Monty and a camper at Camp Inquiry '09

Let me tell you a story about one of Monty’s songs. Monty and I met at Camp Inquiry last summer, where he taught songwriting to the campers during the day, and entertained us with his own songs around the campfire in the evenings. It is hard to say which of his songs was our favorite, since they were all so fun, but one that had everyone humming all week was his astronomy-based ditty Roundy Round. Monty couldn’t come to camp this year, so my Handsome Skeptic Husband brought along his twelve-string and played several Monty tunes each evening as we ate S’mores. On the first night of camp this year, Roundy Round was new to many of the campers, but the younger girls who had been at camp last year jumped up to dance and spin in circles as soon as it began. By the end of the week, all the campers knew the song. I was surprised, though, at the last campfire, to see kids of all ages, even teenagers, jump up and start spinning in circles to Roundy Round. In my experience, it takes a lot to get a teenager to act goofy in front of their peers, and to let go and have fun, rather than worry about how they look. But the infectious fun, and sneaky science, of a Monty song has the power to get a cool teenager to let loose and enjoy the moment.

You could wait until later in the fall to buy Monty’s new album, or you can play a part now in getting it produced. Monty is crowd-sourcing the cost to professionally produce this album by getting pledges on Kickstarter. You can listen to Episode 21 of Podcast Beyond Belief to hear Monty explain the whole project, or watch the video on the Kickstarter page.

Monty is already more than half way to his goal, but the deadline of August 22, 2010, is fast approaching. If, instead of waiting to buy the album later, you go to Kickstarter and pledge $20 now, you will receive a physical copy of the CD once it is ready, as well as two bonus MP3s. Of course you could pledge more to help him reach his goal faster. In fact, if you pledge $750 or more he’ll give you and your group a free concert. $2000 or more will even get you your very own song, based on your favorite science topic, included on the album! This is a great idea for your local skeptics group. Band together to raise $2000, and Monty will write a song specifically for your group. How awesome!

Watch this fan video my Handsome (and Multi-Talented) Skeptic Husband made for Monty’s song Roundy Round and try to picture 70 people around a campfire, singing about Copernicus, and dancing in circles. Because Monty makes science fun.

Roundy Round by Monty Harper

We’re looking for someone to take on a once-in-a-lifetime assignment: spend a Month at the Museum, to live and breathe science 24/7 for 30 days. From October 20 to November 18, 2010, this person’s mission will be to experience all the fun and education that fits in this historic 14-acre building, living here and reporting your experience to the outside world. There will be plenty of time to explore the Museum and its exhibits after hours, with access to rarely seen nooks and crannies of this 77-year-old institution.

If the contestant is successful in staying inside for one month, he or she will win $10,000 and a bunch of tech gadgets. Plus, you get to explore as much as you want! The museum has a lot of very cool things, like the only German U-Boat in the U.S., a coal mine, and the Silver Streak passenger train.

The contest information page is here. But hurry–submissions are due by August 11th.

I am interested in science and science education, and I firmly believe that a great way for kids to learn science is to give them the chance to do it themselves. There are a gazillion fun, easy science experiments your kids can do at home using everyday household items! My goal with this series is to show you, dear readers and dear podcast listeners, how to do a few, so maybe you can try them with your kids!

There are several different types of gooey science that you can make, and people call each by different names. The one we will make today is what I call oobleck, but many people call it goo, glop or quicksand goo, and it is basically cornstarch and water. (Not to be confused with silly putty or slime, which are both polymers.)

Oobleck gets its name from a Dr. Seuss book called “Bartholomew and the Oobleck“, in which the King of Didd decides he’s bored with the regular weather, so he asks his magicians to make something different. Unfortunately, what then falls from the sky is ooey, gloppy oobleck, which turns out to be the kingdom’s largest environmental disaster ever. The king asks for advice, and Bartholomew solves the crises by suggesting the king admit he made a mistake in thinking he needed to use magic to improve on nature, and to say he was sorry. This happily causes the oobleck to melt away. So, while we wait for the CEO of a certain oil company to apologize, we can make our own oobleck!

Required supplies:

Corn starch
Water
Measuring cups
Spoons or popsicle sticks to stir with
Cups or bowls
Ziplock bag or airtight container for storage

How to:

Use two parts corn starch to one part water, for example 1/2 cup of cornstarch and 1/4 cup of water.
You can add a drop or two of food coloring, if desired.
Stir until all the powder is incorporated. If the ratio is right, it is hard to stir, but flows together when you stop stirring. Small children may need help with stirring.

To observe:

With gentle treatment, oobleck acts like a liquid.
With harsh treatment, oobleck acts like a solid.
For example, if you slowly push your finger down into the oobleck, the fluid will behave like a liquid and allow your finger to enter. However, if you quickly poke the oobleck with your finger, your finger will bounce off the surface, like a solid. Also, you can quickly roll a small amount into a ball and hold it in your fingers for a moment, before it begins to run and drip.

