Simon Kirby, also at the University of Edinburgh, thinks that the key biological attribute that allows humans to learn language might not be genetically encoded grammar but vocal learning—the ability to remember and reproduce sequences of sound, which is also seen in songbirds and bats. “We could just be a chimp that can sing,” he says.

Most of us aren't as hairy, either, but you get the idea.

Una de las principales tareas de los investigadores es publicar estudios en revistas de prestigio para dar a conocer sus trabajos más recientes y relevantes. Una vez publicados, los artículos sirven de referencia para otras investigaciones. El número de veces que un estudio es citado permite a la comunidad científica valorar la repercusión del mismo, llevándoles a veces a publicarlo siempre bajo el lema de “publicar o perecer”. En España, tres investigadores, de las áreas de Física, Medicina Clínica y Química son los que se llevan la palma de las citas científicas.

Para la comunidad científica la publicación es la forma más explícita de plasmar el producto de una investigación en algo tangible, en forma de artículo, pero también de patente, o de diseño. En la actualidad, existen diferentes bases de datos que recogen los indicadores bibliométricos. La más conocida y utilizada es la multidisciplinar Web of Science, elaborada por el Instituto estadounidense Thomson Scientific. Recientemente ha aparecido SCOPUS, producida por la editorial Elsevier.

Lo importante para los investigadores es que una revista acepte el estudio, como sello de garantía, y lo publique. Si la publicación se realiza en una revista internacional de alto prestigio, como Science, Nature, PNAS, PLoS, entre otras, el estudio cuenta con el primer indicio de calidad. Cuantas más veces se cite ese artículo, más reconocimiento obtendrá el propio investigador como señal de visibilidad y prestigio.

Ésta es la manera más evidente (pero no la única) para valorar y cuantificar el trabajo de la comunidad científica a través de unas publicaciones que difunden el nuevo conocimiento. Pero el volumen de estudios publicados y las veces que éstos son mencionados a su vez en otros artículos no implica ineludiblemente que el científico tenga la verdad absoluta sobre el tema de investigación.

Vía: SINC

Anti-depressant tablets taken by millions of Britons may be a waste of time and money, research shows.

An analysis of dozens of studies involving thousands of patients revealed that some of the most widely-prescribed anti-depressants work little better than dummy pills.

The drugs studied - including Prozac, Seroxat and Efexor - were little more effective than placebos in improving the mental health in the majority of cases, the University of Hull research showed.

Research which showed the most widely prescribed anti-depressant pills are ineffective was gathered by combining the results of 35 clinical trials involving 5,000 patients

Only in the most extreme depression did the tablets, which are taken by around two million Britons and have been linked to a host of side effects including suicide, prove substantially superior in improving mental health.

Dr Tim Kendall, of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, described the results as "fantastically important".

He added that one of the study's strengths lay in the inclusion of data which drug companies had chosen not to publicize - perhaps because it was less favorable than they would like.

The study, published in the respected journal PLoS Medicine, suggests hundreds of thousands of Britons are needlessly taking powerful - and potentially dangerous - drugs.

As well as suicide and suicidal thoughts, side-effects associated with the drugs studied and other SSRI (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor) anti-depressants range from self harm to anxiety, insomnia, nausea, headaches and vomiting.

Seroxat alone has been linked to at least 50 suicides - both adult and child - in the UK since 1990.

The research comes as prescriptions for anti-depressants are at record levels, with 31million written in 2006 at a cost to the NHS of almost £300million.

Around half of these were for Prozac, Seroxat, Efexor and other SSRIs.

Researcher Professor Irving Kirsch said: "Given these data, there seems little evidence to support the prescription of anti-depressant medication to any but the most severely depressed patients, unless alternative treatments have failed to provide benefit."

Professor Kirsch, a psychologist, reached his conclusion after combining the results of 35 clinical trials involving more than 5,000 patients with depression.

The data on Prozac, Seroxat, Efexor and a fourth drug not used in the UK had been submitted to the U.S. drug watchdog ahead of the antidepressants being licensed for sale.

Two-thirds of those taking part in the studies were prescribed the SSRIs, while the remainder took placebo tablets.

Comparison of the two groups showed that in the majority of cases the mental health of those taking anti-depressants improved little more than those on dummy pills.

Only those who were extremely depressed - a very small proportion of those studied - fared substantially better when on medication.

The results suggest that those taking the tablets mainly benefit from the "placebo effect" - in which symptoms are eased not by medication but by relief in diagnosis and the simple expectation a treatment will work.

Professor Kirsch emphasised that patients should not change their treatment without speaking to their doctor, but said other approaches include physical exercise, psychoanalysis and self-help books.

Richard Ley, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, the drug industry's trade body, said all medicines have to be proven to be more effective than a placebo before they are put on sale.

A spokesman for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which draws up guidelines on the treatment of illnesses, said routine use of anti-depressants is not recommended for mild depression.

He added that Professor Kirsch's results would be taken into consideration when the existing guidelines are reviewed later this year.

Source: Anti-depressants taken by thousands of brits ' do NOT work, major new study reveals from Daily Mail

Somehow, The Mail has concluded from this study that:

Breast-feeding DOES help mothers bond with babies - because it releases the 'love' hormone

Thanks, but we've known for decades that breast feeding releases oxytocin, or the love/cuddle/trust hormone at Daily Mail HQ. The article goes on to say that "[the study] has discovered that the action of a baby suckling actually changes how the mother's brain behaves." We already knew this - the study tries to explain how this happens using a computational model, but never mind.

