QUEST Community Science Blog Author: Dr. Barry Starr

All Posts by Dr. Barry:

An Incomplete for 23andMe's Carrier Testing

October 26th, 2009 by Dr. Barry Starr

What can genetic testing tell you?

A while back I took a 23andMe genetic test that looks at over 600,000 different spots on my DNA. The last few blogs I have been going over my genetic test results with an eye on how useful they are. And how well the results are explained.

Last blog I wrote about how current genetic tests aren’t that great at predicting your risk for common, complicated diseases like diabetes or Alzheimer’s. This time I thought I’d focus on what today’s genetic tests can be very good at and whether or not 23andMe does a good job with these.

Current genetic tests are very good at predicting your risk for rare, simple genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis (CF) or Huntington’s disease (HD). And at predicting the chances that your kids will get these diseases too.

Genetic tests for these diseases work because most of them are caused by a single gene gone awry. Testing for a single gene is relatively easy.

For example, most cases of CF happen because of known differences in the CFTR gene. A genetic test can look for these differences and tell you if you and/or your spouse have any of them. If you both do, they can also give you a pretty good idea about the chances that your kids will get them too.

Of course, we don’t know all of the differences in the CFTR gene that can cause CF. And some differences only cause CF some of the time. And there are people with everyday, run-of-the-mill CFTR genes who get CF because of differences in different genes.

Still, as genetic tests go, these are pretty good. If a test comes up with a known CFTR difference that causes CF, then you have a pretty good idea of what your chances for developing CF are. If your spouse gets tested too, then your kids’ chances can be determined as well.

So how does 23andMe do? OK, I guess…

First off, they look at eight of these sorts of diseases under a category called Carrier Status. The diseases they look at are shown in this image:



For me, the first big result is that I am a carrier for a variant that can lead to hemochromatosis. This isn’t surprising since 1 in 8-12 people of Northern European descent in the U.S. are too, but it is definitely something to watch out for. It may be important for my wife to be checked too so we can make sure none of our kids got two copies. (Luckily hemochromatosis is easily treated by giving blood on a regular basis.)

Some of the other results are less illuminating. For example, I do not carry the CF difference they test for (delta F508). This is of course great news. Unfortunately, this variant only accounts for about half of the CF cases out there. Which means I could be a carrier for CF, just not a carrier of the most common variant that they happen to test for.

The same thing goes for most if not all of the other carrier status diseases (sickle cell anemia is an exception). Some like BRCA (breast cancer) are as poorly covered as CF while others like Bloom’s disease cover a larger percentage of cases.

23andMe is pretty upfront about the limitations of their testing once you dig a bit into the results. But still, if they’re going to look at 600,000 different parts of my DNA, you’d think they could add a few more to give me a stronger answer about whether or not I am a CF carrier.




37.33161018170129, -121.89019918441772




Posted in Health | Please Comment

Do These Genes Make Me Look Diabetic?

October 12th, 2009 by Dr. Barry Starr

Could a genetic test have told me I was at a higher risk for developing type 2 diabetes? Image source: aldenchadwickThis sounds contrived but it isn't.  A couple of weeks ago I was diagnosed with metabolic syndrome.  Right when I am in the middle of talking about genetic testing!

Metabolic syndrome isn’t quite as scary as it sounds.  Basically I am on my way to type 2 diabetes.  But if I eat better and get off the couch, I should stave off the disease and get better.

My question, naturally, is whether or not a genetic test could have told me I was at a higher risk for developing type 2 diabetes.  And whether I would have done anything with that result.

As you know if you’ve been following my blog, I took a 23andMe genetic test and have been writing about it since.  The image below shows what the front page of my clinical report looks like (click to enlarge):



According to the DNA checked in this test, I am in the average risk range for type 2 diabetes.  This doesn’t really seem to line up with my reality.  But I might not expect it to since these genetic tests are so limited right now.

