Omg... Tax dollars at work.
$880,000 can build a few houses and maybe feed the poor or something. /sigh
____________
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/feds-fund-880000-study-benefits-snail-sex
(CNSNews.com) – The National Science Foundation awarded a grant
for $876,752 to the University of Iowa to study whether there is any
benefit to sex among New Zealand mud snails and whether that explains
why any organism has sex.
The study, first funded in 2011 and continuing until 2015, will study
the New Zealand snails to see if it is better that they reproduce
sexually or asexually – the snail can do both – hoping to gain insight
on why so many organisms practice sexual reproduction.
“Sexual reproduction is more costly than asexual reproduction, yet
nearly all organisms reproduce sexually at least some of the time. Why
is sexual reproduction so common despite its costs,” the study’s
abstract asks.
“This project will use a different organism, Potamopyrgus
antipodarum, a New Zealand snail, which has both sexual and
independently-derived asexual lineages that make it ideally suited to
address fundamental evolutionary questions of how genes and genomes
evolve in the absence of sexual reproduction.”
In other words, the study seeks to see if there are genetic
advantages to sexual reproduction that justify its evolutionary costs,
advantages such as avoiding genetic mutations or gene loss.
So far, the grant has paid out $502,357, according to NSF, and could
pay out the full $880,000 between now and 2015. The study is funded
through what NSF calls a continuing grant meaning that it agrees with
the researcher to fund a certain amount, but can end up spending more on
the grant if NSF agrees that more money is warranted.
The broader aim of the study is to find out why sexual reproduction
and males exist, arguing that sex is biologically inefficient for
females. Because an asexual organism can simply clone itself faster than
it can reproduce if it finds a mate, the study seeks to see if there
are other benefits to sexual reproduction that outweigh this ‘cost’ of
finding a mate.
In a University of Iowa press release
announcing the grant, this is described as the “cost of males” –
explaining that female organisms shouldn’t need to produce sons instead
of daughters because producing daughters simply involves asexual
duplication – which can then duplicate themselves – while male offspring
cannot produce other male offspring unaided.
“[T]he commonness of sex is surprising because asexual females should
be able to produce twice as many daughters as sexual females that make
both male and female offspring,” the release says.
“Despite this and other costs, nearly all organisms reproduce
sexually at least some of the time. This means that sex must be
associated with profound advantages, while asexual reproduction must
have significant evolutionary consequences.”
No comments:
Post a Comment