We Have Moved!
Posted: October 3, 2011 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a comment »Yes yes, after just a few days of blogging, we have moved over to www.scientifickitty.com.
Come and see us! There are some new pages over there, and even a new review.
We’ve only moved because we can see Scientific Kitty expanding beyond a wordpress.com site and thought we may as well convert it in the early days. We’re still powered by WordPress (because we do love them so), just with a different domain.
Oh yeah… if anyone knows how I can map this domain to the new one, I’d be massively grateful
x
The Big Bang Theory Season 4 Episode 3 – The Zazzy Substitution
Posted: September 30, 2011 Filed under: TV Review | Tags: cats, Gemma Sharp, Neurobiology, Physics, Science stereotypes, Theoretical Physics Leave a comment »Gemma Sharp reviews her favourite episode of The Big Bang Theory.

When I first saw a trailer for The Big Bang Theory a few years ago, I thought it looked terrible. A pretty but dumb woman moves nextdoor to a group of stereotypically geeky male scientists. Cue dangerously dull consequences.
I thought the last thing science needed was a CBS comedy reinforcing the stereotype that scientists are geeky sexually-immature men. But through a combination of a particularly pathetic Freeview box that could only pick up E4, and said-channel’s schedule of endless repeats, I did end up catching an episode.
It wasn’t as bad as I thought it was going to be. In fact, it was pretty good. As socially-awkward as the scientists in the program are, I can’t think of a single occasion where they’ve been shown in lab coats… and only one of them wears glasses! Not half as offensive as I was expecting. So it’s fair to say that even as a scientist, I was instantly hooked.
For the scientists among you who might still need some convincing, here’s an example – my favourite episode, ‘The Zazzy Substitution’ from season four.
As a cat lover (see title of blog, see tedious tweets about my cat, see odd collection of cat encyclopaedias under my coffee table) and an admirer of the show’s breakaway character, Sheldon Cooper (Jim Parsons), I think the writers might have written this episode specifically for me (too narcissistic?).
The episode revolves around theoretical physicist Sheldon splitting up with his “friend that’s a girl, but not a girlfriend” neurobiologist Amy Farrah Fowler (Mayim Bialik… aka Blossom!). The breakup itself is probably the most controlled, articulate TV breakup ever – a debate between the couple about the respective importance of theoretical physics and neurobiology, ending with the realisation that they have reached an impasse and the relationship should be “terminated immediately”.
Sheldon claims to be unaffected by the break up, but then proceeds to buy 25 cats, explaining that they “don’t argue or question my intellectual authority”. He names them all after physicists (including Weisskopf, Panofsky, Oppenheimer, Frisch, Teller, Feynman and Fermi) apart from one, which he was going to call Herman von Helmhotz but opted instead for ‘Zazzles’ – “because he’s so zazzy!”.
Sheldon’s behaviour worries his experimental physicist roommate Leonard (Johnny Galecki), who calls Sheldon’s Texan mother (Laurie Metcalf) and asks her to visit him at the California Institute of Technology straight away. On arrival, Sheldon’s mother uses reverse psychology to rekindle Sheldon and Amy’s friendship, and in the final scene the two are seen sitting above a sign saying “Cats $20″ handing Sheldon’s cats and $20 notes to a queue of children.
As amusing as the plot is, I think the show’s main attribute is Sheldon Cooper. I’ve already mentioned I’m an admirer. Or more accurately, I’m an admirer of Jim Parsons’s portrayal of Sheldon Cooper (and, let’s face it, Jim Parsons himself… here). So this episode was pretty special because not only is it very Sheldon-heavy, but we also see him showing a rarely-seen illogical emotional side. Just look at him smiling in the picture below. And of course he’s smiling! Look at all those cats! The man is living my dream.

I may be getting a little carried away.
