Writing on Paper than on Tablet or Smartphone Enhances Brain Activity

            Many of us left handwriting behind the day we finished school and stopped taking longhand notes as students. While using a personal computer or tablet is the preferred method of writing for most professional writers, many novelists choose to handwrite at different creative stages of the creative writing process. If you’re getting started writing a novel, it’s worth considering whether working longhand or on a computer is more conducive to your creative process.

                                                                  

            A recent study of a Japanese university students and recent graduates has revealed that writing on physical paper can lead to more brain activity when remembering the information an hour later. Researchers say that the complex, spatial and tactile information associated with writing by hand on physical paper is likely what leads to improved memory. Actually, the paper is more advanced and useful compared to electronic documents because paper contains more one-of-a-kind information for stronger memory recall," said Professor Kuniyoshi L. Sakai, a neuroscientist at the University of Tokyo and the corresponding author of the research recently published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. The research was completed with collaborators from the NTT Data Institute of Management Consulting.

            Contrary to the popular belief that digital tools increase efficiency, volunteers who used paper completed the note-taking task about 25% faster than those who used digital tablets or smartphones. Although volunteers wrote by hand both with pen and paper or stylus and digital tablet, researchers say paper notebooks contain more complex spatial information than digital paper. Physical paper allows for tangible permanence, irregular strokes, and uneven shape, like folded corners. In contrast, digital paper is uniform, has no fixed position when scrolling, and disappears when you close the app.

What was the study based on?

            In the study, a total of 48 volunteers read a fictional conversation between characters discussing their plans for two months in the near future, including 14 different class times, assignment due dates and personal appointments. Researchers performed pre-test analyses to ensure that the volunteers, all 18-29 years old and recruited from university campuses or NTT offices, were equally sorted into three groups based on memory skills, personal preference for digital or analog methods, gender, age and other aspects.

            Volunteers then recorded the fictional schedule using a paper datebook and pen, a calendar app on a digital tablet and a stylus, or a calendar app on a large smartphone and a touch-screen keyboard. There was no time limit and volunteers were asked to record the fictional events in the same way as they would for their real-life schedules, without spending extra time to memorize the schedule. After one hour, including a break and an interference task to distract them from thinking about the calendar, volunteers answered a range of simple (When is the assignment due?) and complex (Which is the earlier due date for the assignments?) multiple-choice questions to test their memory of the schedule. While they completed the test, volunteers were inside a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner, which measures blood flow around the brain. This is a technique called functional MRI (fMRI), and increased blood flow observed in a specific region of the brain is a sign of increased neuronal activity in that area.

            Participants who used a paper datebook filled in the calendar within about 11 minutes. Tablet users took 14 minutes and smartphone users took about 16 minutes. Volunteers who used analog methods in their personal life were just as slow at using the devices as volunteers who regularly use digital tools, so researchers are confident that the difference in speed was related to memorization or associated encoding in the brain, not just differences in the habitual use of the tools.

            Volunteers who used analog methods scored better than other volunteers only on simple test questions. However, researchers say that the brain activation data revealed significant differences. Volunteers who used paper had more brain activity in areas associated with language, imaginary visualization, and in the hippocampus—an area known to be important for memory and navigation. Researchers say that the activation of the hippocampus indicates that analog methods contain richer spatial details that can be recalled and navigated in the mind's eye.

What is the researcher’s recommendation?

            Although the above-mentioned research focused on learning and memorization, the researchers encourage using paper for creative pursuits as well. They said "It is reasonable that one's creativity will likely become more fruitful if prior knowledge is stored with stronger learning and more precisely retrieved from memory. For art, composing music, or other creative works, I would emphasize the use of paper instead of digital methods".

Benefits of Writing by Hand

            Taking notes longhand has definite benefits, and it can be worthwhile for young writers to work with pen and paper, especially in the early stages of a project. Jotting thoughts down on a pad or in a journal can help you overcome writer’s block and develop a more tactile relationship with your story ideas. Some of the benefits of handwriting include:

1.      Writing by hand is useful for visual learners. Writing longhand notes gives you the graphic freedom to easily sketch an infographic, word web, or another non-traditional layout to put your thoughts down and visualize connections.