From The Mail's oxytocin factfile:

"Voles given the hormone are more likely to pair up."

"Scientists have proposed spraying a fine mist of the chemical over violent mobs to calm them." They may also cuddle and pair up, I suppose.

For a more useful guide to the benefits of breastfeeding try this BMJ review.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you are interested in science and you want to learn more about it. Maybe you’re tired of creation vs evolution debates and you want to do the research yourself, or maybe you just want to become a more informed citizen. Whatever your reasons, you have a few options but none of them are all that appealing.

First, you can obtain most of your information online (as most people do). This includes subscribing to the various RSS feeds such as National Geographic, Scientific American, Space.com, and the PLoS journals. Now, aside from PLoS, what you can expect from these services is a wide assortment of scientific news written for the average lay person by a professional writer or journalist. Many of the topics will be media friendly because each site makes money off of online ad revenue and will not be very in depth. You will get a decent overview of the topic at hand but often you will notice that further reading is required.

The PLoS Journals are unique in that they are professional, peer reviewed journals that scientists pay to publish in. They are really no different than other professional journals and are often quite good. PLoS, hopefully, is the wave of the future, but we’ll get back to them a little later.

Your next option would be to subscribe to a print magazine. Again, much of what you can find online will also be found in the magazine, but sometimes the articles are slightly more in depth. Over the years I have subscribed to National Geographic, Scientific American, Astronomy and others. Lugging around boxes of 10 year old magazines (heavy, I might add), can be allot of trouble but at least you can hold them in your hand. Once more, the magazines make money from the advertising contained within so the articles are usually written for the lay person, though on occasion you might come across something with some meat in it (though not often). The real difference is that you have to pay $20-$40 a year for 12 issues of a popular print magazine.

The final option is to go right for the jugular and subscribe to a real peer review scientific journal. These are not called magazines because they are not condensed news and are written by the scientists who actually did the research (well, usually some poor grad student typed it up, but you get the idea). The language can range from well written (a scientist with some liberal arts influence) to downright cryptic (a scientist who expects to only write for other scientists in their field). In other words, very often you will need a degree in the subject you are reading about. The largest hurdle to a peer-reviewed journal is the price. A subscription to Science or Nature is double that of Scientific American, but you do get 52 issues per year. Other journals are much more expensive - in some cases costing thousands of dollars annually. I’ve compiled a list below of some of the more popular and well regarded journals:

General Science : Science : $99.00 (weekly, online only)

Astronomy : The Astrophysical Journal : $1525.00 (weekly, online only)

Chemistry : Journal of the American Chemical Society : $3589.00 (weekly)

Physics : Physical Review : $40.00 (monthly)

Biology : Cell : $179.00 (bi-monthly, 26 issues)

Medicine : New England Journal of Medicine : $99.00 (weekly, online only)

Total Annual Subscription Rates : $5531.00 (does not include shipping rates or ISP fees)

For a real, in depth journey into the bowels of scientific research, you can expect to pay nearly $6000 annually to stay up to date on the latest, greatest discoveries (a few of which may even remain relevant in the face of newer research for a year or two).

Ouch!

So, what is the concerned, scientifically minded citizen to do? Personally, I get allot of my information off of the web and through books at Barnes & Noble and Amazon.com. Trouble is, that even though I have a good mind for science and I can usually weed out the bollocks from the real stuff, it’s hard to really know if what I’m getting is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the unfettered, un-hyped, un-sensationalized truth.

About 100 years ago (or more), it would have been possible for one person to stay atop and even contribute somewhat to the scientific process. One person working alone in his basement could perform experiments, make observations and create new technology that might better the world in some way. Back then, science was seen as a new frontier and a ways with which humanity could finally pull itself from the medieval ooze of religious darkness into the great enlightenment of a bright and useful future. Everyone, from old ladies to young people were excited about the possibilities of progress and science because it seemed that finally the mysteries of the universe were at our fingertips and all we had to do was muster the courage and imagination to forge ahead with our grand ideas.

Today, however, that is simply not the case. While it may be possible for the lay person to make a breakthrough (such as an asteroid hunter making an astronomical discovery), the chances of you or I contributing in any significant (or even insignificant way) to the scientific process is pretty much nil. The cost is simply too high. Even a decent telescope such as a 10″ Meade reflector (though I prefer a good refractor because I’m old-school and I appreciate quality optics) will set you back thousands of dollars.

This high cost of science is a major contributing factor to the decline of the popular scientific process and it’s no wonder that science and scientists are not held in any high regard by a major portion of the American population. People are skeptical of science because it’s practically impossible for the average Joe or Jane to independently verify the results or even comprehend the findings in print format. What we are left with is relying on paid professional journalists to “dumb down” the science in such a way that it’s readable but also very often misleading. These journalists may only focus on one aspect of a discovery and totally disregard the other research solely because it is “boring” and won’t sell magazine subscriptions. To compound the frustration, when these journalists “get it wrong” people become even more skeptical. I’m sure most of you can easily count how many times you’ve read a retraction or addendum to a major discovery.

