- Email: [email protected]
Kiss miss
Letters– Not-so-super bug From Don Sims James Kingsland suggests that Clostridium difficile is “resistant to all but two antibiotics” and likens it to MRSA (29 September, p 37). In fact, antibiotic resistance remains fairly rare with this organism, unlike with MRSA. Sensitivity to the two antibiotics commonly used (metronidazole and vancomycin) is rare, and other antibiotics such as rifampicin can also be used. The problem in hospital patients is repeated relapses rather than true resistance: patients may respond if the same antibiotic is given a second time. C. difficile is troublesome not because we are running out of effective antibiotics but because many hospital in-patients now acquire it when given antibiotic courses for other infections. The development of newer antibiotics will therefore not help to stem C. difficile; in fact newer, broadspectrum antibiotics may encourage its spread. C. difficile certainly continues to prove very challenging for both patients and clinicians, but in quite different ways to MRSA. Birmingham, UK
The conservation of diversity and its sustainable and equitable use is the basis of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. Its definition includes “variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes of which they are part”. Diversity at all levels of biological, taxonomic and ecological organisation is the fundamental basis for human health and sustainability. For example, soil quality depends on diversity of soil communities; agriculture and horticulture depend on genetic diversity. Losses in nature occur because human impacts decrease diversity at all levels. Perhaps if we did justice to the convention, more people would understand the fundamental importance of diversity in nature, and perhaps nature conservation would then be recognised as a necessity, not a luxury. Canterbury, New Zealand
Kiss miss
Ecology and diversity From Ian Spellerberg, Isaac Centre for Nature Conservation, Lincoln University You argue that “we need to do more than just put a price on nature’s head” (15 September, p 3) and that we could “use market forces to safeguard ecosystems” (p 6). These are not new ideas, and perhaps we need to be far more inventive. One of the problems is the frequent use of the term “biodiversity” in the limited sense of numbers of species. You go a little beyond this to recognise ecosystem and species interactions, but not far enough. The operative word is “diversity” in nature, and that is what we should be defending. 26 | NewScientist | 20 October 2007
From Judith Doyle You report a study that surveyed college students about kissing and found that many people stopped being attracted to someone after the first kiss (8 September, p 22). You then speculated that this was because they had swapped saliva and found immune system incompatibilities. I would fail my students if they measured one thing (not liking someone after kissing them) and concluded without further evidence that it was because of
another thing (genetics). At no point did the study actually study saliva and gene swapping. One might lose interest in someone simply because they were a bad kisser, not because of genetic incompatibility. The study also failed to take into account all the cultural factors associated with kissing. For a cogent overview of the sloppiness of many studies in evolutionary psychology, Anne Innis Dagg’s “Love of Shopping” Is Not a Gene is worth a read. Sackville, New Brunswick, Canada
Managing beavers From Paul Ramsay Jane Karthaus states that “The beaver is a protected species and cannot therefore be shot or lethally trapped” (22 September, p 25). This is not true. Throughout the countries of the European Union, member states have been able to make arrangements to suit their traditions and needs. In Latvia, as in Sweden, the beaver is regarded as a game animal. There are prescribed seasons when the animal may be trapped or shot, and quotas are set by the relevant authority. In Bavaria, Germany, managers employed by a non-governmental organisation funded by the state respond to complaints from the public as they arise. If, for example, beavers are consuming farmers’ crops or impeding field drainage, a live trap is set and the captured animal removed. If no new home can be found for the beaver it is destroyed. In France, the beaver is totally protected. There, people who complain are given advice on how to mitigate damage, and compensation is paid where justified. Karthaus states that landowners and farmers are “the primary stakeholders”. This is so, but as the UK foot and mouth epidemic of 2001 showed, tourism is much more important to the UK’s economy than either agriculture or forestry. As the
owner of a holiday cottage I am increasingly aware that visitors come to stay because there are beavers here at Bamff. Landowners’ and farmers’ organisations have resisted the return of the native beaver to Scotland largely because they apparently share Karthaus’s misapprehension that the animal is totally protected and cannot be managed at all. Bamff, Perthshire, UK
