Science desk
< September 23	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 24

Primary author

If there's an important biology paper with 10 authors, is it customary to list the primary author or principal investigator last? Alternatively would the main contributor come first? In the paper I'm thinking of, I believe the main result came out of joint work between the PI and a postdoc working for him, with various others also making contributions. The postdoc is listed first, then the others, and then the PI is last. It's a little bit odd that the PI's Wikipedia biography more or less describes it as a solo result by the PI. Not to diminish his contribution and maybe I have it wrong, but I thought in other places I'd seen, credit was apportioned between the PI and postdoc about equally. The paper is doi:10.1038/nature14432 which has all the names. They are not otherwise in alphabetical order or anything like that. I'm wondering whether I should adjust the wording in the biography, or alternatively bring it up on the biography's talk page. There are several separate biology articles related to the discovery itself, and those articles don't seem to have this issue. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DDAF (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have known European professors who insisted on always being listed first, even though the real work, also intellectually, had been done by an assistant. This was in a bygone era, in which the professor was also the director of a lab or suchlike, which he (never a she) could and did rule like a potentate. (I don't know how it was in these days in the US.) The argument was that then the publication was more likely to be accepted. With increased democratization and the rise of publish or perish, this is now often reversed: the doctoral students, who need publications to be considered for a tenure track, are listed before the authors who are tenured. But this is not universal. Next to alphabetical ordering, it is not unusual to attempt to order by the impact the authors had on the final publication. But, as you can imagine, determining that order is fraught with problems and potential conflicts. Yet another possibility is picking a random ordering. In short, there is no universal custom. Some methods may be more customary in specific fields; I have no specific experience or knowledge of the customs in biology. Some links to pages or articles that discuss this matter: [1], [2], [3] (paywall). --Lambiam 09:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely varies by field. In both mathematics and computer science, there's a very strong presumption in favor of alphabetical order, and inferring the degree of contribution from the author order is mostly useless and probably discouraged. --Trovatore (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be random, Zhou never first Adam Aaronson always first. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical works fine as long as everyone knows it's alphabetical. The problem is the mix of conventions that muddles the interpretation.

In principle, order by level of contribution could theoretically work, if there were some objective way to determine it and people could keep their egos out of the way, but since I don't think either of those things is true it's probably a bad idea. Random could also work if it were used universally or near-universally, but as things stand, if you see authors not in alphabetical order, you likely assume it's by order of contribution, so random is also probably a bad idea. Alphabetical seems to be least bad. --Trovatore (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These days, it's theoretically in order of merit, so to speak (at least in the biomedical field). As in, the people who contributed the most are the earliest in the author order. This is independent of student or staff status, it's about who did the work. The order might be a post-doc, an undergraduate, a PhD student, and a professor, for example. The last place is still reserved for the supervisor/line manager/head of the lab generally. There is of course a world of politics here too, so orders may not always reflect reality. For instance, in my last paper it was post-doc, post-doc, technician, professor, professor, professor. Did all the professors contribute? No, they did not... Anyway, you will find the specific author contributions at the bottom of many papers these days, those will be informative. Fgf10 (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. I have a clearer picture now, though I still don't know what if anything to do about the biography article. It's probably tolerable to just leave it alone, since it would be just another example of Wikipedia's occasional imprecision that we all live with. There is no sign of any any impropriety, but just some earlier WP editor writing from an incomplete picture, which happens all the time here.
Biology/medicine isn't my field at all so maybe I'm overglamorizing it, but this paper struck me as important to the point that "consideration for tenure" might be less of an issue than "consideration for Nobel" ;-). The article meningeal lymphatic vessels describes some of the background. If that's the case, it's something that science historians might want to document carefully someday. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DDAF (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether justified or not, it is described here simply as "the work of Jonathan Kipnis", but here it is described as a discovery by Kipnis and Louveau, in that order, where the latter is described as a "research scientist who joined Kipnis' lab as a postdoctoral fellow". It is the first of seven publications by Louveau, all of which are co-authored by Kipnis. --Lambiam 19:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks, the "collaborators" pulldown of that Puretech page (the first of your two links) indicates that Kipnis is connected with a biomedical startup commercializing the discovery. So there might be some revisionism going on, that smells a bit like a marketing department at play. I better take a look at the revision history of the Kipnis biography. I remember the news reports at the time saying basically that Kipnis and Louveau were originally working on something a bit different involving studying mouse meninges under a microscope, using a new technique developed by Louveau. Louveau noticed these weird-looking vessels while looking for the other thing, and called Kipnis over to the microscope. Kipnis recognized (or maybe confirmed) their significance. Anyway, the authors continue to collaborate, so there's hopefully no real weirdness going on. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DDAF (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monocled cobras, regurgitating food

I have been watching the YouTube videos of a man, (Mizra Md Arif), in Odisha, India, who rescues venonmous snakes, from people. (And people from the snakes!) He goes to village homes/areas, and safely removes the snakes, for later release in a forest area. In three of the videos, after removal, the Monocled Cobras have regurgitated their prey. I am puzzled, as to why they should do this, as the process deprives them of nourishment, and leaves them vunerable, during the process.

