For those considering a faculty position at a research university, you do know that you will spend summers writing papers and grant proposals and (if you're lucky) doing research, not vacationing, right? On the other hand, I am rarely bored.

Holmes: “I looked up at the sun. It was low in the heavens, and I calculated that in less than an hour it would lie just above the topmost branches of the old oak. One condition mentioned in the Ritual would then be fulfilled. And the shadow of the elm must mean the farther end of the shadow, otherwise the trunk would have been chosen as the guide. I had, then, to find where the far end of the shadow would fall when the sun was just clear of the oak.”

Watson: I imagine both trees must have grown since the Musgrave Ritual was written, but what do you mean when you say that the sun was “just above the branches” of the oak?

It’s the creationist’s dream. If actual evidence of creation is too much to hope for, how about a peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal overturning one of the icons supporting a major element of Darwin’s theory?. Sexual selection in peafowl is definitely one of those icons. There appeared to be ample empirical evidence that peahen’s preference for more elaborate trains on their mates has led to the spectacular male tail displays we see today. A series of papers in the 1990’s by behavioral ecologist Marion Petrie and others seemed to solidly support this, and there is also evidence that elaborate tails may indicate good genes (Petrie et al, 1991; Petrie and Williams, 1993;.Loyau et al, 2005a). This, in itself, is a challenge to an older idea that the peacock’s tail shows how arbitrary female preferences can be amplified to extremes by a “runaway” process (Fisher, 1958). But, whatever their evolutionary origin, the preference itself has rarely been questioned.

However, a recent paper published in Animal Behaviour (http://tinyurl.com/4t69v5), “Peahens do not prefer males with more elaborate trains”, challenges the conventional wisdom.

A quick search of the program found no references to atheism* or child pornography, but there will be plenty of talks about sex. You could spend all Saturday morning listening to lectures on Plant Mating Systems and all afternoon learning about Sexual Selection. On Sunday morning, if you don't have other plans, there will be talks on the Evolution of Sex from 8-12, among other choices. You have to pay the registration fee that covers the cost of the meeting to attend these talks, but Olivia Judson (author of Dr Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation) will be giving a public lecture:

The Art of Seduction: Evolution, Sex, and the Public
4-5 PM on Sunday June 22
Ted Mann Concert Hall

*Note to those not in the US or Turkey: religious extremists claim that understanding evolution leads to atheism which then leads to crime. Comparisons among countries appear to support the evolution<=>atheism link but not the atheism=>crime link.

When a large population of bacteria (in an infected person, for example) is exposed to antibiotics, a few of the bacteria may survive. One explanation, which is often true, is that these survivors have genes that make them resistant to the antibiotic. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn’t matter whether they have mutated versions of genes also found in the susceptible bacteria, or an extra gene acquired by horizontal gene transfer from another bacterial cell. Either way, those without the gene (or with the nonmutated version) mostly get killed by the antibiotic. Therefore, subsequent bacterial generations are founded mainly by these surviving resistant mutants. Therefore, the frequency of the resistance gene increases over generations: a classic example of evolution.

Sometimes, however, testing the “evolved” population for antibiotic resistance shows the same results as in the previous unevolved generation: most of the bacteria die, but a few survive. If there’s no change in gene frequency over generations, then the population hasn’t evolved. But then why did any of the bacteria survive?

This week’s paper, “Ancestral monogamy shows kin selection is key to the evolution of eusociality” was published in Science by William Hughes and others. Like humans, some bees are monogamous, meaning that the queen mates with only one male, so her daughters (the workers) are all sisters. In other bee species, the queen mates with several males, so her daughters are half-sisters. Relatedness generally favors cooperation, although there are some possible complications, discussed below.

This week’s paper asks how mating behavior affects the evolution of eusociality. They reasoned that, if mating system doesn’t matter, then today’s eusocial species could be descended from either monogamous, polygamous, polyandrous (each female has multiple mates), or promiscuous ancestors. Alternatively, eusociality may evolve more easily with one of these mating systems than with the others.

Maize plants are hermaphrodites, having both male (pollen-producing) and female (seed-producing) flowers. Other plant and animal species have two sexes, such as males and females. From the title, “Density-dependent regulation of sex ratio in an annual plant”, I assumed that this week’s paper (by Marcel Dorken and John Pannell, published in American Naturalist) would be about how parent plants adjust the male:female ratio in their offspring, a topic I have discussed previously.

But no. Mercurialis annua is stranger than that. Its two “sexes” are male and hermaphrodite.

The question of how much exposure high school students should have to genuine scientific controversies seems a bit more complex to me. I agree that helping students get enough of the basics to understand active controversies in any depth is a big challenge. On the other hand, I've been amazed how many high school students (and their parents) think that the only definition of "research" is looking up information in a library or on the web. If we want students to understand that scientific research is an exciting, ongoing activity, some kind of exposure to areas where scientists disagree seems essential. Areas of research that are easier to understand, like the mindless screening of drugs, don't convey the intellectual excitement of real science.

Here's a seminar class I've thought about for either high school seniors or first-year college students. First, let's set the minimum standard for a scientific controversy as: at least two conflicting points of view, each represented by data-containing papers from at least two nonoverlapping groups, in journals with an impact factor of at least 1.0. Each week we consider one question, such as:
1) What causes AIDS?
2) What is killing amphibians around the world?
3) How old is the earth (within 10%, say)?
4) What living species is the closest relative of chimpanzees?
Students get points for showing that each topic was controversial, at least at one time, with a big bonus for whoever shows controversy most recently. Then we could make a time-line, showing when each question was settled (pending new data, of course!).

Many humans diseases, from flu to AIDS, come from other species. Similarly, diseases from dogs are an increasing threat to lions, while cat diseases kill sea otters. Are there general rules that predict how likely two species are to share diseases?

To find out, the authors analyzed several large data sets on diseases of humans and 117 other species of primate (apes, monkeys, etc.). They hypothesized that species are more likely to share diseases if they live near each other and/or if they are more closely related, that is if they share a more recent common ancestor. This is similar to how we define relatedness in humans: brothers and sisters have more recent common ancestors (parents) than cousins do (grandparents). Fortunately, the family tree for primates is relatively uncontroversial, at least among scientists.

It is quite possible to do good experimental science fair projects using only everyday materials (rulers, paper cups, etc.). However, a small investment in inexpensive scientific apparatus can greatly expand the range of feasible experiments. For a fraction of the cost of a desktop computer, you can measure weight (mass), volume, temperature, acidity (pH), and light, all with sufficient accuracy to generate useful data. Unlike a computer, this equipment won't be obsolete in two years, or in twenty. These prices are old, so it might be a $275 science lab by now. On the other hand, these are all new prices; used would be cheaper. Items earlier on the list are most widely useful. Add an inexpensive microscope and you'll be about as well-equipped as Darwin. Aside from the boat, gun, greenhouse, and assistants, of course.

Compare with this much more ambitious home lab. Before spending that kind of money, I would wait and see what direction my research was going.

Item.................................................................Price

Triple beam pan balance (600 g x 0.1 g).......$ 93.00
Graduated cylinders (100 mL).................2 for 11.00
Multitester (use with sensors below)..............24.99
Mini-hook adaptors for above.............................2.59
Thermistors, for temperature (2 @ 1.99)...........3.98
Photocell assortment, for light............................1.98
Red-fluid thermometers (2 @ $6.50)................13.00
Acid/base pH indicator paper...........................13.30
Range extension set for balance (2 kg) ........24.95
Stopwatch.......................................................10.00