<img alt=“304px-Lost_City_(hydrothermal_field)00.jpg” src=“https://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/304px-Lost_City_%28hydrothermal_field%2900.jpg” width=“180” height=“354” align = “right”/>Accurately reconstructing the history of the Earth’s atmosphere is a tricky process. Of particular interest to scientists are oxygen levels at various points in the planet’s history, because these have implications for the evolution of complex life. It is generally assumed that until atmospheric oxygen reached a critical level, the evolution of complex animals would not have been possible.

A large-scale oxygenation event, which coincides with increasing diversity and complexity in the fossil record, is generally believed to have occurred around 800 million years ago.

However, evidence from sulphur isotopes – different forms of the same element – in seawater, reported in Science in 2005, suggests that there may have been enough oxygen in the earth’s atmosphere to support complex animal life about 400 million years earlier than was thought, reaching the critical level around 1.2 – 1.3 billion years ago.

Now direct evidence from sulphur isotopes in terrestrial rocks that were once submerged in a lake supports the idea that oxygen levels were high enough to support complex life at that time. A study published in this week’s Nature and led by John Parnell of the University of Aberdeen, looked for signatures of bacteria that obtain their energy by reducing sulphur in ancient rocks near Lochinver in the north-west highlands of Scotland.

“These bacteria have been around for a long part of Earth’s history,” says Parnell. “What happened at this critical time is that the community processing sulphur became more complex. It was now able not only to reduce sulphate, but also to oxidise the sulphide produced by reduction.”

This ability to oxidise sulphide alters the proportions of sulphur isotopes seen in the rocks, leaving a ‘signature’ and suggesting that there may have been plentiful oxygen in the atmosphere around 1.2 billion years ago – enough for complex animals to evolve.

“We’re seeing a level of oxygen which is not just going to be in the atmosphere. It’s going to permeate down into the sediments, and this is opening the way for the evolution of more complex life”, says Parnell. “We’re talking about not just evolution in life, but evolution in habitat and evolution in behaviour.”

Continue reading →

Earlier this year, a large-scale study of ‘brain training’ games debunked the idea that they can improve general cognitive abilities in healthy young people. But now a new study suggests that at least one such game can improve cognitive abilities and can even transfer improvements to real-world skills in the older generation.

Researchers led by Karlene Ball of the University of Alabama at Birmingham split 908 volunteers with an average age of around 73 into four different groups as part of the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly (ACTIVE) clinical trial.

The first group played a game designed to improve the speed of their visual attention for up to 10 hours over a five week period. This involved identifying and locating visual information quickly in increasingly demanding visual displays. The second group was taught strategies to improve memory without using a computer for the same time period. The third group was taught to improve their reasoning and problem-solving skills for up to 10 hours, again without using a computer, and the fourth group acted as a control.

Driving records of all the study participants were then followed for six years and showed that those who played the games or underwent reasoning training crashed their cars 50% less than the control group says the paper, published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS) . There was no significant difference observed in the group taught strategies to improve memory.

Continue reading →

In a potential blow to US national pride the world’s fastest supercomputer is now Chinese, beating the Americans into second place for the first time since 2004 with a machine which is smaller and more energy efficient than its closest US rival.

In the run up to the release of the official list of the top 500 supercomputers next week the Chinese supercomputer, Tianhe-1A, looks certain to occupy the top spot.

Tianhe-1A, which means ‘Milky Way’, has clocked up 2.5 petaflops – equivalent to roughly two and a half quadrillion (or 2.5 × 10¹⁵) calculations every second, making it almost 50% faster than the Cray Jaguar at Oak Ridge National Lab in Tennessee – the US’s fastest supercomputer – which can only muster a comparatively feeble 1.75 petaflops.

Jack Dongarra, a University of Tennessee computer scientist who maintains the official supercomputer rankings told the New York Times that Tianhe-1A “blows away” the competition. “We don’t close the books until Nov. 1, but I would say it is unlikely we will see a system that is faster,” he said.

Continue reading →

Most robotic hands are modelled on human or animal hands and use digits to grasp objects, but artificial fingers are a complicated business. Before a hand can pick up an object, the fingers must position themselves correctly and judge the force required to grasp the object correctly. This involves a multitude of different sensors and is computationally intensive, requiring a central processor to do the job the brain would do for a human or animal hand.

But now a collaboration led by Eric Brown of the University of Chicago, which also includes Cornell University and US firm iRobot, has come up with a simple solution to the complexities of robotic hands.

They have ditched the fingers altogether, replacing them with a rubber bag full of granular material – the ‘hand’ or gripper in the video above is full of ground coffee.

The gripper is placed over objects, deforming around them. The air in the bag containing the granules is then removed by suction, causing the granules to pack tightly together – known as jamming – and the hand to grip on to the object. No computation is required, although at present a researcher must decide when to evacuate the air, and the gripper is able to lift a diverse selection of objects, from a car’s shock absorber to a raw egg. The hand is even capable of lifting and pouring a glass of water, or of picking up a pen and using it to draw.