Science, then, has become such a foreign culture to our lives (even though we so heavily rely on it), that we just don’t think about it anymore. Many people not only don’t think about, they outright don’t trust or believe it. Think about how many people believe global warming is a hoax, or that the moon landing was faked, or that evolution is a lie. Now imagine if the scientific process was more accessible to the average person. Do you think we would still have this mistrust of science in general?

I spoke earlier about the PLoS journals and I want to point to them as a reason for hope. PLoS is freely available to the general public, and though the language can be very daunting in each article, it is not impossible for a fairly intelligent person to make sense of what they are reading about, even if some of the details are a bit fuzzy. My hope is that in the future, we will see more of this type of publication so that more people can gain access to a very important part of the personal education.

However, scientists themselves must also be responsible for what they publish. Though it would be impossible to write a full paper dealing with the quantum fluctuations of the atomic structure of the nitrogen atom in a superheated state without relying on some “thick” language, it should not be written in such a way that someone with a good mind can’t read it either. The other main reason why science is not trusted anymore is because nobody knows what the hell scientists are talking about. Yet scientists are really just teachers, right? They explore the unknowns of the universe and report their findings, yet when they (or their grad students) type up the paper, they too often forget that they need to be writing in a style that is assessable to more than just the 5 other people in their field.

Science has a responsibility to the people who will ultimately benefit from the process - you and I. Though I would never require scientists to “dumb down” their findings for the average citizen because it is also our responsibility to raise our own intelligence as well, it should never the less be a requirement that scientists never forget why they are doing the research in the first place. Science must be held accountable to not only present their findings in a clearer and more concise manner, but they should also explore every possible alternative to publish those findings so that the majority of people have reasonable access to them. $6000 a year for journal subscriptions just is not going to cut it anymore.

Scientific journals need to stop stealing the science away from the average citizen because they have been a major reason why people have wandered off to study Intelligent Design and Young Earth theories. I mean, think about it, do you see this fake research being sold to Christians for $1000 annual subscription rates? Of course not because if that were the case, nobody would read that crap either. Yet the people who wish to dabble in falsehoods and fake science, understand economics much better than the real scientists do. They know that if they keep the cost down, they can reach the brains of millions more people and influence their thinking.

I’m not saying science should be free, but science can no longer be practiced for such a high cost because if it does, we will only see even more people put their faith in the cheaper sciences (psychics, faith healers, creationists and the rest of the bull). I do understand that science is an expensive field (particle accelerators don’t exactly grow on trees, you know), but if more average people were excited about science, they would be more willing to allow their tax dollars to go fund such expensive programs.

It is high time we put the scientific process back in the public eye because the days of white lab coated, goggle wearing, funding greedy, secretive scientists will only lead to another demise in enlightened civilization. Do we really want to live in a future where prayer replaces medicine, where astrology predicts when to plant the crops and where alchemists attempt to create the next alloy for a space craft?

This comes hot on the heels of an alleged attack-editorial in Nature on one of the leaders in Open-Access publishing models, PLoS (Public Library of Science).

One might think this looks like Nature is offering a truce. Here is probably the leading for-profit publisher helping authors to put their articles in the public domain while still getting the attention of being in one of the most read and highly respected science resources worldwide.

But not everyone is happy. Reading the fine print we find a six-month delay between the initial publishing of the article, and Nature's automated system depositing into the public domain at PubMed Central (PMC). For that six-month window readers would still have to hold a Nature subscription to access the content.

The purpose of this new service is to "lock in [Nature's] embargo," Stevan Harnad, cognitive scientist at the University of Southampton, UK, and vocal open access supporter, told The Scientist. Nature is hoping, he added, that if given the choice, authors will choose the convenience of letting Nature deposit for them after six months, rather than take the time to do it themselves immediately.

It only takes six minutes according to Harnad to deposit the papers into PMC yourself. But I do agree, amny technophobic and time-short scientists (yes many scientists hate computers) are likely to opt for a someone-else-can-do-it model.

I think the Nature model is a reasonable truce. Nature does have a right to protect its own interests here. The internet already heavily impacts on Nature and other journals to sell print copies. If all their content is available free online through PubMed, no one would even consider purchasing online subscriptions - especially financially tight educational institutions and libraries - which I suspect are a significant market
for NPG and other publishers.

Six months is sooner than the twelve required for NIH-funded research. While I can seriously empathise with the frustration of finding the perfect paper's abstract in PubMed only to discover your university doesn't subscribe to that journal - I feel this is an acceptable compromise. Open Access advocates should be happy that Nature is providing some cooperation here.

It's nice to hear Timo Hannay's view of open content (actually rather refreshing after reading Declan Butler's tantrum piece). I am a bit puzzled, however. Does Hannay's views represent the view of the Nature Publishing Group as a whole or do they represent only his own views? And, how does all of this  fits in with the Nature vs. PLoS runaway train of Declan Butler that has been whipping up a storm in the blogosphere over the last few days (see Bora's post for a succinct summary). The pieces by Declan Butler (he actually has two stories, the second and the first) unequivocally give a impression that Nature is (as Timo puts it in the clip) one of those "hostile" and "reactionary" publishers that are in a "defensive mode" towards the Open Access publishing model that "give the whole industry a disservice".

Hat tip: Open Access News

"The year which has passed has not, indeed, been marked by any of those striking discoveries which at once revolutionize, so to speak, the department of science on which they bear."

