Tag Archives: University of East Anglia

Bacteria on a battery can be a good thing

Leave a reply

In a joint project between the UK’s University of East Anglia (UEA) and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in Washington State (US) researchers have published a paper about their work utilizing bacteria to produce electric currents in batteries. From the Mar. 25, 2013 news item on ScienceDaily,

Scientists at the University of East Anglia have made an important breakthrough in the quest to generate clean electricity from bacteria.

Findings published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) show that proteins on the surface of bacteria can produce an electric current by simply touching a mineral surface.

The research shows that it is possible for bacteria to lie directly on the surface of a metal or mineral and transfer electrical charge through their cell membranes. This means that it is possible to ‘tether’ bacteria directly to electrodes — bringing scientists a step closer to creating efficient microbial fuel cells or ‘bio-batteries’.

The team collaborated with researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Washington State in the US.

Shewanella oneidensis (pictured) is part of a family of marine bacteria. The research team created a synthetic version of this bacteria using just the proteins thought to shuttle the electrons from the inside of the microbe to the rock.

Image: Shewanella oneidensis bacteria, Alice Dohnalkova. (downloaded from http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2013/March/bio-batteries)

Image: Shewanella oneidensis bacteria, Alice Dohnalkova. (downloaded from http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2013/March/bio-batteries)

The Mar. 25, 2013 UEA news release,which originated the news item,  describes the work n some detail (Note: A link has been removed),

They inserted these proteins into the lipid layers of vesicles, which are small capsules of lipid membranes such as the ones that make up a bacterial membrane. Then they tested how well electrons travelled between an electron donor on the inside and an iron-bearing mineral on the outside.

Lead researcher Dr Tom Clarke from UEA’s school of Biological Sciences said: “We knew that bacteria can transfer electricity into metals and minerals, and that the interaction depends on special proteins on the surface of the bacteria. But it was not been clear whether these proteins do this directly or indirectly though an unknown mediator in the environment.

“Our research shows that these proteins can directly ‘touch’ the mineral surface and produce an electric current, meaning that is possible for the bacteria to lie on the surface of a metal or mineral and conduct electricity through their cell membranes.

“This is the first time that we have been able to actually look at how the components of a bacterial cell membrane are able to interact with different substances, and understand how differences in metal and mineral interactions can occur on the surface of a cell.

“These bacteria show great potential as microbial fuel cells, where electricity can be generated from the breakdown of domestic or agricultural waste products.

“Another possibility is to use these bacteria as miniature factories on the surface of an electrode, where chemicals reactions take place inside the cell using electrical power supplied by the electrode through these proteins.”

Biochemist Liang Shi of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory said: “We developed a unique system so we could mimic electron transfer like it happens in cells. The electron transfer rate we measured was unbelievably fast – it was fast enough to support bacterial respiration.”

This work reminds me of the biobattery created at Concordia University (my April 20, 2012 posting) and the work on breathable batteries at the Polish Academy of Sciences (my Mar. 8, 2013 posting).

Interested parties can find a full citation for the UEA/PNNL research paper at the bottom of the ScienceDaily news item here.

Comparing techniques, citizen science to expert science

Leave a reply

Thanks to Ben Schiller for his Mar. 20, 2013 Fast Company article for this tidbit about an intriguing study carried out by the University of East Anglia,

Research in the Caribbean comparing the abilities of two teams of divers–one using traditional scientific methods, the other using a volunteer technique–found that the amateurs were capable of producing equal, if not better, data. After 44 underwater surveys over two weeks, the volunteers found 137 species of fish, compared to the professionals’ 106.

A University of East Anglia (UEA) Mar. 13, 2013 news release provides more detail about the research and its implications,

Research published today in the journal Methods in Ecology and Evolution shows that methods to record marine diversity used by amateurs returned results consistent with techniques favoured by peer-reviewed science.

The findings give weight to the growing phenomenon of citizen science, which sees data crowd-sourced from an army of avid twitchers, divers, walkers and other wildlife enthusiasts.

The field study compared methods used by ‘citizen’ SCUBA divers with those used by professional scientists, to measure the variety of fish species in three Caribbean sites.

…

Two teams of 12 divers made 144 separate underwater surveys across the sites over four weeks.

While the traditional scientific survey revealed sightings of 106 different types of fish, the volunteer technique detected greater marine diversity with a total of 137 in the same waters.

Dr Ben Holt, from UEA’s school of Biological Sciences, led the research in partnership with the Centre for Marine Resource Studies in the Caribbean and the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

He said: “The results of this study are important for the future of citizen science and the use of data collected by these programs. Allowing volunteers to use flexible and less standardised methods has important consequences for the long term success of citizen science programs. Amateur enthusiasts typically do not have the resources or training to use professional methodology. [emphasis mine] Our study demonstrates the quality of data collected using a volunteer method can match, and in some respects exceed, protocols used by professional scientists.

