Science for Kids: pH fun

I had the pleasure to go to Laurel Park Elementary school in Apex, NC  to have fun with acids and bases and talk about pH.  There are some fun activities you can do with acids and bases and most of these you can do at home too.

Liquid pH indicators - red cabbage juice

There is this great pH indicator that you can make yourself in the kitchen.   You can boil red cabbage or blend it to collect the juice.   I cheated a little and just bought some cabbage extract in powder form from Amazon.  Just add some powder to water and you have red cabbage juice the easy way.

 For this particular brand you add 1 scoop of powder per 100 mL of water.

Depending on the pH of a liquid you add to the cabbage juice, it will turn different colors.

So we took a few different liquids and added them in order to see a color and then use the color to get an estimated pH..

Liquid pH indicator - bromothymol blue

There is another indicator that is really neat.  It is called bromothymol blue.  When you add just a little bit to water it will be blue since the pH is around around 7 or above.  If you take a straw and blow into the solution it will slowly turn yellow.  The reason is that carbon dioxide from your breath reacts with the water and forms carbonic acid.  Pretty neat stuff!

A dab goes a long way!!

Just blow air into the liquid through a straw

pH indicator strips

Lastly we used pH indicator strips to measure pH.  I just bought these from amazon as well.

We paired the kids up and each pair had 5 tubes.  In these tubes were lemon juice, cherry pepsi, water, baking soda, and windex.    They used a strip for each tube to record the color, match the color to a pH and see if they could figure out what the liquid might be.

These activities are a great way to engage kids while you go over acids, bases, and pH.   It's just another way to make science make sense in a fun way.   Seeing kids getting excited while filling out a science worksheet makes for a good day.   I look forward to seeing what the future holds for these future scientists!

STEM champions - The Daniel Center for Math and Science

I have come to a realization that many kids love science, but sadly some just don't get lots of opportunity to see science in action.   So it is awesome when you stumble into Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) outreach for those kids that might not have normally had such an opportunity.

The opportunity I recently had was through my work at Bayer CropScience.   Bayer has teamed up with a learning center in Raleigh called The Daniel Center for Math and Science.  The collaboration brings Bayer's "Making Science Make Sense" curriculum to the center for some fun science experiments once a month.     I have lived in the Raleigh area for years and had no idea about The Daniel Center.   However I was thoroughly impressed with the passion from those who run and volunteer at the center showed for the kids that were there.

The Daniel Center is a non profit organization seeking to help kids become more proficient in STEM subjects.   Their website says it best:

"There is a known gap in math and science education between American children, and children from many other industrialized nations. When at risk, and socio-economically disadvantaged children are examined as an isolated group, the gap is overwhelming. Our mission is to help children become more proficient in math, science and technology; and to prepare and motivate them to pursue a post-high school education. The Daniel Center for Math and Science is an after school and summer/track out program that seeks to narrow the education gap for at risk, and economically disadvantaged children. Our program consists of two components. The first is ages 5-12. This component exists within the framework of a licensed school age childcare facility. Our second component is our teen “Smart Is What’s Up!” program. When students age out of childcare, they transition into our teen programming, which focuses on academic tutoring, college-readiness, career exploration, and life skills. The Daniel Center introduces children to the immense opportunities in STEM-based careers through a curriculum that is activity driven, inquiry based, lively and fun."

http://www.danielcenter.org/

As I showed up I was greeted so warmly.   I immediately had help from two NC state students.  It seems the honor program at NC State volunteers all the time to help with snacks, cleaning tables, doing experiments, doing homework or anything else that is needed.   As I left the center that day three kids were cuddled up to one NC State student going over math problems.   There is nothing so heart warming as watching an impressionable child enjoying their time learning about science and math.   Kudos to these college kids for not only working towards their degree but already making a huge difference in our society.

As for our stay, we had 3 other awesome Bayer volunteers engage the kids about DNA.   A big thanks to Durba, Ashley, and Casey!    I was impressed when the kids gave a very nice description of DNA.    This just shows the quality of the program at The Daniel Center.    We talked about DNA and then had our hands-on where we made DNA with twizzlers and gummy bears.   Then we extracted DNA from bananas.   If you are curious about these experiments and want to try them at home you can find detailed instructions in an earlier blog post.  On a personal note, I love running these experiments if any local teachers want help.  I know I am already looking forward Laurel Parks STEM night coming up soon.

