If you are British, please fight the government plans to make all schools into academies

If you don’t know the problem, read Mark Steel’s excellent column:

Thank God our schools have finally been liberated by our national free spirit George Osborne

Now, please sign either or both of these petitions:

• Hold a public inquiry and a referendum over turning all schools into academies

The government has announced that every school in England will become an academy. This was not in their manifesto and is therefore a completely undemocratic move.

• Scrap plans to force state schools to become academies

State schools are accountable to parents, the local community and to local authorities. By forcing schools to become academies the accountability will be to a trust and to accountants. Her Majesty Chief Inspector of schools has concerns over education provided in academies and so should you.

I hate posting so much about depressing politics but blame the Tories. I simply cannot comprehend how they can think this is good for the children or the country. The only plausible explanation is pure self-interest and greed, wanting to give even more to their rich mates. How this can happen in a supposed democracy is terrifying. If nothing else, it has highlighted how sick the system really is.

In the modern age, there really is no excuse for hands-on democracy with the people voting (electronically) on important issues like this. (The problem, of course, is that the people with the power to change things are the ones who will be most disadvantaged by giving up some of their power.) https://petition.parliament.uk/ is a start, I guess.

My number one exam tip

Answer the question! (I’ve said it before but some things are worth repeating.)

Click here for more exam tips.

MapTime lives!

It’s fair to say that MapTime has been somewhat neglected in the past couple of years, now that the core team is spread over three continents. However, having given the website a long overdue look over today (after it went down a while ago), I am pleased to report that it still works! I even added a new TimePoint to the Organic Evolution TimeLine.

May's SCB Conservation Cafe is all about Herpetofauna

The Sydney Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) have Michael McFadden, the Unit Supervisor of the Herpetofauna division at Taronga Zoo, for 2^nd May’s Conservation Cafe. That’s reptiles and amphibians to the rest of us:

This May, Sydney-SCB welcomes Michael McFadden, the Unit Supervisor of the Herpetofauna division at Taronga Zoo. Michael began working at Taronga Zoo in January 2003 and now oversees the maintenance and husbandry of the Zoo’s collection of reptiles and amphibians. He works closely with the Zoo’s conservation projects which include captive breeding and release programs for the highly endangered Southern and Northern Corroboree Frogs. The current focus of Michael’s work is developing techniques to improve captive breeding and rearing success in threatened Australian frogs and reintroduction biology.

As before, it’s free: RSVP on Eventbrite.

Lack of religious discrimination should start with schools

A modern society has to be a secular one. A secular society is not an atheist society; it is a society in which no one gains undue favour or faces discrimination due to their religious beliefs - or lack thereof.

According to the British Humanist Association:

1.2 million school places in England and Wales are prioritised for young people whose parents are of a particular religion, which is more than the total number of places at grammar schools and private schools combined. The law permits ‘faith’ schools to discriminate in all sorts of ways, including in admissions and employment, which has been shown to contribute to social segregation in communities up and down the country.

Religious discrimination is bad enough. What’s even worse, is that some schools seem to be using their ability to select students to discriminate against students from poorer socio-economic backgrounds. It’s not clear whether this is direct or indirect discrimination but given the general negative correlation between wealth and religiosity, it is hard to see how it could be accidental. Either way, it’s clearly not good.

To combat this discrimination, the Fair Admissions Campaign has been established.

Are you facing the prospect of your child being unable to gain admittance to your local school, because of religious selection? Or have you had to game the system in order to get them in? Are you happy to live in a society in which children are discriminated against on these grounds, while parents feel compelled to behave in this manner?

This situation is clearly unfair, and that’s what we’re here to challenge. We are a new campaign that is supported by a wide coalition of individuals and national and local organisations, aiming to tackle the single issue of religious selection in school admissions.

Happily, many organisations - including religious ones - are supporting this campaign. Religious selection as a basis for education has to end.