If the study demonstrates that using a volunteer method matches or, in some cases, exceeds a method (protocol) used by professional scientists, why make the comment about “amateur enthusiasts” not having the resources or training to use professional methods? It would seem that in this study professional methodology was not as effective as volunteer methodology.  That said, I don’t believe we should be replacing professional scientists/methods with volunteers/volunteer methods. There’s more to a scientific inquiry than data collection but this indication that data collected by and the methods used by volunteers have validity when compared to professionally collected data opens up some opportunities for volunteers and scientists.

Holt continues (from the news release),

“Very few, if any, scientific groups can collect data on the scale that volunteer groups can, so our proof that both methods return consistent results is very encouraging for citizen science in general.

“I think we will really see the value of volunteer schemes increase in future. We’re living in a world that’s changing very significantly. Environmental changes are having a big impact on ecosystems around us so we need to harness new ways of measuring the effect.

“For example Lion fish is an invasive species which was not in the Caribbean until roughly 10 years ago. They have now become a real problem in many areas and this invasion has been tracked using volunteer data. Following our study, scientists can have more confidence when using these data to consider the impact of threats, such as invasive species, on the wider natural communities.

“It is important to note that our study does not consider the abilities of the individuals performing the surveys and this is also an important consideration for any large scale biodiversity program. By addressing these issues we can make important steps towards enabling the large pool of volunteer enthusiasts to help professional researchers by collecting valuable data across many ecosystems.”

The research was carried out in under water sites close to South Caicos in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

Here’s an image of the Lionfish, the gorgeous, yet  invasive, species mentioned by Holt,

Antennata Lionfish, picture taken in Zoo Schönbrunn, Vienna, Austria (downloaded from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MC_Rotfeuerfisch.jpg)

Antennata Lionfish, picture taken in Zoo Schönbrunn, Vienna, Austria (downloaded from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MC_Rotfeuerfisch.jpg)

Here’s a citation and a link to Holt’s article,

Comparing diversity data collected using a protocol designed for volunteers with results from a professional alternative by Ben G. Holt, Rodolfo Rioja-Nieto, M. Aaron MacNeil, Jan Lupton,  & Carsten Rahbek. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.12031 Article first published online: 12 MAR 2013

This article is open access.

Science shenanigans made visible; a surprising (or not) appointment to CIHR; announcing a wee holiday

Leave a reply

Human nature, even scientists have it. They recently reasserted their human nature with the climate change controversy over possibly suppressed and/or distorted data. According to the Globe and Mail article by Doug Saunders (Breach in the global-warming bunker rattles climate science at the worst time), even scientists who agreed with the group at the University of East Anglia were not given access let alone people who were perceived as hostile to the cause. Note that word, cause.  From the article,

Unusually, even sympathetic scientists and some activists have concluded that the credibility of climate science has been seriously harmed.

“We should not underestimate the damage caused by what has happened, either for the science or for the politics of climate change, and potentially it could have some very far-reaching consequences,” said Mike Hulme, a climate scientist at East Anglia whose e-mails were among those included in the pirated files and who has been critical of the secrecy and lack of impartiality in his colleagues’ work.

Independent scientists are quick to point out that the actions described in the e-mails do not describe anything like a fabrication of global-warming evidence, and that two other major sets of historical data drawn from the same sources, both held by NASA institutions in the United States, also show a historical warming trend.

…

While such insinuations of poor scientific practice have drawn the most attention, more damaging for climate scientists are e-mails which reveal the hostile, partisan, bunker-like atmosphere at the lab, which goes to ridiculous lengths to prevent even moderate critics from seeing any of the raw data.

In one e-mail, Prof. Jones [head of the CRU] wrote that climate skeptics “have been after the CRU [Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia] station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.”

Jones demonstrates the kind of behaviour and communication (or lack of) that we associate with a wrongdoer trying to cover something up or with a fanatic determined to convince you at all costs. Unfortunately, human beings, even with the best of intentions, can take a wrong turn and it would seem that Jones stopped being a scientist and became a true believer.

Some of what’s being discussed in view of the public eye is the usual back and forth amongst scientists as they dispute each other’s findings in sometimes less than genteel tones and cast aspersions on each other’s methodologies. The more high profile the work, the more bitter the fight.

Very quickly, I want to direct you to Rob Annan’s latest postings on a CIHR [Canadian Institutes of Health Research] appointment, a representative from Pfizer, to their governing council and science policy in Europe. If you’re interested in science policy and the implications of some of the new decisions being made and/or taking view of science policy discussions elsewhere, please do check these postings out. Plus I just (5 minutes ago at 9:45 am PST) received this email from the folks who organized the 2009 Canadian Science Policy Conference,

We have just made the entire content of the CSPC publicly available for all Canadians at our website (http://sciencepolicy.ca), including:

  • video of keynote addresses and plenaries
  • audio of all conference sessions
  • video interviews with opinion leaders, conducted on-site at the CSPC by The Mark News
  • written report of all sessions

We are working towards the production of a comprehensive evaluation of CSPC 2009, including detailed performance measures and outcomes of the conference. To that end, we would greatly appreciate your input.

I look forward to viewing the material from the conference (thank you, organizers) when I settle down a bit. I am currently in the throes of a major transition and may not be blogging again until Dec. 17, 2009 or after.