Is Citizen Science a win-win situation?

Well, yes.

Citizen science is a relatively new concept and refers to the practice of public participation and collaboration in scientific research to increase scientific knowledge. It has several benefits for science and citizens, which makes it the win-win situation that it is. Let us start off with the benefits to science.

One of the main uses of Citizen Science is generation of data. Studies that need to gather data in large quantities often benefit from taking help of the general public. A great example for this is the Christmas Bird Count study sponsored by the National Audubon Society. Since 1900, the organization has sponsored a bird count that runs for about three weeks each year. An experienced birder leads a circle of volunteers as they collect information about local populations of birds. More than 2,000 such circles operate across the United States and Canada. These circles have generated six million individual records–an impressive number indeed. Citizens have also been involved in processing previously generated data. For instance, the Galaxy Zoo Project is an online Citizen Science project in which citizens helped sort through data on a million galaxies by describing them and classifying them in different categories. In the first year itself, 150,000 people participated in this project and classified more than fifty million galaxies.

Both these projects exemplify some important advantages of Citizen Science. Firstly, the amount of data generated and sorted is incredible. They say two heads are better than one, but thousands–that is a different league altogether. Moreover, the data could be gathered from a wide variety of places as well depending on the distribution of citizen scientists involved in the project. Secondly, researchers also save on valuable time. Had the scientists behind Galaxy Zoo Project have to sift through all the galaxies on their own… well let’s just say they are extremely grateful to the citizens involved in this project. Lastly, Citizen Science also cuts down on costs. Researchers save on the money they would have to spend on data-gathering researchers as most citizen scientists volunteer for these projects. So the power lies in numbers–more people, more data sets, less time, less money. This is a definite win for science.

Now we come to the benefits of the citizens. Simply put, Citizen Science projects bring science to the public. It encourages the general public to become interested in science and make an active contribution to it. Furthermore, it creates a community dedicated to science but not restricted to merely researchers and scientists. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology exemplifies this point. Since 1996, this lab has worked with more than 20,000 people every year. Their online tools such as the Avian Knowledge Network and eBird receive millions of observations every year from all around the world. This contributes to the larger birding community which taps into the millions of records generated by citizen scientists. Through the records, researchers can see how their own sightings fit into the continental picture and analyze the data to reveal striking changes in the movements, distributions, and numbers of birds through time.

Some Citizen Science projects also specifically encourage students to get involved in research. New York’s Bard College sets a broad example for this with its new “Citizen Science” requirement. All Bard freshmen take a three-week intensive introduction to the scientific method, regardless of their anticipated major. This provides important exposure to students and gives them a taste of what research truly is. They also learn a lot more about local issues, ecological or otherwise, affecting their community. Sounds like a win for citizens too.

Citizen Science seems too good to be true. There has to be a catch right? Maybe if there are so many people giving observations, some are bound to be wrong. Additionally, these people aren’t even trained scientists; they may not have the skill sets necessary to make proper observations. First to address the inaccuracy in observations claim: Yes it is possible that the some observations are inaccurate; however, the large number of people giving in the data counters that. As there are more people, the subjectivity is reduced. The chances of it being subjective would have been greater had one person been doing all the observations. And as for the skill set claim, the observations or the task required of the people often do not require training. And when they do, researchers often provide basic training to the citizen scientists.

My win-win situation sermon doesn’t end here. Perhaps, the greatest measure of Citizen Science’s potential and importance is the substantial contribution it makes to science and research. The Birds in Forested Landscapes Citizen Science project of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology yielded valuable insights into habitat fragmentation, occupancy by birds and local extinction rates. Results were published in scientific journals including the Journal of Animal Ecology, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Ecology and Society. The results were also compiled into guidelines for land managers interested in conservation of tanagers, forest thrushes, and Golden-winged Warblers. This project also included a study on the effects of mercury and acid rain on birds. The results from that are being used to develop a model of mercury contamination in New York forests and identifying regions and birds at high risk. Citizen Science did some pretty good work out there.

This is just one example, but there are so many more. So many more studies that have been benefited and can be benefited by citizen scientists; so many more people that have been and can be involved with science; and so many more ways Citizen Science has been and can be the win-win situation that it is.

Can Kelp help?

Human activities incessantly cause and aggravate major ecological problems and show no signs of stopping. While is essential to prevent these problems from occurring, some problems are too complex and widespread to completely prevent. However, we can strive to mitigate the problem. This will lessen the adverse effects of the problem on the environment, slowing down its deterioration while efforts are made to avert the problem in its entirety.

