Friday, August 31, 2012

Double Xplainer: Once in a Blue Moon

Full Moon, from Flickr user Proggie under
Creative Commons license.
Tonight—August 31, 2012— is the second full Moon of August. The last time two full Moons occurred in the same month was in 2010, and the next will be in 2015, so while the events are rare, they aren't terribly uncommon either. In fact, you've probably heard the second full Moon given a name: "blue moon". (The Moon will not appear to be a blue color, though, cool as that would be. More on that in a bit.) What you may not know is that this term dates back only to 1946, and is actually a mistake.

According to Sky and Telescope, a premiere astronomy magazine (check your local library!), the writer James Hugh Pruett made an incorrect assumption about the use of the term "blue moon" in his March 1946 article. His source was the Maine Farmers' Almanac, but he misinterpreted it. The almanac used "blue moon" to refer to the rare occasion when four full Moons happen in one season, when there are usually only three. By the almanac's standards, tonight's full moon is not a blue moon (though there will be one on August 21, 2013).

However, even that definition of "blue moon" apparently only dates to the early 19th century. In its colloquial, non-astronomical sense, a "blue moon" is something that rarely or never happens: like the Moon appearing blue. The Moon is white and gray when it's high in the sky, and can appear very red, orange, or yellow near the horizon for the same reason the Sun does. As far as I can tell, the only time the Moon appears blue is when there's a lot of volcanic ash in the air, also a rare event (thankfully) for most of the world. The popular song "Blue Moon" (written by everyone's favorite gay misanthrope, Lorenz Hart) uses "blue" to mean sad, rather than rare.

I'm perfectly happy to keep the common mistaken usage of "blue moon" around, though, since it's not really a big deal to me. Call tonight's full Moon a blue moon, and I'll back you up. However, because it's me, let's talk about the Moon and the Sun and why this stuff is kind of arbitrary.

The Moon and the Sun Don't Get Along

The calendar used in much of the world is the Gregorian calendar, named for Pope Gregory XIII, who instituted it in 1582. The Gregorian calendar, in turn, was based on the older Roman calendar (known as the Julian calendar, for famous pinup girl Julie Callender Julius Caesar). The Romans' calendar was based on the Sun: a year is the length of time for the Sun to return to the same spot in the sky. This length of time is approximate 365.25 days, which is why there's a leap year every four years. (Experts know I'm simplifying; if you want more information, see this post at Galileo's Pendulum.)

A problem arises when you try to break the year into smaller pieces. Traditionally, this has been done through reference to the Moon's phases. The time to cycle through all the phases of the Moon is called a lunation, which is about 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, and 3 seconds long. You don't need to pull out a calculator to realize that a lunation doesn't divide into a year evenly, but it's still a reasonable way to mark the passage of time within a year, so it's the foundation of the month (or moonth).

Many calendars—the traditional Chinese calendar, the Jewish calendar, and others—define the month based on a lunation, but don't fix the number of months in a year. That means some years have 12 months, and others have 13: a leap month. It also means that holidays in these calendars move relative to the Gregorian calendar, such that Yom Kippur or the Chinese New Year don't fall on the same date in 2012 that they did in 2011. (The Christian religious calendar combines aspects of the Jewish and the Gregorian calendars: Christmas is always December 25, but Easter and associated holidays are tied to Passover—which is coupled to the first full Moon after the spring equinox, and so can occur in a variety of dates in March and April.)

Another resolution to the problem of lunations vs. Sun is to ignore the Sun; this is what the Islamic calendar does. Months are defined by lunations, and the year is precisely 12 months, meaning the year in this calendar is 354 or 355 days long. This is why the holy month of Ramadan moves throughout the Gregorian year, happening sometimes in summer, and sometimes in winter.

The Gregorian calendar does things oppositely to the Islamic calendar: while months are defined, they are not based on a lunation at all. Months may be 30 days long (roughly one lunation), 31 days, or 28 days; the latter two options make no astronomical sense at all. Solar-only calendars have some advantages: since seasons are defined relative to the Sun, the equinoxes and solstices happen roughly on the same date every year, which doesn't happen in lunation-based calendars. It's all a matter of taste, culture, and convenience, however, since the cycles of Sun and the Moon don't cooperate with the length of the day on Earth, or with each other.

