Group items tagged

Statistical validation of results, as Shaffer described it, simply involves testing the null hypothesis: that the pattern you detect in your data occurs at random. If you can reject the null hypothesis—and science and medicine have settled on rejecting it when there's only a five percent or less chance that it occurred at random—then you accept that your actual finding is significant. The problem now is that we're rapidly expanding our ability to do tests. Various speakers pointed to data sources as diverse as gene expression chips and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which provide tens of thousands of individual data points to analyze. At the same time, the growth of computing power has meant that we can ask many questions of these large data sets at once, and each one of these tests increases the prospects than an error will occur in a study; as Shaffer put it, "every decision increases your error prospects." She pointed out that dividing data into subgroups, which can often identify susceptible subpopulations, is also a decision, and increases the chances of a spurious error. Smaller populations are also more prone to random associations. In the end, Young noted, by the time you reach 61 tests, there's a 95 percent chance that you'll get a significant result at random. And, let's face it—researchers want to see a significant result, so there's a strong, unintentional bias towards trying different tests until something pops out. Young went on to describe a study, published in JAMA, that was a multiple testing train wreck: exposures to 275 chemicals were considered, 32 health outcomes were tracked, and 10 demographic variables were used as controls. That was about 8,800 different tests, and as many as 9 million ways of looking at the data once the demographics were considered.

Scanning electron micrograph of the nanofossil Chiasmolithus from about 60 million years ago. This genus arose after the Cretacious Paleogene boundary mass extinction. The size about 8 microns.

The darkness caused by the collision would impair photosynthesis and reduce nannoplankton reproduction. While full darkness did not occur, the effects in the north would have lasted for up to six months. However, with ample sunlight and large amounts of nutrients in the oceans, the populations should have bounced back, even in the North, but they did not. The researchers suggest that toxic metals that where part of the asteroid, heavily contaminated the Northern oceans and were the major factor inhibiting recovery. "Metal loading is a great potential mechanism to delay recovery," said Bralower. "Toxic levels in the parts per billions of copper, nickel, cadmium and iron could have inhibited recovery." On the one hand, the researchers considered an impact scenario causing perpetual winter and ocean acidification to explain the slow recovery, but neither explains the lag between Southern and Northern Hemispheres. Trace metal poisoning, on the other hand, would have been severe near the impact in the Northern Hemisphere. When the high temperature debris from the impact hit the water, copper, chromium, aluminum, mercury and lead would have dissolved into the seawater at likely lethal levels for plankton. Iron, zinc and manganese -- normally micronutrients -- would reach harmful levels shortly after the impact. Other metal sources might be acid-rain leached soils or the effects of wildfires. Metals like these can inhibit reproduction or shell formation. The toxic metals probably exceeded the ability of organic compounds to bind them and remove them from the system. Because nannoplankton are the base of the food chain, larger organisms concentrate any metals found in nannoplankton making the metal poisoning more effective. With the toxic metals remaining in the oceans and the lack of sunlight, the length of time for recovery might increase.

“Nanotubes assemblies of various types are black and highly conductive,” said Dr. Mikhail Kozlov, a research scientist and the study’s lead author. “Their dark, conductive surface can be effectively heated with laser light or electricity to induce variations in the pressure of the air around the nanotubes — which we perceive as sound. It’s called the photo- or thermo-acoustic effect, and it’s the same principle Alexander Graham Bell used to produce sound on the first telephone.” With laser excitation, no electrical contact with the nanotube speaker is required, making the speakers wireless. “Speakers made with carbon nanotube sheets are extremely thin, light and almost transparent,” Kozlov said. “They have no moving parts and can be attached to any surface, which makes the surface acoustically active. They can be concealed in television and computer screens, apartment walls, or in the windows of buildings and cars. The almost invisible strands form films that can ‘talk.’” In addition to filling a room with sound from invisible speakers, nanotube speakers could easily cancel sound from the noisiest neighbor or dim the roar of traffic rushing past a neighborhood, using the same principles as current sound-canceling technologies. “The sound generation by nanotube sheets can help to achieve this effect on very large scales,” Kozlov said.