Although the study, published in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is not the first time the idea has been suggested, it is the first time that the physics behind such a grabber has been characterised, and the first time such a sophisticated prototype has been constructed.

It grips through a combination of friction, suction and interlocking – the material deforms around protrusions on the object and then grips them tight when the air is removed.

Heinrich Jaeger of the University of Chicago, who took part in the study, says the gripper represents a practical use for the science of jamming. “It’s a very general concept that is immensely scalable – window glass is a jammed liquid. We’ve actually translated that concept into a potential application.”

Jaeger suggests the gripper could be part of a robot sent in to burning buildings or other dangerous situations.

The European Research Council (ERC) has awarded €580 million in ‘Starting Grants’ to 427 researchers at the beginning of their research careers. Each award is worth up to €2 million and the total represents an increase of 40% since last year’s funding round.

This is the third round of ‘Starting Grant’ awards from the ERC – a pan-European funding body set up by the EU in 2007 to provide money for blue skies research.

Although the ERC suffered from accusations of overblown bureaucracy (see Brussels concedes to European Research Council reform) in its first few years, around 1,200 researchers across Europe are currently funded by ERC grants.

Researchers of any nationality can compete for the funding as long as the work is based in European host institutions and successful applicants are chosen by peer review. This year, 2,873 researchers applied, an increase of 14% since last year, and about 15% were successful. The average age of successful candidates was 36 and 73.5% of awards were won by men. The ERC points out that this is an improvement on the previous year, when men won 77% of the awards.

The bulk of the money went to the traditional centres of research within Europe. The United Kingdom was awarded 79 grants, the most of any nation, closely followed by France with 71 and Germany with 67. This pattern has remained the same since the first round of funding in 2008, which saw the same three countries in the top three spots. A breakdown of awards by country can be seen in the graph above.

Physical sciences and engineering attracted 45.7% of the funding, life sciences 35.8%, and 18.5% went to social sciences and humanities.

“I believe that the Commission’s initiative to launch the ERC in 2007 has been fully vindicated," said Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn in a press release. "I hope that in the fullness of time we will see more Nobel prizes awarded to ERC funded top talent, following ERC Starting Grant holder Konstantin Novoselov’s recent Nobel.”

Several hundred scientists and supporters of science gathered outside the UK Treasury in London on Saturday afternoon to protest imminent cuts to government science funding – an unusual move by a community that rarely takes to the streets to voice its displeasure.

The protest was organised by the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) and Science is Vital, a campaign group started about a month ago by University College London postdoctoral researcher Jennifer Rohn in response to Business Secretary Vince Cable’s speech suggesting that around 45% of scientific research is not of a sufficiently high standard to justify funding it in these tough economic times. Rohn spoke to Nature earlier this week about their campaign.

Science funding is likely to be cut as part of the government’s comprehensive spending review, to be finalised some time in the next few weeks. All departments will be expected to absorb cuts of up to 25% over the next four years as the coalition looks to save £83 billion.

Evan Harris, who was Liberal Democrat science spokesman until he lost his seat at the last general election, led the proceedings which included short speeches by Colin Blakemore, the ex-head of the Medical Research Council, and science writers Simon Singh and Ben Goldacre, among others. Many of the protesters were sporting their lab coats and the atmosphere remained upbeat throughout, despite Harris’ attempts to get the crowd to join him in song.

The campaigners argue that scientific research represents a sound financial investment, and that cuts would decimate British science, driving a generation of scientists abroad and scaring off those who might have brought their expertise to the UK from other countries.

Their argument is compelling. As Blakemore says, many nations are increasing science funding as they look for ways to boost faltering economies. China, Germany, France, Sweden and the United States are all spending more on science despite the tough financial climate.

The organisers said around 2,000 people attended the rally, and more than 25,000 people have signed Science is Vital’s petition calling for science funding to be maintained, including many of the great and good of UK science.

Disclaimer: Nature is a supporter of Science is Vital.

Filming human embryos used for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) at an early stage in their development has allowed scientists to select those with the best chance of going on to develop into healthy babies with an accuracy of more than 93%.

Once the technique is available for use in IVF clinics it should eliminate the need to simultaneously implant several embryos into the uterus – a practice used to increase the chances of successful pregnancy. It could also prevent the problems associated with multiple pregnancy, which occurs when several of the implanted embryos go on to develop successfully.

Multiple pregnancies often lead to miscarriage or the need for foetal reduction – surgical removal of some of the developing foetuses. Nadya Suleman, an American known as ‘Octomom’ in the press, is an extreme example of what can happen if a large number of implanted IVF embryos are carried to term – she give birth to octuplets in 2009.

But the survival of Octomom and all eight of her children was extremely unusual. “Most women cannot carry more than two or three embryos to term – it’s very dangerous,” says Renee Reijo Pera, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford University, who led the study, published in the latest issue of Nature Biotechnology.

