para ver en tu idioma, pour le voir en francais

saludos a los que hablan espanol, si desas ver este blog en espanol ve al google de tu pais o google en espanol escribe la palabra blobiology karianaperarg, cuando salgan los resultados en azul dira traducir la pagina haz click y podras ver mi blog en espanol puedes escribir comentarios y seguir me gracias

Salut a tous et toutes

si vous voulez voir cette blog en francais vous pouvez aller au google cherchez pour ma blog et faire click dans traduire cet page

je espere que vous aide

Number 2

My article: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/954547--ontario-not-backing-down-on-expanding-nuclear-plants

My response:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/956377--accidents-can-happen

Resilience thinking

Professor Eric Dejardins talked about ways that ecology is being managed through different methods. His main topic was Resilience thinking, which is a new approach to ecological management. He first talked about different models: the equilibrium model, stochastic model and alternative stable model (ASS). The equilibrium model is the inevitable development of a community by physical and biotic factors. One of the main keys of this method is the climax theory where things develops grows matures and reproduces. The next model is the stochastic model, which the composition of the community is at random and that the way it grows and develops is not predictable. The last model he talked about was ASS which is like a combination of the previous two, communities are structure and regulated but have the capacity to develop into other stable states and they are affected by various unpredictable events. For Ass it is important that the assembly of this model has history and external influences. For me the ASS model is more realistic than  equilibrium or stochastic models, because it resembles humans we are what we are for our history or past and we are shaping ourselves through our external experiences.

The main topic of the whole lecture was Resilience thinking, and his conclusion and question for us to keep in mind was that resilience thinking was a better approach to sustainability than the maximum sustainable yield system (MSY) which is the largest yield (or catch) that can be taken from a species. While, Resilience thinking is more of a complex theory. Resilience thinking has multiple stable equilibriums, thresholds, adaptive cycles and social ecological systems such as diversity. so the main definition for resilience is that it is quick to go back to its normal state just like a stress ball you squeeze it and it goes back to normal and the other part about resilience is the way the systems maintains its structure  and integrity when it faces problems or perturbations. Lastly for me resilience thinking is something I never heard of, and base on Prof Desjardins question f if we should only think about resilience thinking, my answer to that would be no there are other ways nature and ecology works and people should keep researching.  and for the last question about a social ecological system such as a forest being degraded I think it would never go back to it is natural state it could be heal but it would have scars or spots that resemble its degradation and would be weaker so more need to be research. 

Cheaters in Science

As citizens we tend to get our knowledge from journalist, politicians and scientist. It is frustrating that now a days it is hard to belief any of these sources as they always play with our trust and credibility.  They often side with the region that would give them more money, status and fame. These people don’t measure the consequences that their actions may cause to us the readers and listeners.

Out of the three sources expose by Dr McNeill (professor from the department of biology at UWO) I would choose Scientist as most trusted source, because they have to do experiments and run statistics to compare theoretical information with experimental information. Plus allegedly their research is for the common good.   

It’s frustrating to know that there are scientists out there that only care about publishing their work to gain glory or get grants. Some scientists seem not to care about the impact their research have on society. Just take the examples that Dr McNeil gave us on his lecture. The trends of these examples are that these scientists had great reputations, good education and great jobs. But just one mistake, such as plagiarism, made up or manipulated data caused them to lose their integrity, credibility and reputation, it is going to be hard for them to find a job again. This confirms a saying that Colombians have: “he who does well everything goes well and he who does bad everything goes bad”.

There are two examples that Dr. McNeil mentions which in my opinion caused lot havoc in people’s lives. One, in England where Sir Cyril Burt a scientist did a study that defined the education system in England. He did a study with 50 pairs of identical twins where he studied heritability of intelligence. His study was later question because his data was nowhere to be found.  Burt’s study affected a lot of people, because based on his study England created an aptitude test called eleven plus, which decides which type of school the child should go. This for me is wrong because if a child’s dream is to be a doctor or go to university this test would be a dream crusher.

                The second one is the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine controversy, where Andrew Wakefield did a study with some his colleagues, where he found a causative connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. His study claim that 75% of the sample size (of 12) showed autisms signs. This situation was disapproved by an investigative reporter, Brian Deer which found that there were financial interests behind Wakefield’s study. The consequences of this situation caused many parents to worry and prevent their children from getting the vaccine, also an almost legal action against the creators of MMR vaccine was to be filed. It also caused someone famous like Jenny McCartney to spread the news that this study was real and her influence made parents consider not to get the MMR vaccine. Wakefield caused the measles cases in the UK to increase. The immunity went from being 92% to 80%. In my opinion, just because Wakefield wanted glory and money, he put endanger many kids lives and almost made us go a step backwards in development plus, made us lose credibility on the journal and scientists involved in the study.

Something new I learned from this lecture is that we as scientist should exempt from making up data, it’s not worth it, because it affects our careers and lives. Another thing is watch out where information comes from. The key is to look at all perspectives.

To stock or not to stock fish?

In the sixth instalment of Political Biology lecture series, Dr. Amanda Morbey from the department of Biology at UWO talked about a serious issue going in Lake Fisheries of Ontario. Fish farming has cause a lot of problems for some of the other species in lakes, stoking fish such as Chinook salmon causes problems because it drives other species away from their natural habitat. This is not only a problem for other fish species, but also for three kinds of people the aboriginal fishers, the recreational fishers and the commercial fishers. Morbey gave us lots of examples of fish species that have been harvest and a case study. Many trial an error attempts have been done to address this issue in my opinion, because in some of the graphs that Dr. Morbey showed us , they tells us that  fishing in big quantities causes problems for the fish species such as the case in Sturgeon fishery 9 of the 25 populations where eliminated because of overharvesting . Another graph that was shown was the stocking of Chinook salmon and how hatcheries were noticing that their production was increasing so they decided to lower their production so this shows that they are controlling the situation.

