Life in a rut: if microbes are commonplace, where does that leave intelligent aliens?

A few years ago I wrote about how Mars' seasonal methane fluctuations suggested - although far from confirmed - that microbial life might be present just under the Martin surface. Now another world in our solar system, the Saturnian moon Enceladus, has ignited discussion along similar lines.

The Cassini probe conducted flybys of Enceladus over a decade, revealing that Saturn's sixth largest moon was venting geyser-like jets of material, including water vapour, from its southern polar region. The material being emitted from these vents also included organic compounds and methane, hinting that this distant moon's watery oceans may also contain alien methane-producing microbes. Whereas Titan and Europa were originally deemed the moons most suitable for life, Enceladus's status has now been boosted to second only to Mars, with conditions not dissimilar to those in the oceans of the early Earth.

Of course, unknown geochemical processes cannot be ruled out, but nonetheless the quality of the evidence is such as to invite further exploration of Enceladus. There have been at least seven potential mission designs proposed by various bodies, including NASA and ESA, to gain more information about the moon and its geysers. Several of these include landers, while others would fly through a plume in order to examine the vented material for biosignatures. However, to date none have received official funding confirmation. As it stands the first probe to arrive might be billionaire Yuri Milner's privately-funded Breakthrough Enceladus, rather than one from a major organisation. However, don't hold your breath: the earliest any of these missions is likely to reach Enceladus is at some point in the 2030s.

What happens if future probes find evidence of microbial life on both Mars and Enceladus? Or even, whenever a method is found to reach it, in the ice-covered oceans of Jupiter's moon Europa? The first key fact will be whether they are genetically independent of Earth biota or if the panspermia hypothesis - the delivery of microbes via cometary and meteorite impact - has been proven. If that turns out not to be the case and multiple instances of life arose separately within a single solar system, this has some profoundly mixed implications for the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). After all, if simple life can arise and be sustained on three or even four very different worlds - including bodies far outside their solar system's 'Goldilocks zone' - then shouldn't this also imply a much higher chance of complex alien life evolving on exoplanets? 

Yet despite various SETI programmes over the past few decades, we have failed to pick up any signs of extraterrestrial intelligence - or at least from other technological civilisations prepared to communicate with radio waves, either in our galactic neighbourhood or with super high-powered transmitters further away. This doesn't mean they don't exist: advanced civilisations might use laser pulses at frequencies our SETI projects currently don't have the ability to detect. But nonetheless, it is a little disheartening that we've so far drawn a blank. If there is microbial life on either Mars or Enceladus - or even more so, on both worlds, never mind Europa - then a continued lack of success for SETI suggests the chances of intelligent life evolving are far lower than the probability of life itself arising.

In effect, this means that life we can only view via a microscope - and therefore somewhat lacking in cognitive ability - may turn out to be common, but intelligence a much rarer commodity. While it might be easy to say that life on both Enceladus and Mars wouldn't stand much of a chance of gaining complexity thanks to the unpleasant environmental conditions that have no doubt existed for much of their history, it's clear that Earth's biota has evolved via a complex series of unique events. In other words, the tortuous pathways of history have influenced the evolution of life on Earth.

Whereas the discovery of so many exoplanets in the past decade might imply an optimistic result for the Drake equation, the following factors, being largely unpredictable, infrequent or unique occurrences, might suggest that the evolution of complex (and especially sapiens-level intelligent) life is highly improbable:

• The Earth orbits inside the solar system's Goldilocks zone (bear in mind that some of the planets have moved from the region of space they were created in) and so water was able to exist in liquid form after the atmospheric pressure became high enough.
• The size and composition of the planet is such that radioactivity keeps the core molten and so generates a magnetic field to block most solar and cosmic radiation.
• It is hypothesised that the Earth was hit by another body, nicknamed Theia, that both tilted the planet's axis and caused the formation of the Moon rather than having a catastrophic effect such as tearing our world apart, knocking it on its side (like Uranus) or removing its outer crust (like Mercury).
• The Moon is comparatively large and close to the Earth and as such their combined gravitational fields help to keep Earth in a very stable, only slightly eccentric orbit. This is turn has helped to maintain a relatively life-friendly environment over the aeons. 
• The Earth's axial tilt causes seasons and as such generates a simultaneous variety of climates at different latitudes, providing impetus for natural selection.
• The Great Unconformity and hypothesised near-global glaciation (AKA Snowball Earth) that might have caused it suggests this dramatic period of climate change led to the development of the earliest multi-cellular life around 580 million years ago.
• Mass extinctions caused rapid changes in global biota without destroying all life. Without the Chicxulub impactor for example, it is unlikely mammals would have radiated due to the dominance of reptiles on the land.
• Ice ages over the past few million years have caused rapid climate fluctuations that may have contributed to hominin evolution as East African forests gave way to grasslands.

The evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould often discussed 'contingency', claiming that innumerable historical events had led to the evolution of Homo sapiens and therefore that if history could be re-run, most possible paths would not lead to a self-aware ape. Therefore, despite the 4,800 or so exoplanets discovered so far, some within their system's Goldilocks zone, what is the likelihood such a similar concatenation of improbable events would occur of any of them? 

Most people are understandably not interested in talking to microbes. For a start, they are unlikely to gain a meaningful reply. Yet paradoxically, the more worlds that microbial life is confirmed on, when combined with the distinct failure of our SETI research to date, the easier it is to be pessimistic; while life might be widespread in the universe, organisms large enough to view without a microscope, let alone communicate with across the vast reaches of interstellar space, may be exceedingly rare indeed. The origins of life might be a far easier occurrence than we used to think, but the evolution of technological species far less so. Having said that, we are lucky to live in this time: perhaps research projects in both fields will resolve this fundamental issue within the next half century. Now wouldn't that be amazing?

Dangerous cargo: the accidental spread of alien organisms via commercial shipping

It's often said that whichever culture and environment we grow up in is the one we consider as the norm. Whilst my great-grandparents were born before the invention of heavier-than-air flying machines, I've booked numerous long-haul flights without considering much beyond their monetary and environmental cost. Yet this familiarity with our fast and efficient global transportation network masks an unpleasant side effect: it is second only to habitat loss when it comes to endangering biodiversity.

Although many environmental campaigns focus on fossil fuels, deforestation and unsustainable agricultural practices, the (mostly inadvertent) transportation of alien plants, animals and fungi from one region to another has quietly but catastrophically reduced biodiversity in many areas of the planet.

The earliest example I recall learning about was Stephen Jay Gould's heart-felt description of the extinction of French Polynesia's partulid tree snails at the hands of introduced carnivorous snails intended to control edible snail species (which were also deliberately introduced). While the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw large numbers of species intentionally established in areas far from their natural territories, the past half century has seen an acceleration in equally disastrous accidental introductions as a by-product of international trade.

A potential starting point for invasion ecology as a discipline in its own right was Oxford professor Charles Elton's 1958 publication The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. The International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List of Threatened Species followed six years later. Clearly, the negative effects of our activities were starting to become known. But has enough been done to publicise it in the intervening decades?

The Red list is the most accurate data source for regional biodiversity and the population health of all organisms known to science; yet few non-specialists seem even aware of its existence. Indeed, several decades passed after the list's creation before invasive biology became an important subject in professional ecology. Over the past thirty years the topic has seen a ten-fold increase in publications and citations - a sign of recognition if ever there was one - although mainstream media appears barely aware of its existence.

The IUCN's Invasive Species Specialist Group aids governments and organisations in planning the monitoring, containment, and where possible, destruction of invasive species. It runs the publicly-available Global Invasive Species Database, but its online presence appears to be poorly funded, or at least coordinated. Rather than a central hub there is a plethora of websites featuring varying degrees of professionalism and some distinctly out-of-date content. Perhaps clients are given direct instructions, but as a member of the public I found the ISSG sites bewildering in their variety.

Needless to say, when it does come to taking action, it can be assumed that economic imperatives such as agricultural pests take precedence over preservation of other endangered species. The only country I know of that is attempting a nation-wide eradication of most invasive animals (note: not plants and fungi) is New Zealand, with our Predator Free 2050 project. However, I'm uncertain how realistic it is. Even pre-Covid it appears to have lacked a solid funding source and now - with thirty years and counting until the deadline - there's even less chance of a comprehensive removal of numerous pest species.

What the Predator Free 2050 plan doesn't include is the multitude of plants and animals that slip through the net, so to speak: the legion of species currently invading our offshore environment. It's one thing to actually see land-based plants and animals, but the ocean is largely unknown territory to most people. With over forty thousand cargo vessels moving around the globe every year there is plenty of opportunity for organisms, especially their larval forms, to be inadvertently spread to new territories via both hulls and ballast water. Whilst Killer Algae (a slight hint there in the common name for Caulerpa taxifolia) and the Chinese mitten crab aren't as well-known as Japanese knotweed and Common myna bird they are just two of the many dangerous invaders spreading ever further from their original territories.

