If we look for the common denominator in this article it is not to affirm or disconfirm formal education nor is home schooling the crux of the matter. It is about child centered learning, something that has been around for centuries, that loses its gloss in times when business models tend to take over teaching and learning. Universities have fostered the approach of formalization where teachers-to-be learn ideas about child centered learning through esoteric reading and didactic and traditional learning. Child centered or person centered learning is scoffed upon as being inefficient, though in reality it is on first blush not easy to do when you have been trained to be an authority driven teacher. Being a guide is difficult when you have not experienced getting out of the way of people learning. Instead it is about providing an environment that fosters learning without being the sage. All of us learn at different paces and unless we accept this, learning that is child centered is not possible. This is because the fundamental tenets of allowing children to discover are lost in what Sir Ken Robinson calls the industrial model of education. In actuality child or person centered learning is really more efficient, less lock-step, and the locus of control is placed on the learner, not the teacher. But tell that to those who think the corporate model is like making widgets. You take the raw product and put it into a machine that stamps out what you want in the end. The problem is that what it ends up is an inferior product, that has stifled individual initiative, to support life long learning.
Any wildlife biologist knows that an animal in a zoo will not develop normally if the environment is incompatible with the evolved social needs of its species. But we no longer know this about ourselves. We have radically altered our own evolved species behavior by segregating children artificially in same-age peer groups instead of mixed-age communities, by compelling them to be indoors and sedentary for most of the day, by asking them to learn from text-based artificial materials instead of contextualized real-world activities, by dictating arbitrary timetables for learning rather than following the unfolding of a child’s developmental readiness. Common sense should tell us that all of this will have complex and unpredictable results. In fact, it does. While some children seem able to function in this completely artificial environment, really significant numbers of them cannot. Around the world, every day, millions and millions and millions of normal bright healthy children are labelled as failures in ways that damage them for life. And increasingly, those who cannot adapt to the artificial environment of school are diagnosed as brain-disordered and drugged.
We focus on our children directly and tell them exactly what we want them to know, where in many other societies adults expect children to observe their elders closely and follow their example voluntarily. We control and direct and measure our children’s learning in excruciating detail, where many other societies assume children will learn at their own pace and don’t feel it necessary or appropriate to control their everyday activities and choices. In other words, what we take for granted as a “normal” learning environment is not at all normal to millions of people around the world.
That said, valuable information has been obtained with a structure-centric approach aimed at obtaining an understanding of how each cell in a developing organism acquires its unique pattern of gene expression and epigenetic variation, with specific genome-side patterns of DNA methylation, histone modifications, transcription factor binding, and chro- matin compaction that determines which regions are transcribed. But pinpointing essential gene-based modifications and products in this fashion does not, by itself, bring full knowledge of various facets of development. Organ and tissue pheno- types result from numerous complex interactions within and among cells, with feedback loops, self-organizing capabilities of molecular machines, and diffusion barriers all playing roles in how a gene product functions (Friedl and Zallen, 2010). Without insight into the engineering principles underlying such cell organization and function, the task of connecting genotype and phenotype is daunting. This is even more so because many cell and organ processes are deeply entwined in cell physiology and metabolism, which until recently had largely gone out of style as fields of study because of a molecular biological and structurecentric focus (McKnight, 2010).
Consider how organs, including heart, stomach, and liver, acquire left-right asymmetry within a developing organism (Lee and Anderson, 2008). Using the structure-centric approach, particularly based on molecular biology, researchers have tackled this question by analyzing gene deletions in organisms where left-right asymmetry was lost. The affected genes included those coding for intraflagellar transport, kinesin motor activity, and planar cell polarity signaling components. How these molecules contributed to the development of left-right asymmetry was unclear based solely on this structurist approach. But using the processcentric approach to examine, by imaging, the integrated activities of these molecules, researchers soon linked the mutated gene products to leftward fluid flow mediated by monociliated cells distributed across the developing node in the embryo (Hirokawa et al., 2006). The circular beating of the cilia on nodal cells was found to be key to the initiation of asymmetric organ development, either through the movement itself or through sweeping signaling molecules to one side of the nodal region. This explained the requirement for intraflagellar transport and kinesin activity, since they are needed for ciliogenesis. Moreover, the specific positioning of cilia to the posterior region of the apical domain of nodal cells helped explain the requirement for planar cell polarity components.