 Hatching or stocking Chinook is a costly practice but it benefits two kinds of people the recreational fishers and the commercial fishers because the big quantities that are produce causes the recreational fishers  to have the security that they will always catch fish, plus Chinook fish are larger and live closer to the surface of the lake than white fish. Even though 85 percent of what commercial fisheries fish in Lake Huron is wild fish, the Chinook that they catch is good to consume because it has low levels of mercury and is rich in nutrients plus they don’t have the precautions of extinction because they know they can be farmed.  As for Aboriginal fishers they are not too fond of Chinook fish as is not what they are use to.  They like lake white fish and lake trout these two species are over thrown by the Chinook salmon and extinct respectively. It is hard for the aboriginal fishers to get accustomed to a new kind of fish, and more when is not part of their culture. There are two moderators in this problem which foresee the biological and economical aspect of this problem. These people are the fishery manager and the hatchery manager; they are in charge of the ecosystem balance and to reach an agreement between the three parties. Based on the facts that Dr Morbey showed and the brainstorming that my classmates and I did in class, I think Chinook salmon should keep being stock because it helps tourism in the area and it provides a safe form of fish for us to eat. A lot of people have died from mercury poisoning and this is because they consumed high mercury content fish, there are many benefits of eating fish and Chinook fish is providing us with that opportunity. What it should be done is just keep controlling the hatchery of Chinook salmon and perhaps find way to stock the white fish and lake trout that aboriginal fishers like. So that everyone is happy. Competition is a great deal in these fish so may be reducing the amount of Chinook stock and an incrementing white fish or some sort of conditioning between the two species so they don’t fight could be a solution. Also the fishery manager should over see that the ecosystem is balance.

A Remark

Hello People
I have to say that my favorite website in the entire whole world is YouTube, just because you get to do your own thing. Show your talents, make  funny videos or become a celebrity who knows.......out the billion videos that there must be in YouTube only the lucky witty and talented or weird and funny video gets successful but I realize today something else ... there are two kinds of people in you tube world that have tremendous power on the public as a whole.The first kind is the video creators which get followed and viewed a 100 and million times and second is the commentators any comment you make causes an instant reaction on someone else that determines or influences the outcome of the videos popularity and the urge to respond back. I know that remark is too obvious but when you get like fifty emails in your account with people saying something about a comment you made that is impressive to me .... this means to me that people are listening and that they are not fooling themselves just with what they see but they are open to other peoples opinions. I think we are living globalization and we are just taking it for granted.

Equality comes with a price

The fifth lecture of the Political Biology lecture series at UWO featured Professor Gillian Baker from the department of philosophy. Her topic was evolution, gender and human possibilities.
Baker began with three interesting quotes. These were about human possibilities, what humans can aspire to do and cannot, in gender and the amount of change humans allow accepting in society in order to evolve. The main message of these quotes where that humans by nature are selfish, stubborn, and malleable to a certain point. And that if we want an equal society of generosity, altruism and gender we need to be able to pay a cost and give up some of our happiness.
Baker explained standard sexual selection of males and females. Things like women tend to marry rich men because for stability to their high-cost offspring while males are promiscuous as their offspring is inexpensive. She talked about how there are lots of books on how education, career and love should be organized based on gender.
Some philosophers encourage that equality is not for us, and that being female or male is a type of genetic determination. Beaker criticized metaphors that philosophers have about how the mind works. Metaphors such as “blank slate” and “hardwired brain” are not effective, In the case of blank slate philosophers wanted to show that our minds are blanked when we are born. The things we know are acquired by learning instead of having any innate qualities. Bakers says that the blank stale is wrongly translated, it supposed to be waxed stale and when you write on the stale what changes is the shape of the wax and not the stale.
She said that we need to think in ecological terms, which is the relationship between organism and the environment. If we don’t think like this we’re prone to erroneous metaphors, such as DNA regarded as blueprint and now it’s more thought of as a recipe. But even then is not enough because DNA phases variable conditions while recipes have set conditions.
She proposed a better metaphor of a scaffolding tree; where stability of the tree is based on turning points of the scaffold and not where the tree was planted. She defined niche construction, which means that we are creators of our own development and evolution. This could be regarded as a turning point or a scaffolding for development and learning in our life.
In my opinion, I agree with the three quotes that said that we need to pay a price to obtain equality. If the IQ curves of males and females are similar, I don’t see why we cannot achieve equality. I agree with the concept of niche construction I think we are responsible for the mythologies that we have about gender such as dressing girls in pink or boys don’t cry. Finally, this lecture made me think that the world is so busy caring about women’s rights and equality that we forgot how to equipped men to adapt to the women of today that is why equality has not been fully accepted, because men don’t want to give up some traditions from the past such as feeling inferior or stop being the main provider. I think that everyone no matter race, gender or appearance have the potential to do whatever they set their mind to do, no matter genetics or standards, I believe the mind is very powerful and just like in the movie Gattaca where Vincent the main character was not genetically fit he was able to achieved his dream based on his desire and the power of his mind.