It isn't just marine vessels that can carry such dangerous cargo: the immense amount of plastic waste in our oceans can serve as life rafts for the propagation of alien species, albeit at the whim of currents moving rather slower than diesel power. The problem of course is that the oceans are enormous and so the only time the issue becomes known about is when an invasive organism is spotted encroaching in coastal waters. Unfortunately, marine lifeforms can't be easily dealt with using the traps and poison that work on land-based entities; indeed, international regulations seem as much concerned with the dangers of anti-fouling systems as with the issues they prevent.

In 2011 the International Maritime Organization implemented guidelines to minimise vessel biofouling as it relates to the accidental incursions of invasive marine organisms. New Zealand was the first of several nations to execute their own national strategy that turned these guidelines into mandatory practice - and take them further. In addition, New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) runs annual surveys, particularly around ports, but otherwise their funding appears inadequate to the immensity of the task. 

It's all very well keeping track of the ever-increasing list of resident invasive species around the nation's coastline, but little has been done to remove them. With about 150 types of alien organism now in residence around New Zealand's coast and the same again in occasional visitors, NIWA has been a partner in international competitions aimed at finding pest management solutions, at least for coastal ecosystems if not the deep ocean. Obvious solutions such as scrubbing hulls would just lead to direct contamination of ports, so some new thinking is clearly required.

Of course, the use of cargo ships is unlikely to reduce any time soon. Our global marine transport network is far from in decline and many nations lack the stringent precautions that New Zealand and Australia are now implementing. It has been estimated that cleaning hulls to prevent biofouling could reduce global marine fuel consumption by 10%, so perhaps this commercial benefit may win over those reluctant to spend heavily on prevention measures. But just as fishing vessels are still getting away with immense amounts of by-kill, merchant shipping in many areas of the world appears to be a law unto self.

Preserving regional marine biota is just as critical as land-based environmental protection. Allowing species to proliferate outside their normal range can only lead to deleterious changes - and when combined with our warming, increasingly acidic oceans, this does not bode well for all life on Earth, especially a hungry Homo sapiens. Just because we humans spend most of our time on land, we cannot afford to ignore the far larger ecosystems of the seas.

Ancestral tales: why we prefer fables to fact for human evolution

It seems that barely a month goes by without there being a news article concerning human ancestry. In the eight years since I wrote a post on the apparent dearth of funding in hominin palaeontology there appears to have been some uptake in the amount of research in the field. This is all to the good of course, but what is surprising is that much of the non-specialist journalism - and therefore public opinion - is still riddled with fundamental flaws concerning both our origins and evolution in general.

It also seems that our traditional views of humanity's position in the cosmos is often the source of the errors. It's one thing to make such howlers as the BBC News website did some years' back, in which they claimed chimpanzees were direct human ancestors, but there are a key number of more subtle errors that are repeated time and again. What's interesting is that in order to explain evolution by natural selection, words and phrases have become imbued with incorrect meaning or in some cases, just a slight shift of emphasis. Either way, it seems that evolutionary ideas have been tacked onto existing cultural baggage and in the process, failed to explain the intended theories; personal and socio-political truths have triumphed over objective truth, as Neil deGrasse Tyson might say.

1) As evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould use to constantly point out, the tree of life is like the branches of a bush, not a ladder of linear progression. It's still fairly common to see the phrase 'missing link' applied to our ancestry, among others; I even saw David Attenborough mention it in a tv series about three years' ago. A recent news article described - as if in surprise - that there were at least three species of hominins living in Africa during the past few million years, at the same time and in overlapping regions too. Even college textbooks use it - albeit in quotation marks - among a plethora of other phrases that were once valid, so perhaps it isn't surprising that popular publications continue to use them without qualification.

Evolution isn't a simple, one-way journey through space and time from ancestors to descendants: separate but contemporaneous child species can arise via geographical isolation and then migrate to a common location, all while their parent species continues to exist. An example today would be the lesser black-backed and herring gulls of the Arctic circle, which is either a single, variable species or two clearly distinct species, depending where you look within its range.

It might seem obvious, but species also migrate and then their descendants return to the ancestral homeland; the earliest apes evolved in Africa and then migrated to south-east Asia, some evolving into the ancestors of gibbons and orangutan while others returned to Africa to become the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees. One probable culprit of the linear progression model is that some of the examples chosen to teach evolution such as the horse have few branches in their ancestry, giving the false impression of a ladder in which a descendant species always replaces an earlier one.

2) What defines a species is also much misunderstood. The standard description doesn't do any favours in disentangling human evolution; this is where Richard Dawkins' oft-repeated phrase 'the tyranny of the discontinuous mind' comes into play. Examine a range of diagrams for our family tree and you'll find distinct variations, with certain species sometimes being shown as direct ancestors and sometimes as cousins on extinct branches.

If Homo heidelbergensis is the main root stock of modern humans but some of us have small amounts of Neanderthal and/or Denisovan DNA, then do all three qualify as direct ancestors of modern humans? Just where do you draw the line, bearing in mind every generation could breed with both the one before and after? Even with rapid speciation events between long periods of limited variability (A.K.A. punctuated equilibrium) there is no clear cut-off point separating us from them. Yet it's very rare to see Neanderthals labelled as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and much more common to see them listed as Homo neanderthalensis, implying a wholly separate species.

Are the religious beliefs and easy-to-digest just-so stories blinding us to the complex, muddled background of our origins? Obviously, the word 'race' has profoundly negative connotations these days, with old-school human variation now known to be plain wrong. For example, there's greater genetic variation in the present-day sub-Saharan African population than in the rest of the world combined, thanks to it being the homeland of all hominin species and the out-of-Africa migrations of modern humans occurring relatively recently.

We should also consider that species can be separated by behaviour, not just obvious physical differences. Something as simple as the different pitches of mating calls separate some frog species, with scientific experiments proving that the animals can be fooled by artificially changing the pitch. Also, just because species appear physically similar doesn't necessarily mean an evolutionary close relationship: humans and all other vertebrates are far closer to spiny sea urchins and knobbly sea cucumbers than they are to any land invertebrates such as the insects.

3) Since the Industrial Revolution, societies - at least in the West - have become obsessed with growth, progress and advance. This bias has clearly affected the popular conception that evolution always leads to improvements, along the lines of faster cheetahs to catch more nimble gazelles and 'survival of the fittest'. Books speak of our epoch as the Age of Mammals, when by most important criteria we live in the era of microbes; just think of the oxygen-generating cyanobacteria. Many diagrams of evolutionary trees place humans on the central axis and/or at the pinnacle, as if we were destined to be the best thing that over three billion years of natural selection could achieve. Of course, this is no better than what many religions have said, whereby humans are the end goal of the creator and the planet is ours to exploit and despoil as we like (let's face it, for a large proportion of our existence, modern Homo sapiens was clearly less well adapted to glacial conditions than the Neanderthals).

Above all, these charts give the impression of a clear direction for evolution with mammals as the core animal branch. Popular accounts still describe our distant ancestors, the synapsids, as the 'mammal-like reptiles', even though they evolved from a common ancestor of reptiles, not from reptiles per se. Even if this is purely due to lazy copying from old sources rather than fact-checking, doesn't it belie the main point of the publication? Few general-audience articles admit that all of the earliest dinosaurs were bipedal, presumably because we would like to conflate standing on two legs with more intelligent or 'advanced' (a tricky word to use in a strict evolutionary sense) lineages.

The old ladder of fish-amphibian-reptile/bird-mammal still hangs over us and we seem unwilling to admit to extinct groups (technically called clades) that break our neat patterns. Incidentally, for the past 100 million years or so, about half of all vertebrate species have been teleost fish - so much for the Age of Mammals! No-one would describe the immensely successful but long-extinct trilobites as just being 'pill bug-like marine beetles' or similar, yet when it comes to humans, we have a definite sore spot. There is a deep psychological need to have an obvious series of ever-more sophisticated ancestors paving the way for us.

What many people don't realise is that organisms frequently evolve both physical and behavioural attributes that are subsequently lost and possibly later regained. Some have devolved into far simpler forms, frequently becoming parasites. Viruses are themselves a simplified life form, unable to reproduce without a high-jacked cell doing the work for them; no-one could accuse them of not being highly successful - as we are currently finding out to our cost. We ourselves are highly adaptable generalists, but on a component-by-component level it would appear that only our brains make us as successful as we are. Let's face it, physically we're not up to much: even cephalopods such as squid and octopus have a form of camera eye that is superior to that of all vertebrates.

Even a cursory glance at the natural history of life, using scientific disciplines as disparate as palaeontology and comparative DNA analysis, shows that some lineages proved so successful that their outward physiology has changed very little. Today, there are over thirty species of lancelet that are placed at the base of the chordates and therefore closely related to the ancestors of all vertebrates. They are also extremely similar in appearance to 530-million-year-old fossils of the earliest chordates in the Cambrian period. If evolution were a one-way ticket to progress, why have they not long since been replaced by later, more sophisticated organisms?