Ocean acidification is one such complex and multi-faceted ecological problem worsened by human deeds. However, there is a likely way to mitigate this problem–kelp [1]. Kelp has properties that can lessen the effects of ocean acidification on the marine community around it. However, kelp may have greater implications and potential than hitherto known. Thus, research aimed at fully understanding these far-reaching effects of kelp and then optimizing these effects to combat ocean acidification undoubtedly deserves funding.

Acknowledging the extent of ocean acidification is critical to understanding the need for this research. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been increasing ever since the Industrial revolution, owing to various anthropogenic activities [4]. The ocean absorbs nearly one-fourth of this atmospheric carbon dioxide which is approximately 525 billion tons of CO2. This amounts to an incredible 22 million tons of CO2 every day [4]. On absorption, Co2 converts to carbonic acid leading to an increase in the acidity of the water. In the past 200 years alone, the acidity of the ocean has increased by 30% [4] and is estimated to be 150% more acidic by the turn of the century. Such drastic changes in oceanic chemistry spell doom for the stability of the marine environment and the organisms in it. 

So where does kelp come in? Kelp has been shown to substantially reduce the effects of ocean acidification by absorbing the CO₂ in the water along with nitrogen, carbon and phosphorus [5]. Kelp uses these as nutrients for photosynthesis and unknowingly, purifies the water. It also gives out oxygen which betters living conditions for marine organisms around the kelp bed. Owing to the chain of events ocean acidification starts, the sole property of kelp to reduce the impacts of ocean acidification is substantially important.

Research on the far-reaching effects of kelp has several practical avenues to follow especially because it affects several levels in an eco-system. There are two examples I would like to highlight to give you a brief glimpse of the extent to which ocean acidification affects organisms. This will also bring out the why we must look into whether kelp can help mitigate these effects and to what extent can it do so.

Firstly, acidification reduces carbonate ions in the ocean, which is an important component of the shells of the pteropod among other marine organisms [2]. It partially dissolves the animal’s shell and reduces its ability to escape predators and infection [2]. It is estimated that by 2050, three-quarters of the pteropod populations will be affected [3]. Pteropods form a primary source of food for several marine organisms including salmon. Researchers say that a 10% decrease in pteropod population could result in a 20% drop in the body weight of mature salmon. Salmon in turn is eaten by orcas, seals, sea lions and even humans [3]. The exact effects on the consumers of salmon have not been determined, but it could be a potential direction of research. In this way, ocean acidification begins a domino effect that starts with pteropods and resonates throughout the food chain. How would have these events played out if we knew kelp could play a role in lessening the effects of ocean acidification? And what if we knew how to optimize kelp’s role?

Secondly, researchers found that high levels of carbon dioxide concentration interfere with the functions of GABA, a neurotransmitter which largely controls the central nervous system of fishes.  This is detrimental to a fish’s sense of sight, direction and smell. As fishes use their sense of smell to navigate their way through the reefs and around predators, CO₂ exposed fish are more vulnerable. In fact, the death rates for exposed fish were five times that of non-exposed fish. [6] A separate study showed that CO₂ also leads to diminutive cognitive function in pollocks. It affects their abilities to detect food sources causing reduced life spans and greater death rates. The pollock fishery industry in Northwest and West coast reels in three billion pounds of fish out of which seafood companies stand to make an incredible amount of one billion dollars annually. Dropping pollock populations significantly upset this industry and the people associated with it. Interestingly, these very fish are also used in the McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish. Thus, there are intricate connections between ocean acidification, fish cognition and the fish industry (and by extension, McDonald’s too). [6] The question arises again, what if we knew kelp could play a role in lessening the effects of OA? Kelp restoration beds and kelp planting are several ways kelp can be introduced to a marine eco-system where it could play a role. What if we knew how to optimize this role?

These two examples illustrate the effects of ocean acidification and the potential avenues for research in terms of how and where kelp can help. Knowing that kelp is a potential solution in mitigating ocean acidification, optimization of kelp’s usage is important to know too. This creates several questions for research to answer. For instance, what marine farming pattern should be considered while growing kelp? Where should the kelp be planted or how much should be grown per hectare to ensure maximum impact? Are there other seaweeds that can boost kelp production? There is, indeed, much to know and much to find.

