Dragonflies Have Human-Like 'Selective Attention'

Dragonflies Have Human-Like 'Selective Attention'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121220143224.htm

I read the article “Dragonflies Have Human-Like Selective Attention’”, which introduces a new discovery on the field of cognitive science.  Selective attention is fundamental to humans' ability to select and respond to one sensory stimulus in the presence of distractions, which has so far only been demonstrated in primates.  But this discovery shows the first evidence that an invertebrate animal has brain cells for selective attention.  In the experiment, a tiny glass probe with a tip that is only 60 nanometers wide has been used, which is 1500 times smaller than the width of a human hair.  Using the tiny probe, the researchers have discovered neuron activity in the dragonfly's brain that enables this selective attention. They found that when presented with more than one visual target, the dragonfly brain cell 'locks on' to one target and behaves as if the other targets don't exist.  

“Once the dragonfly has selected a target, its neuron activity filters out all other potential prey.  The dragonfly then swoops in on its prey -- they get it right 97% of the time,” Dr Wiederman says, who have been studying insect vision for many years.

This is the first direct demonstration of something akin to selective attention in humans shown at the single neuron level in an invertebrate.  The insect brain is simple and accessible, future work may allow scientists to fully understand the underlying network of neurons.  This is great, because we can then copy it into intelligent robots and other machine.

It’s unexpected to find something so sophisticated in lowly insects from a group that's been around for 325 million years.  And if the neuron for this function is presence, there must be a corresponding DNA, which may also help the analyzing of DNA.

Overall, I think this article explain well on the result and impact of the experiment.  However, the details of how to use the tiny probe and how they observed that dragonflies have 97% accuracy rate, are more attractive to me.  I also like the way the author gives examples, for instance, “1500 times smaller than the width…”,” Imagine a tennis player having to pick out a small ball…”,etc.  I think it’s a very fascinating scientific article and I look forward to further application of the discovery.

Restriction Lifted, Sea Otters Can Roam Freely

I read the article “Restriction Lifted, Sea Otters Can Roam Freely”, which is very interesting. The “formal end of the otter-free zone off the coast of California, announced this week, is a victory for environmental groups”. The endangered species of the sea otter has been endangered but things have changed. After restrictions were placed on where the otters can go in order for them to not go extinct their population has increased. Now their population has reached a high enough number for them to be allowed to roam freely again. Endangering incidents such as oil spills or sharks attacks are risky to their extinction. Many things were done do preserve their lives. For example, “Fish and Wildlife Service moved 140 otters to San Nicolas Island off Southern California from the central California coast.” They saved them from the polluted waters.

This new step for the otters has a huge impact on the world. There are many things for humans to still figure out in the world, and to have on type of animal disappear is not a step forward. The loss of an animal is very sad so to be aware of this and reproduce them. The loss of animals leads to more questions and more theories instead of facts. Scientists have had to figure out the different species of animals through excavating bones and putting the pieces together. Now that the otter species is saved we don’t have to worry about this problem.

I thought that this article was really interesting. I thought that there were some parts that were not that well explained. They would name a certain organization and tell us little about who they are and their purpose. However I think that this article was very important and informative for the people and I am sure many are relieved for the Sea otters.

Mars Rover Discovery Revealed

“Mars Rover Discovery Revealed” NY Science Time.  Web. 4 Dec. 2012

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/mars-rover-discovery-revealed/?ref=science

            In the article “Mars Rover Discovery Revealed,” Kenneth Chang reveals the discovery and evidence of a recent rover sent to the planet Mars.  Using a close-up high definition camera, Dr. John P. Grotzinger has concluded that the soil is much dryer looking than the soil on Earth.  Dr. Grotzinger reports that the grain size of the soil is similar to artificial sweeteners, but is covered by dirt with a texture similar to salt. Dr. Grotzinger heated the dirt to 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit, in order to observe the gases that left escaped the dirt.  The most prominent gases that escaped were water vapor and carbon dioxide.  But more importantly, a simple compound named chlorinated methane was found.  Chlorinated methane is placed in the category of organics, which are the building blocks of life.  Dr. Grotzinger is hesitant to declare that the soil definitely contains organics because it is possible that the organics could have been generated by chemical reactions as the dirt was heated.