4) We appear to conflate success simply with being in existence today, yet our species is a newcomer and barely out of the cradle compared to some old-timers. We recently learned that Neanderthals wove plant fibre to make string and ate a wide variety of seafood. This knowledge brings with it a dwindling uniqueness for modern Homo sapiens. The frequently given explanation of our superiority over our extinct cousins is simply that they aren't around anymore, except as minor components of our genome. But this is a tautology: they are inferior because they are extinct and therefore an evolutionary dead end; yet they became extinct because of their inferiority. Hmmm...there's not much science going on here!

The usual story until recently was that at some point (often centred around 40,000-50,000 years ago) archaic sapiens developed modern human behaviour, principally in the form of imaginative, symbolic thinking. This of course ignores the (admittedly tentative) archaeological evidence of Neanderthal cave-painting, jewelry and ritual, all of which are supposed to be evidence of our direct ancestor's unique Great Leap Forward (yes, it was named after Chairman Mao's plan). Not only did Neanderthals have this symbolic behaviour, they appear to have developed it independently of genetically-modern humans. This is a complete about-turn from the previous position of them being nothing more than poor copyists.

There are alternative hypotheses to the Great Leap Forward, including:

1. Founder of the Comparative Cognition Project and primate researcher Sarah Boysen observed that chimpanzees can create new methods for problem solving and processing information. Therefore, a gradual accumulation of cognitive abilities and behavioural traits over many millennia - and partially inherited from earlier species - may have reached a tipping point. 
2. Some geneticists consider there to have been a sudden paradigm shift caused by a mutation of the FOXP2 gene, leading to sophisticated language and all that it entails.
3. Other researchers consider that once a certain population size and density was achieved, complex interactions between individuals led the way to modern behaviour. 
4. A better diet, principally in the form of larger amounts of cooked meat, led to increased cognition. 

In some ways, all of these are partly speculative and as is often the case we may eventually find that a combination of these plus other factors were involved. This shouldn't stop us from realising how poor the communication of evolutionary theories still is and how many misconceptions exist, with the complex truth obscured by our need to feel special and to tell simple stories that rarely convey the amazing evolution of life on Earth.

Herbaceous dialects and dialectical materialism: how plants communicate with their pollinators

The inspiration behind this post stems from reading two of the giants of science popularisation during my formative years. The first component is from Carl Sagan's book Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science, which remarks that the emotional lives of plants are an example of pure pseudoscience. The second is Stephen Jay Gould's essay on Pyotr Kropotkin, a nineteenth century Russian anarchist who wrote the essay collection Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. What joins them together is recent research that uncovers an astonishingly complex relationship between certain plants and animals.

Kropotkin's hypothesis was that cooperation between species was as fundamental to life on our planet as natural selection. Although his socialist-motivated ideas have been somewhat downscaled by the evidence of the succeeding century, there are still some truths to be learnt about the mutual aid - or symbiosis if you prefer - between fundamentally different life forms.

I recently read about some experiments in Israel and Germany, which involved such esoteric boffinry as placing laser microphones close to tobacco and tomato plants in order to pick up any ultrasonic noises that they might emit. The plants were heavily pruned or moved into parched soil, in other words, subject to physiological stress.

Analysis of the recordings revealed high-pitch sounds (or in the researchers' words, 'squeals') emanating from their herbaceous guinea pigs. Not only did the sounds vary depending on whether the plant was suffering from mutilation or lack of moisture, but each species (both members of the Solanaceae family) had differing numbers of repetitions and time intervals between each sound. What's even more interesting is the noises differed according to the local invertebrate life, specifically the potential pollinating insects.

In addition to the scientists' equipment, animals such as bats and rodents were placed in the vicinity of the subjects and reacted to the sounds as they were being produced, verifying the shrieks as emanating from the plants. The physiological cause appears to be the movement of air bubbles within liquids such as sap, but how are plants able to perceive the problems, let alone respond to them?

It's been known for some years that plants can communicate with other members of their species via emitting chemical compounds; just think of the odour of freshly cut grass. Forest trees even share nutrients via a symbiotic root system in order to allow smaller members of their species to grow faster - so much for selfish genetics here!

Communication between plants by all three methods, namely direct contact, sound, and chemical odour, suggests purpose and awareness, only without a central nervous system to guide it. This might sound impossible, but then the marine bacteria species Bacillus subtilus uses potassium ions to communicate across its colonies and few would argue that bacterium are more advanced life forms than the kingdom Plantae. We should also remember that in even in animals, brains aren't the be-all and end-all: there are neurons in vertebrate (including human) stomachs and in the arms of cephalopods.

The symbiotic relationship between angiosperms (flowering plants) and pollinating insects evolved in the late Cretaceous, so natural selection has had over sixty-five million years to work on the communications systems between these collaborators. Could it be that plants have evolved a specialist messaging service for their pollinating symbionts, despite having no equivalent of neurons to coordinate it?

Some of the recent Israeli research seems to verify this – and how! When endangered by being cut or deprived of water, the specific noises were not only picked up by pollinating insects, they were acted upon. Insects such as hawk moths flew away from the plants that were suffering drought or mutilation to control specimens on the farthest side of the greenhouse laboratory and laid their eggs upon those plants. Meanwhile, other insects that were known pollinators on the same plant species but not local the region ignored the audio signals. Somehow, there is a level of fine-tuning going on that reveals the sensory world of plants is far superior to what is usually credited.

Parallel experiments successfully tested for the opposite effect. Individual tobacco plants with mature flowers sent messages that attracted the attention of local pollinators such as stilt bugs. All in all, it appears that certain plant species – at least of the Solanaceae family - engage in a form of mutual aid that Kropotkin would be proud of. Not only do plants use ultrasonics to target useful insects, they have developed a messaging service that is regionalised towards those insect species, essentially a dialect rather than a universal language.

While tobacco and tomato plants might not be screaming in pain every time they are cut or lacking water, it seems that they cannot be as easily dismissed as the poorer relation to us animals. The time may be due for a complete reappraisal of their perception capabilities, although amateur researchers would do well to remember that both tomato and tobacco are from the same family as the mandrake and as any Harry Potter fan should know, you wouldn't want to hear those scream!

Our family and other animals: do we deliberately downplay other species' intelligence?

I recently heard about a project investigating canine intelligence, the results being that man's best friend can distinguish similar-sounding words, even if spoken by strangers. Yet again, it appears there is a less and less that makes our species unique: from the problem-solving skills of birds to social insects' use of farming techniques we find ourselves part of a continuum of life rather than standing alone at the apex.

Reading the Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom's thought-provoking book Superintelligence, I was struck by his description of the variation of human intellect (from as he put it, Einstein to the village idiot) as being startling narrow when compared to the potential range of possible intelligences, both biological and artificial.

The complexity of animal brains has been analysed by both quantitive and qualititive methods, the former dealing with such measurements as the number of neurons while the latter looks at behaviour of members of a species, both in the wild and under laboratory conditions. However, a comparison of these two doesn't necessarily provide any neat correlation.

For example, although mammals are generally - and totally incorrectly - often described as the pinnacle of creation due to their complex behaviour and birth-to-adult learning curve, the quantitive differences in neural architecture within mammals are far greater than those between amphibians and some mammalian families. In addition, there are many birds, mostly in the Psittacidae (parrot) and Corvidae (crow) families, that are both quantitatively and qualitatively superior to most mammals with the exception of some primates.

I think it was the essays of evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould that introduced me to the concept of EQ or encephalisation quotient, which is a label for the brain-mass to body-mass ratio. On these terms, the human brain is far larger than nearly all other species with a similar sized body, the exception (perhaps not surprisingly) being dolphins.

However, it's difficult to draw accurate conclusions just from examination of this general trend: both the absolute size of the brain and neuron density play a fundamental role in cognitive powers. For example, gorillas have a lower EQ that some monkeys, but being a large ape have a far greater brain mass. It could be said then, that perhaps beyond a certain mass the absolute brain size renders the EQ scale of little use. A 2009 study found that different rules for scaling come into play, with humans also having a highly optimal use of the volume available with the cranium, in addition to the economical architecture common among primates.

As historian and philosopher Yuval Noah Harari has pointed out, the development of farming, at least in Eurasia, went hand in hand with the evolution of sophisticated religious beliefs. This led to a change in human attitudes towards the other animals, with a downplay of the latter's emotional needs and their categorisation as inferior, vassal species in a pre-ordained (read: divinely-given) chain of being.

By directly connecting intelligence - or a lack thereof - to empathy and emotions, it is easy to claim that domesticated animal species don't mind their ruthless treatment. It isn't just industrial agriculture that makes the most of this lack of empathy today; I've seen small sharks kept in a Far Eastern jewellery store (i.e. as decoration, not as future food) in tanks barely longer than the creature's own body length.

Although the problem-solving antics of birds such as crows are starting to redress this, most people still consider animal intelligence strictly ordered by vertebrate classes, which leads to such inaccuracies as the 'three second goldfish memory'. I first noticed how incorrect this was when keeping freshwater invertebrates, namely shield shrimp A.K.A. triops, almost a decade ago. Even these tiny creatures appear to have a range of personalities, or perhaps I should say - in an effort to avoid blatant anthropomorphizing - a wide variety of behaviour.

