Amateur Biologists

[J_B_]

I know there are several professional scientists in the CF crowd. I imagine that, similar to the way being a professional engineer gives me access to tools not available to the general public, those professionals have special resources at their disposal.

But recently I became intrigued by the question, "What can an amateur biologist achieve?"

As a result, I embarked on a project to study peas. I started with studying germination, and was surprised at how easy it was, with the simple tools at my disposal, to duplicate some of the findings published in the professional literature. I'm now growing plants to maturity with the intent of doing some studies on pollination, with a longer term goal of seeing what I might be able to do with respect to DNA uptake. I'm curious how far I can go with this.

Has anyone else here played at being an amateur biologist?

 

[chevyontheriver]

I know there are several professional scientists in the CF crowd. I imagine that, similar to the way being a professional engineer gives me access to tools not available to the general public, those professionals have special resources at their disposal.

But recently I became intrigued by the question, "What can an amateur biologist achieve?"

As a result, I embarked on a project to study peas. I started with studying germination, and was surprised at how easy it was, with the simple tools at my disposal, to duplicate some of the findings published in the professional literature. I'm now growing plants to maturity with the intent of doing some studies on pollination, with a longer term goal of seeing what I might be able to do with respect to DNA uptake. I'm curious how far I can go with this.

Has anyone else here played at being an amateur biologist?

No. Just a professional. But then even a professional is really only an amateur outside of his or her tiny area of expertise.

Peas? I remember going over Gregor Mendel's data where he compared traits and he expected a 3:1 ratio. Problem was that something else was actually going on there, which was why in the end he fudged the numbers. HOW he fudged the numbers was because statistical methods were not as rigorous as they are today. He simply went down his row of peas for a long way and then stopped when he had a 3:1 ratio, his expected answer. He should have gone down each row to the end. He wouldn't have gotten 3:1. He wouldn't have had the tools to know he had discovered evidence of jumping genes, transposable elements. It took Barbara McClintock to figure that out, in opposition to almost the whole of the biological establishment.

Point is peas have been tricky genetically. Then that what you see as some neat ratio isn't always what's there to be seen. And even professional scientists get it wrong from time to time. Gregor Mendel IS a hero for biologists. Barbara McClintock is as well. Maybe, carefully, even you can figure something out. Biology isn't always BIG SCIENCE with billion dollar labs. It can still be done on a shoestring by people who can see and record and test their observations and learn and take correction and humbly stick to their guns when they should.

 

[jacks]

I'm an amateur blackberry biologist. My place is loaded with black berries (3 different types) and I have conducted several experiments on them that I have never seen published anywhere. Black berries are a plant to respect! My mother without a science degree wrote several articles on desert plants, that were then eventually published. Interest and effort can enable even an "amateur" to make all sorts of scientific discoveries. Enjoy your peas!

 

[J_B_]

I'm an amateur blackberry biologist. My place is loaded with black berries (3 different types) and I have conducted several experiments on them that I have never seen published anywhere.

Anything you'd be willing to share - even about technique? Maybe I could pick up a few tricks.

Enjoy your peas!

It's been fun so far.

 

[J_B_]

Peas? I remember going over Gregor Mendel's data where he compared traits ...

Yes, that is the first thing people mention when I say I'm doing some experiments. I didn't select peas because they're a famed plant in the history of biology. Rather, I picked them for practical reasons with respect to the resources I have at hand.

Point is peas have been tricky genetically.

I'd bet many species have a few mysteries waiting to trip up biologists. I've tried to keep my first steps as simple as possible, and my confidence in my results so far comes from a few different places. For example, I did my first few experiments without checking published literature. It was only after I had results that I went looking, and even then only because I wondered if others had tried the same thing. When I found others had done basically the same experiment, I was pleased that we also got the same result. The point being ... I wasn't biased beforehand into trying to get a particular answer.

On the flip side, I did make a prediction about an experiment regarding the effect of light on pea germination. The result forced me to reject my hypothesis, so, again, I can be confident prejudice was not influencing what I was doing. Because of that I went looking for published results and found they again matched my result.

Finally, I've been setting up all my experiments as comparisons between two populations that differ in some way. I then use a t-test to check whether to accept or reject that they are in fact different.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes, that is the first thing people mention when I say I'm doing some experiments. I didn't select peas because they're a famed plant in the history of biology. Rather, I picked them for practical reasons with respect to the resources I have at hand.

And when you are done you can eat them.

 

[jacks]

Anything you'd be willing to share - even about technique? Maybe I could pick up a few tricks.

No tips or tricks, but here is some things I've discovered. Blackberries will mimic (in appearance) what ever plant they are next to, in the early stages of growth. For example if some are next to raspberry plants they will grow straight and tall in a single stock, if next to morning glory they will form a creeping vine like appearance early on. Another interesting thing is they have multiple strategies to win out over competing plants. And they always win. Bamboo doesn't stand a chance, neither does crab grass or fast growing maple trees. When trying to smother another plant they can extend their vines (By the way some vines smother and replant themselves, others have fruit.) to a limit of about 10 meters, at which point apparently nutrients can't travel to the end. There are many other fascinating facts about blackberries, including they make great pie! Though I'm sure you already knew that!

