, everyday, “nor­mal” lives2. For this reason, the onesthat commit crimes are particularlyhard to catch.

From the definition in the previ­ous paragraph, it would seem that

Holmes is at least half right; his be­haviour is too erratic to fit the profilefor a psychopath. However, the TVand film industry definitely isn’tlacking in characters that could bethought of as psychopaths. Some arecrazy serial killers ­ the stereotypicalpsychopath, while others are thegood guys. Ruthless, charming, fear­less characters with dangerous ex­ploits who always end up on top i.e.James Bond.

Psychologists in the “sociopathsare different from psychopaths”camp believe that sociopathic beha­viour is more dependent on a per­son’s environment, especially duringchildhood, than on the makeup oftheir brain. They think that neglector abuse during childhood can result

in sociopathic adults. They also be­lieve that sociopaths live differentkinds of lives from psychopaths; theytend to be more impulsive and errat­ic and will make very little effort tohide their true nature. For this reas­on, sociopaths don’t tend to lead nor­mal, everyday lives within societywhich makes them much easier toidentify1. They also tend to feel atleast a small amount of empathyand guilt, although still nowherenear as much as normal people do.

In general, ASPD is thought of asa ‘spectrum’ or ‘scale’, with bothminor and extreme cases possible.Psychopaths and sociopaths fitsomewhere on that scale but usuallyit is extremely difficult to definewhere. This is because there are somany different overlapping symp­toms between the two, such as fear­lessness, ruthlessness, egocentricityand so on. It is therefore hard tocome up with an explicit definitionfor what a psychopath or sociopathis, which is why there is so muchdisagreement over the meaning ofthe word ‘sociopath’. In the quota­tion at the beginning Holmes mayclaim to be a sociopath, but whetherhe is or not would seem to depend onyour point of view.

Jennifer is studying for a MSc innanotechnology at the University of Glasgow.This piece was specialist edited by MargaretLaurie and Ida Emilie Steinmark, and copy-edited by Kirsty McLean.

References/search terms:1 PsychCentral: J.M. Grohol, psychopaths vssociopaths2 Frontiers in Psychology: Lilienfeld et al,2014

Written by Jennifer Hamilton

vs sociopaths

... between definitionsand cold reality

NEWS

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

Stress is Cool

We’ve made our first ever featurelength documentary. At a whopping8 minutes and 34 seconds it’s ourmost ambitious video project to date.In the film we spoke to researchersfrom the University of Glasgowabout how they are using thermalimaging cameras to make the sci­ence of stress less stressful, we meta beautiful charm of finches, andheard why Dominic McCaffertycouldn’t quite believe the results hewas seeing whilst studying pen­guins. To check out the video head towww.YouTube.com/GlasgowGIST

Have you seenour awesome slider?

As soon as you’ve finished readingthis magazine head to www.the­

GIST.org. We’ve redesigned the web­site and you have not lived untilyou’ve seen our homepage slider. Theway it glides from one post to thenext is just… So. Good.On the website we’ll continue tobring you regular science and tech­nology articles, podcasts and videos,but now looking just a little bitsmoother. If the physical sciences areyour thing, then no problem, we havea button just for that. If the life sci­ences are you thing, guess what? Wehave a button for that too. And don’tworry social science enthusiasts, weeven have a button for you. We havethought of everything.

Take 1...minute for chemistry inhealth - Runner Up

theGIST’s video “A Brush withChemistry” was awarded runner up

in the Royal Society of Chemistry’sone minute science video competi­tion. The video looked at the chem­istry behind brushing your teeth. Itturns out that a regular brush in­creases life expectancy and reducesheart disease. It took humans thou­sands of years to start using tooth­brushes, but thanks to chemistryonly takes two minutes to use. Sonext time you are brushing yourteeth watch our video. Twice.

Glasgow Science Festival

This year theGIST was the officialmedia for the Glasgow Science Fest­ival. From ‘The Perfect Meal’ to a‘Single Pixel Camera’ the sciencefestival had it all. And if you missedany of it visit our website to catch upwith our reports and videos:www.the­GIST.org

What's new

Science pantomineat Glasgow ScienceFestival. Imagecredit: Gabi Bilin

with theGIST?

WWW.THE-GIST.ORG

FUN

The back page

Credit: George Bell and the Comic Writers and Artists Society at the University of Strathclyde

Across:1.Flow of liquids along tiny passages (9, 6)8. Scalp condition (8)9. The 7th planet from the Sun (6)10. A salt of cholic acid (7)11. Social media platform (7)13. Sleeplessness (may change) (8)15. Egg shaped (6)

16. Flattened at the poles (6)18. Nectar loving insect (8)21. Genus of short­tailed monkies (7)22. Tuft at the end of an animal’s tail (7)25. Examines minutely (6)26. Plant used for candy (8)27. Ratio used to measure percentage alcohol (8, 7)

Down:1. Insignia of the medical profession(7)2. Small toothed gears (7)3. Immature invertibrates (5)4. Narrow rock fissure (4)5. Meat eater (9)6. Caught fire (7)7. Nasal opening (7)12. Study of logic, quantities,geometries, etc (5)14. In the hand, between the carpusand the phalanges (9)16. Water passes through semi­permeable membranes via thismethod (7)17. Milk sugar (7)19. Rod shaped bactria (7)20.Methylenedioxymethamphetamine(7)23. Greek letter denoting units ofresistance (5)24. White powder, hydratedmagnesium silicate (4)C

redi

t:R

ebec

caD

ougl

as.F

ind

solu

tions

topr

evio

uspu

zzle

sat

ww

w.th

e-G

IST.

org

PHYSICAL SCIENCES & MATHS

Written by Firstname Lastname

Science's role in society?We care about that too. Our annual conference Science forSociety focuses on how science can and does influence our

society.

Last year, in 2014, we covered evidence­based policy, bringingtogether students, academics, policy­makers and people from

industry for a round of exciting, engaging discussion.

This year, our title is 'Future Cities'. We want to explore what itmeans to be a smart city, what science can do to improve our

urban areas and how it's already brought us closer to the future.As always, there will a student article competition with prizes to

be won.

Don't miss out on this once­a­year opportunity! Keep an eye onthe­GIST.org and we'll let you know when you can register.

Two lovely GISTers helping out at the conference in 2014. Image credit: Gabi Bilin

Two lovely GISTers helping out at the conference in 2014. Image credit: Gabi Bilin

Glasgow.GIST @GlasgowGIST GlasgowGIST www.the-GIST.org

BBeeccoommee aa ttrraaiinneedd &&ppuubblliisshheedd sscciieennccee

ccoommmmuunniiccaattoorr

GGaaiinn aa vvaarriieedd aannddiinnvvaalluuaabbllee nneettwwoorrkk

AAllll aatt GGllaassggooww''ss llaarrggeessttsscciieennccee mmaaggaazziinnee

WWaanntt ttoo ggeett iinnvvoollvveedd??WWrriittee ttoo eeddiittoorr@@tthhee--ggiisstt..oorrgg

Image credit: Gustavo Garcia via Flickr.com

AAWWEESSOOMMEE CCOOVVEERR AARRTTBBYY JJAAMMEESS MMAARRNNOO