Now on the verge of setting up a tropical aquarium for one of my children, I've been researching what is required to keep fish in fairly small tanks. I've spoken to various aquarium store owners and consulted numerous online resources, learning in the process that the tank environment needs to fulfill certain criteria. There's nothing in usual in this you might think, except that the psychological requirements need to be considered alongside the physical ones.

For example, tank keepers use words such as 'unhappy' and 'depression' to describe what happens when schooling fish are kept in too small a group, active swimmers in too little space and timid species housed in an aquarium without hiding places. We do not consider this fish infraclass - i.e. teleosts - to be Einsteins (there's that label again) of the animal kingdom, but it would appear we just haven't been observing them with enough rigour. They may have minute brains, but there is a complexity that suggests a certain level of emotional intelligence in response to their environment.

So where does all this leave us Homo sapiens, masters of all we survey? Neanderthal research is increasingly espousing the notion that in many ways these extinct cousins/partial ancestors could give us modern humans a run for our money. Perhaps our success is down to one particular component of uniqueness, namely our story-telling ability, a product of our vivid imagination.

Simply because other species lack this skill doesn't mean that they don't have any form of intellectual ability; they may indeed have a far richer sense of their universe than we would like to believe. If our greatest gift is our intelligence, don't we owe it to all other creatures we raise and hold captive to make their lives as pleasant as possible? Whether it's battery farming or keeping goldfish in a bowl, there's plenty we could do to improve things if we consider just what might be going on in the heads of our companion critters.

Lift to the stars: sci-fi hype and the space elevator

As an avid science-fiction reader during my childhood, one of the most outstanding extrapolations for future technology was that of the space elevator. As popularised in Arthur C. Clarke's 1979 novel, The Fountains of Paradise, the elevator was described as a twenty-second century project. I've previously written about near-future plans for private sector spaceflight, but the elevator would be a paradigm shift in space transportation: a way of potentially reaching as far as geosynchronous orbit without the need for rocket engines.

Despite the novelty of the idea: a tower stretching from Earth - or indeed any planet's surface - to geosynchronous orbit and beyond; the first description dates back to 1895 and writings of the Russian theoretical astronautics pioneer Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. Since the dawn of the Space Age engineers and designers in various nations have either reinvented the elevator from scratch or elaborated on Tsiolkovsky's idea.

There have of course been remarkable technological developments over the intervening period, with carbyne, carbon nanotubes, tubular carbon 60 and graphene seen as potential materials for the elevator, but we are still a long way from being able to build a full-size structure. Indeed, there are now known to be many more impediments to the space elevator than first thought, including a man-made issue that didn't exist at the end of the nineteenth century. Despite this, there seems to be a remarkable number of recent stories about elevator-related experiments and the near-future feasibility of such a project.

An objective look at practical - as opposed to theoretical - studies show that results to date have been decidedly underwhelming. The Space Shuttle programme started tethered satellite tests in 1992. After an initial failure (the first test achieved a distance of a mere 256 metres), a follow up six years later built a tether that was a rather more impressive twenty kilometres long. Then last year the Japanese STARS-me experiment tested a miniature climber component in orbit, albeit at a miniscule distance of nine metres. Bearing in mind that a real tower would be over 35,000 kilometres long, it cannot be argued that the technology is almost available for a full-scale elevator.

This hasn't prevented continuous research by the International Space Elevator Consortium (ISEC), which was formed in 2008 to promote the concept and the technology behind it. It's only to be expected that fans of the space elevator would be enthusiastic, but to my mind their assessment that we are 'tech ready' for its development seems to be optimistic to the point of incredulity.

A contrasting view is that of Google X's researchers, who mothballed their space elevator work in 2014 on the grounds that the requisite technology will not be available for decades to come. While the theoretical strength of carbon nanotubes meets the requirements, the total of cable manufactured to date is seventy centimetres, showing the difficulties in achieving mass production. A key stopping point apparently involves catalyst activity probability; until that problem is resolved, a space elevator less than one metre in length isn't going to convince me, at least.

What is surprising then is that in 2014, the Japanese Obayashi Corporation published a detailed concept that specified a twenty-year construction period starting in 2030. Not to be outdone, the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology released news in 2017 of a plan to actually build an elevator by 2045, using a new carbon nanotube fibre. Just how realistic is this, when so little of the massive undertaking has been prototyped beyond the most basic of levels?

The overall budget is estimated to be around US$90 billion, which suggests an international collaboration in order to offset the many years before the completed structure turns a profit. In addition to the materials issue, there are various other problems yet to be resolved. Chief among these are finding a suitable equatorial location (an ocean-based anchor has been suggested), capturing an asteroid for use as a counterweight, dampening vibrational harmonics, removing space junk, micrometeoroid impact protection and shielding passengers from the Van Allen radiation belts. Clearly, just developing the construction material is only one small element of the ultimate effort required.

Despite all these issues, general audience journalism regarding the space elevator - and therefore the resulting public perception - appears as optimistic as the Chinese announcement. How much these two feedback on each other is difficult to ascertain, but there certainly seems to be a case of running before learning to walk. It's strange that China made the claim, bearing in mind how many other rather important things the nation's scientists should be concentrating on, such as environmental degradation and pollution.

Could it be that China's STEM community have fallen for the widespread hype rather than prosaic reality? It's difficult to say how this could be so, considering their sophisticated internet firewall that blocks much of the outside world's content. Clearly though, the world wide web is full of science and technology stories that consist of parrot fashion copying, little or no analysis and click bait-driven headlines.

A balanced, in-depth synthesis of the relevant research is often a secondary consideration. The evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould once labelled the negative impact of such lazy journalism as "authorial passivity before secondary sources." In this particular case, the public impression of what is achievable in the next few decades seems closer to Hollywood science fiction than scientific fact.

Of course, the irony is that even the more STEM-minded section of the public is unlikely to read the original technical articles in a professional journal. Instead, we are reliant on general readership material and the danger inherent in its immensely variable quality. As far as the space elevator goes (currently, about seventy centimetres), there are far more pressing concerns requiring engineering expertise; US$90 billion could, for example, fund projects to improve quality of life in the developing world.

That's not to say that I believe China will construct a space elevator during this century, or that the budget could be found anywhere else, either. But there are times when there's just too much hype and nonsense surrounding science and not enough fact. It's easy enough to make real-world science appear dull next to the likes of Star Trek, but now more than ever we need the public to trust and support STEM if we are to mitigate climate change and all the other environmental concerns.

As for the space elevator itself, let's return to Arthur C. Clarke. Once asked when he thought humanity could build one, he replied: "Probably about fifty years after everybody quits laughing." Unfortunately, bad STEM journalism seems to have joined conservatism as a negative influence in the struggle to promote science to non-scientists. And that's no laughing matter.

The anaesthetic of familiarity: how our upbringing can blind us to the obvious

In the restored Edwardian school classroom at Auckland's Museum of Transport and Technology (MOTAT) there is a notice on the wall stating 'Do not ask your teacher questions.' Fortunately, education now goes some way in many nations to emphasising the importance of individual curiosity rather than mere obedience to authority. Of course, there are a fair number of politicians and corporation executives who wish it wasn't so, as an incurious mind is easier to sway than a questioning one. As my last post mentioned, the World Wide Web can be something of an ally for them, since the 'winner takes all' approach of a review-based system aids the slogans and rhetoric of those who wish to control who we vote for and what we buy.

Even the most liberal of nations and cultures face self-imposed hurdles centered round which is the best solution and which is just the most familiar one from our formative years. This post therefore looks at another side of the subjective thinking discussed earlier this month, namely a trap that Richard Dawkins has described as the "anaesthetic of familiarity". Basically, this is when conventions are so accepted as to be seen as the primary option instead of being merely one of a series of choices. Or, as the British philosopher Susan Stebbing wrote in her 1939 book Thinking to Some Purpose: "One of the gravest difficulties encountered at the outset of the attempt to think effectively consists in the difficulty of recognizing what we know as distinguished from what we do not know but merely take for granted."

Again, this mind set is much loved by the manufacturing sector; in addition to such well-known ploys as deliberate obsolescence and staggered release cycles, there are worse examples, especially in everyday consumerism. We often hear how little nutritional value many highly processed foods contain, but think what this has done for the vitamin and mineral supplement industry, whose annual worldwide sales now approach US$40 billion!

Citizens of developed nations today face very different key issues to our pre-industrial ancestors, not the least among them being a constant barrage of decision making. Thanks to the enormous variety of choices available concerning almost every aspect of our daily lives, we have to consider everything from what we wear to what we eat. The deluge of predominantly useless information that we receive in the era of the hashtag makes it more difficult for us to concentrate on problem solving, meaning that the easiest way out is just to follow the crowd.