Religions already have tax-exempt institutions in which they can try to influence the minds of the innocent. They do not need schools as well. If you live in the UK, please support the campaign.

Sydney SCB Conservation Cafe, this Saturday at Centennial Park

This Saturday (11^th April) will see the second Conservation Cafe organised by the Sydney Society for Conservation Biology (SCB)). The speaker this month is Samantha Crosby, the Education Coordinator at the Learning Centre in Centennial Park, which is also the venue. RSVP via Eventbrite (if you can). It’s free!

How (not) to apply for a PhD

As with most academics, I get a fair a number of unsolicited enquiries about possible PhD placements. Unfortunately, a number of these appear to be from students who are receiving little or no advice regarding how to go about making an application.

Every now and then, an application stands out from the bunch for being particularly good or bad. A while back, I received one of the latter, which made me so sad that I thought I would turn my response into a post. What made it particularly tragic was that it was from a student who had received government funding to study abroad, and was therefore in a fairly strong position.

The email (name redacted) was as follows:

On [DATE] "XXX baby" <XXX@yahoo.com> wrote:

Subject: Hello doctor

My name is XXX, I finished M.Sc. degree in XXX University in Iraq at (2012), I have obtained a fund from the Iraqi government to study PHD in Microbiology in the Ustralia.

I had opportunity to be a student of Iraq and My interests are about Bacteriology and Immunity in general and I really hope to get your kind acceptance to pursue my PHD under your supervision in University of UNSW.

Kindly find attached my C.V please which I hope it gives detailed overview about me

Thank you very much

The CV was then attached as several JPEGs of scanned pages. Unusual attachments plus a username of “XXX baby” and subject line of “Hello doctor” meant that this one almost went straight in the bin as spam. Given the number of typos and other errors, it might have been better if it had.

I’ve had some others that were almost as bad, including one that started “Hello Sir !” and proceeded to end every sentence with an exclamation mark! Yes! Every sentence! No! That’s not a good idea!

Lest I get misunderstood, I must stress that the point here is not to be mean to these students. The issue is that they are clearly not getting the advice they need, especially given the fact that they are writing in their second (plus) language and applying to academics with a different culture.

Here then, is my advice/guidance for those wanting to make an unsolicited application for a PhD studentship (though most points still apply if a project is being advertised). I get many applications from overseas students. If I am even to consider you as a potential student then you need to impress me. The following impress me:

Professionalism. Send a well structured email, with a sensible subject such as “PhD enquiry” and a CV (if attached) that is provided as a single sensibly named PDF (or docx), i.e. your name and “CV” feature somewhere in there.

Genuine Interest. Personalise your message and provide some indication that you really know who I am. “Dear Sir” indicates a blanket mailshot to all and sundry and is thus destined for the bin. Knowing who I am is not enough, though. I also want an indication that you know and understand at least something of the research that goes on in my lab. Referencing degree subjects or research experience that match neither my background nor research focus indicates poor research/understanding. A PhD is long, hard graft and I need to know that you have genuine interest or everyone’s time will be wasted.

A clear CV. Your CV should have relevant skills and metrics highlighted. If you are from overseas, remember that I probably do not know what your grades mean, so place them in context. What proportion of students get those grades/medals etc.? This is a research post, so describe some of your research projects and your role in them. When it comes to CVs, evidence is the name of the game. Don’t just list skills and positive attributes: provide examples.

Motivation/Enthusiasm. Good grades are not enough and academic ability will only get you so far in a PhD. Motivation and enthusiasm are critical. As well as a CV that stresses relevant achievements, include a personal statement that convinces me that you want to do a PhD (with me) for the right reasons, and are likely to see it through.

Ask questions. This is basically genuine interest + motivation/enthusiasm but worth stating in its own right as intelligent questions are the evidence of those things. It's your PhD and your life - you should care about what you might be doing. The caveat is this: do not ask a question that is answered by ten minutes of reading my lab's webpages and/or paper abstracts.