            As Dr. Grotzinger states, “This is just the beginning . . . our real science mission is still to come.”  Dr. Grotzinger is still trying to figure out what some of data means.  For example, he is unsure “whether the carbon discovery could point to anything biological on mars.”  Nonetheless, Dr. Grotzinger’s discoveries make some interesting discoveries.  For instance, the discovery of organics could further lead to the discovery of life on Mars.  To enhance their research, the scientist plan to make more discovery in the field of organics.  He hopes to gather information on sedimentary rocks.  Dr. Grotzinger’s discovery could serve as the foundation for many more discoveries to come.  As for now, the information is very inconclusive and very vague.

            Kenneth Chang did a decent job on writing this review.  I realize that this is a very new discovery, but Chang did not include many statistics and descriptive information.  Furthermore, he didn’t include how this discovery has any impact.  However, Kenneth Chang revealed many important information and he made it clear that this discovery could lead to many more discoveries to come.

‘fountain of youth’ technique rejuvenates again stem cells”

http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2012/11/27/fountain_of_youth_technique_rejuvenates_aging_stem_cells.html

I read the article, “‘fountain of youth’ technique rejuvenates again stem cells” This article’s information is as interesting as the title lets on. The scientists Milica Radisic and Dr. Ren-Ke Li in Toronto have developed a system of reversing the aging process on stem cells. It is done by a complicated process in which the scientists create a, “micro environment” this allows for heart tissue to grow. Then they take the cells and infuse them with a combination of growth factors, and they are positioned in such a way that the porous scaffolding of the cells are stimulated by this process. Dr. Li tracked the cell’s molecular changes within the tissue patch, he stated that, “We saw certain aging factors turned off.” This returned the cells back to a young healthy state. Li and Radisic hope to be able to apply this to more conditions, Li said, “We can create much better tissues which can be used to repair defects such as aneurysms.”  His significance of this discovery is immense. Normally one would need stem cells from another to repair their own, but now old people, who more easily reject foreign material, can reverse the aging on the cells within their own body restoring their stem cells to a fresh state.

I find this article so amazing, the changes they made to the stem cells is phenomenal work. The research and experimentation of these two baffles me, using their knowledge of the factors and characteristics of the aging process in cells, they successfully renewed useful cells. This article is very interesting to me, especially because I like sci-fi movies. Those movies, especially set in the future, sometimes have a character that does something to them self to reverse the aging process. And now it’s weird to think that on a very small scale this is very possible.

This article is very interesting, but there were some problems in the way it was presented. I felt the process was very vague. I didn’t know how the experiment was done and I like to know every detail of an experiment because I like to have an image in my head of what happened and how they found it. But in general it was a great article and I’m very glad I came across it.

Too little money, too much borrowing

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/346200/description/Too_little_money,_too_much_borrowing

            The article “Too little money, too much borrowing” explains why so-called “poor” people might make decisions based on short-term needs more than long-term ones. There was a study where “poor” people were put against “rich” ones, and they had to play a game where there was very scarce time. “Poor” people did worse in this game. In the next game, people were allowed to borrow time, but they would have less time later on. The “poor” people’s scores decreased this time, while the “rich” people’s scores stayed the same. This suggests that scarcity focuses the mind on immediate concerns and discourages taking a broader perspective. The “poor” people did worse in these games because they were focusing mostly on the immediate effects of their choices, rather than the long-term ones.

            This article can change many things in the modern world. With this knowledge, the so-called poor people can realize that their scarcity makes them less likely to make decisions that take long-term results into account. Then the “poor” can learn to make more long-term decisions, and that will be very beneficial to many people.

            There were a few things that I thought the article did not do very well. One of these is that nowhere in the article did the author of the article state who did this study. There were also a few grammatical errors that I noticed while reading the article. A third thing that I did not like about the article was it did not bother to say what criteria they had for someone being “poor” or “rich”.