Richard Dawkins' solution to these issues is to imagine yourself as an alien visitor and then observe the world as a curious outsider. This seems to me to be beyond the reach of many, for whom daily routine appears to be their only way to cope. If this sounds harsh, it comes from personal experience; I've met plenty of people who actively seek an ostrich-like head-in-the-sand approach to life to avoid the trials and tribulations - as well as the wonders - of this rapidly-changing world.

Instead, I would suggest an easier option when it comes to some areas of STEM research: ensure that a fair proportion of researchers and other thought leaders are adult migrants from other nations. Then they will be able to apply an outside perspective, hopefully identifying givens that are too obvious to be spotted by those who have grown up with them.

New Zealand is a good example of this, with arguably its two best known science communicators having been born overseas: Siouxsie Wiles and Michelle Dickinson, A.K.A. Nanogirl. Dr Wiles is a UK-trained microbiologist at the University of Auckland. She frequently appears on Radio New Zealand as well as undertaking television and social media work to promote science in general, as well as for her specialism of fighting bacterial infection.

Dr Dickinson is a materials engineering lecturer and nanomaterials researcher at the University of Auckland who studied in both the UK and USA. Her public outreach work includes books, school tours and both broadcast and social media. She has enough sci-comm kudos that last year, despite not having a background in astronomy, she interviewed Professor Neil deGrasse Tyson during the Auckland leg of his A Cosmic Perspective tour.

The work of the above examples is proof that newcomers can recognise a critical need compared to their home grown equivalents. What is interesting is that despite coming from English-speaking backgrounds - and therefore with limited cultural disparity to their adoptive New Zealand - there must have been enough that was different to convince Doctors Wiles and Dickinson of the need for a hands-on, media savvy approach to science communication.

This is still far from the norm: many STEM professionals believe there is little point to promoting their work to the public except via print-based publications. Indeed, some famous science communicators such as Carl Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould were widely criticised during their lifetime by the scientific establishment for what were deemed undue efforts at self-promotion and the associated debasement of science by combining it with show business.

As an aside, I have to say that as brilliant as some volumes of popular science are, they do tend to preach to the converted; how many non-science fans are likely to pick up a book on say string theory, just for a bit of light reading or self-improvement (the latter being a Victorian convention that appears to have largely fallen from favour)? Instead, the outreach work of the expat examples above is aimed at the widest possible audience without over-simplification or distortion of the principles being communicated.

This approach may not solve all issues about how to think outside the box - scientists may be so embedded within their culture as to not realise that there is a box - but surely by stepping outside the comfort zone we grew up in we may find problems that the local population hasn't noticed?

Critical thinking is key to the scientific enterprise, but it would appear, to little else in human cultures. If we can find methods to avoid the anaesthetic of familiarity and acknowledge that what we deem of as normal can be far from optimal, then these should be promoted with all gusto. If the post-modern creed is that all world views are equally valid and science is just another form of culture-biased story-telling, then now more than ever we need cognitive tools to break through the subjective barriers. If more STEM professionals are able to cross borders and work in unfamiliar locations, isn’t there a chance they can recognise issues that fall under the local radar and so supply a new perspective we need if we are to fulfil our potential?

Valuing the velvet worm: noticing the most inconspicuous of species

Most of the recent television documentaries or books I've encountered that discuss extra-terrestrial life include some description of the weirder species we share our own planet with. Lumped together under the term 'extremophiles' these organisms appear to thrive in environments hostile to most other life forms, from the coolant ponds of nuclear reactors to the boiling volcanic vents of the deep ocean floor.

Although this has rightly gained attention for these often wonderfully-named species (from snottites to tardigrades) there are numerous other lifeforms scarcely noticed by anyone other than a few specialists, quietly going about their unassuming business. However, they may provide a few useful lessons for all of us, including that we should acknowledge there may be unrecognised problems generated when we make rapid yet radical modifications to local environments.

There is a small, unassuming type of creature alive today that differs little from a marine animal present in the Middle Cambrian period around five hundred million years ago. I first read about onychophorans in Stephen Jay Gould's 1989 exposition on the Burgess Shale, Wonderful Life, and although those fossil marine lobopodians are not definitively onychophorans they are presumed to be ancestral. More commonly known by one genus, peripatus, or even more colloquially as velvet worms, there are at least several hundred species around today, possibly many more. The velvet component of their name is due to their texture, but they bear more resemblance to caterpillars than to worms. They are often described as the ‘missing link' between arthropods and worms but as is usually the case this is a wildly inappropriate term in this context of biological classification. The key difference to the Burgess Shale specimens is that today's velvet worms are fully terrestrial: there are no known marine or freshwater species.

Primarily resident in the southern hemisphere, the largely nocturnal peripatus shun bright light and requiring humid conditions to survive. Although there are about thirty species here in New Zealand, a combination of their small size (under 60mm long) and loss of habitat means they are rarely seen. The introduction of predators such as hedgehogs - who of course never meet peripatus in their northern hemisphere home territory - means that New Zealand's species have even more to contend with. Although I frequently (very carefully) look under leaf litter and inside damp logs on bush walks in regions known to contain the genus Peripatoides - and indeed where others have told me they have seen them - I have yet to encounter a single specimen.

There appears to be quite limited research, with less than a third of New Zealand species fully described. However, enough is known about two species to identify their population status as 'vulnerable'. One forest in the South Island has been labelled an 'Area of Significant Conservation Value' thanks to its population of peripatus, with the Department of Conservation relocating specimens prior to road development. Clearly, they had better luck locating velvet worms than I have had! It isn't just the New Zealand that lacks knowledge of home-grown onychophorans either: in the past two decades Australian researchers have increased the number of their known species from just seven to about sixty.

Their uncanny resemblance to the Burgess Shale specimens, despite their transition from marine to terrestrial environments, has led velvet worms to be described by another well-worn phrase, 'living fossils'. However, is this short-hand in any way useful, or is it a lazy and largely inaccurate term? The recent growth in sophisticated DNA analysis suggests that even when outward anatomy may be change little, the genome itself may vary widely. Obviously DNA doesn't preserve in fossils and so any such changes cannot be tracked from the Cambrian specimens, but the genetic variation found in other types of organisms sharing a similar appearance shows that reliance on just external anatomy can be deceptive.

Due to lack of funding, basic taxonomic research, the bedrock for cladistics, is sadly lacking. In the case of New Zealand, some of the shortfall has been made up for by dedicated amateurs, but there are few new taxonomists learning the skills to continue this work - which is often seen as dull and plodding compared to the excitement of, for example, genetics. Most people might say so what interest could there be in such tiny, insignificant creatures as peripatus? After all, how likely would you be to move an ant's nest in your garden before undertaking some re-landscaping? But as shown by the changing terminology from 'food chains' to 'food webs', in most cases we still don't understand how the removal of one species might generate a domino effect on a local ecosystem.

I've previously discussed the over-reliance on 'poster' species such as giant pandas for environmental campaigns, but mere aesthetics don't equate to importance, either for us or ecology as a whole. It is becoming increasingly clear that by weight the majority of our planet's biomass is microbial. Then come the insects, with the beetles prominent both by number of species and individuals. Us large mammals are really just the icing on the cake and certainly when it comes to Homo sapiens, the rest of the biosphere would probably be far better off without us, domesticated species aside.

It would be nice to value organisms for themselves, but unfortunately our market economies require the smell of profit before they will lift a finger. Therefore if their usefulness could be ascertained, it might help generate greater financial incentive to support the wider environment. Onychophorans may seem dull, but there are several aspects to them that is both interesting in itself and might also provide something fruitful for us humans.

Firstly, they have an unusual weapon in the form of a mechanism that shoots adhesive slime at prey. Like spider silk, is it possible that this might prove an interesting line of research in the materials or pharmaceutical industries? After all, it was the prickly burrs of certain plants that inspired the development of Velcro, whilst current studies of tardigrades (the tiny 'water bears' living amongst the mosses) are investigating their near indestructability. If even a single, tiny species becomes extinct, that genome is generally lost forever: who knows what insights it might have led to? Although museum collections can be useful, DNA does decay and contamination leads to immense complexities in unravelling the original organism's genome. All in all, it's much better to have a living population to work on than rely on what can be pieced together post-extinction.

In addition, for such tiny creatures, velvet worms have developed complex social structures; is it possible that analysis of their brains might be useful in computing or artificial intelligence? Of course it is unlikely - and extinction is nothing if not natural - but the current rate is far greater than it has been outside of mass extinctions. Losing a large and obvious species such as the Yangtze River dolphin (and that was despite it being labelled a ‘national treasure') is one thing, but how many small, barely-known plants and animals are going the same way without anyone noticing? Could it be that right now some minute, unassuming critter is dying out and that we will only find out too late that it was a vital predator of crop-eating pests like snails or disease vectors such as cockroaches?