Good communication skills. If English is not your first language, get your emails proof-read by someone with good English. Exclamation points after every sentence indicates that communication will be tricky, as does failure to appropriately understand/respond to emails. I am not going to think you are not keen if you take a few days to give a measured response. I am going to think that communication may be insurmountably difficult if I get a speedy response that is riddled with errors.

Funding. Unless you are applying for a specific funded project, you will need to secure your own funding. A clear indication of a funding plan is therefore crucial. If you already have funding, this is good. Better still, would be to detail exactly what that funding covers (i.e. duration? fees AND living expenses? any attached conditions?) and to indicate how the funding was won and how competitive it was. Winning a competitive scholarship is one way to impress. Even better, provide evidence in the form of an official notification of funding etc.

References. Ultimately, it is very tricky to assess a student from a CV and covering letter alone. Again, evidence is the name of the game. Provide two or more faculty members or professional scientists who can provide an academic reference. These should have institution email addresses, not personal gmail/yahoo addresses, as anyone can create these and they will carry less weight.

Fail to hit most of these points and your application is in the bin. (I now have a generic response that I send out to generic applications.) This may seem harsh but there is a lot at stake and it is important to get a good fit between student, supervisor and project; a poor student/fit is a net drain on lab productivity.

A PhD is not something to embark upon lightly. It will consume many years of your life and will quite possibly determine the direction of the rest of your professional life. A PhD application should be made with all of the research, care and attention to detail that this implies.

Dive into ocean exploration with a University of Southampton MOOC

I am not entirely sure whether MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) have any tangible benefits to the participants (or the hosting institution beyond publicity). Nevertheless, there is no denying that they represent excellent value for money (being free!) and are a great opportunity to learn some really interesting things.

If oceans are your thing and you have a bit of spare time in February and March then check out the Exploring our Oceans MOOC being run by Oceanography at the University of Southampton:

In this six week interactive course, you will see how the ocean depths are no longer out of reach and how they are connected to our everyday lives. We will engage you in our most recent expedition findings and share our knowledge on the least touched areas of our oceans.

Together we’ll look at the animals that swim in these dark waters, the creatures that live on the seabed and the makeup of the underwater environment they live in.

Visit the Exploring our Oceans MOOC page for more details - or to sign up!

The best exam (and coursework) tip ever!

I'm heavily in the middle of exam and coursework marking, hence the distinct paucity of posts, but I felt compelled to revisit a similar post from last year with the number one best exam tip of all time:

Answer the Question!
There is an equivalent for coursework too:

Follow the Instructions!
As examiners, we're not out to trip you up but we can only give credit for relevant material. (More exam tips here.)

---

PS. If someone knows why all my post titles have gone wonky, I'd love to know! Blogger, what have you done?!

Mastering Wildlife Conservation with Marwell Zoo and the University of Southampton

Although it's not quite formalised yet, Southampton has just announced an new Masters in Research course to start in October 2013. The MRes Wildlife Conservation is a joint venture between the University of Southampton and Marwell zoo, and represents a pretty unique opportunity (in the UK at least) to work closely with an active conservation organisation in the UK or Africa.

Result!         [Photos from my September 2010 Marwell Zoo album.]

How to read a phylogenetic tree

This week I have been preparing my last phylogenetics lectures and practical of the year. Something that is quite clear when marking student work is that many students have no idea how to read a phylogenetic tree and identify the key features about it that aid interpretation. To help combat this, here is my basic guide of "How to read a phylogenetic tree".

Topology

The first and possibly most important thing about any tree is the topology - the branching order. It's easy to get distracted by the direction or style of the tree (e.g. curved branches versus straight) but none of these things matter for the topology. The key thing here is the path taken from one node to the other and how the species (or molecules but I will just refer to species here for clarity) cluster together. The "direction" of the tree and whether the (terminal) "leaf" nodes are at the top, bottom, left or right is not important. (I'll come back to this below, for "rooting") Likewise, the vertical ordering of nodes is not inherently important - whether a particular node appears at the top, bottom or somewhere in the middle of the tree is largely a matter of preference that will depend on the purpose of the tree and the story you are using it to tell.

