tikiwanderer ([info]tikiwanderer) wrote,
@ 2008-06-27 10:05:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Heard at Scienceworks
In the Light show in the Lightning Room. Audience of mixed-age families, most with children under 10. And a few young-adult couples enjoying themselves too -smile-.

I asked the audience: "What animals make their own light?"

The usual answers came up. That deep sea angel fish. (It's actually an angler fish, but small children confuse the two names sometimes.) Jellyfish. Electric eels. Glowworms.

That's a good catch for a small audience, it covers most of the possibilities. I'd normally stop there. But no-one had said the animal that is most often said first - fireflies. And there was one tiny waving hand right up the back. So I pointed and said "Yes?"

And in the tiniest, cute voice of utter confidence a little boy of about four said "Giraffes".

A quiet, that's-so-cute wave of chuckling swept through the audience. I couldn't help grin. His mum called out in that proud-but-trying-not-to-laugh voice "Giraffes are his favourite animal".

It left me with a slight dilemma, as we have a basic rule that you're not allowed to tell a child who gives you an answer that it's wrong. Encourage them to think through their answer a little more carefully, or add to it maybe, and you can even add a clause along the lines of "Well, I haven't seen one of those before but that would be really cool" - but not say outright that they're wrong. It's because we want to encourage participation and also because science is about guessing both wrong answers and right answers, we don't want to turn kids off that and make them think that there really is just one right answer that they have to get first time. So I had to say something to follow on. But all I could think of was fluorescent glowing giraffes, roaming the savannah at night. Possibly in hot pink. -grin-



(Post a new comment)


[info]aliothsan
2008-06-27 12:28 am UTC (link)
I am now sorely tempted to make a GFP transgenic giraffe. Or, maybe, if it's possible to link the fluorescence genes to the genes that pattern the coat, a multicolored fluorescent giraffe!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tikiwanderer
2008-06-27 01:02 am UTC (link)
Well, my understanding is that the patterning follows some basic mathematical rules (that incidentally handle the changing of colour in any one spot as an animal grows and the pattern needs to spread to cover a bigger surface area). So you wouldn't have to alter the patterning process at all - just change the colour/s.

Fluorescence is a colour effect produced by physics rather than the chemical reaction of bioluminescence, so I'd have thought that all you'd have to do is insert the genes that say "make the chemical dye that correlates to hot pink" in place of the genes that say "make the chemical dye that correlates to dark brown", and then make sure the animal has sufficient nutrition in their diet to be able to manufacture those chemical compounds.

The confusion comes if you're trying to make a giraffe that glows like a jellyfish (or glowstick), which uses bioluminescence. That's a combination of chemistry and physics - an exothermic chemical reaction and fluorescence. The fluorescence gives the colour through a physical effect, but the energy that feeds the constant fluorescent glow is coming from that biochemical reaction. So if you wanted a giraffe that glowed on its own, it's more work because you've got to have that chemical reaction going at the same time to provide the energy. But if you were happy to just have a giraffe that glowed in the sunlight or under a UV torch, it wouldn't be as difficult.

It might be just as easy to make an iridescent blue giraffe. That's a colour that (in birds at least) is produced largely by the actual physical structure of the feather vane (i.e. using refraction) rather than a chemical dye within it. If you could work out how to make hairs with that same refractive structure, you could have a giraffe that shimmered.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]sjl
2008-06-27 03:41 am UTC (link)
When I read that, I couldn't help but be reminded of this photo. (Yeah, I know, random comment not really related to the thread ...)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]tikiwanderer
2008-06-27 10:53 am UTC (link)
Perfectly related. And a gorgeous photo -smile-.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]madradish
2008-06-27 02:51 am UTC (link)
Damn, you beat me to it! :)

Dunno if there is a hot pink analog of GFP though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]aliothsan
2008-06-27 05:44 am UTC (link)
I don't know about hot pink, but there is a very wide variety of fluorescent proteins available on plasmids, IIRC -- they have names like mCherry and mLemon and m[surprising range of other fruit names].

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]tikiwanderer
2008-06-27 10:55 am UTC (link)
Well, "hot" pink is just fluorescent pink. We tend to think of it as one particular shade of pink, I suspect because business and marketing are really conservative in sticking to what's proven to sell, but really it could be any kind of pink glow caused by fluorescent response to UV.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]stephen_dedman
2008-06-27 01:24 am UTC (link)
Of course, there's always the Salvador Dali painting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Burning_Giraffe.jpg

(Reply to this)


[info]sjl
2008-06-27 01:30 am UTC (link)
Hm. Nuke 'em til they glow? :p

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tikiwanderer
2008-06-27 10:58 am UTC (link)
Use a colour dye that responds to neutron bombardment as a source of energy? or maybe it'd be a process more like phosphorescence.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…