Charles Darwin’s own recollections of the meeting and its aftermath were more prosaic. In his autobiography, written in 1876 for his children, he recalled,

"Nevertheless, our joint productions excited very little attention, and the only published notice of them which I can remember was by Professor Haughton of Dublin, whose verdict was that all that was new in them was false, and what was true was old.”

It is perhaps fitting that as we are about to start the celebrations of one of the greatest achievements in the history of science another scientific revolution is in the making. Science is currently undergoing a transformation from being a closed door enterprise where research was only accessible to the selected few having access to payed journal subscriptions, to an Open Access (OA) model where research is available freely online to anyone under limited copyright and licensing restrictions. The effect that OA will have on the way scientific research is accessed and disseminated cannot be underestimated and, in this respect, it has much in common with the way the evolutionary theory profoundly changed our world. That anyone can access high-profile ground breaking research instantaneously and free is a powerful idea. Research can now instantaneously and with no restrictions reach the small nonprofit research institute, the private citizen sitting at his desktop at home, journalists, artists, students and researchers in developing countries. Who knows, given the right opportunities, which includes unrestricted access to high-profile research, the next Darwin or Einstein may very well be from Africa.

There is perhaps no more compelling argument for OA and against closed-access than Jonathan Eisen's inaugural editorial as the Academic Editor-in-Chief at PLoS Biology.

Zeitlose Klassiker

Holz wird vom Menschen seit Jahrtausenden bearbeitet. Unser Leben wäre ohne dieses Material wohl kaum vorstellbar. Das Naturprodukt ist robust, wunderbar zu bearbeiten und verliert niemals seine ganz eigene Schönheit. Auch bei Gartenmöbeln zeigt uns der von der Natur gegebene Rohstoff seine wunderbare Vielfalt und Ästhetik. Jedes einzelne Möbel ist, so sehr es sich durch die Bearbeitung auch gleichen mag, vollkommen einzigartig: Die Maserung unterscheidet jedes Stück vom anderen und macht es zu etwas Besonderem. Das lebendige Material fügt sich gerade im Garten perfekt in seine Umgebung ein und erlaubt unzählige Variationen in Holzart und Form. Einen Eindruck von der unglaublichen Vielfalt gewinnt man im WebShop des Habisreutinger Holzzentrums www.gartentiger.de. Vom rustikalen Stil bis hin zu gediegenen Sitzgruppen aus dem wertvollen Teakholz werden Massivholzmöbel von Herstellern wie Menz-Holz, Ploß und Siena Garden angeboten.

Modern kombiniert

Auch die Kombination von Massivholz mit anderen Materialien wirkt besonders schön. www.gartentiger.de stellt Gartenmöbel mit wunderbaren Verbindungen von Massivholz mit anderen Materialien von den Firmen Fischer, Siena Garden und Stylist vor.
Bequem, praktisch und ästhetisch formulieren sie das Zusammenkommen von Naturwerkstoff und praktischem Metall. Aber auch die Ästhetik der Massivholzmöbel, die mit Textilenen ausgestattet sind, ist nicht zu unterschätzen. Attraktive Gewebe ergänzen das Holz, so entstehen bequeme und atmungsaktive Möbel, die auch ohne Polster auskommen.
Die Kombination von dem schon so vielseitig einsetzbaren Werkstoff Holz mit anderen Materialien vergrößert die Möglichkeiten an Variationen um ein Vielfaches.

Gartenmöbel aus Massivholz sind so individuell wie jeder einzelne Mensch und verschönern jeden Garten. Eine große Auswahl an unterschiedlichen Designs und in Kombination mit anderen Materialien bietet der WebShop www.gartentiger.de seinen Kunden, so findet jeder die passenden Möbel für sein Stückchen Natur.

Aus Tradition gut

Der Webshop gehört zum Habisreutinger Holzzentrum aus Weingarten. Das Familienunternehmen entwickelte sich aus der ehemaligen klösterlichen „Oberen Säge“ und wurde 1822 gegründet. Rund um den Bodensee, in Baden-Württemberg und Schwaben verfügt der Familienbetrieb inzwischen über mehrere Standorte und ist bekannt für seine gute Qualität und die kompetente Beratung bei allen Fragen zu Innenräumen und der Gartenausstattung. Mit dem neuen Webshop http://www.gartentiger.de eröffneten die Profis nun eine für Jedermann erreichbare Einkaufsmöglichkeit, die durch eine große Produktvielfalt, aber vor allem durch die Möglichkeit einer telefonischen Beratung besticht.

Auf http://www.gartentiger.de findet man viele verschiedene Variationen von Möbeln, die einem die Möglichkeit geben, den eigenen Garten zu individualisieren und ihm ein einmaliges Ambiente zu verleihen. Kreieren Sie doch eine ganz romantische Ecke mit Metallmöbeln im Barock-Retrodesign oder richten Sie sich eine stilvolle Lounge unter freiem Himmel ein, veranstalten Sie einen Grillabend mit Ihren Freunden und bieten Sie dabei eine bequeme Sitzgruppe aus Metallmöbeln mit Textilene!