In fact, it is easier to look at the branches in a tree, as nodes can be rearranged in a way that can at first appear confusing. These four trees, for example, all have the same topology:
Each branch can be thought of as dividing the tree in two and splitting the species into two accordingly. If two trees share a topology, their branches will make the same splits, even if their (in this case) vertical ordering is different. Trace, for example, the path from A to D. This is easiest first in the top left tree. The branch leading directly to A splits the tree into A:BCDE. The next splits AB from CDE. (This has the root, which I will come to, below.) Now, moving back out from the root to the tip, we travel along a branch that splits ABE:CD before finally the branch leading only to D and splitting it from ABCE. Tracing the path of A to D in any of the other three trees will take exactly the same route. Any other tip to tip journeys will likewise be the same in these four trees.

This is particularly important when comparing trees, particularly big ones. I have seen people invest a lot of time and effort (and sometimes manuscript space) speculating about the differences between two particular trees when, in fact, they were really the same tree and there was no difference. Alternatively, the topology might be the same but the differences might just be due to where the tree was rooted, which I will return to.

Branch Lengths

Once the topology is clear, the next things to look at are the branch lengths, as these can give key insights into how the tree can be interpreted and, sometimes, even the methods behind the tree. There are two key things to look at in this respect: (1) the distance between (not necessarily connected) internal nodes, shown with the red arrows below, and (2) the root-to-tip distances for each terminal node, shown by the coloured arrows in the figure below:
If the spacing is even (i.e. all the red arrows are the same length) then it is highly likely that branch lengths are not being shown and the tree is only displaying the toplogy. This can be confirmed by (a) the lack of a scale bar, and (b) a bias towards internal nodes towards the tips. (In the left tree, the node joining AB is aligned with that joining CD, not the deeper CDE ancestor.) If the spacing is not even then branch lengths are being shown. These should really be accompanied by a scale bar (although the figure about does not have any).

If branch lengths are being shown, the next thing to look at is the total root-to-tip distance for each terminal node. (The coloured arrows in the figure above.) If these are all the same length, as in the right-hand tree, it is highly likely that a molecular clock has been assumed (if it's a molecular phylogeny). If it hasn't been assumed - and the methods should provide enough details to know - then the molecule in question is just evolving in an incredibly clock-like fashion. More usually, these root-to-tip distances will not all be the same. If the tree is topology-only, as in the left-hand tree, the equal root-to-tip distances do not mean anything and no conclusions about rates can be reached.

Rooting

Evolutionary trees are (almost) always starting with an ancestor and then dividing, so you can always identify the root (if there is one) as the point where all the branches converge. Historically, it was drawn at the bottom like a real tree (as with the great Molluscan tree in OUMNH and the OneZoom Tree of Life Explorer). These days, it is usually drawn on the left as in these diagrams but I have seen trees with the root at the top, bottom or even on the right. (The latter is usually only used when mirroring another tree.) I have posted before on how to root a phylogenetic tree, so I won't go over that again here. The rooting method should be given in the methods but, when it is missing, you can often guess from the shape of the tree and using the root-to-tip branch lengths again:
Unrooted trees are pretty obvious when shown in the "radiation" style. If the tree is rooted, it is almost certainly either midpoint rooted or outgroup rooted (see "how to root a phylogenetic tree"). Midpoint rooting can be identified by virtue of the fact that the two longest root-to-tip distances will (a) be the same length and (b) be either side of the root. If either of these conditions is broken, it is not midpoint rooted and is probably outgroup rooted. (Note that if both conditions are met, it is still possible that the tree is outgroup rooted. Indeed, if the evolutionary rates are fairly consistent, outgroup rooting and midpoint rooting should be the same.)

