Category Archives: YouTube
California Academy of Sciences Channel
Here’s a good YouTube channel from California Academy of Sciences: Science in Action with over 100 videos covering a diverse range of topics. To tie into GRade 12’s Neurobiology and Behaviour unit, here’s a clip on intelligent crows!
There are also loads of interviews, science news stories and general interestingness. Check it out!
Moonwalking: 40 Years On
Apollo 11 NASA page
Moonwalking is all over the news at the moment, as we approach the fortieth anniversary of the first humans to walk on the surface of the moon in the Apollo 11 mission.
On the 16th July 1969, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins blasted off for the moon. On the 20th, Armstrong and Aldrin set foot on the surface of the moon: a massive landmark in science, adventure and international TV broadcasting. You’ve got to feel a bit sorry for Collins though – driving all that way just to stay in the car.
Here is the short news clip and the famous “one small step” line:
The NASA website has loads of great resources about the moon landing and the Apollo missions, so head on over there and check them out (including some cool First Footprints teaching resources).
It’s amazing to think of what was achieved with such limited computing power, and it really was a turning point in science (and science fiction was never the same afterward).
Apollo 11 Crew
For some cool photo galleries: Guardian, Images from Apollo
Of course, any talk of the moonlandings brings out the crazies (which is why comments are disabled on this post), so here are a couple of other nice clips.
–
Moon Landing Mysteries, from National Geographic
–
And of course who better to set it to rights than the Mythbusters?
Hybrid Hearts: Stem Cell Transplants 2.0
“Can we use stem cells to make a new heart/eye/lung/liver etc?”
This is the predictable and perennial question that comes up from at least one student when we are looking at stem cells, genetic engineering, cell differentiation and transplanting. Until now, the answer has (perhaps in an oversimplified way) been ‘no’.
We can use stem cell transplants to treat lymphoma. Recently a young woman had a trachea transplant based on stem cell technology. Skin grafts from a patient’s own cultured cells are also possible, as are stem cell-based bladders. However, these are all rather simple technologies.
To treat lymphoma, bone marrow cells are replaced, and are all the same. The trachea transplant was a pre-existing trachea simply coated in the patient’s stem cells to prevent immune rejection. Skin transplants are basically sheets of epidermis that cover a wound, yet do not have the intricate functions of original skin: temperature regulation, secretion, senses. The bladder is a bag.
The challenge with using stem cells to transplant a more complex organ, such as a heart, is that it is not a simple sheet made of one type of cell. It is complex 3D structure, with a range of cells performing specific tasks within the organ. These cells have differentiated to perform their functions: cardiomyocytes (beating cells), vascular endothelial cells (smooth internal surfaces) and smooth muscle cells (blood vessel walls).
How can we get the stem cells to become the right type of cell, in the right position?
The answer to this question could be the key to opening up new doors in the search for viable transplantable organs in medicine, and bears much in common with the trachea case. It also marks a return to form for the NewScientist YouTube channel, who have this short clip of the new hearts in action:
A full article to accompany the footage is here.
In a nutshell:
Decellularised pig heart: the scaffold (NewScientist)
1. Find a suitable transplant organ, such as a pig’s heart.
2. Strip of all cells and DNA, using a detergent. Only the collagen ‘scaffold’ remains, as in the image of the decellularised heart to the right.
3. Coat the scaffold with the recipient’s stem cells.
4. Ensure that the blood supply is adequate and will provide the right signals for differentiation.
What is amazing in this case is how the cells ‘knew’ what specialised cells to become. The leader of the research group, Dr. Doris Taylor, puts it down to the mechanical stimulus of the pressure of the blood in the vessels and chambers and chemical signals from growth factors and peptides that remained on the stripped heart structure.
They even went as far as replacing a healthy rat’s heart with one of these new hybrid hearts. The rat survived for the trial, but she says they need to focus on producing more muscular hearts in order to ensure long-term survival of transplant recipients.
Food for thought:
Read the whole article and some of the links within it. Discuss these questions:
1. What are the potential uses for this kind of transplant technology?
2. What are the current limitations of this method and how might they be overcome?
3. What are the ethical issues related to using hybrid (pig-human) organs in medical transplants? How would you feel if you were the patient?
4. Who are the various stakeholders in this technology and what are their viewpoints?
Useful Sources:
Dr Doris Taylor’s research page from the University of Minnesota
NewScientist Article: Hybrid hearts could solve transplant problem
BioAlive stem cells links and resources
Can stem cells repair a damaged heart? from the NIH
Research reveals how stem cells build a heart, from Harvard news.
Biotech: The Musical (re-up)
Science + music + YouTube = awesome.