This kind of test can be informative with the yes answer—yes I carry a certain version of a gene that might lead to a disease.  But the no answer isn’t that useful.  It doesn’t mean that they've looked at all the possible genetic differences that can lead to a disease and I don’t have any of them.  Basically it means that they didn’t find the specific genetic difference they were looking for.

Now I wouldn’t necessarily have predicted that any genetic test available right now could tell me a lot more than that.  Type 2 diabetes is too complicated for that and a whole lot more research will need to be done to get a genetic test useful to lots of people.

But still, this is probably what people are looking for with these sorts of genetic tests.  Will I get cancer, type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, etc.?  For most of these cases, the tests can tell you a lot about rare forms of these diseases but little about the more common forms.

So the no answer didn’t really help me much.  Here I am on my way to being a diabetic and the test said I was at average risk.  Of course, I suppose I didn’t even need to take a test… all four of my grandparents came down with type 2 diabetes.  Like lots of these complex diseases, family history is the best predictor.

The second part of my question is a hypothetical one.  Let’s say they had a perfect genetic test that said that I was at an increased risk for type 2 diabetes.  Would it have changed my behavior?  I’m not sure but probably not.

I certainly wouldn’t have changed any of my behaviors when I was young.  I was invincible, remember?

Now that I’m a bit older, such a test might have influenced my behavior a bit.  I already knew about my risk because of my grandparents but my thought has always been that maybe I got lucky and didn’t inherit their tendencies towards diabetes.  But if they were tested and we shared the same genetic differences that led to type 2 diabetes, then I might be worried enough to change what I was doing.

Most likely though, my behavior modification wouldn’t be perfect.  What I’d probably do is keep watching TV and eating Twinkies but get my blood sugar tested more often.  Once I was headed for diabetes, then I’d modify my behavior and keep it at bay.  (I’m sure doctors scream into their pillows at night because of patients like me.)

This is different than some people’s reactions to other genetic tests.  For example, some women who find out they have the version of BRCA1 that greatly increases their chances of breast and ovarian cancer have a double mastectomy and/or a hysterectomy before there are any signs of cancer.

I might react much more strongly with a valid cancer genetic test.  Cancer is scary, nasty and not really reversible.  Type 2 diabetes is different.  You can start down the road, modify your behavior and then nip it in the bud.  Carpe diem and then pay the piper.




37.33161018170129, -121.89019918441772




Posted in Biology, Health, Partners | 3 Comments

Genetic Tests: When No Means Maybe (Part 2)

September 28th, 2009 by Dr. Barry Starr

Are they related to me? I still don't know…When last I left you, I was searching for my great-great grandmother’s DNA in my own DNA.  Remember, legend has it she was Cherokee and I wanted to confirm the legend with a genetic test from a company called 23andMe.

In my last blog post, I showed how the two most powerful ancestry tests, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome, were useless to me in my hunt. Now I want look at the rest of my DNA.  So here we go!

The Y chromosome and mtDNA are a small fraction of my DNA—something like 0.8% of the total DNA in one of my cells.  But they are incredibly useful because they change very little from generation to generation.  The mtDNA I got from my mom is probably exactly like hers.  Same with most of the Y I got from my dad.

The other 99.2% of my DNA is a lot trickier to look at from an ancestry perspective because it has changed a lot from generation to generation over time.  For example, the chromosomes I inherited from my parents are not the same as the ones they have.  I got a mix of their chromosomes

For example, my mom had two copies of chromosome 1 (and two copies of her other 22 chromosomes too).   As you know, she passed one chromosome 1 to me (my dad gave me my other one).  But, through a process called recombination, her two copies of chromosome 1 swapped DNA so that I got a hybrid of her two copies.  I inherited a unique chromosome never before seen.

This is all well and good from a survival of the species point of view, but it is a problem for ancestry testing.  Imagine that instead of my mom, we look at my Cherokee great-great grandmother.  She has just had a child who inherited a mix of her chromosome 1’s.  This chromosome will look Native American and the child would appear half Native American.