For me it is important to show that science is fun while still teaching a lesson.    In a world where many people don't even think food (like bananas) have DNA we need to proactively reach our kids with more STEM activities.    These learning are crucial for our future leaders.  Places like The Daniel Center are reinforcing fndamenatal principles for kids that will be our next leaders.  What our future leaders learn now will influence future decisions that affect our world.   Our leaders need lots of skills, but a science and math background is one that should not be overlooked.

I am sure there are plenty of places like The Daniel Center around the country and even the world.   Most of these places need support which can be given in a number of ways including volunteering your time or even financial help.    Any help you give to an organization like this really will make a difference for these kiddos.  This extra investment from places like The Daniel Center is above and beyond what they get in schools and that time spent with these kids is also an investment in our world's future.  

Here was some of our fun!

Use those hashtags: #FactsNotFear and #Moms4GMOs and #Dads4GMOs

I have really been thinking about social media lately and how much it influences our emotions and decisions.   Social media is full of truths, half-truths, and plain out lies but for many people it is their to go source of information.   I can open twitter anytime of the day, read the first 20 tweets and know everything going on in the world and all the opinions on that news.   It is useful but it is our job to figure out what is fact, what is fiction, and what is just opinion.  The problem is that many people believe what they read and do not take the time to research the entire picture.  When it comes to GMOs, the anti-GMO groups are very organized on social media.  They know how to use social media to spread incorrect information.  How do you combat bad information that is plastered all over twitter everyday?   The answer is we have to be proactive and spread the truth so people see both sides of the story.  The consumers and scientists that embrace science and not emotion to understand GMOs have unfortunately not been as organized when it comes to sharing that information on social media, at least in my opinion.

Normally I just shake my head as I see post after post bashing GMOs even when the science has consistently shown GMOs are safe.  Even when GMOs are providing vitamin A to malnourished children (http://www.goldenrice.org/) they are bashed.  Even when GMOs can provide solutions to save trees and crops from being wiped out by diseases (http://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/can-gmos-rescue-threatened-plants-and-crops/) they are bashed .  Even with science backing the safety and the the science providing solutions to help our world, the anti-GMO sentiment is now being used to market items to make money.  We now see manufacturers putting a non-GMO label on EVERYTHING even when that crop or product has no GMO counterpart.

So it was a good day when I saw truth being spread and even a hashtag to consolidate our thoughts on Twitter.   We are on the road to organizing our messages on social media.  A group of moms put their thoughts into a couple of articles about GMOs and how the non-GMO label is not helping anything.  They challenge all of us to show our support for GMOs by using #FactsNotFear and #Moms4GMOs or #Dads4GMOs.

 Take a read of their articles.  Spread the truth about GMOs.  Let's use social media to get the facts out there so people at least read both sides and not just one.  

We are Scientists. We are Moms,

GMOs: A Scapegoat

#Moms4GMOs Letter

The good news is that people are using these hashtags on Twitter.  The truth is spreading, but it needs a lot more help.  Counter the misinformation and gets the facts out there!

#FactsNotFear

 

#Moms4GMOS





#Dads4GMOs

Astrophotography: Pleiades

I had taken a little break over the holidays, but I am ready to get back to some blogging in 2017.  I did get one clear night over the holidays where I had time to get my scope out.  I had one target in mind and had been wanting to shoot it for awhile.  The target has many names.  Commonly is called Pleiades or the Seven Sisters, but is also known as Messier 45 (M45).

Pleiades is a star cluster were a bunch of stars are close to one another.  This is the closest star cluster to the Earth at 444 light years away and can be seen as a faint smudge in the winter sky.  The stars are hot B-type stars which just means they are very hot and blue!  They formed about 100 million year ago.

The best part about the Pleiades besides just being beautiful stars is that there is also some dust in the area that gives some beautiful nebulosity.  It was originally thought the dust was from the formation of the stars but this dust would have been lost years ago.  Now it is known the dust was just in the area the stars happen to be passing through.

