Brock University’s Brock News has written up a great piece on Anne Yagi’s (an MSc student in my lab) research. Anne has worked for the Ministry of Natural Resources for a number of years and joined my lab to pursue questions into the overwintering physiology of snakes. The article below covers the Conservation Physiological approach she has been taking to understand neonatal rattlesnakes in a sensitive population. Hopefully we’ll be publishing on this soon. Congratulations Anne!
Following the CSZ meeting, a very kind graduate student from University of Winnipeg, Ana Breit, agreed to drive Justin and myself up to Narcisse, Manitoba on the last afternoon of the meeting. I brought the thermal camera with me, so I could document the spring emergence of garter snakes, and the writhing reproductive orgy that is customary at this field amazing site.
Here are some sample images in visual, thermal and thermal video:
Many thanks to the people at Nature north for maintaining this site: http://www.naturenorth.com/spring/creature/garter/Narcisse_Snake_Dens.html
My student, Justin Bridgeman and myself were the representatives from my lab this year. Unfortunately, I forgot to take photos of him speaking or of me defending my student, Katlyn Dundas’s poster.
For posterity, though, here are the clips from the CSZ program book:
Winnipeg was a great host city and the meeting was excellent. Always good to catch up with fellow Canadian scientists.
I just found out that the CNRS (Centre Nationnal de la Recherche Scientifique) did a write-up about work conducted during my 3 month sabbatical at the Université de Lyon with very hospitable colleagues, Dr. Löic Teulier, Dr. Damien Roussel, and Dr. Yann Voituron:
How I miss those guys.
They let me camp out in their lab for 3 months (Sept 2015-December 2015), helped me with renting a place in Lyon, and generally introduced me to the French attitude and ethic and their love of cheese and fine wine.
At long last, years of hard work in the field of Drosophila research has met with the fruition of this publication…maybe one day I will blog about the challenges of associated with this field of research. Now is not the time, but suffice to say, I will say this….if a paper on fruit fly phenotype is published and nothing about the husbandry, nutrition, and rearing conditions are provided, the research should be taken with huge grain of salt. Context is everything.
Effect sizes of the influence of diet on developmental, behavioural, and physiological parameters
|Comparison||Phenotype||Hedge’s g (± 95% CI)||r||Significant|
|Larval wet mass||Morphology||32.66 ± 10.16||0.99||Yes|
|Larval dry mass||Morphology||10.60 ± 3.40||0.98||Yes|
|Larval width||Morphology||3.53 ± 0.63||0.87||Yes|
|Adult wing length||Morphology||1.30 ± 0.48||0.55||Yes|
|Larva Emergence||Fecundity||0.80 ± 0.64||0.36||Yes|
|Pupa Emergence||Development||2.09 ± 0.99||0.70||Yes|
|Adult survivorship||Lifespan||0.70 ± 0.13||0.32||Yes|
|Larva Thermotaxis||Sensory||0.80 ± 0.64||0.36||Yes|
|Adult Thermotaxis||Sensory||0.38 ± 0.66||0.18||No|
|Larval Thermal Retreat||Neuromuscular||0.73 ± 0.39||0.34||Yes|
|Adult Geotaxis||Neuromuscular||2.49 ± 1.01||0.77||Yes|
|Muscle Basal Tonus||Neuromuscular||2.51 ± 1.17||0.77||Yes|
|Muscle Maximum||Neuromuscular||0.23 ± 0.88||0.11||No|
|Learning Index||Neurological||0.34 ± 0.88||0.16||No|
At long last, I’ve spent time fixing some sloppiness in my R package, Thermimage, as well as added functions for importing and exporting thermal images and videos. Partly still beta testing it on github for the time being but will eventually upload it CRAN once finalised.
Meanwhile for those using thermal imaging but frustrated at not being able to import or analyse images in an open source environment, consider trying this out:
Here is the proof of the exported raw file imported into ImageJ:
I meant to post this a month or two ago, but have been busy with teaching and grant reviews!
