Too Early?

A UK study of more than 700 species plants, plankton, insects, fish, birds and mammals in terms of changes in the timing of their life events (phenology) has revealed that spring and summer are starting earlier (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/wildlife-climate-change) so far as most organisms are concerned. The earlier emergence of flowers, time of egg laying, first recorded flights etc seem to be accelerating, especially in organisms lower down the food chain. The changes have (in spite of the unseasonally cold weather prevailing in the UK presently) been linked to 'global warming'. A concern is that the time disruptions may impair survival in some key organisms (this might be especially so as wether becomes less predictable).

Tall Order

A German study has revealed that tall footballers are more likely to be penalised for foul play than their shorter brethren (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/7186179/Tall-footballers-more-likely-to-be-penalised.html) when tall versus short encounters occur. It was suggested that a) referees may be biased in their treatment ('heightism') or b) taller plays might be more aggressive. This puts me in mind of the former story of 47 XYY men who have an extra 'male' chromosome. It was originally assumed that the extra 'dose' of maleness produced hyperaggressive individuals who were likely to turn to violent crime and to finish up in maximum security prisons. The truth turned out to be less impressive (and more in line with referee bias). The extra Y chromosome generally resulted in individuals being excessively tall and often being of subnormal intelligence (so they were easily caught). If such folk were arrested, they were assumed to be dangerous (just look at him!), were often given maximum sentences by courts and were also treated with special care by the prison service. There was no real evidence that they were actually more aggressive. I suspect that the same applies to footballers.

Climate Change and Open Peer Review

The fuss about allegedly suspect data emanating from the East Anglia University Climatic Research Unit and the 'theft' of emails from the unit by people who object to their basic message continues to reverberate in a largely suspicious media(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017922.ece ). It has already been suggested that a greater reliance on 'open peer review' might help validate the science (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/more-on-the-climate-files-and-climate-trends/). It might be of benefit but I don't think it's a panacea. I have edited an International journal for more than 36 years that has always used peer review (but without generally revealing the reviewer's names to the authors- so it's not really 'open'). I have to admit that I tend to choose referees who I think might know something of the area covered by the submitted manuscript (these are likely to include friends or competitors of the authors). When I receive reviews that differ in their recommendations, I also tend to take more notice of people who I know or whose views I value. Open peer review can involve the authors nominating reviewers which seems to me potentially incestuous. Papers processed in this way are more reliable than those not undergoing proper review but errors can still be perpetuated. Perhaps open peer review has a similar standing to science as Churchill's quote about democracy, namely that "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

Seeing the Changes 255

The Garden crocus (Crocus spp) and the Primrose (Primula vulgaris) were both in bloom in Loughor.

Game, Set and Match?

There is an interesting story about Belgian/UK research workers using brain scanning techniques to 'communicate' with patients who had been thought to be in a persistent vegetative state for several years (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3027a128-1147-11df-a6d6-00144feab49a.html). They broadly asked these 'locked in' patients to think of different things to answer 'yes' or 'no' to questions (e.g. the name of their father). One of the items used to generate a 'yes' answer was to ask them to think of playing tennis which 'lights up' motor areas in the brain. 'No' was walking around their home that produces a different response. There are a number of interesting aspects to this research. The first thing is that it would only work if the patient's hearing was unimpaired (I don't think that visual questions were used). The motor areas of the brain would also have to be intact as well as the patient's ability to imagine the scenarios. I am also unsure if the results actually mean that the patient has consciousness in the traditional sense (although some formerly 'locked in' patients have gone on to write books on their experiences). The key question, however, is whether the technique could be used ethically to ask the patient about his/her wishes.

Too Few Babies?

The author Fred Pearce in a book entitled 'Peoplequake:Mass Migration, Ageing Nations and the Coming Population Crash' has painted a picture in which human babies are in short supply (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/ageing-population-fred-pearce). He clearly feels that this is a wide phenomenon as he sees depopulation in former industrial areas (e.g. Hoyerswerda in what was East Germany) and even in the developing world (although this seems largely a statement of intent by women in Bangladesh). There certainly seem likely to be demographic 'problems' in many areas of Europe. A recent one is the claim from the National Housing Association that the numbers of retired people living in rural areas is set to increase by a million in the UK, making the delivery of services and survival of rural communities very difficult (http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/environment-and-rural-affairs/nhf-rural-communities-will-struggle-to-support-booming-older-population-$1356935$364344.htm). It is hardly remarkable that economic pressures are making it difficult to maintain 'balanced' populations of babies, school-aged children, working aged folk and retired people in many locations but I personally feel that a 'population crash' is a relatively minor concern. I may have got it wrong but I believe that more people are currently alive on this planet than can be counted in our species' entire history. Human (anthropogenic) pressures are intense over the natural world, meaning that a curtailing of further increase in world population numbers would be no bad thing.

Chagos: With or Without People?

The debate about whether Britain should create the world's largest marine reserve in the Indian Ocean around the Chagos Islands raises some interesting issues (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/27/gordon-brown-britain-great-barrier-reef). Apparently, 10,000 people have signed an online petition (supported by a collection of 9 conservation groups operating as the Chagos Environmental Network) in favour of protecting this area of 500,000 square kilometres with its 55 islands and the world's largest atoll, from fishing (largely for sharks and sea cucumbers) and people. A variety of levels of protection from making the proposed reserve a complete 'no take zone' to allowing deep sea fishing in particular locations and times have been suggested. The proposed reserve has a very diverse fauna and very low levels of pollution, partially related to the fact that the indigenous human population (around 1000 at the time) was evicted in the 1960's and 1970's to create a military zone (including Diego Garcia, the leased US base with its resident personnel). The Chagossians are understandably deeply unhappy about this (they have often finished up in relative poverty on Mauritius or the Seychelles) and have attempted to have the eviction declared unlawful in UK courts (currently without success). They are now somewhat further irritated by the suggestion that allowing them back would be to the detriment of the reserve (as they would want an airport, tourism, fishing rights etc). It will be interesting to see how this one 'pans out'. There is no doubt that humans are a real problem for fragile ecosystems but any plans for a reserve could be negated by a) a decision of the UK or European courts or b) human activities elsewhere in the globe.