My picture was taken with:

SV90 scope
Celestron AVX mount
D5300 camera
150x 60 second lights
45x darks
45x bias
45x flats
Stacked:  DeepSkyStacker
Processing:  PixInsight; Photoshop

The Seven Sisters is from Greek Mythology. Seven of the brightest stars are named for each of the sisters along with 2 other stars names for the sisters parents.

Here is another picture that I did not take as it is much better, but provides a great map of the stars names.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiades

Astrophotography: Andromeda

When I first became interested in astrophography, Andromeda was my very first target.  I had a camera and a scope, but I did not have the means to track objects.  So I was taking very short exposures.  So while my picture did not turn out very well, it was what got me hooked.  For the first time I realized the power of camera to see things we cannot see with the naked eye.  Cameras have the power to collect light and save all that data.  I made up my mind that night to get better.

So just the other night I looked up and saw the constellation Cassiopeia.  Cassiopeia points right to the Andromeda galaxy.   Winter is coming and so this galaxy is back in a perfect place in the sky for imaging.

As for Andromeda, it is a beautiful galaxy.  It is the closest major galaxy to our own Milky Way Galaxy.  Andromeda is huge as it spans 220,000 light years. In the telescope, it is actually bigger than the moon.  Charles Messier put Andromeda in his catalog as M31 in 1764.  However Andromeda was noticed in the night sky as early as 964 by the Persians.

The craziest fact is the Milky Way and Andromeda are on a collision course.  However don't worry.  It will be 4.5 billion years before that merger happens.

Here was my second attempt to image this galaxy.  The setup was:

Stellarvue SV90T scope
Celestron AVX mount
Nikon D90 camera
90 images at 90 second exposures; 800 ISO
40 darks
40 bias
30 flat

Deciphering propaganda and pseudoscience from real science

 I remember my parents bought a set of encyclopedias when I was a kid.   There were over 20 giant size books that took up two shelves of one of our bookcases. It was one of the best sources of information you could find outside of a library.  I remember days where I would  randomly pick a letter and just read every entry from that letter.  Today, I asked my kids what an encyclopedia was and they have no idea.  The reason they don't know is because encyclopedias are ancient relics in this age of technology.

The invention of the internet was game changing for the world.  Information is at our fingertips in vast quantities.  Just one site called Wikipedia has more information than that set of encyclopedias my parents had invested in.  And there are thousands and thousands of sites with information to be found.

The internet is a double edged sword because not of that data out is correct.   Facebook is currently making headlines because of the "fake news" stories that are common.   The internet is full of information, both real and fake.  Our biggest challenge now is not the lack of information but taking the time to vet information.  Today's society is quick to hear or read something and take it at face value.   

If you go onto the internet then you are surrounded by opinions.  These are fine because we know those are opinions.   We can agree or disagree and move on.    We are surrounded by by facts and evidence.  This is good because we can go over the data and that data can help us make a rational choice.   And then we are surrounded by propaganda that presents a convincing story to deliberately convince you on which side of the fence you should go.   Sometimes that story is in the form of science.   It is not fact and it is not science, but it looks like science.  This form of propaganda is called pseudoscience.  At some point we all fall into the trap of reading propaganda and pseudoscience and succumbing to it because it is well thought out and portrayed in a very convincing manner.   .

I came across this email on twitter which shows how pseudoscience starts.

I usually skim my twitter feed, but this one made think of some  DJ Kool lyrics.

When I say freeze you just freeze one time
When I say freeze y'all stop on a dime
Frezze

That's right.  Freeze!  Did I really just read that right?  I need to read that one again.   Let's get some data that is not necessarily scientifically accurate and then use that data like it is real to emotionally scare the public towards our own agenda.  This is the kind of stuff that puts a bad taste in my mouth.

There is so much misinformation out there.   Some of it is unintentional, but the worst is the info that is intentionally manipulated and looks like science.

I ran across this article of Forbes that is a great read!  It is 10 questions to distinguish real from fake science.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2012/11/08/10-questions-to-distinguish-real-from-fake-science/#78341de9533b

I will list those questions, but encourage you to read the article as well.