Blue moons in the common post-1946 usage never happen in lunation-based calendar systems because by definition each phase of the Moon only occurs once in a month. On the other hand, the version from the Maine Farmers' Almanac is relevant to any calendar system, because it's defined by the seasons. As I wrote in my earlier DXS post, seasons are defined by the orbit of Earth around the Sun, and the relative orientation of Earth's axis. Thus, summer is the same number of days whatever calendar system you use, even though it may not always be the same number of months. In a typical season, there will be three full Moons, but because of the mismatch between lunations and the time between equinoxes and solstices, some rare seasons may have four full Moons.

The Moon and Sun have provided patterns for human life and culture, metaphors for poetry and drama, and of course lots of superstition and pseudoscience. However, one thing most people can agree upon: the full Moon, blue or not, is a thing of beauty. If you can, go out tonight and have a look at it—and give it a wink in honor of the first human to set foot on it, Neil Armstrong.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

LEGO those gender stereotypes



My daughter, patiently waiting to get her own balloon jetpack.
Photo credit: Phil Blake
Why can’t you understand that my daughter wants a damn jetpack?
Last weekend, I took my daughters to a birthday party that featured a magician/balloon artist.  He was really fantastic with the kids, and kept their attention for close to 1 hour (ONE HOUR!!!).  At the end of his magic show, he began to furiously twist and tie balloons into these amazing shapes, promoting energetic and imaginative play.  Of these shapes was his own, very intricate invention: a jetpack.  
When he completed the first jetpack, I watched as the eyes of my five-year-old daughter, who happens to be a very sporty kid, light up with wonder.  She looked at me and smiled, indicating through her facial expression alone that she wanted the same balloon toy.  But, alas, when it was her turn for a balloon, her requests were met with opposition.  Here was the conversation:
Magician: How about a great butterfly balloon?
Daughter: No thanks, I’d like a jetpack please.
Magician: I think you should get a butterfly.
Daughter: I’d prefer a jetpack.
Magician: But you’re a girl.  Girls get butterflies.
Daughter (giving me a desperate look): But I really want a jetpack!
Realizing that my daughter was becoming unnecessarily upset, especially given the fact that there were 3 boys already engaging in play with their totally awesome jetpacks, myself and the hostess mother intervened.  We kindly reiterated my daughter’s requests for a jetpack.  And, so she was given a jetpack.
Later that evening, my daughter asked me why the magician insisted that she get a butterfly balloon when she explicitly asked for a jetpack.  Not wanting to reveal the realities of gender stereotype at that very point in time, I simply stated that sometimes we (a gender neutral “we”) might have to repeat ourselves so that others understand what we want.  Then she asked, “but why are butterflies only for girls?”
I was able to more or less able smooth it over with her, but it was clear to me that a very archaic reality was still in play, and my daughters were about to inherit it.  While I have nothing against typically female role-playing or dolls or princesses, I do not like when they are assumed to be the preferred activities.  I also do not like the idea that some toys, based on years of “market research,” are designed to basically pigeonhole girls into a June Cleaveresque state of being, especially without alternative play options.
The five LEGO Friends 
For instance, LEGO has recently launched a “for-girls-only” campaign, exemplified by the new “Friends” LEGO kit.  Slathered in pink and purple, this kit is designed around a narrative involving five friends and a pretend city named Heartlake.  Like nearly all cities, Heartlake boasts a bakery, a beauty salon, a cafe, and a veterinarian’s office to take care of sick animals.  However, unlike every city, Heartlake lacks things like a hospital, a fire department, a police station, and a local airport (thought they do have a flying club).  In essence, this toy is facilitating pretend play that centers ONLY on domestication, which absolutely limits both experiences and expectations for girls playing with this toy.  In essence, LEGO is assuming that all girls want the butterfly balloon instead of the jetpack.
Some might think, “jeeze, it’s just a toy!” and dismiss my objection to all that the Friends kit encompasses.  And perhaps when the Friends kit is offered in addition to a variety of toy types – gender neutral, masculine, and feminine – it may not have a significant effect on the mindset of its young, impressionable owner.  But what if that’s not the case?
Traditional LEGO bricks: For boys AND girls, goshdarnit!
LEGO has also gotten it wrong when it comes to the assumption that girls are not into the traditional LEGO blocks.  In fact, just last night, my daughter (the very one who wanted a jetpack) saw a commercial for a LEGO City product – I forgot which one – and asked that we put it on her ever expanding Christmas list.  Furthermore, both of my daughters are huge fans of the LEGO produced show on the Cartoon Network, Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu, which is based on the traditional LEGO figures and game.  My oldest daughter is arguably very sporty and may be more inclined to like “boy” things, but my younger daughter is chock-full of sugar and spice and yada yada yada.  She prefers to wear dresses, LOVES shoes, and demands to have her nails painted at all times.  And she still gets down with regular LEGOs and monster trucks and basketball and karate (all her own choices).  So why is LEGO shoving pastel bricks down girls’ throats?    
Gender and play