Actually, the test isn’t perfect yet and so there isn’t yet a “Native American” set per se.  Instead, here is how 23andMe describes Native American DNA in their tests:

“…people who identify themselves as Native American exhibit fairly consistent Ancestry Painting proportions of about 75% Asian and 25% European, plus or minus 10%.”

This means the chromosomes the child got from his or her mom won’t look Native American but instead will look 75% Asian and 25% European.  (See a realted post of mine elsewhere for why it looks like this.) Now imagine that this half Native American child grows up and has my grandfather as his or her son.

My grandpa will inherit a mix of his parents’ DNA too.  In this case the Native American DNA will mix with the European DNA to create a hybrid.  On average, you would now see something along the lines of 37.5% Asian (this is a simplification but it gets us into the ballpark of the number we might expect).

Each generation would see, on average, a continued dilution of this Asian part.  My dad would have 18% Asian, I would have 9%, etc.  Here are my ancestry results (click the image to enlarge):



Not a hint of Asian.  Looks like my great-great grandma wasn't Cherokee.  Or was she?

There are lots of ways she could still be Cherokee.  First off, I don’t know how solid the 75% number is for all Native Americans.  I don’t know how many Native Americans are in their database.  I also don’t know how much variation there will be tribe to tribe.

Secondly, you may have noticed that I was very careful to always say, “on average.”  This is because the recombinations don’t have to be a 50-50 swap.  It is true that if you look at a large number of recombination events, the average will be 50%.  But individual recombination events can be biased towards one or more chromosomes.  Occasionally you’ll get mostly one chromosome and sometimes mostly the other.

Sort of like flipping a coin—do it enough and you’ll get pretty close to half heads and half tails.  But if you flip a coin twice, you might get one head and one tail.  And you might not.  Half the time you’ll get two heads or two tails.

This is less a problem than you might think with our chromosomes since the recombination is spread over 23 pairs with each pair being independent of the others.  But it can still throw a monkey wrench into the works.  23andMe actually has a nice chart that hints at this by giving the most likely range of possibilities.  Unfortunately, this chart didn’t come up with my results and I had to stumble on it while I was playing around.

Using the chart, I can see that the bottom end of my expected results in 0.24% “Native American” (if I am reading the chart correctly).  That is pretty low and it seems like a pretty minor mistaken assumption at the beginning might knock this down to zero.

So where am I after this?  Still in the dark.  This is actually how many genetic tests end up.

The positive result tells you a lot.  Had there been Native American DNA, that would have been a slam dunk.  (This isn’t always the case with genetic tests but it would be here.)  But there wasn’t.  Which means, given that I was on the edge of detection, that she may or may not have been Cherokee.

Now, this isn’t 23andMe’s fault.  The test itself couldn’t be conclusive given how far back we need to go and the DNA tests that 23andMe offers.  In fact, 23andMe does an excellent job of presenting the data.  There are pretty chromosome paintings, graphs superimposed on world maps, etc.  All very nice.

I am still worried that the explanations that go along with these images assume an awful lot of knowledge that most people might not have.  Without that knowledge, it can be hard to assess the significance of a certain result.  Next blog that’ll become even more important as I tackle health conditions.




37.33161018170129, -121.89019918441772




Posted in Biology, Health, Partners | 3 Comments

Genetic Tests: When No Means Maybe (Part 1)

September 14th, 2009 by Dr. Barry Starr

Genetic tests often don’t give as much information as you might think.In a previous blog I talked about getting my DNA tested with 23andMe.  Well, I got the email the other day saying that my results were ready.  So I logged on and up popped this screen pictured to the left.

All sorts of goodies to try out!  I feel like a kid at Christmas.

The first thing I thought I’d do is check out my ancestry.  My grandfather’s grandmother was supposedly Native American and so I wanted to find out if I could see that in my DNA.  (This relates to my supposed relationship with the outlaw Sam Starr but that is a different story.)