1. What is the source?
2. What is the agenda? 
3. What kind of language does it use?
4. Does it involve testimonials?
5. Are there claims of exclusivity?
6. Is there mention of a conspiracy of any kind?
7. Does the claim involve multiple unassociated disorders?
8. Is there a money trail or a passionate belief involved?
9. Were real scientific processes involved?
10. Is there expertise?

So when you see some article come our saying our urine is full of glyphosate or some other claim, we should all do a little investigating before believing everything we read or hear at face value.   If it is true then there will be scientific evidence that is reproducible.  A little bit of skepticism is healthy for all of us.

The NY Times and GMOs

A New York Times article recently came out that in my mind was really disappointing in its portrayal of GMOs.  Here is the article for those who have not had a chance to see what was said:    NY Times Article

They crazy thing is I was sitting in the lab when this reporter walked through.  I remember thinking "this is pretty cool" as he toured the facility.  This reporter is actually visiting us and seeing what we do.  He is going to get the full story and finally an article will be written about GMOs that tell the real story.   He even put some great pictures in there.  I work with this great guy and we have been joking about the NY Times making him famous. 

So when I had multiple people forward the final  article to me the minute it came out my smile immediately turned into a frown.  Somehow the positive message of what we do did not translate very well.  This guy came and went and while the article had truth, it also was misleading    It only showed pieces instead of the entire picture.   These type of arguments are a dime a dozen and honestly all I can do is try to share the facts just as fast as the misleading information surfaces. 

There has obviously been a lot of rebuttals to the NY Times article and I just wanted to highlight a few great commentaries and scientific facts.  If you read the NY Times article, please read these as well.  Look at both sides of the story before forming your own opinions.  

1. Andrew Kniss - Associate Professor for University of Wyoming

Here is a great one to start with, a blog by Andrew Kniss:  http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/10/the-tiresome-discussion-of-initial-gmo-expectations/

In the New York Times paper it was claimed that "At the same time, herbicide use has increased in the United States, even as major crops like corn, soybeans and cotton have been converted to modified varieties. And the United States has fallen behind Europe’s biggest producer, France, in reducing the overall use of pesticides, which includes both herbicides and insecticides."


Here is some nice data from Dr Kniss:

"I have to say this comparison seems borderline disingenuous; certainly not what I’d expect from an “extensive examination” published in the New York Times. The NYT provides a few charts in the article, one of which supports the statement about France’s reduced pesticide use. But the figures used to compare pesticide use in France vs the USA are convoluted and misleading. First, the data is presented in different units (thousand metric tons for France, compared to million pounds in the US), making a direct comparison nearly impossible. Second, the pesticide amounts are not standardized per unit area, which is critically important since the USA has over 9 times the amount of farmland that France does; it would be shocking if the U.S. didn’t use far more pesticide when expressed this way. So I took the data presented by Mr. Hakim and converted it into the same units, and standardized by arable land, and this is what that same data looks like:"

"It is true that France has been reducing pesticide use [actually, maybe not… see update at the end], but France still uses more pesticides per arable hectare than we do in the USA. In the case of fungicide & insecticides, a LOT more. But a relatively tiny proportion of these differences are likely due to GMOs; pesticide use depends on climate, pest species, crop species, economics, availability, tillage practices, crop rotations, and countless other factors. And almost all of these factors differ between France and the U.S. So this comparison between France and the U.S., especially at such a coarse scale, is mostly meaningless, especially with respect to the GMO question. If one of France’s neighboring EU countries with similar climate and cropping practices had adopted GMOs, that may have been a more enlightening (but still imperfect) comparison."

"Given all of these confounding factors, I wonder why France was singled out by Mr. Hakim as the only comparison to compare pesticide use trends. Pesticide use across Europe varies quite a bit, and trends in most EU countries are increasing, France is the exception in this respect, not the rule. In the early 1990’s, France was using more herbicides compared to almost every other country, so it shouldn’t be too surprising that pesticide use decreased as formation of the EU began to standardize pesticide regulations after 1993. If the increase in herbicide use in the U.S. is due to GMOs, what can explain the increase in herbicide use throughout most of Europe, where GMO varieties are not available?"