In conclusion, I would just like to summarize why this research area must receive funding. Ocean acidification is a prevalent and widespread problem. The marine environment affected by it is in dire need of help. Kelp has shown promising potential to mitigate the effects of ocean acidification. Research done on this topic will yield results that can be implemented easily and immediately. Also, these results can show how to optimize kelp usage to have the greatest possible impact on the environment and the numerous affected marine organisms. Simply put, due to the need, potential and practicality of the results of this research I believe that it is a research area worth funding.

References:

1.      Roleda, Michael Y., and Catriona L. Hurd. “Seaweed Responses to Ocean Acidification.” Seaweed Biology (2012): 407–431. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28451-9_19.

2.      Busch, D. Shallin, Michael Maher, Patricia Thibodeau, and Paul McElhany. “Shell Condition and Survival of Puget Sound Pteropods Are Impaired by Ocean Acidification Conditions.” Edited by Gretchen E. Hofmann. PLoS ONE 9, no. 8 (August 27, 2014): e105884. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0105884.

3.      Lynne Peeples. Seaweed Might Have The Power To Make The Oceans Less Acidic. Huffington Post Green. Posted 28^th April, 2015, Updated 27^th May, 2015. 21^st November, 2015 edition. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/28/kelp-ocean-acidification-algal-blooms_n_7152362.html

4.      Ocean Acidification–Pristine Seas–National Geographic. National Geographic. Date accessed: 22^nd November, 2015. http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/pristine-seas/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/

5.      Help from Kelp. Office of Aquaculture. NOAA Fisheries. Date published: 23^rd September, 2015. Date accessed: 22^nd November, 2015. http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/aquaculture/homepage_stories/18_help_from_kelp.html

6.      Craig Welch. Sea Change–Pacific Ocean’s Perilous Change. The Seattle Times. Date accessed: 22^nd November, 2015. http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/pacific-ocean-perilous-turn-overview/

Who Controls Who?

Scientists have long since been aware of the microbiota in the human gut and its influences on the human digestive system. However, the importance and extent of influence of the human microbiome in other parts of the body has only recently surfaced. It is intriguing to know that a multitude of bacteria is living in the human body affecting its physiological processes and functions. It raises the question whether humans, as hosts, control the millions of microorganisms inhabiting them or is it the other way around? Koenig et al.’s study of the developing infant gut microbiome attempts to answer this question.

In their study, the Succession of microbial consortia in the developing infant gut microbiome, over 60 fecal samples, taken over two and a half years, from a single infant were analyzed. The gut microbial composition of each sample was obtained using 454-pyrosequencing of rRNA. From this approximately 318,620 16S rRNA gene sequences were generated and plotted onto a timeline coinciding with life events such as introduction of solid food, onset of ear infection and weaning. On basis of the patterns observed on this timeline, more than 500,000 sequences from 12 samples were studied in greater detail with respect to certain life events. This metagenomic analysis formed a foundation on which further results were acquired (Koenig et al., 2010).

Major results noted specific variations in the microbiome concerning time, composition and function. For instance, diversity of bacterial communities decreased before the occurrence of a fever and after the ingestion of antibiotics. Also, succession of bacterial communities positively correlated with age and succession of life stages. Furthermore, bacterial communities occupied specific niches and some communities were never present together (Koenig et al, 2010). These two findings show the dynamic nature of our microbiome and the effect of human life stages over them. It is essential to note that in this case the change in the microbiome occurred after the life event or stage.

The last lot of results focused on the link between gene function and occurrence of life events. Meta Genome Rapid Annotation using Subsystem Technology showed that certain gene sequences were enriched according to the need of their function. For example, genes that help digest plant-based glycans were enriched before the introduction of solid food in the infant’s diet. It wasn’t just gene sequences that were being enriched; entire phyla as well became more abundant corresponding to certain life events. For example, after the onset of fever, phyla Actinobacteria and Proteobacteria had a relatively greater abundance in the gut. (Koenig et al, 2010). Thus, it is evident that the bacterial diversity depends on the function required from the microbiome.

Regarding the digestion of plant-based glycans, the microbiome changed before the life event occurred, unlike the the earlier result. This raises some rather interesting questions. Do microbiome changes trigger transitions through life stages? Without these microbial changes would an individual not proceed to the next life stage? Do microbiomes truly control human physiology? Is their control substantial?

It is certain that their control is much more than hitherto known. Several studies focus on finding out more on this curious case of microbial control on the human physiology. One such study directly linked the gut microbiota and its production of metabolites to physiological control. It concluded that gut microbiomes produced certain metabolites which can affect the production of the neurotransmitter, serotonin, and in turn affect physiological functions of the body (Ridaura, 2015). Another study established that microbial secretions consisted of mood-controlling neurochemicals such as dopamine and GABA (Smith, 2015). Another research shows that certain bacteria are predominantly found in people who suffer from depression (Smith, 2015).