Play is an important part of cognitive development.  When children engage in play, they learn through discovery, become familiar with their own limitations, gain a better understanding of spatial relationships, become introduced to cause and effect, and, most relevant to this discussion, play exposes children to societal and cultural norms, as well as family values.  Placing limits on play can affect how a child sees him or herself in the world, which can impact both career and lifestyle choices.   
Research (and experience) has shown that the toys kids choose are shaped by societal expectations; however, these expectations are often dictated by marketing teams and their assumptions of what they think their customers want to see, perpetuating a toy culture that has changed little since the 1950s.  Furthermore, parents may impose toys that are gender “appropriate,” or even punish play that does not align with traditional gender expectations.  But what toys do kids actually want to play with?
In 2003, researchers at the University of Nebraska conducted a study to, in part, identify the impact that stereotyped toys have on play in young children.  There were 30 children who participated in this study, ranging in age from 18-47 months.  They were observed for 30 minutes in a room full of toys, with each toy defined as being traditionally masculine, feminine, or gender neutral.  Interestingly, when assessing the toy preferences of the children, boys tended to play with toys that were either masculine or gender neutral, whereas girls played with toys that were largely gender neutral.  These findings were consistent with previous studies showing that girls tend to play with toys that are not traditionally gendered (i.e. blocks, crayons, puzzles, bears, etc).  
Cherney, et al, 2003
Why is there a disconnect between the natural tendencies of toy choice among female children and what marketing executives deem as appropriate toys for girls?  While fantasy play based on domestic scenarios does have its place during normal development, restricting children to certain types of gendered toys can promote a stereotypical mindset that extends into adulthood, possibly adding to the gender inequity seen in the workplace.  Furthermore, assigning and marketing toys to a specific gender may also contribute to the gendering of household duties and/or recreational activities (i.e. only boys can play hockey or only girls do laundry).
This is obviously problematic for females, especially given the disproportionately low number of women executives and STEM professionals (just to name a few).  However, a conclusion from this study that I hadn’t even considered is the idea that overly feminized toys are not good for boys. 
How “girls only” is disadvantageous to boys
When looking at “masculine” versus “feminine” play, one would see that there is some non-overlap when it comes to learned skills.  For instance, “masculine” play often translates into being able to build something imaginative (like a spaceship or other cool technology) whereas “feminine” toys tend to encourage fantasy play surrounding taking care of the home (like putting the baby to sleep or ironing clothes). 
Both types of learning experiences are useful in today’s world, especially given that more women enter the work force and there is growing trend to more or less split household duties.  So when a kid is being offered toys that encourage play that has both masculine and feminine qualities, there is enhanced development of a variety of skills that ultimately translate into real, modern world scenarios.
However, the issue lies in the willingness to provide and play with strongly cross-gender-stereotyped toys.  Because of the number of toys having this quality, there is a huge gender divide when it comes to play, and boys are much less likely to cross gender lines, especially when toys are overtly “girly” (see figure above).  This is most often because of parents and caregivers who discourage play with “girl” toys, usually citing things like “they will make fun of you.”  Toys heavily marketed to match the stereotypical likes of girls, such as the Friends LEGO kit, clearly excludes boys from engaging in play that develops domestic skills (in addition to pigeonholing girls into thinking that girls can only do domestic things).   
Just yesterday, I came across an article on CNN discussing this issue, and it contained anecdotes similar to the one I described above.  The author described how a little girl was scoffed for having a Star-Wars thermos as well as how a little boy was told (by another little girl) that he could not have the mermaid doll he wanted.  My arguments thus far have been centered on developing a variety of skills through play, but I’d also like to add that limiting self-expression could be disastrous for the future wellbeing of an individual. 
There is some progress being made with regard to how toys are being presented in stores.  For instance, the same article described the new Toy Kingdom at Harrod’s, which does not conform to the traditionally separated “boy” and “girl” sections.  Instead, it has “worlds,” such as The Big Top (with circus acts and fairies) or Odyssey (with space crafts and gadgets).  This type of organization allows any child, regardless of gender, to engage in play that facilitates imagination and cognition.
Hey Toys’R Us, are you listening?                
 Final thoughts
Please don’t misinterpret this as being anti-pink, anti-princess, or anti-feminine.  I embrace my own femininity with vigor and pride.  I like to wear dresses and makeup and get my hair did.  Give me a pair of Manolo Blahniks and I will wear the shit out of them.  But I will do so while elbow deep in a biochemical analysis of intracellular cholesterol transport.    
My point is that if you are going to make a toy more appealing to girls by painting it pink, don’t forget to include facets that allow girls to be comfortable with their femininity while providing an experience that promotes empowerment and an unlimited imagination.  Furthermore, don’t exclude boys from getting an experience that helps them acquire skills that are applicable (and desirable) in the modern world.  As it stands right now, toys like the Friends LEGO kit does neither of these and I believe that they major fails, both of the Double X and the XY variety.    
For more, check out Feminist Frequency’s takedown of LEGO:


References:
Judith E. Owen Blakemore and Renee E. Centers, Characteristics of Boys’ and Girls’ Toys, Sex Roles, Vol. 53, Nos. 9/10, November 2005 [PDF, paywall]
Gerianne M. Alexander, Ph.D., An Evolutionary Perspective of Sex-Typed Toy Preferences: Pink, Blue, and the Brain, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 1, , pp. 7–14, February 2003 [PDF, paywall]
Isabelle D. Cherney, Lisa Kelly-Vance, Katrina Gill Glover, Amy Ruane, and Brigette Oliver Ryalls, The Effects of Stereotyped Toys and Gender on Play Assessment in Children Aged 18-47 Months, Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 23:1, 95-106, 2003
Carol J. Auster and Claire S. Mansbach, The Gender Marketing of Toys: An Analysis of Color and Type of Toy on the Disney Store Website, Sex Roles, 2012 [abstract link]
Isabelle D. Cherney and  Kamala London, Gender-linked Differences in the Toys, Television Shows, Computer Games, and Outdoor Activities of 5- to 13-year-old Children, Sex Roles, 2006 [PDF]
Isabelle D. Cherney and Bridget Oliver Ryalls, Gender-linked differences in the incidental memory of children and adults, J Exp Child Psychol, 1999 Apr;72(4):305-28 [abstract link]