Anyway, my point is that The Big Bang Theory is witty and certainly original. OK, so it portrays scientists as socially awkward geeks, but at least the characters are likeable and the science in the program is well-researched. It’s the only comedy I can think of about scientists (I’m not counting Lab Rats as comedy), and certainly the only one that includes so many obscure references to science. In a way (alright, at a push) it could be considered an example of very successful science communication – just look at the ratings.
Gemma Sharp is a reproductive biology PhD student from (near) Bristol. She currently works at the University of Edinburgh MRC Centre for Reproductive Health and puts together this very blog that you’re reading right now. She’s on Twitter @ammegandchips.
Troll Hunter
Posted: September 30, 2011 Filed under: Film Review | Tags: Anthony Lewis, Ecology, Evolution, Zoology 1 Comment »Anthony Lewis presents a zoological species profile on Trolls – the species of interest in recent release Troll Hunter.
*CONTAINS SPOILERS!*
With their 1000-year lifespan, rock eating tendencies, and slight aversion to light, Øvredal’s trolls are the most unlikely of creatures. But it turns out that they do exist, and have just been hiding in the mountains of Norway. So let’s suspend our disbelief and take at look at the biology of these beasts.
Fundamentally, there are two types of troll, which constitute at least two unique species – the mountain and forest dwellers. Where the troll species line is drawn, however, is unclear, with a variety of sub-types of troll within each general group. Trolls are fiercely territorial mammals, living either as lone individuals or in close social groups. They “eat, shit, mate with and devour everything around them.” Mostly rocks.
Evolution
A major question that arises as we consider the trolls’ existence is their evolution. With an incredibly slow lifecycle and very low reproductive output (lifespan: 1000-1200 years, average offspring produced: 1), adaptation will have been an incredibly slow process. Their life history falls at the extreme “k-selected” end of the spectrum, and their adaptation to environmental and situational changes will have been very slow. Furthermore, small population sizes (and associated low genetic diversity) caused by very large territories, and a constant vulnerability to basic elements (light), mean that their evolution is almost miraculous. It is likely that they expanded into their current lifestyle and size around the early Cenozoic period, following the demise of the dinosaurs.
The trolls’ greatest asset, that has undoubtedly been a primary reason for their survival despite the evolutionary constraints of their slow life cycles, is their nutritional versatility. That is, “when you eat rocks, it isn’t hard to survive”. Of course above all, the major barrier this fascinating species has had to overcome is their susceptibility to explosion when exposed to light. They therefore have an obligate nocturnal behavioural pattern, and this may in fact have allowed them to exploit night-time resources and avoid conflict with other megafauna during their early evolution.
Being confined to darkness has lead to a strong reliance on a powerful sense of smell, as can be seen by their capacity for sniffing out the scent of people of certain beliefs (although it is as yet unclear whether this penchant for religious folk extends beyond just Christianity – further research is needed). Trolls are not, however, totally blind, and the extra heads grown by certain troll variants reveal the importance of visual communication in social situations. These “protrusions” (for they are not fully functioning heads) primarily play a role in mating rituals and intra-specific conflict, and are likely to have evolved along a similar evolutionary pathway as that of the peacock train and battle cries of red deer stags .
Living underground and deep inside mountains means that trolls are likely to share certain characteristics with burrow dwelling rodents. Living in enclosed environments brings problems of temperature control and oxygen access, and as such they will have specialised respiratory physiology.
One defining feature of the troll life history is likely to be a huge amount of parental investment, both before and after birth. With a gestation period of 10-15 years, the parental investment is huge, and given that most trolls reproduce only once in their lifetime, the expenditure afforded on offspring is large. Parents will defend their offspring with violent determinism, and likely prioritise the life of their child above their own, with young trolls likely only becoming fully self sufficient after a few hundred years. The role that social interactions in communal dens may play in parental care is unclear, although given the species characteristics, cohabiting groups are likely to have a high degree of relatedness and hence altruistic care of offspring is not unlikely.