Verschlungene Ästhetik – Geflechtmöbel

Die Geschichte der Flechtkunst reicht zurück bis in die Urzeiten der Menschheit. Ineinander verschlungene, elastische Materialien wurden seit jeher zu kunstvollen Gebilden geformt. Korbwaren aber auch Möbel wie Stühle und Sessel wurden auf diese Weise gefertigt. Auch heute sind Produkte in Flechtoptik wieder gefragt.
Während die Naturmaterialien meist sehr anfällig gegenüber der Witterung waren, erlangen heute Geflechtmöbel für den Garten eine neue Blütezeit. Die hervorragenden Eigenschaften der verwendeten Kunstfasern für den Einsatz im Freien, erlauben eine Vielzahl von neuen Designs. Der Webshop des Habisreuthinger Holzzentrums http://www.gartentiger.de eine große Auswahl an verschiedenen Geflechtmöbeln für den Garten an. Renommierte Hersteller wie Barlow Tyrie, MWH Royal Garden, Ploß, Queensgard, Siena Garden und Stylist haben wunderbare Geflechtmöbel hergestellt, die für jeden Gartentypen etwas bieten: Loungemöbel oder Kombinationen aus Teak, Metall und Flechtwerk – die Variationsmöglichkeiten sind gigantisch. Ganz gleich was man in seinem Garten formulieren möchte, ob Lifestyle, mediterranes Flair oder puristische Optik, Geflechtmöbel eignen sich perfekt für den Lebensraum Garten.

Klare Optik – Metallmöbel

Hart im Nehmen und schön anzusehen sind Metallmöbel. Das vielseitige Material eignet sich ideal für die verschiedensten Designs. MBM, MWH Royal Garden und Siena Garden zeigen das in ganz unterschiedlichen Modellen bei http://www.gartentiger.de: Klassisch, elegant, repräsentativ oder romantisch, Metallmöbel eignen sich ideal, um dem Garten einen ganz eigenen Stil zu geben. In Kombination mit passenden Polstern sind die Metallmöbel auch noch besonders bequem.
Alternativen dazu sind die bequemen Metallmöbel mit Textilene. Metallgestelle bespannt mit wetterbeständigen Textilien und Flechtwerk geben jedem Garten eine klare Optik und Eleganz. http://www.gartentiger.de präsentiert tolle Metallmöbel mit Textilene von Fischer, MBM, Ploß, Siena Garden und Stylist. Ob Liegen oder Sitzgruppen, ganz gleich in welcher Farbe und Form: Metallmöbel mit Textilene zeichnen klare Strukturen und repräsentieren Eleganz und Stil.

Ein Garten unterscheidet sich vom anderen, wie ein Mensch sich vom anderen unterscheidet. Gut also dass es so viele unterschiedliche Gartenmöbel gibt und man eine so große Auswahl an unterschiedlichen Designs und Materialien findet, die integriert in den eigenen Garten die Individualität noch steigern und Atmosphäre schaffen. Der Webshop vom Habisreutinger Holzzentrum http://www.gartentiger.de bietet diese große Auswahl an, damit jeder die passenden Möbel für seinen perfekten Garten findet und die Sonnentage so gerne im Freien verbringt.

Der Sommer ist da und es treibt uns nach Draußen. Die Gärten werden wieder hergerichtet und so mancher erstrahlt in neuem Glanz. Beim Spaziergang begegnet man den verschiedensten Gartentypen und jeder hat seinen ganz eigenen Charme. Jeder erfüllt einen ganz eigenen Zweck: Spielen, Sitzen, Grillen, Erholen, Gärtnern, Arbeiten, Parken oder zur Repräsentation. Die Gartenmöbel müssen diesem Zweck dienlich sein und so gibt es eine riesige Auswahl, damit sie ihren Aufgaben entsprechen können.

Der neue Webshop von Habisreuthinger http://www.gartentiger.de bietet diese große Auswahl an Gartenmöbeln. Kein langes Suchen zwischen Parkettböden oder Pflanzen: Hier steht die Gartenlust nicht nur im Vordergrund, sondern allein. Geflechtmöbel, Metall- und Massivholzmöbel in verschiedenen Ausführungen, Sonnenschirme, Polsterauflagen und Zubehör – all dies findet man im neuen Internetshop und damit sicherlich die Gartenausstattung, die am besten zu einem passt.

Die verschiedenen Möbel der renommiertesten Hersteller werden attraktiv präsentiert: Die Serien von Barlow Tyrie, Royal Garden, Ploß, Stylist Line, MBM, fischer möbel, Menz Holz und Madison werden mit ästhetischen Bildern vorgestellt und sind unmittelbar bestellbar. Die passenden Polsterauflagen, aber auch Sonnenschirme und Holzpflegemittel komplettieren das Sortiment, so dass der suchende Kunde auf http://www.gartentiger.de alles finden kann, was er benötigt, um seinem Garten wunderschön und praktisch auszustatten.

Sowohl Lieferung als auch Bezahlung sind denkbar einfach: Innerhalb von wenigen Tagen erhält man die Waren, die man per Vorauskasse, Lastschrifteinzug oder einfach per Kreditkarte gezahlt hat.
Ein besonderer Service ist, dass man auf dieser neuen Homepage nicht nur die Möbel unkompliziert betrachten und bestellen kann, sondern auch telefonisch beraten wird. Wochentags von 8-18 Uhr, aber auch am Samstag von 8-10 Uhr und sogar am Sonntag von 13-17 Uhr kann man diesen Dienst in Anspruch nehmen! Die Philosophie von Habisreuthinger zeigt sich also auch in ihrem neuen Webshop: Hier merkt man, dass Wünsche und Zufriedenheit der Kunden das oberstes Gebot sind.