What’s happening:

Oobleck is what is called a non-Newtonian fluid. Non-Newtonian fluids act very strangely because they do not have a constant coefficient of viscosity. Regular fluids have a constant viscosity. Viscosity is the measure of how easily a fluid flows. For example, water has a low viscosity and flows easily, whereas maple syrup has a higher viscosity, and flows less readily. Oobleck’s viscosity changes depending on what you do to it. If you apply a force to it very quickly (poke it), its viscosity increases, and it resists flow, and seems solid. If you treat it more gently, and apply smaller forces over longer amounts of time (push finger in slowly), it flows more easily. Weird!

Clean up and Storage

Oobleck cleans up easily with a damp cloth and water. It is super messy on little hands, so we limit it to the kitchen table. You can store it for a few days in an airtight container in the refrigerator to prevent mold.

For even more cornstarch fun, check out Steve Spangler’s website, where his son Jack explains how to make cornstarch monsters (shapes that dance and jump around) using oobleck and an old stereo!

The strange properties of oobleck were ridiculously demonstrated using 1000 pounds of cornstarch by the Mythbusters. Don’t try this at home!!

Dear rational moms,

I am writing to you from Hamburg, Germany, where I live and work as a molecular biologist and have two kids age 2 and 5.  When I found out that even educated women turn off their brains once they get pregnant and start doing all kinds of weird things (like holding incense near their toes to make the unborn baby turn into the right position), I was at first surprised and amused, but after a while just angry and feeling helpless.

About a year and a half ago I discovered your blog, which I read regularly.  Since, unfortunately, there is no German website with infomation on what makes sense and what doesn’t concerning all this stuff, I decided to write a blog myself. Thanks for inspiring me to do that!

It went online yesterday: www.scienceblogs.de/mutterwitz.

Off course I put your page on my blogroll!

I will have a look at your blog regularly to get some ideas in the future, and I am glad that at least some problems you have to cope with are virtually non existent in Germany, like Christian fundamentalism.

But on the other hand, in Germany you are considered to be quite exotic when you do not trust homeopathy.

When I mentioned your website to two other mothers I met at the Skeptics Organisation here in Germany, one of them shouted out: “Hooray! We’re not alone! ” But there are still to few!

All the best and if any of you are able to understand German, you might want to have a look at my blog.

Best regards,
Julia Offe

Until now!! The nation’s inaugural USA Science & Engineering Festival is coming to Washington, DC, this fall. Picture this: on October 23 and 24, the National Mall will be covered with booths sponsored by over 500 science and engineering corporations, and each will feature a fun, hands-on, science activity for kids.

(I’m such a nerd, this sounds so freaking awesome to me!)

I’m posting about this now to give you plenty of time to plan your vacations. If a trip to DC isn’t in the cards for you, they are planning to have many satellite events. Perhaps one will occur near you, or better yet, you could host one!

I’m really hoping my family can swing a quick trip to DC that weekend, since I am so crazy for science education. Besides, my musician friend Monty Harper is hosting a booth focusing on science music for kids, and we don’t want to miss it!

Another reason to go? They call themselves the “Woodstock of Science”!

The first little bits to leave lasting marks,
as physical forms of those energy sparks,
are still around now, and they call themselves Quarks.
Bottom and Top and Charm and Strange,
into Up and Down they mostly will change.
These six different flavors are able to mix.
And these six, when they mix, can do all sorts of tricks!

That’s a short excerpt from James Lu Dunbar’s charming new comic book BANG! The Universe Verse, Book 1. It’s a thirty-page painless introduction to the Big Bang for kids and adults.

I bought a copy of this book (even though you can read the whole thing online) because as soon as I saw it, I knew my kids would love it. And I was right.

My kids love science, and in particular, they’d learned a bit about subatomic particles and the Big Bang from watching science videos on YouTube (their idea not mine). Still — like a lot of kids of this generation — they’re not all that interested in books because books aren’t as exciting as the Internet. This book has been a step in the right direction for us. We’ve read it together as a family several times, and the clever rhymes and pictures drew the kids in.

I asked my kids what they liked from the book, and both kids remembered the verse “assuming, of course, that you are prepared for E to equal M C squared.” They both liked the visual presentation with the words “to equal” in the equals sign.

If you know the basic story of the Big Bang (the various forces and how the different types of matter formed), it’s fun to anticipate some of the rhymes, for example: “As it cooled down further there came the first splatter of what was to come just a split second latter — a new form of energy: the first-ever MATTER.” And even if you know very little physics, it’s accessible enough that you won’t get lost or bored. And it may well whet your appetite to learn more!

IVF is very expensive and often not covered by insurance.  It can be $10,000 or more for a treatment with varying odds of success, depending on the individual case.  Acupuncture sessions might be $50-$100, and a practitioner might recommend them weekly, before starting IVF and during the IVF cycle.  Considering the enormous outlay for just the IVF cycle, anyone might reasonably think, “Well, if I spend just a little more, it will increase my chances, so I won’t have to go through another cycle.  Really, it might be cost effective to go ahead and do this alternative treatment to give me a better shot this time.”