 

[J_B_]

No tips or tricks, but here is some things I've discovered. Blackberries will mimic (in appearance) what ever plant they are next to, in the early stages of growth. For example if some are next to raspberry plants they will grow straight and tall in a single stock, if next to morning glory they will form a creeping vine like appearance early on. Another interesting thing is they have multiple strategies to win out over competing plants. And they always win. Bamboo doesn't stand a chance, neither does crab grass or fast growing maple trees. When trying to smother another plant they can extend their vines (By the way some vines smother and replant themselves, others have fruit.) to a limit of about 10 meters, at which point apparently nutrients can't travel to the end. There are many other fascinating facts about blackberries, including they make great pie! Though I'm sure you already knew that!

Yeah, I love blackberry pie. The rest is interesting as well. I've been wondering how peas are able to sense/locate structures that they can wrap their vines around. It would be a similar question with respect to blackberry mimicry, given they don't have animal-like sensory organs (eyes, ears, smell, touch). Or do they?

But as before, I don't want to know what's published in the literature on that. I'd rather puzzle it out for myself and see if I head down the same path as professionals or a different one.

 

[Gene2memE]

I know there are several professional scientists in the CF crowd. I imagine that, similar to the way being a professional engineer gives me access to tools not available to the general public, those professionals have special resources at their disposal.

But recently I became intrigued by the question, "What can an amateur biologist achieve?"

As a result, I embarked on a project to study peas. I started with studying germination, and was surprised at how easy it was, with the simple tools at my disposal, to duplicate some of the findings published in the professional literature. I'm now growing plants to maturity with the intent of doing some studies on pollination, with a longer term goal of seeing what I might be able to do with respect to DNA uptake. I'm curious how far I can go with this.

Has anyone else here played at being an amateur biologist?

Not really done much amateur biological experimentation, but there are hundreds of university level biology courses that are freely available online.
I really enjoyed Robert Sapolsky's 'Introduction to Human Behavioural Biology' and Barbara Imperiali & Adam Martin's 'Introduction to Biology'

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL150326949691B199

MIT and Harvard have almost their entire undergraduate biology courses freely available online.

 

[jacks]

It would be a similar question with respect to blackberry mimicry, given they don't have animal-like sensory organs (eyes, ears, smell, touch). Or do they?

This is an interesting question in itself. Since we can only experience the physical universe by our 5 senses, we assume that this is the only way it can be experienced. However, there may be a thousand different ways to experience the world that we will never know about. (All we can do is extend the range of the 5 senses we have.) So we end up with "mysteries" because they are beyond our sense capabilities. We wouldn't even have the words to describe these other senses. Except vaguely like a "six sense" which of course really doesn't describe it at all.

 

[chevyontheriver]

This is an interesting question in itself. Since we can only experience the physical universe by our 5 senses, we assume that this is the only way it can be experienced. However, there may be a thousand different ways to experience the world that we will never know about. (All we can do is extend the range of the 5 senses we have.) So we end up with "mysteries" because they are beyond our sense capabilities. We wouldn't even have the words to describe these other senses. Except vaguely like a "six sense" which of course really doesn't describe it at all.

But there ARE extensions to our senses. A microscope for example, then an electron microscope that extend our eyes. A volt meter that extends our crude ability to feel a shock and to quantify it. Time lapse photography, which goes beyond our normal sense of the passage of time. Science is observation, but we devise clever tools to assist us to observe beyond our normal limits.

 

[jacks]

But there ARE extensions to our senses. A microscope for example, then an electron microscope that extend our eyes. A volt meter that extends our crude ability to feel a shock and to quantify it. Time lapse photography, which goes beyond our normal sense of the passage of time. Science is observation, but we devise clever tools to assist us to observe beyond our normal limits.

Yes, that's true. As I mentioned we can extend the range of our 5 senses. What we don't do is develop a new sense.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes, that's true. As I mentioned we can extend the range of our 5 senses. What we don't do is develop a new sense.

I wonder if a CAT scan which allow us to see into our bodies could be considered a new sense. We interpret what the computer creates for us from some pretty remarkable physics. We COULD see the same thing if we dissected the body carefully, but we get to 'see' something that none of our senses could 'see', and the patient stays alive and whole.

 

[jacks]

I wonder if a CAT scan which allow us to see into our bodies could be considered a new sense. We interpret what the computer creates for us from some pretty remarkable physics. We COULD see the same thing if we dissected the body carefully, but we get to 'see' something that none of our senses could 'see', and the patient stays alive and whole.

I agree CAT scans are very remarkable. It is almost like we have split the body into an infinite number of slices. However, we still perceive the scan with one of our senses. Sight. I'm trying to say that it may be possible to perceive the universe in a way that doesn't involve either sight, touch, sound, taste or smell.