Monday, August 27, 2012

A Decision Based on Logic – Why I Choose to Vaccinate


Source



By Anna K. Eaton, PhD


This post is a response to Alice Callahan’s post on vaccines (republished here).  Please note: the author is not advocating distrust towards doctors, scientists and the medical community.  Rather she advocates that clear rationale and logic should be the basis for making important decisions.
Anna K. Eaton is a former research scientist who currently teaches part-time at a local community college.  She writes science lessons for chemistry, biology and math students at her Science Matters blog.
A Decision Based on Logic - Why I choose to vaccinate
I recently read a blog article by a fellow scientist turned stay-at-home-mom on why she chooses to vaccinate. Although we both agree to vaccinate our children, I disagree with her reasons on why as a scientist and a mother, I should let a doctor stick a needle into my defenseless baby and inject foreign substances into their bloodstream.
The premise of this article is that the author trusts scientists and doctors because she, herself, is a scientist and she is aware of the all that goes into scientific research.  The author trusts the scientists, medical community, and scientific committees and believes that since she can’t know everything, she places a certain amount of “faith in humanity” and “trusts others who know more [than her].”  But questions remain: How do you know which doctor or scientist to trust? After all, there are so many and they are not all in agreement.  Also, how do you know that the doctors (or scientists) you have chosen to trust are experts in the field?  There are scientists that may never have published, others that may have only published twice (that’s me) and still others that may have published hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed, highly-acclaimed journals.  Surely these scientists do not all have the same level of expertise and therefore worth your same level of trust.  In a world where everyone seems to proclaim that they are an expert and where people may even take deliberate measures to fool the public into thinking they are experts, its hard for me to say to someone to trust doctors and scientists.  In fact the author of this article admits that she herself has trouble trusting the experts when it comes to cord-clamping, going so far as to bringing research and documentation to a meeting with her doctor to have a discussion about delayed cord clamping.
As a scientist and a mother, trust is just not good enough. Training to be a scientist, I was taught to question, which in and of itself is in direct opposition to trust. Add that to the realization that doctors do get payments from pharmaceutical industries, bad science does get published and people do have agendas – no, trust is just not good enough for me. As a mother, biologically-speaking, my sole goal on this planet is to raise my children to reproductive age. I am going to question things, I am going to worry, and most importantly, I am going to do what I believe is best for my children – not trust that someone knows what is best better than I do. It’s just a natural instinct and I’m not going to try to fight years of evolution.
Taking trust out of the equation would leave me without much reason to vaccinate my children (as per this author’s blog post). So why do I choose to vaccinate?
First, some background on myself. I am a scientist – a basic scientist. I earned my doctorate from the University of Maryland, College Park, working on protein kinetics. My strengths are microbiology, cell biology, and biochemistry. After earning my doctorate, I went on to a position at the Cleveland Clinic. I started doing loads of experiments with radiation and then found out I was pregnant. Everyone told me that I can work safely with radiation, and while I don’t necessarily disagree with them, I just figured, why risk it? I left and became a stay-at-home-mom.
My first child was born before I could really get into the amount of vaccine research out there. I was forced to operate blindly. I questioned the vaccine schedule, I questioned my doctors and I questioned vaccines in general (I’m a scientist, would you expect anything else?). My first child was born at the start of 2010, when Wakefield’s MMR paper had yet to be officially retracted. Every instinct in my newfound maternal arsenol of instincts screamed NO, don’t vaccinate! But years of studying microbiology challenged these instincts and I eventually went with some sort of delayed vaccination schedule.
Then my pediatrician handed me a book. It was written by Paul Offit, pretty much the foremost leader of vaccine research in the world. After reading this book, I was reminded that as a scientist, we look to logic for making our decisions. We question, gather evidence, analyze that evidence and attempt to draw logical conclusions (Note: there is nothing in there that says trust). So I poured into vaccine research. Luckily it didn’t take long to realize that there is overwhelming research supporting vaccines and the vaccine schedule as it stands. I mean just go to the library and look at Vaccines, 5th Edition. The weight of that textbook speaks volumes.
But wait, Offit is a scientist and doctor that develops vaccines. He is a person and he has an agenda. Why would I trust him and his book? Well first of, I don’t trust him and I didn’t trust his book. His book reminded me to search for logical reasons when making a decision. When it comes to vaccinations, the absolute only logic comes from looking at the evidence, all the evidence and weighing that evidence. This is a hefty undertaking and slightly more work than relying on the anecdotal stories the anti-vaccine movement throws at us. I went to the research and read that research and started writing blog poststo disseminate my new understandings. I emailed Offit and talked with him personally.  I read many chapters in the Vaccine textbook and I came to a logical conclusion that the evidence is there to support vaccines.
Some people will say that Offit works with the pharmaceutical industry to develop vaccines. Naturally, this suggests a logical reason to distrust the man, distrust the research and distrust vaccines – I do not disagree.  But wait, let’s get more information about Offit before we jump to the conclusion that Offit’s agenda is something akin to sinister. Offit is playing a large role in the rotavirus vaccine development. Rotavirus is the virus that leads to severe diarrhea and dehydration that kills a half million (450,000-600,000) children every year, worldwide. But, get this, the consequences of this disease are not felt here in the United States. It’s felt in some of the poorest countries of the world. This vaccine will most likely be donated to these countries. Does this man seem to have an agenda to make money by his rotavirus vaccine? The evidence suggests otherwise. No, I have to conclude that this man has an agenda to help people.
Feelings of distrust are in all of use and as I argue, possibly the strongest in a new mother. We can’t hide those feelings and certainly, reading an article about a scientist that trusts other scientists is not going to change those feelings. No the only way to conquer distrust is to search for truth. And the only way to search for truth is to turn to logic. So to moms everywhere strive to look for logic in things. And when it comes to vaccines, the evidence points to vaccinations. Trust me.