2.      Writing by hand boosts the learning process. Psychological science research conducted by researcher Daniel Oppenheimer at the University of California shows that handwritten notes help with memory and recall. Oppenheimer’s study shows that areas of the brain associated with recall and comprehension are more engaged when students write notes with a pen and paper.

3.      Writing by hand can be artful. Many people choose handwritten notes over computer notes simply because they prefer the aesthetic. If you have good penmanship or are skilled at cursive and calligraphy, handwriting notes can give you an outlet to practice a hobby while also working on a creative endeavor. All you need are a simple writing implement and a piece of paper, but many people also choose to work with fancy paper and a fountain pen.

4.      Writing by hand helps you avoid distractions. Technology can be an incredibly time-consuming and distracting part of our lives as writers. Writing fiction requires focus and shutting out distractions is an obstacle for many professional writers. Writing longhand away from your smartphone, tablet, or computer can help you focus on actual writing with pen and paper instead of with a keyboard or stylus.

 

 References:

1.      Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience.

2.      Medicalxpress.com

3.      Masterclass.com

 

 

COVID-19 Crisis and the Quest for Vaccine

One of the biggest challenges facing scientists, public health experts, and society itself during the COVID-19 crisis is the need to develop an effective vaccine for the virus that causes the disease. You might have heard that COVID-19 vaccine trials are underway in many research labs either in University or Government National Labs. What exactly is being tested? How much longer will these tests take? And when can we expect a vaccine against the novel coronavirus? These are the typical questions that many people have.                                                                                        

Researchers around the world are racing to develop just such a vaccine. Even so, scientific and medical authorities say it may be at least a year before one is ready.

When did COVID-19 Originate?

Retrospective investigations by Chinese authorities have identified human cases with onset of symptoms in early December 2019. While some of the earliest known cases had a link to a wholesale food market in Wuhan. Up to now, nearly 695,000 people have died worldwide and more than 18 million people have been infected into 213 countries and territories. 

How do vaccines typically work in the human body?

While vaccinating the body is exposed to various proteins, carbohydrates, and other molecules that are present in the virus. But it is done in a setting that is non-pathological. That is, the vaccine is recognized by your immune system, and it educates your immune system about proteins from the offending virus. This enables your immune system to mount a response with antibodies or T-cells when the actual pathogen comes along.

Current Research in Covid-19 Vaccine

It is very hard to predict how many labs are working on the Covid-19  vaccine. Most of the labs do not want to expose their research to anybody until it has been published in the Journals or patented.  Among many research works, one that has received a serious amount of attention is being developed by the Boston biotech company “Moderna” and the “National Institutes of Health”. It's an mRNA vaccine. This approach involves the blueprints for virus proteins, which can be introduced into human cells to start the education process for the immune system. You're not actually introducing the viral proteins themselves, just the template for those proteins.

RNA vaccines are probably very safe to administer and very quick to develop and scale up. This is why, within a few weeks of COVID-19 becoming a public threat, Moderna already had a candidate that it could test in people. That is the upside. The downside is that no mRNA vaccine has ever been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for humans. There's an inherent risk from having an entirely different approach that hasn't been validated previously.

Another vaccine approach is called hyperimmune globulin, also known as the "blood bag" option. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University are attempting this approach. Here's how it would work. When a person is infected and successfully fights off the virus with proteins called antibodies, you can take plasma from that person and create a serum with a high concentration of the right antibodies. This is a very old approach, utilized on a large number of conditions. Very well validated. The downside is that the supply of effective hyperimmune globulin is going to be extremely limited, due to the limited number of suitable antibody donors, among other factors. In my opinion, it's a great short-term measure, but it may not be a sustainable, scalable approach.

What about a mutation in the virus genes?

One of the great challenges in the development of vaccines is that viruses can mutate their genes. Recent news reports indicate that COVID-19 has been slow to mutate, which may give a potential vaccine more staying power. Theoretically, if the mutation rate is slow, then the ability of the virus to mutate around a vaccine would also be slow—and population-level immunity would be high. But there may be other immune system mechanisms that we don't understand. If antibody levels after vaccination don't remain high over a long period of time, for example, then immunity goes down and reinfection is possible.