But what if IVF is simply a waste of money?  Novella’s post says the studies have shown mixed results and concludes:

Acupuncture remains an implausible treatment, and lacks sufficient evidence to conclude that it works for any specific indication. The history of acupuncture research is following a familiar pattern. Initial research is mixed but trends positive. Basic science research shows non-specific anomalies, but no consistent pattern that accords with scientific theory of mechanism for acupuncture. For each indication, as better and more rigorous studies are designed, the effects shrink until the best studies are negative.

Proponents then engage in special pleading to dismiss the evidence, while simultaneously citing poor quality or pre-clinical evidence, secure in their faith that acupuncture works.

In the rational light of day, having a kid who’s napping in the next room right now, I can safely say I absolutely don’t believe that acupuncture helps IVF at all. Women experiencing infertility who try acupuncture are most likely wasting their money. But I have so much compassion for their plight. When you’re trying to conceive, and failing, and you hear anecdotal evidence (which you definitely will) about acupuncture working, you’re just willing to do anything. And you need to feel that you are doing something so you can feel some sense of control. There is so much waiting involved in assisted reproductive technology, and meanwhile, kids don’t stop being born all around you. Birthday parties happen, baby showers get planned, coworkers put adorable pictures in their cubicles. If you think you can’t have a kid, you will suddenly be surrounded all the time by families and kids. So you want to just feel like you’re trying you’re hardest to get there yourself. I get it.

My hope is that as acupuncture is proven to have no effect, clinics and fertility doctors will stop advertising it. I believe it’s an ineffective treatment that only exploits a very painful emotional situation.

Even posting links to Dr. Tuteur’s articles here brought out the ire of our readers.  Some of their views were not related to the subject being discussed but to Amy’s reactionary stance on other issues such as gay parenting and single mothers.  She declared in an Open Salon post on single mothers:

It is morally imperative for women to recognize that if marriage is unappealing or inconvenient, they shouldn’t be having children. It doesn’t matter how much they want them, and it doesn’t matter that they can financially provide for them. A child is owed a father, and any woman who is unable or unwilling to provide one is making a self indulgent, selfish choice to conceive a child.

Yowza.  Tell me how you really feel there, Amy.  She goes on to say that on every measurable parameter of child well being, children with fathers do better. However, she provides no links to evidence of these measurements.

In the comment thread, she continues with the statement that a father is, “…a child’s birthright, and no adult has the moral right to take it away from a child simply to satisfy his or her own preferences.”  She makes it clear that her argument is a “moral” one, dismissing evidence from one commenter that kids in non traditional families do all right.

The study Emilia sent from the journal Human Reproduction is about lesbian parents and single moms.  The researchers gave questionnaires and interviewed children and parents of heterosexual, lesbian, and solo mother families.  The study concluded:

The female-headed families were found to be similar to the traditional families on a range of measures of quality of parenting and young adults’ psychological adjustment. Where differences were identified between family types, these pointed to more positive family relationships and greater psychological wellbeing among young adults raised in female-headed homes.

I asked Harriet Hall, a writer for SBM who sometimes helps us out, if this study looked decent. She deemed it “respectable” but said the number of subjects was small and the data self-reported, so not wholly objective. Thank you to Emilia for sending us this study.

The introduction to this paper refers to the body of evidence proving children of single moms have issues.  So there is evidence!  But the paper says the subject of mothers who choose to become parents without a father figure is entirely different.  Previous studies, “have largely focused on single-mother families that have resulted from parental separation or divorce.”

Sadly, children of such families have been found to have measurable problems:

McLanahan and Sandefur (1994) showed that adolescents raised by single mothers during some period of their childhood were twice as likely to drop out of high school, twice as likely to have a baby before the age of 20 and one and a half times more likely to be out of work in their late teens or early twenties than those from a similar background who grew up with two parents at home.

Yep bad stuff.  The kids from these homes have consistently higher levels of psychological issues, too.

But the key seems to be the separation and conflict that caused it, not the absence of a male figure per se.  Kids born into female-headed families who chose to be that way do not experience a painful divorce or a depressed and overworked mom.  The risks common to kids of single moms from divorced families do not apply.  Putting it in the most strictly common sense way:

…the quality of family relationships matters more than the way in which a family is formed.

This is only one study, but in any case, the studies I believe Dr. Tuteur was referring to (although she didn’t refer specifically to any) are the wrong ones.  If the single mothers to which she’s referring are divorced, that’s just not a good comparison to make to mothers who have begun parenthood without a father, by choice.

Golombok, Susan and Shirlene Badger. “Children raised in mother-headed families from infancy: a follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers, at early adulthood.” Human Reproduction 0 (2009): 1-8

It seems like an interesting study. And the video is full of adorable little babies. I tried embedding it but it looked kind of wonky on our blog format, so click the link and watch. It’s only four minutes long.

In one part of the study, babies see a blinking light and feel a puff of air, and something about the timing of their blinks tells researchers how the hippocampus is developing. Amazing.

The site, based on this series of books, is targeted toward tween girls:

What would it be like to build the first robot that could interact with people? Or to study human remains in search of criminal evidence? In Women’s Adventures in Science, readers will learn about the trailblazing women who are leaders in a variety of scientific fields, from robotics to forensics.

The site looks like a lot of fun and I hope that it inspires more young girls to embrace science.

[Via Science-Based Parenting]