Friday, August 24, 2012

XX Tech Report: Rapid detection and treatment for deadly blood infections

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (green), a frequent agent
in blood infections, under attack from a white blood cell.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

By Jeffrey Perkel, Ph.D., DXS technology editor

[Ed. note: Introducing our new technology editor, Jeffrey PerkelJeffrey, a recovering scientist, has always had a passion for the technology and the gadgetry of science. He has been a scientific writer and editor since 2000, when he left academia to join the staff of The Scientist magazine as a Senior Editor for Technology. Before that, he studied transcription factor biology at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard Medical School -- training that, surprisingly, has little application in the real world. In 2006, he and his family headed west to Pocatello, Idaho, and has been a freelance writer ever since. You can see why Double X Science is thrilled to have him on the team! You can find Jeffrey at his Website or on Twitter at @j_perkel. Welcome, Jeff!]

A story published earlier this week on NBCNews.com both alarmed me and piqued my interest.

It alarmed me because, well, I don’t like microbes much (despite, or perhaps because of my background in microbiology), and this article is about people getting very, very sick from sepsis (aka septicemia or bacteremia, an infection of the blood), which presents itself as a whole-body inflammatory response and a significantly increased risk of organ failure. It is an important area of microbiology because sepsis results from a bacterial infection, and the article says that 20% to 50% of infected patients die from sepsis.

My interest was piqued, however, because the piece goes on to talk about how a new genetic testing device that the US Food and Drug Administration approved in June could possibly help rein in the disease. That’s because it can reduce the time for diagnosing sepsis from days to hours. And when it comes to sepsis, time is critical.

Sepsis is confirmed by testing for the presence of specific types of bacteria in blood samples from patients and identifying what bacteria, if any, are in the circulation. If they are present, the researchers need to find out if the bugs are resistant to any antibiotic. Unfortunately, all that takes time – time the patient often doesn’t have. As the news story notes,
A 2010 study in the journal Critical Care Medicine found that for every hour of delay in administering antibiotics, mortality rose by 7.6 percent.
The new testing system is called the Verigene Gram-positive Blood Culture Test, marketed by Nanosphere Inc., a nanotechnology company in Northbrook, Ill. NBCNews.com describes the system:
About the size of a small microwave oven, the Verigene Gram-positive Blood Culture Nucleic Acid Test is the first system approved by the FDA to identify quickly certain bacteria responsible for bloodstream infections -- and whether some are resistant to the top drugs used against them. Instead of the three days required for a traditional blood culture panel, results from the Verigene test come back within three hours, identifying up to a dozen specific bacteria known to cause sepsis, including strains of Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, Enterococcus and Listeria.
Of particular importance, the system can catch some particularly nasty bugs, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA; see Maryn McKenna’s excellent Superbug if you really want to terrify yourself on this subject) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococci.