Ideally, a rooted tree should have the root marked. Sometimes, however, it is left off, as in the bottom left. This can be confusing as tree visualising programs will often display trees in the "traditional" style even when they are not rooted. This is particularly a problem when branch lengths are not shown as it will not be at all obvious when the tree is rooted or not. The time that I see this catch people out most is when making a Maximum Parsimony tree using the popular software, MEGA - these trees are displayed randomly rooted and without branch lengths by default.

Reliability and Confidence Metrics

It is always important to consider how reliable the rooting method used is likely to be if conclusions are being reached regarding the direction of particular evolutionary events. Despite this, it's pretty rare for the root position to have a direct confidence measure associated with it (although I am sure there are ways to do it). What is common, however, is to have confidence metrics for the internal branches, which are usually placed above (or sometimes below) the branch next to the descendant node (in red, below). (Branch lengths, when shown, are normally below and nearer the middle of the branch.)
Bayesian and Maximum Likelihood methods quite often produce branch probabilities as part of the method but otherwise the most common method is "bootstrapping", which is a random sampling method. I will save bootstrapping and branch tests for future posts. My one tip for now: always remember that bootstrap values are associated with branches and not nodes.

Phylogenetic checklist

In summary, my checklist for reading a phylogenetic tree: topology ⇒ branch lengths? ⇒ molecular clock? ⇒ rooting ⇒ branch confidence metrics.

It's not cool to label your diagram "hot pink"

One of our assignments has students making pretty PDB structure diagrams using UCSF Chimera. Some of them are very good at it too. (The picture left is from the Chimera Image Gallery, not a student.)

I am always amazed by some of the figure legends, though, which feature colour descriptions such as "hot pink", "forest green" and "dodger blue". This is not so bad when there is only one pink, green and blue in the diagram - it can just be written off as idiosyncratic and superfluous. When I am asked to contrast "cornflour blue" with just "blue" in the same image, however... well, now we've crossed a line into downright unhelpful. Stick to "light blue" and "dark blue" - and if that's not clear enough, then pick another colour!

Zooming around the Tree of Life

This morning, whilst feeding the cats, I came across the very fun - and educational - OneZoom Tree of Life Explorer, described in a PLoS Blog article, Fractaltastic Evolution. Currently, it only has mammals and amphibians but it will grow. Birds are next and plans are afoot to use Open Tree of Life data to extend it to 2 million species (or maybe more by then).

It has lots of nice features, including different views, threats of extinction from the IUCN Red List and dates of divergence. The latter can be used to run a "Growth Animation" timeline, which is another useful tool for trying to grasp evolutionary timescales. I can feel some OneZoom-inspired MapTime TimeLines coming on when time allows.

h/t: @phylogenomics

No place for Creationism in state-funded UK schools

It's been a pretty good couple of weeks for a Rationalist Geek. Nerds all over the world have enhanced enjoyment of the Olympics with the Nerdlympics. Human potential, ingenuity and achievement has been promoted by the BHA and embodied by the bold landing of the Curiosity Rover. Homeopathy is on the back foot in Britain. Continuing the theme, I am happy to (somewhat optimistically) report that the British government have confirmed that the Creationism has no place in a state-funded science class.

I'm far from convinced that there is any merit in the government plans for "free schools" and "academies" - indeed, there seems to be a lot of well-founded opposition to the plans - but there is at least one bit of good news that has come out of the recent concerns over approval for Free Schools to be run by Creationist groups. In a Guardian article from a couple of weeks ago, a Dept for Education spokeswoman is quoted as saying:

"It is absolutely not true that this free school will be able to teach creationism as scientific fact. No state school is permitted to do this. We have clear guidelines about what schools can and cannot teach. Any free school found to be contravening the guidelines will be in breach of their contract and will be subject to action by the department, including prohibiting them from operating."

