All kinds of life in the garden today

Araneus diadematus (garden spider) - with prey

Bluebelle - large hen, lays lots of eggs, always wants a treat

Lavatera (tree mallow) - flowers in late summer

Patty pan (summer squash) - last of the flowers, excellent crop

Thirsty bee - with reflection

Thirsty dog - shares the birdbath with the bees

Late summer crops - Golden Sunrise tomatoes are my favourite

Cow parsnip close-up

These elegant plants in the hedgerow caught my eye. I loved the way they looked a bit alien. The latin name is heracleum sphondylium, but it is also known as the common hogweed.

These photographs form part of a study on natural form and structure, which I am exploring in watercolour and acrylic. To read more about this, click here.

Cow parsnip, photo collage, June 2012, Lesley Beeton

Photography by Lesley Beeton.

I Heart My Snap: Red Letter-Box

I took this photo as part of a series 'Life through the hedge'. I think it's my favourite as the red letter-box stands out against the lush green hedgerow of the English summer.

I'm linking up with I Heart My Snap.

I Heart My Snap

Follow @Shackleford_LB

I Heart My Snap: Unfurling fern

Unfurling fern, May 2012, Lesley Beeton

At this time of year, the nature all around us is full of inspiration. I took my Canon 350D out on the dog walk at the weekend and was fascinated by the ferns, just waiting to unfurl their splendour in the woods. I don't have a macro lens (yet) but I love the depth of focus in this shot. I used PicMonkey to create the watermark (thanks to This is me Sarah mum of 3). I'm linking up with I Heart My Snap.

I Heart My Snap

Follow @Shackleford_LB

Publish or perish, then retract?

2011 saw some incredible breakthroughs in science and medicine, from the colour of meteorites to the secrets of ageing (in mice at least). It also saw two low points in the reporting of science. Sadly, the pressure to publish is a constant threat to researchers, and it can mean that research questions may not be stringently tested. The peer-review process of publication in reputable journals should be able to put the data through the ringer, but sometimes the work is so specialist it can be difficult for outsiders to follow.

My own research group is in just this position. We have done a good piece of work, which we know answers our research question, but which is so complicated in its analysis that we are finding it difficult to describe in a manuscript. The techniques used in our work are common place, but we adopted a novel method of extracting the data in order to account for the biological diversity of the region of genomic DNA we are interested in. The manuscript will almost certainly be returned for clarification. Indeed, our raw data is currently being moderated by clever scientists at Miamexpress. They have asked us some very in-depth questions about our experiments, which we must endeavour to answer before we submit our manuscript.

And the research groups who had to retract their manuscripts at the end of last year will have been just as thorough in their preparation. Unfortunately, that's not enough. Much of the data produced is digital, that is, there is no physical picture of the result for us to examine. And the nature of digital data is that it can be amended. I'm not saying that is what happened but if the data cannot be reproduced independently then questions will be raised.

The research papers in question at this time cover two exciting outcomes. The first is the finding that a murine leukaemia (or related) virus (MLV) was detected in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. But, as the number of samples was limited and the data not reproducible, the authors had no choice but to retract their publication. That's not to say they aren't right. They simply need to find another way to prove it to their peers.

The second paper is arguably more topical, on stem cell lineage, published in the journal Blood. The researchers acknowledge that some of the data may not reflect the published data analysis. This paper, was published in 2008 and cited 13 times in other papers, so it may be argued that although there were errors in assembling the manuscript for publication, the authors stand by their findings and the interpretation thereof.

So, where does that leave the rest of us, struggling through to try and publish our blood, sweat and tears? I think it leaves us a little tainted in the public eye, and we must work harder to make sure our science stands up to rigorous scrutiny by our peers. As research funding decreases, the strongest research questions and protocols will rise to the top. Let's hope that exciting science does not drop away altogether.

Follow @Shackleford_LB

Nature or nurture?

This is a well-travelled argument, but what does it mean in genetic terms? Who cares, I hear you ask? I do, and so should you.

We now know that many modern illnesses are multi-factorial complex diseases. That means that there is more than one cause of the condition, and often more than one treatment. Cancer and cardiovascular disease are good examples of this. For example, you might hear someone say 'they never smoked, always exercised, the heart attack came out of the blue'. We are told to eat five fresh fruit and veg a day, we are encouraged to know our numbers - blood pressure and cholesterol, we are implored to exercise for at least thirty minutes three times a week. But all of this will mean nothing if your genetics are against you. 


Cardiologists talk of risk stratification. This is a complicated formula which takes into account weight (body mass index), waist to hip ratio, blood pressure, cholesterol levels and family history, amongst other measurements. A family history of heart disease is a strong indicator of a genetic link, but often the science of genetics has not yet identified the culprit gene variant, or variants, or discovered the mechanism of the fault in causing disease.


So, in terms of genetics, the nature versus nurture argument is all about a person's individual DNA pattern interacting with one's environment, the individual lifestyle choices we all make. And both genetics and lifestyle contribute to the overall risk of disease; we just don't know yet what to do about this. But, this is a rapidly growing area of research which it is hoped will yield valuable insights into the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer.


Fingers crossed.

Follow @Shackleford_LB