The hope of development of a vaccine

As many scientists are focused on this pandemic causing virus, so we can be hopeful that something will turn up even faster than a year from now. But, one-year timeframe, although it may not feel fast enough for many of us, it's actually quite fast for bringing any kind of novel therapeutic to people. Some things cannot speed up. Enrolling patients in a trial takes time. Obtaining materials for a clinical trial takes time. But with so many approaches being explored, we can hope that it is going to turn up and be successful.

 References:

World Health Organization

        American Chemical Society

 

 

Women Who Won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry

The Nobel Prize is a set of annual international awards bestowed in six different categories by Swedish and Norwegian institutions in recognition of academic, cultural, or scientific advances. These six different categories include outstanding work in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, economics (since 1969), and the promotion of peace. The Nobel Prizes, first awarded in 1901, were established by the will of Alfred Nobel and are traditionally awarded on December 10, the anniversary of his death. Each year, thousands of members of academies, university professors, scientists, previous Nobel Laureates and members of parliamentary assemblies and others, are asked to submit candidates for the Nobel Prizes for the coming year. The awards are later decided by boards of deputies appointed by Swedish learned societies and, in the case of the peace prize, by the Norwegian Parliament.

Let’s get to know the fact about the women who have been awarded this very prize till now.  Till now 51 women in total have been awarded the Nobel Prize between 1901 and 2018. Only one woman, Marie Curie, has been honored twice, with the 1903 Nobel Prize in Physics and the 1911 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. This makes that the Nobel Prize has been awarded to women 52 times!

As a chemistry student, I keep my eyes open and remain curious about the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Most importantly, I check how many women have won the prize.  Although, women have progressed a lot in chemistry comparatively few women have won this outstanding prize. Up to now, 5 women have won this prize whereas 175 men have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

The low number of women who have won certainly isn’t down to a lack of meritorious nominees. Rosalind Franklin, a commonly cited example, was not awarded a Nobel Prize for her work towards the discovery of the structure of the DNA. However, this was due to her death prior to the award of the prize which rewarded the discovery, and the Nobel Prize is not awarded posthumously. Apart from Franklin, there are plenty of other examples of women who could have won a Nobel Prize but didn’t. One of the most notable is Lise Meitner, considered to be amongst the biggest Nobel snubs. She was nominated a combined 48 times for the chemistry and physics prizes for her part in the discovery of the nuclear fission of uranium. The man she led a research group with, Otto Hahn, was awarded a Nobel Prize for this discovery in 1944, but her contributions were not recognized. In the history of the Nobel Prize, there are some overlooks which are worth a read. Though there’s still a way to go, let’s hope that this is indicative of women in chemistry more regularly being recognized for their achievements.

The five women who have won the Nobel Prize are:

1. Marie Curie (1911): Awarded the Nobel Prize “in recognition of her services to the advancement of chemistry by the discovery of the elements radium and polonium, by the isolation of radium and the study of the nature and compounds of this remarkable element.”

2. Irène Joliot-Curie (1935): Awarded the Nobel Prize jointly with her husband, Frédéric Joliot, “in recognition of their synthesis of new radioactive elements.”

3. Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin (1964): Awarded the Nobel Prize ”for her determinations by X-ray techniques of the structures of important biochemical substances.”

4. Ada E. Yonath (2009): Jointly with Venkatraman Ramakrishnan and Thomas A. Steitz “for studies of the structure and function of the ribosome.”

5. Frances H. Arnold (2018): Jointly with George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter
“for the directed evolution of enzymes”

Arnold conducted the first directed evolution of enzymes, proteins that catalyze chemical reactions. Smith developed a method, known as phage display, in which a virus that infects bacteria can be used to evolve new proteins. Winter has used phage display to produce new pharmaceuticals. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said the scientists had managed to harness the power of evolution in test tubes. Enzymes produced through directed evolution are used to manufacture everything from biofuels to medical treatments. Phage display has produced antibodies that can neutralize toxins, counteract autoimmune diseases and even cure metastatic cancer.

 References

1. Nobelprize.org

2. Elsevier.com

3. Pictures source: Wikipedia