But one of the obstacles is certainly that new science is published in peer-reviewed periodicals (or their websites) that are expensive to subscribe to. As a result they're very rarely seen except by scientists working in the field. And they're copyrighted by those periodicals, too. This means the only way their info can be disseminated is via a summary from the often science-ignorant mass media (if they decide the breakthrough is newsworthy).

There are some web resources that are fighting this trend, though. BioMed Central is a UK-based open-source medical publisher. They do charge a fee for some of their peer-reviewed publications (to be able to operate), but overall its easier access than from traditional journals. And, since it's open-source, you're free to copy and distribute the info.

My favourite is the American-based Public Library of Science (PLoS). It focuses on biology and medicine as well, but I'm hopeful that it'll expand to other areas of science. It's funded by fees from those who submit papers for review. Again, all info is open-source (under Creative Commons license). I was quite intrigued* by their recent study showing that although honeybees from different parts of the world use slightly different "dance languages" foreign bees can learn the local languages of bees in areas they're introduced to.

Bad Science's Ben Goldacre is, unsurprisingly, a great advocate of making science more available and understandable to the public. He wrote an article on BioMed and PLoS a little over a year ago when both services were new and struggling. I'm seeing PLoS references a lot these days, especially on ScienceBlogs. I hope that means it's struggling less.

Science for the people!

*"Intrigued" isn't too strong a word. My farm upbringing required that I get up-close and familiar with honeybees.

Articolo tratto da Le Scienze:

Tracce di dinosauri nello Yemen

Finora quest'area rappresentava una vera "macchia bianca" sulle cartine dei paleontologi

Le tracce di un grande ornitopode e di 11 sauropodi che camminavano in branco sono state rinvenute in un sito vicino al villaggio di Madar, nello Yemen. Si tratta, come riferiscono gli scopritori in un articolo pubblicato sulla rivista on line PLoS ONE, della più importante testimonianza fossile di dinosauri in tutta la Penisola Arabica.

“Finora nessuna pista di dinosauro era stata trovata in quest'area, che rappresenta una vera macchia bianca sulle cartine dei paleontologi”, ha detto Anne Schulp del Museo di storia naturale di Maastricht, che ha condotto la ricerca in collaborazione con Nancy Stevens dell'Università dell'Ohio e Mohammed Al-Wosabi dell'Università di Sana’a, nello Yemen.

La scoperta rappresenta anche un raro esempio di comportamento di branco di dinosauri. Il sito infatti conserva le tracce di undici sauropodi di dimensioni piccole e medie che camminano insieme alla stessa velocità. “E' raro vedere un esempio così notevole di un branco di dinosauri. Si tratta di un interessante comportamento sociale per dei rettili”, ha osservato la Schulp.

Le rocce che portano impresse le tracce risalgono al tardo Giurassico, circa 150 milioni di anni fa e sono passate inosservate probabilmente perché coperte dalla sabbia.

I pochissimi fossili di dinosauro ritrovati nella Penisola Arabica, erano costituiti da alcune ossa isolate rinvenute in Oman e in alcuni possibili frammenti nello Yemen. (gg)

Odontomachus coquereli - Madagascar

Myrmecology continues to lead the way in online taxonomy. Today saw the release of the very first taxonomic paper published by the top-tier open access science journal, PLoS One.

Brian Fisher and Alex Smith combine alpha taxonomy with DNA barcoding to produce a revision of the Malagasy trap-jaw ants. The revision includes mitochondrial DNA sequences from some 500 individual ants and resulted in the inference of several new species. I've got plenty to say about DNA barcoding, but I'll leave that for a later post and instead point you to the thoughtful commentary by Kevin over at The Other 95%.

The citation and abstract for the Fisher & Smith paper are below.

citation: Fisher BL, Smith MA. 2008. A Revision of Malagasy Species of Anochetus Mayr and Odontomachus Latreille (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). PLoS ONE 3(5): e1787. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001787

Abstract

Species inventories are essential for documenting global diversity and generating necessary material for taxonomic study and conservation planning. However, for inventories to be immediately relevant, the taxonomic process must reduce the time to describe and identify specimens. To address these concerns for the inventory of arthropods across the Malagasy region, we present here a collaborative approach to taxonomy where collectors, morphologists and DNA barcoders using cytochrome c oxidase 1 (CO1) participate collectively in a team-driven taxonomic process. We evaluate the role of DNA barcoding as a tool to accelerate species identification and description.

This revision is primarily based on arthropod surveys throughout the Malagasy region from 1992 to 2006. The revision is based on morphological and CO1 DNA barcode analysis of 500 individuals. In the region, five species of Anochetus (A. boltoni sp. nov., A. goodmani sp. nov., A. grandidieri, and A. madagascarensis from Madagascar, and A. pattersoni sp. nov. from Seychelles) and three species of Odontomachus (O. coquereli, O. troglodytes and O. simillimus) are recognized. DNA barcoding (using cytochrome c oxidase 1 (CO1)) facilitated caste association and type designation, and highlighted population structure associated with reproductive strategy, biogeographic and evolutionary patterns for future exploration.

This study provides an example of collaborative taxonomy, where morphology is combined with DNA barcoding. We demonstrate that CO1 DNA barcoding is a practical tool that allows formalized alpha-taxonomy at a speed, detail, precision, and scale unattainable by employing morphology alone.