It has been said that ignorance is bliss, but with so many humans needing to be fed, watered and treated for illness, now more than ever we need as much help as we can get. Having access to the complex ready-made biochemistry of a unique genome is surely easier than attempting to synthesise one from scratch or recover it from a long-dead preserved specimen? By paying minimal attention to the smallest organisms that lie all around us, we could be losing so much more than just an unobtrusive plant, animal or fungus.

We can't save every species on the current endangered list but more attention could be given to the myriad of life forms that get side-lined by the cute and cuddly flagship species, usually large animals. Most of us would be upset by the disappearance of the eighteen hundred or so giant pandas still left in the wild, but somehow I doubt their loss would have as great an impact on the surrounding ecosystem than that of some far less well known flora or fauna. If you think that's nonsense, then consider the vital roles that bees and dung beetles play in helping human agriculture.

Although the decimation of native New Zealand wildlife has led to protective legislation for all our vertebrates and a few famous invertebrates such as giant weta, the vast majority of other species are still left to their own devices. That's not to say that the ecosystems in most other countries are given far less support, of course. But without funding for basic description and taxonomy, who knows what is even out there, never mind whether it might be important to humanity? Could it be that here is a new field for citizen scientists to move into?

Needless to say, the drier climes brought on by rising temperatures will not do peripatus any favours, thanks to its need to remain in damp conditions. Whether by widespread use of the poison 1080 (in the bid to create a pest-free New Zealand by 2050) or the accidental importation of a non-native fungus such as those decimating amphibians worldwide and causing kauri dieback in New Zealand, there are plenty of ways that humans could unwittingly wipe out velvet worms, etal. So next time you watch a documentary on the demise of large, familiar mammals, why not spare a thought for all those wee critters hiding in the bush, going about their business and trying to avoid all the pitfalls us humans have unthinkingly laid for them?

Hold the back page: 5 reasons science journalism can be bad for science

Although there's an extremely mixed quality to television science documentaries these days (with the Discovery Channel firmly at the nadir) - and in stark contrast to the excellent range of international radio programmes available - the popular press bombards us daily with news articles discussing science and technology. Both traditional print and online publications reach an enormous percentage of the public who would never otherwise read stories connected to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics). Therefore these delivery channels and the journalists who write material for them face an immense challenge: how to make science accessible and comprehensible as well as interesting. How well they are doing can be judged by the general public's attitude towards the subject...which is currently not that great.

In November 2016 Oxford Dictionaries stated that their Word of the Year was 'post-truth', which refers to 'circumstances in which objective facts are less influential...than appeals to emotion and personal belief.' Clearly, this is the antithesis of how good science should proceed. Combined with the enormous output from social media, which gives the impression that anyone's opinion is as valid as a trained professionals and you can see why things aren't going well for critical thought in general. Did you know that a Google search for 'flat earth' generates over 12 million results? What a waste of everyone's time and data storage! As they said about Brexit: pride and prejudice has overcome sense and sensibility. Here then are five reasons why popular science journalism, mostly covering general news publications but occasionally dipping into specialist magazines too, can be detrimental to the public's attitude towards science.

1) Most science writers on daily newspapers or non-specialist periodicals don't have any formal science training. Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould once pointed out that journalists have a tendency to read summaries rather than full reports or scientific papers, thus distancing themselves from the original material before they even write about it. The problem is that an approach that works for the humanities may not be suitable for science stories. We're not critiquing movies or gourmet cuisine, folks!

As an humorous example of where a lack of research has led to a prevalent error,  a 1984 April Fools' Day spoof research paper by American journalism student Diana ben-Aaron was published in 350 newspapers before the original publisher admitted that Retrobreeding the Woolly Mammoth was phoney. One of the facts that ben-Aaron made up (and still remains unknown) is that woolly mammoth had fifty-eight chromosomes. This number is now ubiquitous across the World Wide Web from Wikipedia to the Washington Post, although I'm pleased to see that the National Geographic magazine website correctly states the situation. Clearly, anyone who follows the President Trump approach that "All I know is what's on the Internet" isn't going to get the correct answer.

This isn't to say that even a scientifically-trained journalist would understand stories from all sectors: the pace of advance in some fields is so fast than no-one can afford the time to maintain a sophisticated understanding of areas beyond their own specialism. But it isn't just particular research that is a concern: general concepts and methodology can be ignored or misunderstood; whilst a lack of mathematical training can easily restrict an understanding of how statistics work, with error bars and levels of significance often overlooked or misrepresented.

Related to this ambiguity and margin for error, journalists love to give definitive explanations, which is where there can be serious issues. Science is a way of finding ever more accurate explanations for the universe, not a collection of unchangeable laws (excepting the Second Law of Thermodynamics, of course). Therefore today's breakthrough may be reversed by tomorrow's report of sample contamination, unrepeatable results or other failure. It's rarely mentioned that scientists are willing to live with uncertainty - it's a key component of the scientific enterprise, after all. Yet in the event of an about turn or setback it's usually the scientists involved who get blamed, with accusations ranging from wasting public money to taking funding from something more worthwhile. Meanwhile, the journalist who wrote the original distorted account rarely gets held responsible. As for the one-sided scare stories such as nicknaming GM crops as 'Frankenfoods', this lowers what should be a serious public debate to an infantile level extremely difficult to overthrow.

2) How many science documentaries have you seen where the narrator says something along the lines of “and then the scientists found something that stunned them”? Such is the nature of story-making today, where audiences are deemed to have such short attention spans that every five minutes they require either a summary of the last ten minutes or a shock announcement. This week I saw a chart about bias within major news organisations: both CNN and USA Today were labelled as 'sensational or clickbait'. I've repeatedly read about scientists who were prompted by journalists towards making a controversial or sensational quote, which if published would distort their work but provide a juicy headline. It seems that limiting hyperbole is a critical skill for any scientist being interviewed.

Journalists don't owe invertebrate paleontologists, for example, a free lunch but there is a lot of good professional and occasionally amateur science being conducted away from the spotlight. Concentrating on the more controversial areas of research does little to improve science in the public's eye. Even reporting of such abstract (but mega-budget) experiments as the Large Hadron Collider seems to be based around headlines about 'The God Particle' (nearly six million results on Google) A.K.A. Higgs Boson (less than two million results). Next thing, they'll be nicknaming the LHC ‘The Hammer of Thor' or something equally cretinous. Although come to think of it…

The World Wide Web is far worse than printed news, with shock headlines ('It Was The Most XXX Ever Found - "It Blew My Mind," Expert Says') and over-inflated summaries that would make even lowbrow tabloids blush. Even specialist periodicals are not immune to the syndrome, with New Scientist magazine being particularly at fault. In 2009 it published the silly headline 'Darwin was wrong' which drew the ire of many biologists whilst providing a new form of ammunition for creationists. In 2012 their special 'The God Issue' turned out to contain less than fifteen pages on religion - but then it is meant to be a popular science periodical! In this vein the Ig Nobels seem to get more attention than the Nobel Prizes as journalists look for a quirky man-bites-dog angle to convince the public that a science story is worth reading.

3) Talking of which, journalists want to reach the widest possible audience and therefore looking for human angle is a prominent way to lure in readers. The two most recent Brian Cox television documentary series, Human Universe and Forces of Nature have concentrated on stories around families and children, with the science elements being interwoven almost effortlessly into the narrative.

In print and digital formats this bias means that the focus is frequently on articles that might directly affect humanity, especially medical, agricultural and environmental stories. This puts an unbalanced emphasis on certain areas of science and technology, leaving other specialisations largely unreported. This might not appear bad in itself, but lack of visibility can cause difficulties when it comes to maintaining public funding or attracting private philanthropy for less commercial and/or more theoretical science projects.

Another method used to make science more palatable is to concentrate on individual geniuses rather than team efforts. I assume only a very small proportion of the public know that theoretical physicists do their best work before they are thirty years old, yet the seventy-five year old Stephen Hawking (whose name is now a trademark, no less) is quoted almost every week as if he were Moses. He's well worth listening to but even so, Professor Hawking seems have become a spokesperson for almost any aspect of science the media want a quote on.

4) With competition tougher than ever thanks to social media and smartphone photography, journalists face ever tighter deadlines to publish before anyone else. This can obviously lead to a drop in accuracy, with even basic fact-checking sometimes lacking. For example, a year or two ago I sent a tweet to the British paleopathologist and presenter Dr Alice Roberts that the BBC Science and Environment News web page stated humans were descended from chimpanzees! She must have contacted them fairly rapidly as the content was corrected soon after, but if even the BBC can make such basic blunders, what hope is there for less reputable news-gathering sources? As with much of contemporary business, the mentality seems to be to get something into market as quick as possible and if it happens to be a smartphone that frequently catches fire, we'll deal with that one later. The Samsung Galaxy Note 7's recent debacle is the gadget equivalent of the BBC error: beating the opposition takes precedence over exactitude.

It's one to thing to define science as striving towards more accurate descriptions of aspects of reality rather than being a series of set-in-stone commandments, but publishing incorrect details for basic, well-established facts can only generate mistrust of journalists by both scientific professionals and members of the public who discover the mistake. Surely there's time for a little cross-checking with reference books and/or websites in order to prevent the majority of these howlers? Having said that, I find it scary that a major media organisation can commit such blunders. I wonder what the outcry would be if the BBC's Entertainment and Arts News page claimed that Jane Austen wrote Hamlet?

