-
I love these sorts of stories. [via @jasonhoyt]
-
Hm. Triggers lots of thoughts....
-
"THE daguerreotype on the right is believed to be the only known image of railroad worker Phineas Gage, who was enshrined in the history of neuroscience one day in September, 1848, when a large iron rod he was using to tamp gunpowder into a hole in a rock caused an explosion and was propelled through his brain." [via @mocost]
Entries from October 2009
31 October 2009
30 October 2009
29 October 2009
28 October 2009
26 October 2009
Vestiges of the past in our tools: Fruit fly culture bottles
In a previous post, I discussed how we've forgotten techniques and instruments of the past. These techniques and instruments could come in handy as garage scientists try to build their labs.
In that post, I mentioned that folks keep fruit flies in plastic bottles that look like milk bottles (well, only if you know what a milk bottle looks like, otherwise, it's just another oddly-shaped bottle). In case you're wondering, the use of milk bottles goes back to the days of Thomas Hunt Morgan, the genetics genius who chose the fruit fly as a model organism. Somehow, he and his contemporaries did a ton of great science without the kits and super equipment we have today.
What do you think?
I think these vestiges are really cool and I like seeing them wherever I can (and I have a ton of stories about these vestiges).
Do you know of any more?
Image from wikipedia.
23 October 2009
Oh, what we've forgotten...
In this new era of natural philosophers (neo-natural philosophers?), where the cost of buying science kits and instruments can be an obstacle to amateur science, I keep thinking back to how science was done many years ago. What were the tools used? What were the different reagents of the day? How can this lost knowledge be applied today to circumvent barriers to modern reagent and instrument access?
I remember when I was a tech at MIT, back in the late 80s. There was an old Worthington molecular biology catalog with reagents and enzymes. For restriction enzymes, there were two: EcoRI and BamHI. Talking around the lab, our PI told me how "in the day" everyone had to purify their own restriction enzymes.
To me, that was fascinating. By the late 80s, the New England Biolabs catalog was already full of a ton of enzymes and kits. And, huh, it was so easy to sequence DNA by doing nested deletions of M13 vectors and using the kit's primers. And then you could purify plasmids with CsCl gradients and gobs of Ethidium Bromide in milligram balanced tubes and a wicked cool ultra-centrifuge.
State of the art, man!
As the junior tech in that lab at MIT, I was also responsible for keeping the fly stocks alive, transferring them on a regular basis from old bottles to new bottles. As per fruit fly science convention of the time, the flies were kept in small glass milk bottles, with cardboard plugs. I wonder how old our bottles were, but I was told that it was getting harder to find the bottles or even the cardboard plugs.
When I went over to the Whitehead to do some experiments, I saw that they all had plastic containers - in the shape of a milk bottle. It was the future, but in the image of the past. I wonder if folks today know why they still use such oddly shaped bottles to store flies in.
Straddling the past and future, that lab was a treasure trove of old stuff. I once opened a drawer at the lab and found a ton of capillary tubes with different color markings and sizes. These were actually glass micro-pipettes, calibrated and used with a mouth adapter (oh, my!), and eventually replaced by Gilsons with disposable plastic tips.
In summary, there are a ton of techniques and tools that have been knocked aside by kits and newer instruments, mostly for convenience (because I am a science history enthusiast, I have a ton of these stories). For those enterprising neo-natural philosophers, if you long for some kit or instrument, imagine back to the day when you got your hands dirty and didn't just buy your reagents. You might find some ideas how to create your own reagents and tools.
Image of pigments from hyperscholar, to remind you that "in the day" artists ground and mixed their own pigments to make paint. No kit for them!
22 October 2009
17 October 2009
09 October 2009
08 October 2009
Who are the teachers you remember and contributed the most to who you are today?
I listen to NOVA's Science NOW podcasts. These are nice snippets of info, taken from NOVA's shows. Many of these snippets are also from Neil deGrasse Tyson, the head of the Museum of Natural History in NYC, and an amazing speaker.
The last episode I listened to was the Q&A session Tyson held at a monthly Science Pub, sponsored by the Oregon Museum of Science.
Event info: Portland Science Pub
In this podcast, Neil deGrasse Tyson visits Portland, Oregon, to participate in a monthly event called the “Science Pub.” Sponsored by the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, the “Pub” invites researchers to talk about their work, answer audience questions, and have a beer. It's a science conversation done Oregon style. The original event lasted over two hours, but we trimmed the Q&A down to about 30 minutes. [link to mp3 of the event]
One of the questions raised was around the teachers that have made the most impact on you. Tyson showed that for most of us (expect for some strange dude who was an outlier) we have about five teachers who we remember best.
Of course, I'm thinking of my scientific career. And a few come readily to mind (these are folks who changed my thinking or I quote to this day). Now's a good time to thank some of them.
- Ms Strickland - My high school teacher. She not only introduced chemistry to me, but taught me many useful techniques that I used all throughout my science career. As my children start doing more serious science, I find myself teaching the things Ms Strickland taught me.
- Jim Garbe - Ok, not formally a teacher, but he was a grad student I worked closely with when I was a tech at MIT. He not only taught me a boatload of science and technique, but bathed me in the culture of science and being a scientist.
- Craig T Martin - My PhD advisor. He taught me TRUE molecular biology, feeding into my love of tinkering with molecules. He also taught me a lot on writing papers, and how to keep science fun. (He's recently been made head of the Chemistry Dept at UMass. Go, Craig!)
- Gary Silverman - My PI when I was a fellow. He taught me a lot about the business of academic research, such as running a lab, mentoring students, and grant writing.
I suppose I remember each of these as each provided support, information, and direction for each layer of being a scientist. From the basic introduction to the culture to the business, these folks were invested in making me a great scientist.
Thanks.
So, who are the teachers who you remember and contributed the most to who you are today?
Image from Chicago 2016 Photos
07 October 2009
06 October 2009
05 October 2009
Great overview of synthbio and diybio in WIRED UK
Ben Hammersley, from Wired UK, wrote up an excellent article on synthetic biology with a bit of diybio mixed in (link below). Of course, the Knight and Shetty Biobricks were the center of the article, and provides a nice background to explain the concept behind standardized parts.
Link: At home with the DNA hackers:
Tom Knight, often called the "father" of biohacking, tells a joke: "A biologist goes into the lab one day, does an experiment and finds something is twice as complicated as she thought it was. 'Great,' she says, 'I get to write a paper.' An engineer goes into another lab, does an experiment, and she too finds something twice as complicated as she was expecting. 'Damn,' she says, 'Now how do I get rid of that?'"
The author of that article then touches upon DIYbio, and the trend to kitchen science. Knight, as usual, was concerned, but clear that he'd support it if DIYbiologists showed any competency. Interesting way to put it (and a good spin for things I am planning).
I was listening today to a podcast from Science Friday (highly recommended) on "The Age of Wonder," an interview of a science historian who spoke about the late 18th-, early 19th-century, when "science," as a descriptive term, did not exist. Back then, folks of all sorts of background, explored the world as "natural philosophers."
One story in particular, that Ira picked up on, was one such dabbler who discovered the anesthetic qualities of Nitrous Oxide but failed to put it in use, even with all the suffering from amputations during the Napoleonic Wars. Ira quickly asked if maybe because these guys were dabblers, they were exploring rather than looking for a solution or aware of the possibilities of applying what they discovered.
Might this be what Knight is thinking about DIYbiologists? While it's cool to think that folks can dabble with biology in their kitchen, does that prepare them for the safety issues, the problem solving, and potential serendipity as with an experienced biologist (or any craft)?
Or does it really matter?
Recent Comments