Here are some comedy highlights:
Bio-Rad are the leaders when it comes to making silly music videos to promote their products. The classic ‘PCR Song‘ is great for the Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology topic:
–
And you’ve got to love their follow up, GTCA So Fast – touting enzyme supermixes for the PCR process – this would fit in the DNA Replication section:
–
Mass Spec-tacular for the chemists (Reach that Peak):
More musical mayhem after the jump…
Tonga Boom! Undersea volcano erupts off Tonga
Imagine being on a fishing boat making a holiday video and then the whole ocean explodes around you. Well that’s not exactly what happened, but it would be a good story…
According to the Global Volcanism Program, this volcano started to erupt on the 16th or 17th March and has been going since. This video shows a team of scientists who took their boat out to the site to capture footage and record local and wide-spread changes. Apparently, no-one has been hurt by the volcano.
To see some aerial photos of the volcano, with coordinates, visit the ASTER volcano archive.
Click on the image below for some great photos from the Guardian.
A spectacular cloud of ash and steam
As you can see, the plume of ash and steam is huge. A line from the AP states “the eruption does not pose any danger to islanders at this stage, and there have been no reports of fish or other animals being affected” – other than by the great big explosion, then.
To learn more about volcanoes in general, visit the Science Education Resource Centre’s Volcano visualisation library. For more about how underwater volcanoes are monitored, check out this flash animation from NeMO Net, from NOAA.
For another good article on vocanoes, click on the image below to see what Wired.com has to say…
Mt Cleveland erupting, as seen from space
Facebook gives you cancer and infantilises the population. Ahem.
“There is no evidence because it would be hard to prove…” Aduh.
BadScience hero Ben Goldacre and Jeremy Paxman take on Baroness Greenfield, The Daily Mail (always a good target) and Aric Sigman in this interview from Newsnight. For a bit of background this is all a response to this story from the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1149207/How-using-Facebook-raise-risk-cancer.html
If you’re in my class, the page you need to comment on is here.
The Daily Mail reports Sigman is claiming (without any real evidence) that time on the computer takes you away from real people. This makes you isolated and lonely and means you are not producing the right hormones and your genes will act up – potentially leading to cancer, immune problems and impaired mental function. That’s a far reach for a newspaper article to be making, but these kind of shock headlines sell papers, or get more traffic on their website.
In this debate we see the importance of peer-reviewed research before making public claims. We see that correlation does not necessarily imply causality and we see that poor reporting of sensitive issues can lead to gross misunderstandings. If we remember, the Daily Mail was central in the reporting of the MMR vaccine scare.
When you watch this interview and read the article, can you think of responses to these questions?
– Are there parts of Sigman and Greenfield’s claims that might sound plausible?
– What kind of evidence would you want to see to support these claims?
– What is the significance of Goldacre’s comment “… you can make anything look dangerous if you are selective in which evidence you quote” ?
– Sigman makes a comment “The paper weas supposed to be a one-sided provocative feature article for The Biologist to make people think more carefully about where society is going.” How does he feel about the media attention that his words have attracted outside this publication?
– Central to Sigman’s claims were that internet use increases social isolation. He had no peer-reviewed work after 1998 to support this, yet Goldacre pointed out all these references that suggest otherwise.
– Sigman tries to re-state ‘social networking’ as a phrase meant for real-life interactions between people rather than internet-based interactions. How has his interpretation of the term led to confusion in the wider public? Who do you think is responsible for this confusion and how could it be rectified?
– Sigman tries to distance himself from the headlines and the conjectures of Greenfield and returns to his concern that internet use is having a direct and negative impact ont the lives of children. Take this opportunity to discuss the benefits and potential negative impacts of the internet with regard to childhood use.
– Goldacre makes a comment that it woudl be bad for research to prioritse what research is done based on the headlines in the newspapers. Do you agree/ disagree? Why?
– How do you think the precautionary principle might relate to the decisions parents make based on this issue?
How would you like to see this story develop? What further research would convince you of the harms or otherwise this debate?
The Contraption
Bro Taylor sent another quality video. His title was ‘What Engineers do when they retire‘, though looking at the original website, it should read ‘what workshy engineering graduates do when they don’t want a real job.’
This is kind of contraption that would put Wallace and Gromit to shame:
My favourite quote from their website:”Baynham & Tyers is no longer an active company, as Ben and Tom are heavily involved in exciting new projects.” Like gluing things to the wall, evidently.
Secrets of the Sequence – The Discovery of DNA
This 9-minute clip is an ideal ‘watcher’ to go along with the reader in the Course Companion – it tells the story of the discovery of the DNA double helix structure by Watson and Crick and how their discovery was dependant on the prior work of Rosalind Franklin and the compeitive/cooperative nature of research:
This clip is taken from the vdeo lesson resource provided by Virginia Commonwealth University’s ‘Secrets of the Sequence’ website. They have 50 different videos, each with accompanying lesson plans and activities.
They also have a YouTube channel: VCULifeSciences.
i-Biology 