5) Finally, there's another explanation that has less to do with the science journalists themselves and more with what constitutes newsworthy stories. Negativity is the key here, and as such science news is swept along with it. For example, the BBC Science and Environment News web page currently has three articles on climate change and animal extinctions, an expensive project technology failure, earthquake news and a pharmaceutical story. Like a lot of political reports, those concerning STEM subjects concentrate on the bad side of the fence. Unfortunately, the dog-bites-man ordinariness of, for example ‘Project X succeeds in finding something interesting' usually precludes it from being deemed media-worthy. The ethos seems to be either find a unique angle or publish something pessimistic.

One tried and tested method to capture attention is to concentrate on scandal and error: science is just as full of problems as any other aspect of humanity. Of course it is good to examine the failure of high-tech agriculture that led to the UK's BSE 'mad cow' disease outbreaks in the 1980s and 90s, but the widespread dissemination of the supposed link between MMR and autism has caused immense damage around the world, thanks to a single report being unthinkingly conveyed as rock-hard evidence.

Bearing in mind that journalism is meant to turn a profit, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at how misrepresented scientific research can be. It's difficult enough to find the most objective versions of reality, considering all the cognitive bias in these post-truth times. There are no obvious answers as to how to resolve the issue of poor quality science reporting without either delaying publishing and/or employing scientifically-trained staff. The market forces that drive journalism unfortunately mean that STEM stories rarely do science justice and often promote a negative attitude among the rest of mankind. Which is hardly what we need right now!

Devoted to dinosaurs: Joan Wiffen and the role of the amateur scientist

I was recently at a second hand book stall, browsing a first edition of Graeme Steven's Prehistoric New Zealand. The market stall owner told me that she had thumbed through the book and was amazed to learn that New Zealand had any wildlife prior to the moa. This seemingly widespread lack of knowledge about the nation's past is no doubt partially due to the small number of both practitioners and finds, although the state education system cannot be considered blameless. Still, in an age of easily-accessible information via the World Wide Web and the likes of the National Geographic Channel, such gaps do seem rather surprising.

Of course a lack of public knowledge concerning ancient life isn't restricted to New Zealand. I recall several amusing (yes, I know it sounds smug) encounters at London's Natural History Museum, where I discovered that parents of dinosaur-crazed children cannot differentiate giant ground sloths from dinosaurs, let alone bipedal carnosaurs from quadrupedal sauropods.

The poor understanding of New Zealand's past is exacerbated by the low population and correspondingly small amount of funding available. Therefore perhaps it's not surprising that amateurs have made significant discoveries, from the Hamilton Junior Naturalist Club's discovery of a giant penguin fossil at Kawhia to Joan Wiffen, the 'Hawke's Bay housewife' (an epithet that always causes me to grit my teeth) who discovered New Zealand's first dinosaur fossils and much more besides.

I've previously discussed the joys of amateur fossicking from a primarily fun aspect but also mentioned how New Zealand relies on non-professionals. The Kawhia penguin is a case in point, as it would have eroded within a year had it not been discovered. Indeed, I was recently collecting some Pleistocene marine molluscs above a Taranaki river valley, on a steep slope prone to severe flooding. These fossils had been uncovered following a landslide caused by a severe rainstorm in 2015 and would no doubt be washed away with the next one.

In addition to the lack of professionals, the discipline's funding within New Zealand has decreased over the past half century. The Marsden Fund is a key sponsor of science projects but less than 10% of proposals are successful. The obvious wider issue here is that for the foreseeable future there is unlikely to be any private funding for scientific research that isn't financially viable in the short-term; let's face it, most paleontology isn't going to earn big bucks. That isn't to say there aren't some income streams available, especially around museums, merchandise and occasionally site tourism. However, New Zealand's dinosaur, marine reptile and pterosaur remains are mostly isolated fragments, hardly likely to prove star attractions for even the most ardent dino enthusiast.

Which brings us back to Joan Wiffen. She went from a minimal secondary education (due to her father's prejudice) to an honorary science degree from Massey University - whilst still supporting the view that it is the duty of married women to do all the housework. Although she may not have actively negated the Hawke's Bay housewife appellation, the term is hardly suitable for an extremely conscientious scientist; after all, if her husband had been the team leader, he probably wouldn't have been referred to as a Hawke's Bay electronics technician!

Having recently finished reading Wiffen's 1991 book Valley of the Dragons: The Story of New Zealand's Dinosaur Woman I was struck by the obvious lack of professional expertise available in New Zealand as recently as the 1970s and 1980s. Even today, the thirty or so professional paleontologists in the country don't have their own organisation and fall under the auspices of the Geoscience Society of New Zealand. Yet I've long considered geology to be an extremely conservative discipline (think that meteorologist Alfred Wegener's continental drift hypothesis gained little traction for decades until evidence of plate tectonics was found, rather than there being any active interest in resolving the mystery) and so can do few favours to outsiders.

Therefore, Joan Wiffen faced almost complete indifference from scientists who proclaimed there were no relevant strata in which to locate dinosaur remains. Apparently someone had previously noticed reptilian bones in a Te Hoe Valley stream bed - which is what sparked off Wiffen's first expedition - but no-one had the interest or funding to follow it up. Her narrative hints at the disdain professionals felt for amateurs in general but happily this situation has changed markedly in the interim, with citizen science helping to bridge gaps in many fields. In the case of New Zealand paleontology, the notable finds by amateurs have included previously unknown species, adding to the evidence that areas of the 'lost' continent of Zealandia have been continually above water since the Mesozoic.

My recent Taranaki excursion was child's play compared to the deprivations Wiffen and co endured in their rat-infested self-built hut, not to mention funding the entire work themselves. From learning how to remove rock matrix via acetic acid (in an old baby bath, no less) to building a stereo microscope stand from a pillar drill base, the Hawke's Bay team certainly utilised classic kiwi number eight wire ingenuity.

In a pre-internet age - it took six months just to pin down the location and land owner of the area marked 'reptile bones' - gaining technical advice from foreign experts was slow and cumbersome. Ironically, in later years New Zealand professionals visited Wiffen's fossil preparation workshop to gain insight into their operation, including as to how she and her friends achieved such high standards. Clearly, her work wasn't the product of a casual dilettante but the output of a highly motivated and hard-working scientist, albeit an unpaid one.

The American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould frequently observed that his disciplines were forms of historical science, built upon a series of unrepeatable events created by the complex interaction of disparate factors. Therefore deposition and preservation - even the discovery - of fossils are unique circumstances; remains that are visible today may be little more than dust tomorrow. We owe Joan Wiffen and her colleagues an enormous debt for increasing the sum of human knowledge at their own time and expense, purely for the love of science. And if any Hawke's Bay residents want to pick up where she left off, then I'm sure both professionals and posterity would be most grateful!

From Dr Strangelove to Dr Evil: Hollywood's anti-science stance

Despite the decades of hard work by the likes of Bill Nye, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould etal, there is still an enormous amount of public suspicion surrounding scientists and their work. From wavering opinion concerning climate change to the negative publicity revolving around genetically-modified crops (A.K.A. 'Frankenfoods') it seems that popular opinion of scientists isn't far above that meted out in recent years to politicians and merchant bankers.

Tabloid media cannot be solely to blame for this, although the ridiculous scaremongering stories given front page attention, frequently involving medical science, are certainly no help. Instead, I would argue that some of the blame for the public attitude to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) comes from that ubiquitous global communicator, mainstream Hollywood. So where did the world's movie capital get its ideas from?

It seems that the denigration of science and its technological applications has probably existed as long as modern science itself. Before there were films to spread the negativity, literature had a mixed opinion of the discipline. Could some of the most famous apparently anti-scientific publications from Europe have inspired Hollywood's pioneers, many of whom were European emigrés?

Jonathan Swift's third book of Gulliver's Travels concerns the scientific elite of a floating island called Laputa. First published in 1726 during the so-called Age of Enlightenment, the book is typical of Swift's no holds barred approach to satire, making much use of the learning of the day. Despite being far more concerned with social and political issues rather than an anti-scientific stance, the material is still echoed today in the popular media.

Granted, many would agree that some of the more expensive STEM research projects such as the Large Hadron Collider could wait until global issues concerning hunger, medicine, environmental degradation - and poverty in general - are solved, but then wealth is rarely evenly distributed. After all, the USA apparently spends twice as much on pet grooming as it does on nuclear fusion research. Incidentally, isn't this bizarre in itself: it's not just that we consider ourselves so much more rational than all other animals, but that the human brain is the most complex object in the known universe. That's a pretty scary thought!