In its press release announcing the Verigene test’s approval, the FDA said that, compared to standard microbiology methods, the Verigene test results “were consistent with traditional blood culture methods in 93 percent to 100 percent of the comparisons.”

The test is remarkably simple, and even automated, requiring a dedicated sample processing instrument and a reader from Nanosphere.

The patient sample is added to a glass slide covered with capture signals that recognize DNA from sepsis-causing bacteria. The capture signals are placed on the glass slide in a defined order, each programmed to recognize only one strain of bacteria. This uniform order helps scientists identify which strain of bacteria, if any, is responsible for the infection. If the patient blood sample contains bacteria, the signals on the glass slide will capture its DNA, and the special scanner and software can detect this capture.   

What sets the Verigene test apart from the previously available tests for sepsis is precisely how they do the detecting. The test adds sub-microscopic gold balls, called gold nanoparticles, to the glass slide. These gold nanoparticles are studded with more capture signals. When bacteria match up with the same specific capture signals, the nanoparticles will attach to that area. This ball gives scientists the ability to more rapidly detect which type of bacteria, if any, is present, and thus select the right course of antibiotic treatment.

The reaction is developed by coating the gold nanoparticles with silver, a process called signal amplification, which increases sensitivity up to 100,000 times, and then hitting it with light. Those spots containing the nanoparticles scatter light; those without it, do not. The effect is so strong, the original paper detected it using a “conventional flatbed scanner,” like something you’d have in your home office.

According to Nanosphere’s website, the whole thing requires less than five minutes’ worth of hands-on time, plus 2.5 hours to get the result. That falls within the necessary time frame to diagnose sepsis and begin life-saving antibiotic therapy.

Hopefully, this is a technology that neither your family nor mine will ever need. But it's nice to know it's there. And now, you know how it works.

(If you’re interested in the research paper that led to this test, from company cofounders Robert Letsinger and Chad Mirkin, both of Northwestern University, you can read it here.)

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Fighting the stereotype that math is only for boys

Does she look like an engineer to you?
She should. She is one.

[Ed. note: This post first appeared at our beloved Steminist and is reprinted here with permission.]
by Patricia Valoy
When I take a look around my office I see a lot of men, mostly older White men. There are also women, mostly administrative assistants, accountants, and marketing personnel, but few like me. I am an engineer, and I am young, female, Ivy League educated, and Hispanic. I took the same science and mathematics classes all my male peers took. I was given the same tests, the same homework assignments, and the same projects. Yet, every day I have to battle stereotypes of what some think women should be.
Courtesy of Indiana University.
Engineering, and most science fields, have long been male-dominated professions. Yet, in spite of traditional gender roles pigeonholing women to domestic duties, women haven’t necessarily settled into domesticity without first making many great advances in the science fields. We cannot forget Merit-Ptah, an ancient Egyptian physician, and also the first woman to be known by name in the history of the field of Medicine. Or the ancient Greek philosopher Hypatia, also the first historically noted woman in Mathematics. These women were not given positions in Science to fill a status quo, they earned it, just like women today.
Stereotypes are part of my daily life. In high school I was discouraged by a school teacher to apply to Engineering school, because she claimed it was “harder than I was imagining it to be.” She told me that I wanted to pursue a degree in Engineering because of the money I would earn, but it was clear to her that I did not have a passion for it. Never mind that I outperformed all my classmates, including all my male peers, and that I was about to graduate at the top of my class. As a professional adult, I still face these misconceptions about women in science fields. I get my bosses’ mail delivered to me every day because the delivery man, after four years, still thinks that I am a secretary. I politely remind him every day that I am in fact, also an engineer, like my boss, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. So I find myself not only doing my work, but also delivering mail. A week ago I was asked by a new employee which department I belonged in, and the conversation went like this:
Me: “Hi, are you new to our office?”