I have watched twenty or more of his videos, and he does not mistreat the snakes, AFAICT, although being captured is stressful, of course. (Here are only two examples of his kind treatment. [4] [5])

In one video, two kittens were regurgitated,[6] and in another, three chicken/fowl eggs. The most amazing, was the regurgitation of a snake that had been eaten by the cobra. The first, 2/3, or so, looked fine, but the last part regurgitated, had been digested, so that all that remained were the vertebrate of the spine. (Can't find the link, just yet.) Any thoughts as to why the cobras would do this? Sorry if this is an unpleasant topic. I do understand that snakes require a regurgitation mechanisim, in case they are attempting to eat prey that is too large, etc.. but in the examples cited/seen, this did not seem to be a factor. Thanks! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on snake says "a snake disturbed after having eaten recently will often regurgitate its prey to be able to escape the perceived threat. When undisturbed, the digestive process is highly efficient, with the snake's digestive enzymes dissolving and absorbing everything but the prey's hair (or feathers) and claws, which are excreted along with waste."--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shantavira: Well, I feel a bit silly, for not checking the Snake article! I thought this was something that only a cobra did, and it was not mentioned in the more specific Cobra article. (Obviously, it only belongs in the Snake artcle, of course.) Nonetheless, from viewing these videos, the cobra snake seemed fairly incapacitated during the regurgitation process, plus its fangs were blocked from defense. In the wild, if attempting to escape from a predator, I would think this response would be a disadvantage. But, perhaps the smaller body mass and the ability to maneuver with less energy expediture (in order to escape) would be the justification for this behaviour? So much metabolic energy is required for digestion, which may be used for escape. You were very helpful, thank you. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that for a trait to be favoured by evolution, it doesn't have to work all the time, it just has to work more often than not. The world is probably too complicated for anything biological to work favourably in all possible circumstances. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.33.80 (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the predator may decide that the regurgitated food is an easier target than the snake. "Predator" and "scavenger" are not truly exclusive terms and many animals do not exhibit the aversion to regurgitant that humans do. --Khajidha (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has it ever been definitively determined why gulls chase ships?

The obvious answer would be "because people on the ship feed them", but I have also seen it suggested that they're mainly doing it so they can slipstream the ship and that they chase it still even when there's no food. 146.200.128.134 (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a combination of factors. Following a ferry has both a cost and a possible reward. Apparently, the air streaming over the ship can help the gull to soar,^[7] which requires very little energy, greatly reducing the cost. (Aside: Once, taking the ferry from the European side of Istanbul to the Princes' Islands, which is always accompanied by a flock of gulls, with passengers often throwing them pieces of bread or simit, I noticed from the corner of my eye that one of the birds was flying awkwardly. When I looked, I saw a crow flying merrily in the midst of the flock of gulls – but, not built for soaring, it had to keep flapping its wings to keep up.) Often the food thrown will be enough of a reward, but if a boat is heading the way a gull would have gone anyway, I can imagine they appreciate the free ride. Next to ferries and cruise ships carrying passengers, they are reported to preferentially follow fishing boats, diving in the wake to pick up scraps thrown overboard.^[8] --Lambiam 08:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a WWII naval anecdote about an old merchant ship converted into a dummy battleship at Scapa Flow to confuse German reconnaissance aircraft. 'A signal went across to them one day from the Commander-in-Chief; “Feed your seagulls”.' [9] All the real warships in the harbour had an attendant flock of seabirds feeding on the rubbish (or "gash") thrown overboard. 176.227.136.190 (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Measuring ageing rate