All of these studies provide an insight into the workings of the human gut microbiome. The extent of its influences into the domain of human moods and emotions is indeed astonishing. However, scientists have barely touched the surface of the subject of microbial control on humans. The aforementioned studies covered only the microbiome in the human gut. Bacteria inhabit several other parts of the body giving scientists a variety of microbiomes to study. Also, the Koenig et al study analyzed just a single infant. A possible future study could be devoted to a meta-analysis of several infant gut microbiomes which could give further insights into the workings of the human microbiomes.

The findings from Koenig et al’s research and the other discussed studies have undoubtedly enhanced the ecological understanding of the human microbiome. The question of “Who controls who?” does remain unanswered. However, it has given rise to several other questions worth finding answers to.

References:

          1. Koenig JE, Spor A, Scalfone N, Fricker AD, Stombaugh J, Knight R, Angenent LT, Ley RE. Succession of microbial consortia in the developing infant gut microbiome. PNAS. June 24, 2010. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/Supplement_1/4578.full.pdf

2. Vanessa Ridaura, Yasmine Belkaid. Gut Microbiota: The link to your Second Brain. Science Direct. 9^th April, 2015; Volume161 (Issue 2).  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867415003530

3.  Peter Andrey Smith. Can the Bacteria in Your Gut Explain Your mood? The New York Times Magazine. June 23, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/magazine/can-the-bacteria-in-your-gut-explain-your-mood.html?_r=1

1. 
   

The Big Question: Is change good or bad?

The Big Answer: There isn’t one. There are many.

Every situation involving an ecological change is unique; a single generalized answer is hence inadequate. The characteristics- the variables- of the situation must be considered before determining the answer. These variables can be broadly classified into space, time, magnitude and nature of the organism.

For the sake of clarity, a few definitions first: Ecological changes are shifts from the current eco-system in terms of abiotic or biotic elements. Abiotic changes are changes that occur in the environment, such as climatic changes, increase in soil fertility or increased acidification of the sea. Biotic changes are variations in the living organisms in an eco-system. They can be further divided into changes in individual organisms, such as genetic mutations; changes in populations, such as alteration in species distribution; and changes in interactions between organisms, such as predator-prey dynamics.

Now to the real business: Variables.

A change may be good or bad depending on the place we see it occurring in. The migration of a species into a new environment benefits its ecological diversity; however, due to the very migration the ecological balance in its original habitat might be upended. Conversely, the introduction of a new species may be detrimental to the abiotic and biotic factors in the eco-system. Zebra mussels, for example, were brought to the Great Lake region through ballast tanks of ships coming from Western Europe. Owing to high reproductive rates and lack of predators, the mollusks quickly established a substantial presence in the ecosystem. They (literally) ate into food supplies of other organisms and propagated algal blooms as their water filtering habits improved water clarity. They also attached themselves to insides of water supply pipes thus clogging them (NOAA). The presence of Zebra mussels was evidently disadvantageous to the new habitat. However, as they did not cause new competition or disrupt the norm in their old habitat, they were not damaging there. This is how the Space variable comes to fore.

It was pretty much an open-and-shut case. The Change was accused of being adverse and all evidences were against it. But someone overturned the verdict. Cue: Time variable. A change might be deemed bad at one point in time, but not quite so at another. The Chicxulub asteroid impact that occurred at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary, roughly 65.5 million years ago, is widely believed to have wiped out several species of plants and animals, most notably the dinosaurs (Science, 2010). It was undoubtedly a bad change for the entire biosphere. Correction: It was undoubtedly a bad change for the entire biosphere then. This very asteroid that led to the mass extinction of dinosaurs, allowed the mammals to flourish. They gradually occupied the ecological niches previously occupied by the dinosaurs and spread to nearly every corner of the globe (Bascom, 2010). They eventually evolved into the species we know today, including Homo sapiens. Therefore you and I would not exist had it not been for the asteroid. I bet that change doesn’t look so bad now?

When it comes to change: Size matters. The magnitude of a change could become a deciding factor in answering the Big Question. For example, planktonic algae presence in a pond is a good change- it increases food production for fish thereby increasing the number of pounds of fish. But every silver lining has a cloud; if nutrient levels increase exponentially, the algae will explode and cover the whole pond in green scum. This could lead to low water clarity and fatally low oxygen levels in the early morning (Lynch, 2006).  