New Employee: “Yes, I work in the Marketing department. Do you work with Corporate?”
Me: “No, I work in the Transportation and Infrastructure department.”
New Employee: “Are you an administrative assistant?”
Me: “No, an Engineer.”
New Employee: “Oh, you’re an Accountant.”
Me: “Noooo, an Engineer, a Civil Engineer!”
New Employee: “Oh, wow! I would have never guessed…you don’t look like one.”
Me: “Umm…thanks?”

While I admit to becoming irritated, it was more disconcerting that this co-worker was also a young woman like myself. She reacted in a way that was natural and all too common, because there really aren’t enough women being positively represented in the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). I quite enjoy shaking up perceived ideas of what society assumes I should be, as a woman, a woman of color, and a woman in a male-dominated field, but when will all this shock and awe over women in science fields end? Nonetheless, I love the work I do and the feeling of accomplishment I get when I finish a project. And contrary to 18th century views of the female brain, we have shown that when given the same curriculum as men, we can equally excel.
According to a research study done by the University of Washington, the main culprit for girls not becoming enthusiastic about careers in mathematics and science is gender-stereotyping. The study speaks of the widespread cultural belief in the “girls don’t do math” stereotype. In the study, 247 school-age children (126 girls and 121 boys) were asked to sort four kinds of words: boy names, girl names, math words and reading words, into categories, with the use of an adapted keyboard on a laptop. The lead author of the study, Dario Cvencek, concluded that: “Not only do girls identify the stereotype that math is for boys, but they apply that to themselves. That’s the concerning part. Girls are translating that to mean, ‘Math is not for me.’”
While the study found that both genders equate mathematics with boys, it is unclear why this stereotype is so pronounced at such a young age, though there seems to be a connection with the way in which we speak to young children about mathematics. Dario Cvencek explains: “When a girl does poorly on a math test, often she’s told, ‘That’s fine. You did your best.’ When a boy does poorly, he is more likely to be told, ‘You can do better. Try harder next time.’”
Stereotypes are hurtful, and I believe that stereotype threat, the notion that we experience anxiety in a situation where we have the potential to confirm a negative stereotype, is all too real. We cannot expect young girls to be interested in pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, if we continue to associate them with one gender. Stereotyping career choices is not in our best interest as we cannot achieve success if we believe that half of our population is not capable of contributing to the betterment of our society. I challenge every educator and parent to reevaluate the way they educate their children. Think about the toys we give them. Building blocks and other shape-sorting toys are equally entertaining for girls as they are for boys, and they help develop cognitive skills, something Barbie and Easy-Bake Ovens will never achieve. Teaching is powerful, and encouraging children to challenge themselves should not depend on the child’s gender.
I am passionate about increasing the number of women represented in STEM fields, not merely because I believe we should be equally represented in all career fields, but because I know we can positively contribute to the advancement of our society. Having both sexes equally represented opens the door for a more diverse range of ideas, which in turn can result in a more robust range of services and products. Additionally, having more women in STEM fields ensures that women’s health and well-being become common practice, and not women’s issues.
Careers in STEM fields require high-level skills and earn higher wages, they are also always in high demand, and experts predicts an even stronger demand for professionals in STEM fields in the future. Our economy is in crisis and 60% of women are the breadwinners or co-breadwinners in their families. If we continue to believe that these high paying careers are only for men, we are not cashing in on the earning power of women. Ultimately, it is not about filling a status quo, it is about using our population, men and women, to the best of their abilities.
Patricia Valoy is a Civil Engineer and an Assistant Project Manager at STV, an architectural, engineering, planning, environmental and construction management firm based in New York City. She is a graduate of the Columbia University School of Engineering in Applied Science, where she majored in Civil Engineering with a concentration in Construction Management. Patricia also is a co-host of a weekly radio show called, “Let Your Voice Be Heard.” The show’s mission is to spread awareness of social and political issues. In addition, she writes a blog about feminist issues and mentors high school and college students interested in pursuing careers in STEM fields. You can follow Patricia on Twitter at @besito86 and read her blog at www.patriciavaloy.blogspot.com.