23andMe has this Native American testing app in their 23andMe Labs section.  I clicked on my data and up popped this result:

Recent Native American ancestry is unlikely

Has it all been lies?  My great, great grandma wasn’t Native American?  Not so fast…

A “no” answer on a genetics test doesn’t necessarily tell you a lot.  (And sometimes, the “yes” answer isn’t so helpful either!)   Now as a geneticist, I know the drawbacks of ancestry tests like these.  What I wanted to see was if 23andMe did a good job of explaining them.

I first checked out my mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and my Y chromosome data.  These DNA don’t change a lot from generation to generation and so are really good at tracing ancestry many generations back.  Their downside for me is how they are passed down.

The Y chromosome passes from father to sons.  My great, great grandma didn’t have a Y to pass on so of course my Y chromosome data wouldn’t show that she was Native American.

mtDNA passes from mom to her children.  At first this sounds promising since we are talking about my great, great grandma until we realize that I am related to this woman through my grandfather.  His mtDNA died with him (except for his female relatives and their descendants) so that is lost to me as well.

Here is what 23andMe has written under interpretation of my mtDNA and Y chromosome results:

This mitochondrial DNA haplogroup is inconsistent with Native American ancestry along the maternal (mother's mother's mother's …) line.

This Y chromosome haplogroup is inconsistent with Native American ancestry along the paternal (father's father's father's …) line.

I suppose this says what I just said but I am not sure how many people would really appreciate the limitations of mtDNA and Y chromosome data from this explanation.  There wasn’t a link to a more explicit discussion of the limitations of this sort of testing and there wasn’t anything I could see from a quick glance at the ancestry part of the site either.  An explicit explanation would be good or maybe a figure like this one:



To me, this drives home the point that there is a whole lot of missing ancestry.  It might help if they had some sort of family tree app where you could indicate as much as you know about family relationships.  Once you’ve inputted the data, it would spit out what tests results would be useful to look at.

So the mtDNA and Y chromosome test results are of little use to me in this quest.  (And of little use to me in general as it confirms my pasty whiteness.)  Next blog I’ll deal with the rest of my DNA and what that can and can’t tell me about my great, great grandma.




37.33161018170129, -121.89019918441772




Posted in Biology, Health | 5 Comments

Why We Will Never See Another Einstein

August 3rd, 2009 by Dr. Barry Starr

I'd love to see what Einstein could do with physics now, but that's not going to happen.Getting my DNA tested has got me to thinking about, well, my DNA.  And your DNA.  And everyone else's DNA too.

You probably know that your DNA is unique.  Even if you're an identical twin, no one has the exact same set of DNA as you.

What is really interesting is that your DNA has most likely never been seen before.  And it will probably never be seen again.  You are a unique combination of genes for now and probably forever.

The reason for this is that humans reproduce sexually.  And sexual reproduction mixes up DNA in every generation.

First off, you get half your DNA from mom and half from dad.  That particular combination of DNA has never been seen before.

But even the chromosomes you get from each parent are unique.  Remember, we have two copies of each of our chromosomes.  So most of us have two copies of chromosome 1, two copies of chromosome 2, etc.

Each parent gives you one of the chromosomes in each pair.  But the chromosome they give is a mix of their pair of chromosomes.  So each individual chromosome you have is a new combination of DNA.

The end result is your one-of-a-kind set of chromosomes.  And because of how all of this works, the chances of your set of DNA popping up again are essentially zero.

Now this sort of mixing is absolutely critical for survival in a changing environment.  For example, imagine a species of plant that survives very well in dry conditions.  The plant reproduces asexually-basically, it clones itself each generation.  And it does great in the desert.

Imagine now that weather patterns shift so the plant lives in a wetter place.  The poor thing keeps cloning itself but since it isn't adapted to its new environment, it struggles to survive.  Eventually some wet-loving plant muscles in and our plant dies out because it couldn't adapt.

Sexual reproduction keeps this from happening by providing constant variety.  DNA is mixed and swapped every generation so that new individuals are made.  Some do well when it is dry and some do better when it is wet.  The plants are ready for lots of what Mother Nature can throw at them (as long as things don't change too quickly-think global warming).