Are there any measurement methods for human ageing rate (possibly telomere length measurement, etc) to verify if a person indeed ages slower compared to some baseline? This is partially inspired by the fact that, despite being 34, I was asked several times to show ID when buying alcohol to prove I'm above 18 (although I was masked due to pandemic, and at least once I was checked so at a nightclub entrance); and 4 years ago when I went to a free cardiovascular checkup, the guy stated that based on my data my heart was younger by two years (meaning the heart was reportedly working as if in 28). 212.180.235.46 (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Telomere length is variable on the individual cellular level, given the trillions of cells in your body right now, I'm not sure that's a practical way of taking a survey of your "biological age". If you want a good overview, the biological process of aging is called Senescence, and it would make a good starting point for your research. Keep in mind that trends in aging can be measured statistically over large numbers of people, but your individual aging process is affected by an irreducible melange of environmental and genetic factors and while we can say that "people", writ large over billions of samples, follow certain trends in the aging process, we cannot necessarily say that you have aged how you have for any specific reason. --Jayron 32 11:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the time I was 16 I had to buy cigarettes and drink for all my friends as I was told I looked to be in my late 20's. Then in my early twenties I was told that I must be "...well into your 30's?" Just FYI. I have never been asked for ID 86.186.232.90 (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise performance. Count Iblis (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EX39 Exclusionary Mogul Screw Base

I'd like to add a description of the EX39 Exclusionary Mogul Screw light bulb base to Edison screw#Types, as described on this "bulbamerica.com" page: What is the difference between E39 and EX39 base?. Can you help me find a better reference, preferably an industry specification? -- ToE 18:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does this ref work for you? If I understand correctly, the "39" and "Mogul" mean the same thing with respect to bulb bases, and the "X" signifies an eXtended contact tip (aka "eyelet"), as illustrated in the source linked to. --Lambiam 08:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with respect to bulb bases, "Mogul" is synonymous with E39 (39mm Edison screw). And yes, the difference is the extended center contact, though I believe the "X" is for "eXclusionary". The extended tip of an EX39 bulb allows its use in either an E39 or an EX39 socket, but the ceramic ridge around the center of an EX39 socket excludes operation with an E39 bulb as it prevents the bulb from fully seating and making contact with the center electrode.

The "bulbamerica" page indicates that this is to prevent a bulb rated only for enclosed fixtures (and equipped with an E39 base) from being used in an open fixture (equipped with an EX39 socket), while allowing bulbs rated for open fixtures (and equipped with an EX39 base) to be used in either open or closed fixtures.

Thanks for that ref. At least it does illustrate the difference between the two bases, though it doesn't address the purpose. What I still don't know is if the open enclosure exclusion is an issue of weather exposure of UV shielding. (One use of these bases is with some HID lamps.) -- ToE 12:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that the "bulbamerica" page shows left-handed threads. I wonder if they reflected the images without thinking at some point, or did so to mask having copied them from another souce. -- ToE 12:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the species disappeared instantly how long will average books on shelves stay readable in different climates?

I'm guessing that jungle is one of the worst climates, Northeast America and North Europe somewhat better and Egypt is better still as there are readable papyri from 26th century. Are there better climates than Egypt? Can it be too dry? Is cold and dry better than hot and dry? Is heat or cold bad, or just constant temperature swings or freezing cycles like Mongolia or not even that? Is altitude good? How much windowlight do you need to cause extra exterior fading of a well-preserved for its age but still almost unreadable bookshelf book? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This requires speculation or prediction which the Ref Desk doesn't do. Richard Avery (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental question the OP is asking is "How well books / paper last in various environmental conditions". That sounds like the sort of thing that will have been studied by archivists and curators, so even if the exact answer cannot be given, a useful or approximate one ought to be possible. Here are a couple of links that may be relevant: [10] [11] Iapetus (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so cool and dry and dark is best, if the cooler the better then it's stations like Vostok and Amundsen-Scott, only ones that avoid disasters like asteroids which we can't crystal ball. If dry and cool but not freezing is best then maybe villages of certain height near the equator? I'm betting Ethiopia, Andes or Kenya. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or Hawaii as their rain shadows actually work, with no wet season. But Kauai has had a cat 4, no way could any island avoid one for 10,000+ years. Maybe some high altitude village in the general vicinity of Ethiopia or Yemen. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the last 10,000 years, but most of the islands of the Indonesian archipelago have never recorded a Typhoon/Hurricane/Cyclone. They are subject to earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanism though, and torrential seasonal rain. Not a great environment for preserving your old books. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 00:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a cool graphic to go with that statement: [12]. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 00:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, too close to the doldrums in wet season. Would probably mold without air conditioning. Hawaii has desert but books might be blown all the way to the ocean after building destruction. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, waaaaaay to many variables to consider, including what caused us to be gone, and what conditions would befall everything else with us gone (i.e. ancient Egypt didn't contend with nuclear reactors following an absence of human operators and maintenance). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The calculator at http://dpcalc.org/ gives some insights to what conditions cause the worst damage to "collection materials for libraries, museums, and archives". (No idea how accurate it is.) You can put in real life typical weather conditions for various places and have a guess. Possibly the series Life After People also talked about this. 93.136.39.38 (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to work on mobile but thanks for the link, I'll use it later at a library computer or something. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]