2. Kevin Folta, Professor for University of Florida


Yield is complicated and the NY Times post makes it seem like GM crops are not doing anything to help farmers. Dr. Folta really shares some great information in his blog post: http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2016/11/some-actual-yield-data.html

There a couple things he highlights that the NY times article failed to mention.

a. "GE crops were not made to directly increase yields. They control other aspects of growth so that yields are maximized."

b. "Farmers seem to think their yields are good and pesticide costs lower"

 

Just look at a survey from the farmers that is in Dr. Folta's commentary. I believe the farmers over a reporter any day.






There are more examples in his blog to dissect. Take a look at all the examples he points out.


3. Henry Miller - Just google his bio - this guy knows his stuff


Henry Miller also commented on the yield topic too in Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2016/11/02/the-gray-lady-soils-herself-again/#42c068eb3fc6


Miller states:

"More fundamentally, however, Hakim begged the question about the goal of molecular genetic engineering: The purpose of the genetic modification of most of those crop plants—namely, the ones modified for increased resistance to herbicides (see graph below)–was not, in fact, higher yields; it was greater efficiency and lowering the cost of farming inputs."

4. Jayson Lusk - economist


Jayson Lusk, an economist shared his own opinion on the article. Take a read: http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2016/10/31/new-york-times-on-gmos

"One thing the NY Times article did not really talk about was why did the farmers adopt technology so fast and at such a large scale if there are no benefits?"

5. Dr. Channa Prakash - Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Tuskegee University


Dr. Channa Prakash, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Tuskegee University chimed in on Facebook, where he showed data from the following journal article:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0111629









He is referencing the following graph which show Farmers are making more profit with GM crops.


6. Dr. Steven Novella - Clinical Neurologist at Yale University


Dr. Novella points to a great paper by Brooks and Barfoot that can be found here: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2015.1022310


Dr. Novella also has his own well written opinion of which the following is just small excerpt. Take a full read here: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-times-gets-it-wrong-on-gmos/

"A 2015 review found:
This annual updated analysis shows that there continues to be very significant net economic benefits at the farm level amounting to $20.5 billion in 2013 and $133.4 billion for the 18 years period (in nominal terms). These economic gains have been divided roughly 50% each to farmers in developed and developing countries. About 70% of the gains have derived from yield and production gains with the remaining 30% coming from cost savings. The technology have also made important contributions to increasing global production levels of the 4 main crops, having added 138 million tonnes and 273 million tonnes respectively, to the global production of soybeans and maize since the introduction of the technology in the mid 1990s."

"Hakim did not even consider developing countries, where the benefit has arguably been the greatest. The increase in yield is really from a decrease in loss, mainly from pests."

"Any meaningful analysis of GM technology has to consider each application unto itself. Further, the GM trait is only part of the picture – you also have to consider how it is being applied. For Bt trait crops, where a natural insecticide is produced by the plants, there is no question that this has reduced overall insecticide use, decreased crop loss due to pests, and increased profits and crop predictability for farmers. This particular application is a clear win."

"Hakim reproduces a common anti-GMO trope to combine Bt crops with herbicide resistant crops – two completely different applications. Herbicide resistance, most notably glyphosate resistance, has been more complicated in its application. Farmers often love this trait because they can just spray their crops to reduce weeds. It is a huge convenience. There is also a benefit in that it can reduce tilling, which is bad for the soil and releases CO2 into the atmosphere."

"However, this has clearly led to an increase in glyphosate usage. That was actually the point of the trait. The deception comes from combining herbicide resistant traits with pest resistant traits and then saying that overall pesticide (herbicide plus insecticide) use has not decreased. This is pointless, however. The fact that glyphosate use has increased takes nothing away from the fact that insecticide use has decreased. They are completely separate applications of GM technology."

"Further, Hakim fails to point out that while glyphosate use has increased, it has replaced applications of much more toxic herbicides. If you measure only tons of herbicide you miss the point that overall herbicide toxicity has dramatically decreased, because glyphosate (despite claims of anti-GMO activists) is a very benign chemical."