The downside is that certain combinations of DNA will never be seen again.  For our plant it means that if the species stumbles on a perfectly adapted plant, none of its descendants will be as well adapted.  None of them will get the exact set of genes that its parent had.

It also means that human DNA combinations from the past won't be seen again.  Now this probably isn't a big deal for my DNA (or most everyone else's either).  But it means we will never have another Einstein, Bach, Galileo, Da Vinci, Picasso, etc.

This is too bad.  I'd love to hear what Bach could do with modern music.  Or what Einstein could do with physics now.




37.33161018170129, -121.89019918441772




Posted in Biology, Health, KQED, Partners | 3 Comments

Taking the Plunge: Diving Into my DNA

July 20th, 2009 by Dr. Barry Starr

Hopefully this DNA analysis data will be better at telling my future than tea leaves or goat entrails.Well, I have finally decided to do it.  I have ponied up the money and signed up for 23andMe's DNA test.

This is a test that will look at over 500,000 different spots on my DNA.  From the results I'll be able to learn about my future health and my past ancestry.  Well, as much as I can learn given the current state of genetic knowledge.

And there's the rub.  I have held off on doing this for quite awhile because I am just not sure how useful it will be.

Most of the DNA studies on the big diseases like schizophrenia, autism, diabetes, heart disease, etc. have not been that conclusive.  They tend to find bits of DNA that have a very small effect on risk.

Undoubtedly as more studies are done, we'll find lots of bits of DNA like this and we'll be able to figure out our risk more accurately by adding them all up.  But we're not there yet.  In fact we're probably years away from being able to do this.

I have also been a bit squeamish about sending my DNA to a company.  Yes, I know they'll be careful but still…it's my DNA.  You can't get any more personal than that!  I would hate for someone to get that information and use it against me (think insurance agent).

So why did I finally decide to go through with it?  One reason is that I get a lot of questions from people at the Ask a Geneticist site about how useful or good the test is.  Right now I have to tell them I don't know.  I'd like to be more helpful than that.

I also think that it will be fascinating to see all of my bits of DNA.  This is the stuff that is a big part of making me who I am.  It will be so cool to look into that crystal ball even if the future I see is a bit murky.

Of course as a big old science geek I'll be interested in that stuff…it's my bread and butter!  What I also want to do is try to imagine what the test is like for someone who doesn't go all gaga for genetics.  How is it for people who aren't necessarily mesmerized by the beauty of DNA and instead are mostly interested in diseases, traits, and ancestry?

I guess I'll find out soon.  I sent my spit in last week.  I'll keep you updated in future posts.




37.33161018170129, -121.89019918441772




Posted in Biology, Health, Partners | 3 Comments

Risky Business: Genes Just Part of the Story

July 6th, 2009 by Dr. Barry Starr

When talking about genetic pre-disposition to a condition, make sure you understand both the increased risk factor and the general risk.As the geneticist at the Ask a Geneticist blog, I get a lot of questions about diseases that run in the family.  They usually run along the lines of, "My mother had diabetes, what is my risk for getting it?"

What I try to do in answering these questions is give them a feel for what the disease is, how genes are involved and then give them some links to some reliable websites on the topic.  I always try to emphasize that for a lot of diseases, genes are just one part of the story and that speaking with a genetic counselor in person might be a good idea.  I also warn them to look very carefully at the risk numbers.

Very often risks are given in how much more likely someone is to get a disease compared to the general public.  So, for example, if you have a brother or sister with schizophrenia, then you can be up to 9 times more likely to end up with the disease too.  Sounds like a scary number!  But it may not be…

If the general risk is 1 in a million, then 9 times is pretty insignificant.  It means that your risk is 1 in 110,000 or so.  This is worse than the chances of dating a supermodel (1 in 87,000) or of winning the lottery if you buy 50 tickets (1 in 77,000).  So if this were the case, a 9 fold increase means you still probably aren't getting the disease.