Happily, this position has been confirmed and strengthened in a letter from Michael Gove (Secretary of State for Education) posted on the Glasgow Skeptics Facebook page in which he states (my emphasis):

There is no place for the teaching of creationism in Free Schools. The Free School application guidance is clear: creationism, intelligent design and similar ideas cannot be taught as valid scientific theories. Furthermore, teaching creationism in science lessons is forbidden by the legal agreement that sets out the conditions by which all Free Schools receive their funding. Should there be evidence of a breach of this clause we would take swift action which would be likely to result in the termination of that funding agreement. This would mean that the organisation no longer had any role in running the school with state funding.

Now, we just need to make sure that we hold him (and his successors) to that.

What I am not so sure about is what the situation is for "Independent schools". The implication is that schools without state funding are not bound by these conditions. If this is the case then perhaps state-funded Faith schools are not such a bad thing after all - if the alternative is Independent Faith schools, that is.

MapTime is back online!

After a minor server hacking incident (not directed at the website itself), the MapTime website (www.maptime.co.uk) is back up and running. This seemed like a good excuse for a quick plug. I've posted before about this useful resource we are developing for visualising "Deep Time" using Google Maps and showed how it could be applied to YEC and Giant's Causeway. There is a more detailed How to use MapTime post on the MapTime blog, or just visit maptime.co.uk and have a play! Feedback and suggestions welcome!

The Oxford University Museum of Natural History

Earlier this week, we visited Oxford and went to the Oxford University Museum of Natural History. (I blogged earlier about on one of their beetle exhibits.) The original plan had been to visit this Museum and the attached Pitt Rivers Museum and then visit the Ashmolean Museum of Art & Archaeology. We never made it to the Ashmolean.

There are so many great things about this museum that I will have to spread them over several posts (and save the Pitt Rivers for one of its own). The thing that struck me above and beyond everything else, though, is how it managed to be a pretty comprehensive Natural History museum looking at the global scale but, at the same time, managed to be all about Oxford and have a real local flavour. I guess it helps that Oxford is a world-renowned seat of learning and that many of the scientists making the big world-changing discoveries were at Oxford. Even so, it was great to see fossils etc. from nearby and see how the local geology helped shaped thoughts about geological time etc.

For a start, the building itself has historical significance as it was the site of the famous 1860 debate about evolution featuring Thomas Huxley and Samuel Wilberforce. There are lot of legends associated with that debate and, not having been there, I don't know what actually happened but it is certainly clear that evolution and its supporters have subsequently been thoroughly and (scientifically at least) entirely vindicated. This, perhaps, explains why the statue of Darwin inside is leaning against the pillar so nonchalantly!

The inside of the building is also pretty impressive and really beautiful. Many of the pillars are constructed from different rocks (more on that another day) and have different, distinctive patterns. The displays are also really well laid out and manage to cram a lot in to the building without feeling cramped or crowded.

You get welcomed with the impressive dinosaurs upon entry. The Iguanodon and Tyrannosaurus are not from Oxford but many of the other dinosaur bones and footprints features in the exhibit are local or feature identifications by local Oxford-based scientists. The centre of the room is dominated by these and other animal skeletons etc. and lots of the displays also have interesting regular history along with the natural history. I also like the way that you are able to touch some of the animals and minerals - although obviously nothing too fragile.

Natural History is not just about biology/evolution and there is also a bunch of great stuff on geology - something that I find increasingly interesting the older I get. I am always struck by how much sense the scientific geological explanation makes of different rock formations, strata and fossil patterns. You have to be pretty determined not to accept it.

I won't waffle on here as you can find out lots more at the the museum website. I will post a couple more of my favourite exhibits over the coming days, though. Having browsed the website, however, I do realise that I will have to go back as I managed to miss one of the most famous exhibits - the Oxford Dodo. Given that their logo is a dodo, I'm not sure how I missed this other than the obvious distraction of having so many other interesting things to look at!