The companies in the Ag biotech industry published their own commentaries which you can search and find.   However, the above opinions are not from the companies which I am sure some people may argue are biased.  While I believe adamantly that the industry is also writing facts based on science, it is really hard to ignore the compelling science, data, and opinions from the academics.  Their job is to ask questions.  The GMO question has been one they have studied and researched for years independently of what the industry is doing and saying.  One NY Times article should not overshadow the multitudes of scientific data that show the benefits of GM crops.

Astrophotography: Hunter's Moon and Supermoon

I find out about space things more often from people who know I like space than from my own knowledge.   So it was the night of Oct 15th that I pulled out the scope to try and get a picture of a supermoon that also happens to be a Hunters moon.  I hadn't even realized this was occurring until I was tipped off.  So yall keep me updated!!

A supermoon is just a full moon at the time when the moon's orbit is the closest to the Earth.   When a moon is full and at its closest point to the Earth it really does appear bigger in the sky.  

The hunters moon is just a term for a full moon in October.   Traditionally this was the time hunters were getting ready to stock up on game meat for the winter months ahead.

No matter what the full moon is always a beautiful sight.

 .  

Astrophotgraphy - Orion Nebula

I haven't gotten out under the stars in awhile, but I was able to finish processing one of my favorite pictures.   This one actually turned out better than than I thought it would and shows how much beauty is hidden in the night sky.  The subject of this photo is the Orion Nebula.

I took this picture with a Stellarvue SV90 refractor and a D90 Nikon camera.   This pictures is over an hour of exposure time.

The Orion Nebula is located in the Orion Constellation.  This is one is easy to find when you look for the 3 stars that form Orion's belt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(constellation)#/media/File:Orion_IAU.svg

The Orion Nebula is also known as M42 and is found right under Orion's belt.  It was first noted by Charles Messier on March 4, 1769. The nebula is in the Milky Way, but over 1300 light years away from us.  It is a massive nebula spanning 24 light years across at its widest point.   The nebula is a star nursery and over 700 stars have been observed in various stages of formation.  Ever at the large distance away, it is the closest stellar nursery to Earth and is bright enough to see as a "smudge" to the naked eye on a dark night. Get it under a telescope and it is jaw dropping beautiful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_Nebula

Science for a Better Life - GMOs and Trait Research

I was thinking the other day about my job and how much I love what I do.   Not only do I work with some amazing people, but I am working in an industry that really is trying to better the world no mater what some critics may say.  I had a friend tell me once that companies with a defined purpose statement are more sucessfull than companies without one.  I have only worked with companies with a purpose statement so I do not have both perspectives,  but I feel like working for a company with purpose makes a huge difference.  For instance our purpose at Bayer is "Science for a Better Life."  I want to be clear here that I am speaking my own personal opinions and not that of Bayer.  This is a personal blog and my personal feelings, but I really feel that we can make a difference in the world with the products and projects we work on.  I feel the drive to innovate to help feed a world whose population is ever increasing.

In my particular job of making genetically engineering crops (GMOs), it is not uncommon for people to ask me many questions or quickly share their own opinions.  Many times they are good questions.   The topic is a volatile one and sometimes those questions can be more of a personal attack.  Those conversations only encourage me even more to try everything I can to educate people on what we do.  Just as importantly I want to show that we who work for these companies care about what we do and the well being of our world.   We all share in the purpose to make a better life for people through science.

A few months ago I had the privilege to help work on a movie that is one more educational tool on what we do.  The other people in the video are all colleagues and friends who are just as passionate as me about helping our farmers and finding innovative solutions to ultimately feed people.  There are so many other people not on that video that also share that conviction.  We trust in science and know these products (including GMOs) are safe.  We feed them to our children because we see and believe in the science.  We proactively educate people everywhere we can.

So enjoy this video and share it with your friends.  It is one more step to learning about who we are.  A large company is nothing more than people and those people are always happy to answer your questions.  I know this because I work with them.  Get to know us.  Ask questions and get the facts before deciding GMOs are not safe.  At the end of the day we all want a better life for our family and kids.