"We are at a unique point in the history of the planet. This is not the first time one group of organisms has brought on a mass extinction event. One can look, for example, to the “oxygen holocaust” created by the first photosynthetic bacteria when the earth was half its current age. But this is the first time it is being done by organisms who, “by the power of a glorious evolutionary accident called intelligence,” quipped Gould, comprehend the impact of their actions. We can either continue utilizing the short-term survival instincts that served us well in the past but are now maladaptive—growing our population exponentially and consuming the planet’s precious resources unsustainably, jeopardizing biodiversity, entire ecosystems, and the earth’s very ability to support life—or we can use our intellect to reveal long-term survival instincts, looking beyond our immediate desires to consider our long-term needs, voluntarily limiting our growth and consumption and so becoming responsible stewards of all life on earth.

"In terms of biodiversity loss, nowhere is this issue more poignant than with the Amphibia (Stuart et al. 2004). Of the ~6000 described species, 32% are threatened with extinction, likely in our lifetimes. Another 23% are so poorly known, and likely also threatened, that we can only call them Data Deficient. And with estimates of another 3000-6000 undescribed amphibian species so rare as to have avoided our detection to date, the anticipated losses in this single clade are staggering, on par with those faced by the Dinosauria 65 million years ago, an event the amphibians survived. Recent estimates suggest that the background extinction rate amphibians currently face is, on the conservative end, 200-2700 times higher than anything they have seen in their 360-million-year history (Roelants et al. 2007), and perhaps as much as 25-45 thousand times higher (McCallum 2007). This is the greatest extinction event in the history of amphibians and the greatest taxon-specific conservation challenge in the history of humanity.

"And in terms of hotspots of amphibian diversity, the new study published in PLoS Biology today by Andreone et al. rightly focus on the significance and uniqueness of the Malagasy amphibian fauna. Habitat destruction and global warming are already straining Malagasy amphibians. And with a susceptibility of at least some Malagasy amphibians to the chytrid fungus, Bd, in captivity (pers. obs.), this precious jewel of biodiversity is an open Petri dish waiting for the first spore to land. Thus the call of Andreone et al. for conservation action that is “pro-active, rather than reactive, or simply post-mortem” could not be more timely or wise. We have watched Bd impacting amphibians on every continent where they are found, and in almost every case, even when we knew where it was going and when, our response has been a salvage operation after the outbreak because we lacked the timely resources to do otherwise. This is unconscionable and unethical. As responsible stewards we must act now to safeguard biophilic havens like Madagascar, protecting key habitat areas and safeguarding in captivity those species that would otherwise succumb to threats that cannot be controlled in the wild. ACSAM is the recipe for how to proceed.

"Although as individuals we lack the money to effect the requisite changes called for by Andreone et al., we have something more powerful than money—a vote. We must demand action from the governments of the world, to support addressing this conservation crisis and all environmental ills. And if they refuse, then we must use our vote to replace them with someone who will respond appropriately. There is no political issue more paramount that protecting the future of all life on earth. The current amphibian extinction crisis in the perfect test: if we cannot perform an act so simple as saving the frogs, then what hope do we have for ourselves? Like the frogs of Madagascar, we have only one home, we are endemic to planet earth. It is time for us to start using our superior intellect for the long-term benefit of the world, of ourselves. Onward!" (Article courtesy of PLoS.)

• According to a 1996 Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) study of three states (Wisconsin, South Carolina, and Indiana), roughly 30-50 percent of adolescents in drug treatment centers reported "non-medical" use of methylphenidate. However, it wasn't identified as their primary drug of abuse.
• In the last 10 years, the number of preschoolers taking ADD/ADHD drugs has tripled; the number of school-age children has multiplied by 20. More than 2 million American children are prescribed drugs for ADD/ADHD. Adderall represents about a quarter of the market.
• Last year, Nature published a commentary which looked into the ethics of such drugs and sparked off a heated debate in a Nature Network forum and among fellow bloggers. More recently, the magazine released the results of an informal survey of over 1,400 readers, which showed that about 20% admitted to using cognitive enhancers for non-medical reasons and a far higher proportion approved of such use.

Ritalin is, in many ways, a time machine. It offers the means to cram a weeks worth of studying into one infinitely productive night. Kickstart My Heart, a well written article for n+1 magazine, is easily the best Ritalin abuse memoir I'll ever read. If you have ten minutes and enjoy good prose or valuable insights, read the whole thing:

The feeling begins about twenty minutes after you take the pill: a mental tightening, as though someone had refined your scope of vision into a narrow and penetrating line. All peripheral distractions disappear (you would make a very poor hunter or soccer player). There is a slight fluttering of the heart, and gentle, persistent waves of warmth that are not distracting unless it is hot outside. This is how I experienced Adderall; some people have panic attacks and others feel nothing at all.

Any actual amount of time spent under the influence is hard to describe, because time passes very quickly. It's a euphoric drug, but also an alienating one. If I took a pill with my morning coffee, it would wear off by early evening. All of my work for the coming week would be finished, and I could take an aspirin, shower, and go to bed. Having missed the transition from day to night as well as all three meals, my dreams would be hysterical, but I always woke the next day feeling chipper and accomplished.

Surprisingly, Ritalin's mechanism of action is poorly understood. We understand what happens physiologically but we've no clue how the physiological processes result in focused attention.