Now you see it… From Pete Goodeve It seems Graham Lawton’s contention that the brain “blanks out” saccades (22 September, p 35) is not entirely true. At this year’s SIGGRAPH conference in San Diego there was a demonstration of a “saccadebased” display. This was simply a vertical bar of LEDs flashing a pattern corresponding to a succession of vertical scans of an image. Turning one’s head, or even deliberately moving one’s eyes, revealed nothing, but if a saccade occurred in sync with the flashing of the bar, a spooky image – a photographed face, perhaps, or a line drawing – could momentarily be seen. Interestingly, there seemed to be little distortion of the image when it appeared, indicating that saccades have a pretty constant sweep rate. The demonstrator told me that they had done considerable work with eyemonitoring electrodes to decide on the display timing. Berkeley, California, US
www.newscientist.com
The conservation of diversity and its sustainable and equitable use is the basis of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. Its definition includes “variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes of which they are part”. Diversity at all levels of biological, taxonomic and ecological organisation is the fundamental basis for human health and sustainability. For example, soil quality depends on diversity of soil communities; agriculture and horticulture depend on genetic diversity. Losses in nature occur because human impacts decrease diversity at all levels. Perhaps if we did justice to the convention, more people would understand the fundamental importance of diversity in nature, and perhaps nature conservation would then be recognised as a necessity, not a luxury. Canterbury, New Zealand
Kiss miss
Ecology and diversity From Ian Spellerberg, Isaac Centre for Nature Conservation, Lincoln University You argue that “we need to do more than just put a price on nature’s head” (15 September, p 3) and that we could “use market forces to safeguard ecosystems” (p 6). These are not new ideas, and perhaps we need to be far more inventive. One of the problems is the frequent use of the term “biodiversity” in the limited sense of numbers of species. You go a little beyond this to recognise ecosystem and species interactions, but not far enough. The operative word is “diversity” in nature, and that is what we should be defending. 26 | NewScientist | 20 October 2007
From Judith Doyle You report a study that surveyed college students about kissing and found that many people stopped being attracted to someone after the first kiss (8 September, p 22). You then speculated that this was because they had swapped saliva and found immune system incompatibilities. I would fail my students if they measured one thing (not liking someone after kissing them) and concluded without further evidence that it was because of
another thing (genetics). At no point did the study actually study saliva and gene swapping. One might lose interest in someone simply because they were a bad kisser, not because of genetic incompatibility. The study also failed to take into account all the cultural factors associated with kissing. For a cogent overview of the sloppiness of many studies in evolutionary psychology, Anne Innis Dagg’s “Love of Shopping” Is Not a Gene is worth a read. Sackville, New Brunswick, Canada
Managing beavers From Paul Ramsay Jane Karthaus states that “The beaver is a protected species and cannot therefore be shot or lethally trapped” (22 September, p 25). This is not true. Throughout the countries of the European Union, member states have been able to make arrangements to suit their traditions and needs. In Latvia, as in Sweden, the beaver is regarded as a game animal. There are prescribed seasons when the animal may be trapped or shot, and quotas are set by the relevant authority. In Bavaria, Germany, managers employed by a non-governmental organisation funded by the state respond to complaints from the public as they arise. If, for example, beavers are consuming farmers’ crops or impeding field drainage, a live trap is set and the captured animal removed. If no new home can be found for the beaver it is destroyed. In France, the beaver is totally protected. There, people who complain are given advice on how to mitigate damage, and compensation is paid where justified. Karthaus states that landowners and farmers are “the primary stakeholders”. This is so, but as the UK foot and mouth epidemic of 2001 showed, tourism is much more important to the UK’s economy than either agriculture or forestry. As the
owner of a holiday cottage I am increasingly aware that visitors come to stay because there are beavers here at Bamff. Landowners’ and farmers’ organisations have resisted the return of the native beaver to Scotland largely because they apparently share Karthaus’s misapprehension that the animal is totally protected and cannot be managed at all. Bamff, Perthshire, UK
Now you see it… From Pete Goodeve It seems Graham Lawton’s contention that the brain “blanks out” saccades (22 September, p 35) is not entirely true. At this year’s SIGGRAPH conference in San Diego there was a demonstration of a “saccadebased” display. This was simply a vertical bar of LEDs flashing a pattern corresponding to a succession of vertical scans of an image. Turning one’s head, or even deliberately moving one’s eyes, revealed nothing, but if a saccade occurred in sync with the flashing of the bar, a spooky image – a photographed face, perhaps, or a line drawing – could momentarily be seen. Interestingly, there seemed to be little distortion of the image when it appeared, indicating that saccades have a pretty constant sweep rate. The demonstrator told me that they had done considerable work with eyemonitoring electrodes to decide on the display timing. Berkeley, California, US
www.newscientist.com