The researchers at Stanford and the University of Minnesota filmed 242 embryos developing over six days using microscopic time-lapse photography. They then analysed the images and found that three straightforward parameters gave a very accurate indication of whether each embryo would go on to become a blastocyst – a spherical mass of about 150 to 300 partially differentiated cells – after five or six days. Embryos which reach this stage usually go on to develop into healthy babies.

Successful embryos had an initial cytokinesis, or division of the cell’s cytoplasm, lasting between 0 and 33 minutes, a gap between first and second cell divisions lasting 7.8 – 14.3 hours, and an interval between second and third cell divisions of 0 – 5.8 hours. The pattern was so uniform that it was possible to automate the analytical process, using a computer algorithm to predict whether embryos would go on to develop successfully.

“We’ve often thought of [early embryonic development] as somewhat chaotic, but it’s very controlled,” says Reijo Pera.

The team released several videos, including the one above showing the development of normal (top) and abnormal (bottom) embryos.

Continue reading →

What would the impact of forthcoming cuts in science funding on British universities look like if they go ahead?

Research funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) is allocated using a star system – the highest quality projects are given a four star rating, right down to no stars at all for the very worst. In the last funding round, 2010 – 2011, all two star research and above was awarded funding.

Two star projects currently make up around 45% of the work carried out in UK institutions, so when Business Secretary Vince Cable talks about 54% of research being ‘world-class’, the remaining 46% – which is in the firing line – probably refers to the two star level.

But how would losing two star funding affect the research grants that universities receive from HEFCE? The impact it would have on the coffers of the 20 UK universities which currently receive the most money from HEFCE is very variable, as shown in the graph above.

Hardest hit would be the University of Bristol, which would lose a whopping 18% of its research budget, closely followed by the University of Leicester at 16.5%. Oxford and Cambridge universities would both stand to lose just over 5% of their funding, the least affected of the 20.

Even cutting all two star research funding would only be equivalent to a 10% cut in HEFCE’s budget. If the actual cuts were more savage, some three star research would almost certainly vanish too.

An assessment on the Research Fortnight blog explores the possible effects of a few different scenarios, including Cable’s cuts which it suggests would mean 30 departments losing funding altogether, while small and new universities would be hit particularly hard.

Data supplied by HEFCE

Continuing the pre-emptive strike by British scientists against forthcoming research budget cuts, the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) today released a report commissioned to estimate the value of chemistry research to the UK economy.

The report, by consultancy Oxford Economics, pins a value on the contribution made by industries ‘upstream’ and ‘downstream’ of chemistry research, and comes up with a figure of £258 billion for the year 2007 – equivalent to 21% of GDP. Science Minister David Willetts responded to the report with a statement praising research, but conspicuously avoiding the issue of the likely cuts.

Richard Pike, chief executive of the RSC says the report "sends a clear message that it is essential for us to invest, and invest significantly, in the continued development of the skills pipeline, from schools to university and beyond”.

Meanwhile, Science is Vital – a campaigning group started by University College London cell biologist Jenny Rohn – is organising a protest march through London on 9 October to accompany its petition. Their Facebook group currently has around 2,900 members – and climbing.

Continue reading →

Following yesterday’s letter from the House of Lords science and technology committee to Science Minister David Willetts urging a rethink of science cuts, Lord Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, and five heads of prominent universities held a press conference at the Royal Institution today to send the same message.

Lord Rees says the UK is currently in a strong position, second only to the US in terms of the quality of research and university teaching, but he thinks the country’s ability to punch above its weight, and its international standing, would be compromised if the cuts are made. Glynis Breakwell, vice-chancellor of the University of Bath, says that if funding is cut now with a view to increasing it again when the public purse is in a better state, the catch-up required “could prove impossible”.

According to the panel, cuts would cause many top-flight researchers who currently work in the UK to leave, attracted by increased science funding abroad, while overseas researchers would no longer be attracted to work in UK institutions. The quality of university teaching would suffer, and children would be put off pursuing careers in science. “What kind of signal does it send if they see other countries increasing their expenditure while there are cuts here?” asks Lord Rees.

The assembled academics gave several examples of research carried out at their institutions which has been both practically useful and economically profitable, and drew attention to the more than 200 companies that have been successfully spun-out from university bioscience departments over the past decade.

Malcolm Grant, president and provost at University College London, says the country risks “squandering” the investment made in research over the past ten years. “We are about to lose a national asset of great importance,” he warns.

In a submission to the treasury, the Royal Society outlined three scenarios: ‘Constant cash’ – a reduction in real terms – “could be accomodated”, a ten per cent cut termed ‘slash and burn’ would have “serious consequences”, and a 20 per cent cut which they say would mean “game over” for British science.

However, Lord Rees would not be drawn on which departments should have to soak up the proposed cuts were science to be spared. “The amount we’re talking about in science is less than £1bn, which makes the difference between the acceptable and disastrous scenarios…Much larger sums are going to be involved in other departments,” he says.

Image: Lord Martin Rees. Credit: Robminchin under Creative Commons