Changes almost always affect more than one organism. Thus it matters from which organism’s perspective we are looking at the change for it might benefit one organism but damage another. Look at the sequoias of California that survive wildfires while other plants do not. Interestingly enough, they not only brave the life-threatening flames but also profit from it. The fire forces the sequoias to let go of its cones en bloc leading to massive dispersal. The other plants (lacking the two feet thick, fire resistant bark of the sequoia) char away and the sequoias have their competition removed. As an added bonus, the ash from the fire serves as a useful fertilizer for the newly shed cones. So while the fire is a terrible change for most of the eco-system, it is of huge reproductive advantage to these big trees. (Howard, 2015)

As we are talking variables, here is the X-factor. Thus the last variable that helps us answer that million-dollar question is (drum roll please) - the reaction of the organism to the change. Imagine a culture of E. coli bacteria, thriving in their little test tube world. Suddenly, the absent-minded scientist accidentally spills some penicillin into the test tube putting the entire culture under the threat of a wipe-out! But just as all prospects seemed bleak, a mutated bacterium with a penicillin-resistant gene comes to the rescue. It multiplies and creates generations of penicillin-resistant bacteria thus saving the culture from total annihilation. Despite the dramatics, this is a wonderful example of how organisms’ can convert a potentially lethal change into a beneficial one. After all, the culture as a whole became stronger and survived (and lived happily ever after).

These variables are important characters in a larger story such as evolution. The formation of chlorophyll changed the reducing atmosphere of primitive earth to an oxidizing one. The change was bad then as it stopped the abiogenesis of life but good now as the primitive autotrophs that evolved due to that change led to the formation of life as it is today (Blankenship, 2002). Sometime then mutation struck primitive earthlings, mainly asexually-reproducing unicellular organisms. They found out that beneficial variations increased survival. To increase the frequency or magnitude of these mutations, they came up with sexual reproduction.

Fast-forward to speciation. Prehistoric short-necked giraffes encountered change in the form of depleting food resources. The slightly longer-necked giraffes managed to survive by eating leaves on higher branches while its short-necked kin died out due to competition for lower leaves (Latter, 2006). This change was bad for some organisms- the short necks- but the population as a whole survived by evolving into a longer-necked species. Evolved behavior is another chapter in this story. Winter temperature changes create adverse living conditions for birds. But they make it a good change by developing a migratory behavior where they fly to the Tropics, a space where the change is good (Winger, Barker, Ree, 2014).

So the Big Question can be answered after considering all variables. However, our work is not done.

There is a Bigger Question: What do we do once we find our answer?

The Bigger (and simpler) Answer: We react.

Thus, the reaction to the change is the perhaps the most important variable of the change because it can direct a change to being good, even if it is potentially bad. Evolution is the biggest evidence of this. It has taken many changes for the species of today to reach where they are. Some of the changes have been bad, some even fatal, yet certain organisms survive and through them, their populations. This kind of thinking is important for our species to understand for we face an era of colossal changes ahead of us, such as climate change and population changes, which have the potential to be a ‘Bad change’. However, it is our reaction to these changes that will decide whether that will be so or not.

References:

1.     Zebra Mussels: The Invasion of Zebra Mussels; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; http://www.noaa.gov/features/earthobs_0508/zebra.html

2.     Dinosaurs: The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction at the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary; Science; Schulte et al; http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1214.short;

3.     Probing Question: Why did mammals survive the 'K/T extinction'?; Penn State News;  Nick Bascom; January 19, 2010; http://news.psu.edu/story/141227/2010/01/19/research/probing-question-why-did-mammals-survive-kt-extinction

4.      Planktonic Algae: Benefits and Disadvantages of Aquatic Plants in Ponds; Ohio State University Extension Fact sheet; William E. Lynch Jr; April 17, 2006; http://ohioline.osu.edu/a-fact/0017.html

5.     Sequoias: Sequoias and Historic Stump in Path of California Wildfire; National Geographic;  Brian Clark Howard; September 14, 2015; http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150914-california-rough-fire-sequoias-chicago-stump-wildfires/

6.     Primitive Autotrophs: Early Evolution of Photosynthesis; Plant Physiology; Robert E. Blankenship; October 2010; http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/154/2/434.full

7.     The Evolution of Sexual reproduction:  http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/sex.html

8.     Giraffes: Evolution: Winning by a neck - Giraffes avoid competition; Evolution Research- General Evolution News; John Latter; December 22, 2006; http://evomech1.blogspot.com/2006/12/evolution-winning-by-neck-giraffes.html