For schizophrenia, the general risk is 1 in 100.  This means that if you have a parent or sibling with the disease, your chances go up to about 1 in 11.  Unfortunately 9 times more likely looks pretty significant here…

Sometimes, though, a smaller risk can be even more significant.  For example, women who have a sister, mother, or daughter with breast cancer are twice as likely to develop breast cancer themselves.  Since about 12% of women will develop breast cancer in their lifetime, this means the risk is actually 24% or about 1 in 4.

So when investigating these sorts of risks, get both numbers.  You want to know what your increased risk is because a relative has the condition AND what the general risk is.  These two numbers together will give you a better feel for your chances.

An important note here is that these risks are averages.  Your actual chances will depend on the genes you have, how you live your life, etc..  For example, some of the women is the breast cancer example carry certain versions of the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene.  These women are 5 times more likely to develop breast cancer pushes their risk to around 60%.

This is one of the many reasons why a sitdown with a genetic counselor is so useful.  Your risk depends on your specific situation and not an average risk you find on the internet.  A genetic counselor can take the time to carefully go over your family history and let you know what tests are available so you can better calculate your odds.




37.33161018170129, -121.89019918441772




Posted in Biology, Health, KQED, Partners | Please Comment

5 out of 9 Justices Recommend Leaving Innocent People in Jail

June 22nd, 2009 by Dr. Barry Starr

In a truly awful decision reminiscent of Gore vs. Bush, the Supreme Court has decided that there should be no federal mandate for genetic testing after someone has been convicted. Even though DNA evidence can free innocent people who were wrongfully accused. How absurd is this?

It is especially hard to understand when there is ample evidence that there are plenty of innocents in prison. And when a DNA test can prove so conclusive in showing their innocence.

A case I use in a high school activity (and which will be highlighted in the new Technology Benefiting Humanity exhibition at The Tech) involves Marvin Anderson. He is an African American who was convicted of rape by an all white jury in the South.

Court TV produced a great documentary that details all of the mistakes that sent Marvin to prison. And how the Virginia state government, much like our current Supreme Court, fought the simple DNA test that eventually proved his innocence.

Marvin was a suspect because he had a white girlfriend and the rapist had said that he had a white girlfriend during the attack. In a photo line up, Marvin’s was the only picture in color. Then, in the real line up, Marvin was the only man who had been shown in the photo line up.

Marvin’s lawyer represented the man who had really committed the crime. The trial lasted one day and as I said, Marvin was sent to jail by an all white jury. And while Marvin languished in prison, the real rapist confessed but the judge threw out the confession.

This is when the Innocence Project took up the case. The Innocence Project uses genetic testing to free innocent men and women. After hearing the details of Marvin’s case, they decided to help him clear his name. And it was not easy!

First off, they had to find the evidence from the case. This is often hard to do because evidence gets thrown away after a certain amount of time.

But, by a miraculous fluke, the Virginia government found the evidence from the rape kit… it had been saved in a lab notebook. So all that needed to be done was to see if the DNA from the crime scene matched Marvin's. If it didn’t, then Marvin most likely was innocent.

But the Virginia government would not allow the evidence to be tested. Apparently, just like the Supreme Court, procedure mattered more than innocence to the bureaucrats involved.

How many people like Marvin Anderson are waiting for the justice system to do the right thing?
Finally, in 2001, after Marvin had been in jail for 15 years and spent four years on parole, Virginia passed an Innocence Project backed statute that allowed DNA evidence to be tested in some cases. Marvin’s was the first evidence tested under the new statute. He was found to be innocent and the police were able to use the evidence to catch the real rapist.

If the Virginia government had not done the right thing, the real rapist would be free to continue committing crimes. And everyone would still see Marvin as a rapist.

There are undoubtedly Marvins rotting in jail in the three states that don’t allow for genetic testing after a conviction (Alaska, Oklahoma, and Massachusetts). And other Marvins are probably in those other states that only allow genetic testing in certain situations.

The Supreme Court could have given all of these innocent people the chance that Marvin finally got after 19 years. But five justices decided against doing that.

Now I suppose there is probably some legalese reason why the Supreme Court ruled that innocent people should stay locked up. But I am not lawyer enough to understand it. And neither are the Marvins still out there, waiting for justice.