The Glossariser 1.0 is here

A while ago, I made a molecular evolution glossary page in case it was of use to anyone. Being a geek and a programmer, rather than actually making the webpage myself, I made a program to make the webpage for me. From a plain text set of terms and definitions, this program will construct a formatted web page, including hyperlinks between terms (if so desired).

As I now need to make another glossary for MapTime, I thought I would throw together a quick cgi script to make the code available online, and the Glossariser was born.



It's rather crude at present and, in particular, contains no documentation - trial and error only, I'm afraid! Input is, again, raw text with a number of delimiter options. (It only splits on the first occurrence of the chosen delimiter, so periods can be used quite happily.) There are currently a limited selection of output styles available. Unless "tabs" is chosen, terms will be split up according to their first letter and output alphabetically:



The "Header" or "bold" style refers to the formatting for the letters A-Z. The "table" output is similar but has each letter in a row of a table. The tabs style was a bit experimental and doesn't really work that well, so I won't bother to explain it here. (Feel free to try it!)

If you just want a standalone HTML page, you can (hopefully) just save the output directly. Otherwise, you will either want to copy and paste the text into a Word document or, to use in Blogger or other existing framework, just "view source" and copy the bits you need. (That's how I made the molecular evolution glossary.)

I have some plans for improvements - there are a few bugs to iron out and I would like to add URLs etc. - but, as with most things, they will probably wait until I, or someone else, really wants them in place. So, if it is useful but doesn't quite do what you want, let me know and I might be able to update it. There's also no reason that its use should be limited to a glossary. Any list of names/keywords and associated short paragraphs will do - perhaps I should make the alphabetical arrangement optional in this case?

The Glossariser is available at: http://bioware.soton.ac.uk/glossariser.html.

(If it ever saves you an evening of writing HTML and you want to say thanks, buy The Cabbages of Doom for just 99p! ☺ (You can't blame a guy for trying!))

Congratulations, Globe-Town!

Back in April, I posted about Globe-Town, a website made by some of the students in Southampton's Web Science Doctoral Training Centre as part of the World Bank's "Apps for Climate Change" challenge. Well, they achieved third place. Well done, Jack and all the Globe-Town team!

MapTime: visualising Deep Time using Google Maps

A couple of days ago, I blogged that MapTime was coming soon... So, what is MapTime?

MapTime is a website that we are developing to make time lines as described in:

Parker, J. D. (2011) Using Google Earth to Teach the Magnitude of Deep Time. Journal of College Science Teaching 40(5): 23-27

The paper was featured in a Science 2011 Editor's Choice, "A destination in time." (Science 332: 1360.)

Evolution took a long time to happen and humans are not really built to intuitively grasp how long that time really was. By using Google Earth, (or Google Maps in the case of the website,) one is able to plot a route between two locations that resonate with students by showing key dates along the way using a comprehensible scale. This allows them to "feel" the magnitude of deep time.

An example route between Big Ben in London and to the entrance of Southampton Bargate reveals how the analogy works:

On route from Big Ben, as this graphic shows:

• Life begins on the M25 at Heathrow
  
• Multicellular animals do not arise until just south of Winchester.
  
• The age of the Dinosaurs runs from around the M3/M27 junction down the Inner avenue to Middlestreet
  
• Humans first appear about 18 and a half feet in front of the Bargate
  
• British life expectancy (80 years) is the thickness of a eurocent coin from the front of the Bargate.

Now imagine driving 70 mph through the single celled phase of life from the M25 along the M3 to Winchester with a human lifespan the thickness of a eurocent coin.

Visit the MapTime Blog and subscribe to keep abreast of new developments - including the imminent launch of the website! The last few bugs are being ironed out and then we will be looking for interested testers. (And, of course, you can watch this space too!)

Coming soon...