Volcow et al. published a recent paper in PLoS reported on by Ed from Not Exactly Rocket Science. Ed explains:

To test this idea, Volkow used a PET-scanner to measure the amount of glucose (sugar) used by the brains of 23 volunteers as they did some mathematical calculations. The volunteers were injected with either methylphenidate or a placebo and asked to solve simple arithmetical problems, whose difficulty had been tailored to their individual abilities. As a control, they were asked to look at, but not respond to, images of scenery.

When faced with the pretty pictures, the volunteers brains behaved in the same way regardless of what they were injected with. It was only when they had to do the more complex mental task that the effects of methylphenidate were revealed. The brains of both groups burned up more glucose but while those that had been shot up with placebo used up 21% extra sugar, those that were drugged with methylphenidate only needed half as much - an extra 11%.

These figures suggest that the drug is indeed focusing the brain's activity and dramatically reducing its energy demands.[...]

Volkow's work could help to explain why cognitive enhancers like methylphenidate can hone brain performance in some people and some contexts, but be equally detrimental in others. Sleep-deprived individuals, or those with ADHD, may benefit from a chemical that deploys their brain's resources in a more efficient way. People whose brains are already working at their best could suffer from being focused any further.

So there it is, Methylphenidate, the stimulant that makes the brain work less.

The authors, Greg W. Fegan and Trudie A. Lang, manage numerous clinical trials for the Kenya Medical Research Institute–Wellcome Trust Collaborative Research Programme in Kilifi, Kenya. Like many other research organizations in developing countries, their work largely focuses on finding treatments for “neglected diseases” such as malaria, hookworm, and encephalopathies. They clearly communicate the inability for proprietary eClinical software to be a widely useable solution in such settings due to costly and restrictive licensing. 
 

However, Fegan and Lang define the appeal of open source as something greater than financial savings (although this is a strong motivation). In addition to freedom from license fees, open source clinical trial software built with open components and open standards is more “modifiable and amenable for use with existing software already employed.” Perhaps the most significant point made is that open source can be a more powerful way to promulgate standards and better leverage the collective efforts of disparate research institutions.
 

Indeed, the authors also point out that the impact of a well designed and supported open source eClinical system “can be beneficial to all clinical researchers” and urge “international health research organisations to combine their efforts and spending power and assist with the development of systems that are open to all and truly fit for purpose.”
 

The paper closes with the following call to action:

“Research organisations and funders should combine efforts to produce an open-source solution for trial data management. A shared platform could then be easily established, and would bring wider benefits such as electronic submission to regulators, automated sharing of data, and contribution to important public databases such as pharmacovigilance and drug-monitoring registries.

We believe that an open-source approach to a truly designed-for-purpose data-management system for clinical trials is attractive. Such a system would save money by eliminating the reliance on the use of expensive database software systems and their administrators. This would empower and enable a wider variety of people to conduct trials, as the question of capturing, cleaning, and extracting data would not be overly daunting or expensive. This point is significant, as it may encourage more investigators in resource-poor settings to take part in high-standard research that would otherwise be out of reach and beyond their capacity. Surely this would increase the scope and variety of trials that are conducted. Our hope for this article is that it will begin a debate on this topic, and lead to a concerted effort to lobby the international research and donor community to make sure this barrier to trial conduct is understood and addressed.”

I encourage you to read the full article online at the PLoS website.

• El estudio ha sido dirigido por un español y han colaborado otros dos.
• Servirá para "aportar conclusiones sobre la extinción del mamut.
• Se vieron enfrentados al cambio de clima y a la caza de los humanos.

 

El cambio climático y el impacto humano en el cuaternario final contribuyeron a la extinción del mamut lanudo, según un estudio dirigido por el investigador español David Nogues-Bravo y publicado en el último número de la revista Public Library of Science (PLoS).

En declaraciones realizadas de Nogues-Bravo indicó que el estudio, en el que han participado otros dos investigadores españoles, Jesús Rodríguez Méndez y Joaquín Hortal, y dos extranjeros, servirá para, entre otros, "aportar nuevas conclusiones sobre la extinción del mamut lanudo".

Nogues-Bravo explicó que cuando el clima en Europa y Asia donde habitaban los mamut, "que era estepario", pasó "a ser más cálido y demasiado húmedo para que pudieran subsistir los mamut ello provocó que los humanos invadieran dichas zonas, más favorables para ellos". De esta manera los mamut se vieron enfrentados al cambio de clima y a la caza de los humanos.

Métodos matemáticos

Para poder vincular ambos factores, Nogues-Bravo y sus compañeros de investigación utilizaron un método matemático que consistió en elegir varios momentos del pasado -hace 126.000, 42.000, 30.000, 21.000 y 6.000 años-, y analizar las condiciones climáticas de cada uno de ellos y así ver como evolucionaron ambos.

Los resultados del método demostraron que el mamut lanudo sufrió una "pérdida catastrófica de hábitat", la mayor de ellas hace 6.000 años cuando sólo disponía del 10 por ciento del hábitat que tenía hacía 42.000 años, el momento en que los glaciares estaban en su mayor tamaño.

En este sentido, el investigador español subrayó que las conclusiones del análisis, patrocinado por la Fundación BBVA, también servirán para predecir futuras extinciones de animales debido al factor del cambio climático.

Foto: Los mamuts servirán para predecir futuras extinciones de animales debido al factor del cambio climático (foto: 20MINUTOS.ES)