37.33161018170129, -121.89019918441772




Posted in KQED | 4 Comments

Using Mice to Understand Human Speech

June 8th, 2009 by Dr. Barry Starr

It will probably take more than a human FOXP2 gene to reach this future.Scientists have started to look at DNA to try to figure out why we can speak and other animals can't.  One gene that has caught their attention is called FOXP2.

People with a certain version of this gene have trouble forming words and speaking but are otherwise OK.  This is exactly what you would expect if a gene were primarily involved in speech.

One way to test this idea would be to put the human version of the gene into an animal and see what happens to that animal's speech.  A natural candidate would be the chimpanzee.  Humans and chimps are around 98.8% similar at the DNA level* and their FOXP2 gene has only two differences.

Unfortunately (or fortunately…), we can't yet do this experiment because we aren't very good at changing a chimp's genes.  But what we are good at is changing a mouse's gene.  And this is exactly what scientists did in a new study.

The scientists changed a mouse's FOXP2 gene into a human's.  Now no one expected that we'd have a Mickey Mouse on our hands.  Mice just don't have all the equipment for speech and it is really unlikely that the only difference between mice and people in terms of speech is this gene.

But by putting a human FOXP2 gene in mice, we can learn some things about how the gene influences human speech.  Does it change the vocalization part of the brain?  Does it change something with mouth anatomy?  Something with breathing?

The results with these mice were interesting.  They weren't suddenly chatty but changing the gene definitely caused the mice to emit different squeaks than their natural cousins.  The vocalization part of the mouse's brain also changed.

These results suggest that FOXP2 affects human speech at least partly through changes in the brain.  And that if you give a mouse a human Foxp2 gene, you change the way it communicates.

The next steps are a little harder to figure out.  We do know that Neanderthals had the same FOXP2 gene that we do.  Perhaps by comparing human, chimp and Neanderthal DNA we'll be able to find other genes involved in speech too.  We'll have to wait a few months for this kind of analysis as the Neanderthal genome isn't quite done yet.

*When we include extra copies of some DNA and missing DNA, the similarity goes down to 96%.

Here is a video discussing the results of the study.




37.33161018170129, -121.89019918441772




Posted in Biology, KQED, Partners | Please Comment

Penny Wise, Science Foolish

May 26th, 2009 by Dr. Barry Starr

Kids will want to keep learning science when they see how fun it is.The economy is in the tank and so the cuts at schools begin. And of course one of the first things on the chopping block is anything that can keep kids interested in science.

These programs tend to be more expensive than other programs and so are natural targets for the axe.  For example, at my kids' school, they are cutting 5^th grade science camp.

Kids go off for a 5 day trip to a place out in the woods to study nature.  The kids have a blast and can see that science is more than memorizing phyla or sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic rocks.  Instead they get to explore nature and use books to figure out what they're seeing.

And if history is any guide, there will be a big fall off in field trips to zoos and museums too.  These are more places where kids can see that science is actually a lot of fun.

Some might argue that if money is limited these programs should be cut.  This is true only if we want a workforce that can't do the jobs that are becoming available in our information based economy.

To do well in the future job market, people are going to need a good basic understanding of science and/or engineering.  Think about what an auto mechanic does these days.  Or a nurse or a radiologist.

We need to keep people studying science for their own good.  And frankly, for the good of the U.S. as well.

One of the keys to getting more people to take the science they need is to show them how fun and exciting it is.  We need to let them see that science is actually about studying the mysteries of the natural world and applying them to make that world a better place.

This is what the programs that are going to be cut do.  Without them, schools will continue to turn kids away from science.  And the U.S. will fall behind other countries.

I have no idea what programs should be cut instead and I am sure that other people see higher priorities than science camp.  But I think it is time that public schools recognized that science is as important to a student's future as are the three R's.  Someone needs to come up with a way to make science into an R so we can have the four R's.  Any ideas?




37.332, -121.903




Posted in Education, Partners | Please Comment
Next Page »