These trolls present a truly unique case of evolution, and require a great deal of study to see how they managed to overcome the problems of their lifestyle. It is unclear where their closest extant relations are, and whether they are more closely related to the bears or primates, or a monophyletic taxa unto themselves. The benefits of being huge and able to eat almost anything seem to have outweighed the issues they face. It is hard to see how their fragile lifestyle ruled by an inability to deal with vitamin D has allowed them to flourish, but seemingly it has.
On a worrisome note, however, I fear that the trolls face a troubled future. As mentioned above, they will adapt very slowly to large changes in the environment, and as global warming rapidly alters their habitat, it is hard to know if they will be able to amend their behaviour to fit with the new landscape. They’re unlikely to take up sunbathing and bask in the joy of a warmer world. If ever there was a good reason to curb emissions and think about the planet, this is it. Save the trolls, before it’s too late.
Troll hunter is in cinemas now, and provides a witty, original and entertaining break from the norm. Go check it out.
Anthony Lewis is a freelance science writer & designer from London. He recently graduated from Oxford, where he studied Biological Sciences. Have a poke around his website and shout at him on twitter (@AntDLewis).
Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men
Posted: September 29, 2011 Filed under: Book Review | Tags: Lili Tcheang, Pop Science, Psychology, Sociology, Statistics 1 Comment »Lili Tcheang reviews Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men, a book about gender relations by Roy Baumeister.
Just finished the pop science book rather misleadingly titled Is There Anything Good About Men, written no less, by a man who is an eminent professor of psychology so I was looking forward to some good scientific reasons for his arguments.
The core proposal of his reasoning is that even though men tend to sit at the top of the social pyramid, actually men also sit at the bottom. Roy Baumeister goes on to explain that by focussing on the top we do not notice the bottom end of the spectrum, where men do the most dangerous jobs at the risk of their lives. Yes more men do make the most money but also more men die in the line of their work. It’s the age old statistical problem where once again we have not looked at the distribution but only at one specific slice.
A lot of the arguments in the book were very thought provoking and persuasive. But for a book from a scientist there really should have been proper referencing for each of his arguments.
For instance he states that men in China carry the responsibility for looking after parents in their old age. In fact Chinese law has stepped in to ensure that sons take care of their aged parents, or else they can be sued. In my very large Chinese family we have never known this tradition, and the responsibility often falls on the women although there are no hard and fast rules on this. I wonder whether there is an alternative explanation for the introduction of this law with the recent social changes in Chinese society as a result of the one child policy? Parents of sons may therefore have to rely on their only son to take care of them in their old age. Coupled with the fact that men tend to move away to find work, parents with an only son may find that they are no longer around and no longer inclined to look after them. Of course, I am also speculating here but without proper numbered referencing in the book itself, it’s rather difficult to trace the source of the responsibility on men, which lets the book down as I am sure a lot of the other arguments come from valid sources.
Second, is the argument of distribution, and at the risk of sounding like an old school teacher, yes we really should have paid more attention to statistics. Even though men also fall at the bottom end of the spectrum, a lot of studies tend to show that on average women fare worse. Whilst examining only the bottom end of the spectrum I can’t help thinking that Baumeister has made the same mistake at the opposite end by not looking at the mean, median or mode of the distribution, what happened to drawing box plots I say! OK I am beginning to sound like my A-level maths teacher now, so I’ll stop there. Nevertheless, I did agree with a lot of the arguments made, but only in the context of the western developed world. Again, I felt Baumeister let us down as scientists by not qualifying how his sample of men was obtained. Perhaps to him, the rather obvious status of many women in undeveloped countries is so apparent that it didn’t need mentioning.
This book is still a good read and provides insights about the roles of men and women in society. As a scientist, I would also recommend the lectures by Robert Wyman on the Global Problems of Population Growth, which goes one level deeper towards how genes and evolution result in society and behaviour. You can find that here.

Lili Tcheang is a cognitive neuroscientist from London currently working at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London. Her UCL website is here.
Watch this space…
Posted: August 14, 2011 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a comment »… Exciting things are being planned under the (really quite excellent) name Scientific Kitty.
Stay tuned.
x