As for Mary Shelley's classic novel whose title is evoked during criticism of GM foods, she may have been inspired by the general feeling of doom then in the air; almost literally in fact, due to the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, with volcanic dust creating 1816's 'Year without a Summer'. As an aside, the astonishingly lurid colours of J.M.W. Turner's sunsets of the period were another artistic response associated with the high-altitude volcanic aerosols.

In addition to the extremely cold, wet conditions of that year, Shelley is thought to have stopped near to the original Frankenstein Castle in Germany, where alchemy and other dubious dark arts were reputed to have been practiced. Combined with Luigi Galvani's experiments on frogs' legs - originally performed several decades earlier but much imitated still in Shelley's time, including on human cadavers - the novel is clearly a reflection of widespread anxieties of the time.

With the expansion of industrial cities and their associated squalor, the mid-Nineteenth Century saw the origin of philosophies that associated technological advances (and their scientific underpinnings) with a debasement of humanity. William Blake's description of 'satanic mills' epitomises this mode of thought, seen in as diverse a range of expression as the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood of artists, the Arts and Crafts movement, even the political writings of Marx and Engels. To blame the greed of the new captains of industry on science is obviously unfair, but then the latter were a far easier target. After all, the English chemist and political radical Joseph Priestley fled to the United States after an authority-sponsored mob burnt down his house in 1791.

Blake's over-wraught emoting ("Science is the Tree of Death") is amongst the strongest negativity of the period, but can we blame him, considering science was, as it is today, often wrongly blamed as the root cause of the widespread destruction of nature to make way for a soulless, artificial environment? But it wasn't just a response to the changes to society and landscape that Blake took exception to: he detested the mechanistic vision of the universe built upon the work of Galileo and Newton, believing that too much knowledge destroyed wonder and awe.

This is clearly as subjective a viewpoint as any discussion of a work of art; it can be easily rebuffed, although the attitude behind it should be treated seriously. Happily, today's plethora of glossy coffee table books on such scientifically-gleaned wonders as Hubble Space Telescope imagery show there is still plenty to be in awe of.

Mainstream cinema frequently paints a very A versus B picture of the world (think classic westerns or war films). But science can rarely fit into such neat parcels: consider how the more accurate general theory of relativity can live alongside its predecessor from Newton. In addition, it's very tricky to make interesting drama within a traditional narrative structure that utilises scientist protagonists unless it's a disaster movie (even the likes of Jurassic Park falls within this category.)

It isn't difficult to recall many negative examples of scientists in Hollywood movies, from at best those too wrapped up in their own work to notice its wider effects, to at worst insane megalomaniacs intent on either world domination or destruction. In contrast, how many sympathetic movie scientists are there?

It seems such a shame that such a ubiquitous form of entertainment consistently portrays such a lack of sympathy towards science. Even the film version of Carl Sagan's novel Contact lacked the cosmic spiritual elements of the source material, as if afraid that a combination of astrophysics and the mystical wouldn't be comprehensible to audiences (2001 syndrome, perhaps?) Science fiction films these days often seem keen to boast of their technical consultants, so what about a more sympathetic attitude to the practitioners of science itself? After all, most scientists don't live with their private armies in secret headquarters bases, planning to takeover the world...

Spreading the word: 10 reasons why science communication is so important

Although there have been science-promoting societies since the Renaissance, most of the dissemination of scientific ideas was played out at royal courts, religious foundations or for similarly elite audiences. Only since the Royal Institution lectures of the early 19th century and such leading lights as Michael Faraday and Sir Humphry Davy has there been any organised communication of the discipline to the general public.

Today, it would appear that there is a plethora - possibly even a glut - in the market. Amazon.com carries over 192,000 popular science books and over 4,000 science documentary DVD titles, so there's certainly plenty of choice! Things have dramatically improved since the middle of the last century, when according to the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, there was essentially no publicly-available material about dinosaurs.

From the ubiquity of the latter (especially since the appearance of Steven Spielberg's originally 1993 Jurassic Park) it might appear that most science communication is aimed at children - and, dishearteningly, primarily at boys - but this really shouldn't be so. Just as anyone can take evening courses in everything from pottery to a foreign language, why shouldn't the public be encouraged to understand some of the most important current issues in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), at the same time hopefully picking up key methods of the discipline?

As Carl Sagan once said, the public are all too eager to accept the products of science, so why not the methods? It may not be important if most people don't know how to throw a clay pot on a wheel or understand why a Cubist painting looks as it does, but it certainly matters as to how massive amounts of public money are invested in a project and whether that research has far-reaching consequences.
Here then are the points I consider the most important as to why science should be popularised in the most accessible way - although without oversimplifying the material to the point of distortion:

1. Politicians and the associated bureaucracy need basic understanding of some STEM research, often at the cutting edge, in order to generate new policies. Yet as I have previously examined, few current politicians have a scientific background. If our elected leaders are to make informed decisions, they need to understand the science involved. It's obvious, but then if the summary material they are supplied with is incorrect or deliberately biased, the outcome may not be the most appropriate one. STEM isn't just small fry: in 2010 the nations with the ten highest research and development budgets had a combined spend of over US$1.2 trillion.

2. If public money is being used for certain projects, then taxpayers are only able to make valid disagreements as to how their money is spent if they understand the research (military R&D excepted of course, since this is usually too hush-hush for the rest of us poor folk to know about). In 1993 the US Government cancelled the Superconducting Super Collider particle accelerator as it was deemed good science but not affordable science. Much as I love the results coming out of the Large Hadron Collider, I do worry that the immense amount of funding (over US$13 billion spent by 2012) might be better used elsewhere on other high-technology projects with more immediate benefits. I've previously discussed both the highs and lows of nuclear fusion research, which surely has to be one of the most important areas in mega-budget research and development today?

3. Criminal law serves to protect the populace from the unscrupulous, but since the speed of scientific advances and technological change run way ahead of legislation, public knowledge of the issues could help prevent miscarriages of justice or at least wasting money. The USA population has spent over US$3 billion on homeopathy, despite a 1997 report by the President of the National Council Against Health Fraud that stated "Homeopathy is a fraud perpetrated on the public." Even a basic level of critical thinking might help in the good fight against baloney.

4. Understanding of current developments might lead to reliance as much on the head as the heart. For example, what are the practical versus moral implications for embryonic stem cell research (exceptionally potent with President Obama's State of the Union speech to cure cancer). Or what about the pioneering work in xenotransplantation: could the next few decades see the use of genetically-altered pig hearts to save humans, and if so would patients with strong religious convictions agree to such transplants?

5. The realisation that much popular journalism is sensationalist and has little connection to reality. The British tabloid press labelling of genetically-modified crops as 'Frankenstein foods' is typical of the nonsense that clouds complex and serious issues for the sake of high sales. Again, critical thinking might more easily differentiate biased rhetoric from 'neutral' facts.

6. Sometimes scientists can be paid to lie. Remember campaigns with scientific support from the last century that stated smoking tobacco is good for you or that lead in petrol is harmless? How about the DuPont Corporation refusing to stop CFC production, with the excuse that capitalist profit should outweigh environmental degradation and the resulting increase in skin cancer? Whistle-blowers have often been marginalised by industry-funded scientists (think of the initial reaction to Rachel Carson concerning DDT) so it's doubtful anything other than knowledge of the issues would penetrate the slick corporate smokescreen.

7. Knowing the boundaries of the scientific method - what science can and cannot tell us and what should be left to other areas of human activity - is key to understanding where the discipline should fit into society. I've already mentioned the moral implications and whether research can be justified due to the potential outcome, but conversely, are there habits and rituals, or just societal conditioning, that blinds us to what could be achieved with public lobbying to governments?

8. Nations may be enriched as a whole by cutting out nonsense and focusing on solutions for critical issues, for example by not having to waste time and money explaining that global warming and evolution by natural selection are successful working theories due to the mass of evidence. Notice how uncontroversial most astronomical and dinosaur-related popularisations are. Now compare to the evolution of our own species. Enough said!

9. Improving the public perspective of scientists themselves. A primary consensus still seems to promote the notion of lone geniuses, emotionally removed from the rest of society and frequently promoting their own goals above the general good. Apart from the obvious ways in which this conflicts with other points already stated, much research is undertaken by large, frequently multi-national teams; think Large Hadron Collider, of course. Such knowledge may aid removal of the juvenile Hollywood science hero (rarely a heroine) and increase support for the sustained efforts that require public substantial funding (nuclear fusion being a perfect example).

10. Reducing the parochialism, sectarianism and their associated conflict that if anything appears to be on the increase. It's a difficult issue and unlikely that it could be a key player but let's face it, any help here must be worth trying. Neil deGrasse Tyson's attitude is worth mentioning: our ideological differences seem untenable against a cosmic perspective. Naïve perhaps, but surely worth the effort?

Last year Bill Gates said: "In science, we're all kids. A good scientist is somebody who has redeveloped from scratch many times the chain of reasoning of how we know what we know, just to see where there are holes." The more the rest of us understand this, isn't there a chance we would notice the holes in other spheres of thought we currently consider unbending? This can only be a good thing, if we wish to survive our turbulent technological adolescence.