Recently, I participated in a crowd-sourcing initiative (Can thermal imaging detect torpor in Hummingbirds?) that many of my friends and colleagues no doubt saw me posting a lot about. I cannot take credit for the efforts behind this; the initiative was started by an organised and enthusiastic group from Loyola Marymount University in California. They were kind enough to invite/allow me to participate in the process, partly to lend expertise and support. I also wanted to see how crowd-sourced research funding works from the inside, so participating allowed me to see. Here are thoughts on the experience so far, Pro vs. Con (my comments below should not be construed to reflect those of the team, they are simply my reflections on seeking funding):
- Access to a new funding source (ok, that’s a no-brainer).
- Encourages scientists to take on riskier, but interesting research. There could be a niche here for research that the public likes, but scientists might not actually initially consider to be novel or relevant. I am accustomed to hearing the oft coined criticism of ivory-tower types pursuing esoteric research….at least the crowd-sourcing provides the public direct input via donations!
- Students get to be involved in the research funding stages. I think this is actually an excellent learning experience for graduate students, as they learn to write their proposal in language understandable by all and are allowed to be responsible for their research question.
- You can engage the general public in science at the planning stages and throughout the research. Experiment.com actually asks you to keep the public up to date on their website. Ultimately, this enhances outreach and demonstrates our shared passion for science.
- There is a general feeling that you are being overly sales pitchy about your science; I would think most scientists are comfortable with arguing from facts, rather than coercion or emotions. Prepare to work outside your comfort zone.
- Families and friends become rapidly tapped out so you might only get one shot at raising enough funds! Thank your family and friends, since they will likely be the ones that support the research.
- The crowd-source organisers do not appear to actively promote any particular campaign, other than hosting the project online. This surprised me. Maybe they were doing more behind the scenes we did not notice.
- The levels of funds are usually only sufficient for small projects that likely do require some nominal attachment to already funded research, so the point above requires careful planning.
- If asked to update the public website with research progress, there is chance of running into conflict when trying to publish the work at a later date.
- Working with animals or doing field studies poses challenges from the perspective of ethical oversight. Usually, in Canada, ethical approval for research comes after the funding, but crowd-source websites expect the research to be approval in principal before seeking funds. This could effectively disqualify many from applying.
I know my Cons appear to outweigh the Pros….that should not dissuade people from looking into this, but I did not consider many of these aspects until we were well into the fund raising part of the project, and I think it would be helpful for others to know how to plan ahead if they speak to others who have used scientific crowd-funding websites.
Two final thoughts
Should research labs that are already funded really be asking for more money? In our case, this was a novel project and association of new collaborators who would not be doing the research in the first place, wishing to pursue something new. But what about researchers using crowd-sourcing to supplement their already funded research?
A final (but distant) concern I have is that this approach might be suggested as a free-market replacement for research council funding. I hope this is never the case. No scientists have the time to spend marketing their research, nor the resources to do it in a manner that would really raise enough money. These are not money making ventures, they are knowledge generation for the most part. A free-market approach would have the perverse effect of highlighting “popular” research, but not necessarily scientific research (think Reality TV). My own experience suggests that the crowd-sourcing efforts was like an elaborate bake sale for raising money, where you convince your friends, family, and neighbours to fund your research! Presumably after one round of this, chances of asking for future funding risks turning people off of science, and the sustainability in the long term would be limited.
So, I’m giving a seminar to my department this Friday, entitled “Beaks and scales and lizardly tales, from Galápagos and Brasil. A sabbatical report”.
It seems unusual to promote this or even to suggest people attend my seminar, but here it is, for posterity.
Date/Time: Friday, December 2, 12:00 noon
Place: Sankey Chamber, Brock University
We just heard from experiment.com that our crowd-sourced hummingbirds proposal has won the “most number of backers” category (just over 100 at this point in writing) which means our project received an additional $500 from the Experiment.com people.
Stay tuned for more info in 14 days, when the fund raising period is over and we can start the hard work sourcing equipment, supplies and arranging the field work.
Thank you to all of our backers!
My Infrared Thermography Review paper is finally out! (Elsevier does have a slow publication process…it was accepted in March, but thankfully published in the same calendar year: 2016).
For a limited time, this paper is freely available at the following link:
The review is part of a special issue on “Ecophysiology methods: refining the old, validating the new and developing for the future” edited by Dr. Jordi Altimiras and Dr. Gary Anderson found here:
I think this special issue will be a useful resource for physiologists taking their research into the field as well as ecologists who should learn some physiology before they start using these approaches.