Light microscopy imaging technology makes it possible to bridge structure- and process-centric research strategies because of its ability to provide quantitative descriptions of spatiotemporal relationships among structural determinants and outputs associated with cells and tissues. These descriptions can then be used for building and testing models of developmental processes and their design principles. Many key discoveries in developmental biology over the past ten years have benefited from this approach, often revealing unexpected cell behaviors underlying tissue function, organization, and development. For example, 3D time-lapse imaging of organotypic cultures to observe epithelial morphogenesis has revealed novel roles of collective cell migration and heterotypic cell interactions (Ewald et al., 2008). In addition, mechanical inputs from physical forces have been shown to act as signals that influence gene expression, modulate cellular processes, and control tissue organization (Kobayashi and Sokabe, 2010). Moreover, morphodynamic processes, including cell elongation, polarization, and contraction, have been shown to underlie processes as diverse as epithelial closure, tissue elongation, and nervous system morphogenesis, as well as stem cell maintenance and tumor progression (Skoglund and Keller, 2010). These new discoveries, while dependent on genetic and biochemical approaches to identify new molecules, were only possible as a consequence of seeing underlying relationships through multidimensional imaging.
Ongoing advances are driving this everexpanding use of light microscopy imaging in developmental biology. Progress in multiple technological fronts is permitting experimental capabilities for interrogating developmental systems across multiple spatial and temporal scales. Improvements in microscope systems allow probing of fine ultrastructure or visualization of cellular dynamics in whole organisms during development. Advances in automation and image analysis, furthermore, are enabling rapid screening and large-scale anatomical reconstruction. These achievements have come from an expanding set of fluorescent markers, functional indicators, and genetic strategies for fluorescent labeling, as well as improvements in optics and computational techniques.
The present generation of light microscopes has been modified in nearly all parameters compared to similar micro- scopes of only a decade ago, enabling imaging over unprecedented spatial scales and experimental situations. Due to key improvements, it is now possible to obtain speeds of image acquisition of ~ 120 images/s or even higher, and to have multispectral imaging due to minimization of spectral emission overlap. Microscope systems incorporating these modifications include commercial light scanning confocals, spinning disk confocals, and wide-field microscopes with total internal reflection. Many of these systems have built-in macros for perform- ing kinetic experiments such as FRAP, FRET, or FCS. Advances in automation and image analysis are additionally making it possible to do rapid screening and large-scale anatomical reconstruc- tion using these microscope platforms.
Small molecule fluorescent probes are also being used in reporter technologies for probing native biochemistry of metabolites, including ions such as zinc and nitric oxide, which drive numerous physiological processes, or, when uncon- trolled, trigger pathology (Zhang et al., 2002; Pluth et al., 2011). The zinc indicators typically are intensity-based sensors, usually associated with fluorescein, re- sponding to zinc coordination with an increase in fluorescence emission inten- sity. Nitric oxide probes, on the other hand, include those in which the oxidation product of NO reacts with a functional group to modulate its fluorescence. Using these and other indicators, the genera- tion, accumulation, and translocation of key metabolites are being studied with spatial and temporal resolution, revealing how they respond to specific inputs (Pluth et al., 2011). This is bridging structure and process approaches, by clarifying the ways in which the multiple enzymes and pathways known to utilize organic species are interconnected and regulate diverse aspects of biological systems.
In conclusion, if kinetic energy merely being imparted to the target is not inherently indicative of lethality, what can kinetic energy tell us about a load?
The increased availability of fluorescent markers for visualization has been particularly impressive. Foremost in significance is the genetically encoded green fluorescent protein (GFP) from Aequoria Victoria and its relatives (Tsien, 1998). These proteins can be fused to virtually any protein of interest and used in dif- ferent microscopy techniques to visualize cellular processes on many spatial scales. The fluorescent fusion proteins are easily constructed, show specific targeting, and are minimally perturbing to a biological specimen, unlike early approaches using fluorescent antibodies or exoge- nous dyes. Their high sensitivity, resulting from production of light of a different color from the illuminating light, allows cellular processes to be accurately monitored over seconds, minutes or days. Laboratory mutagenesis has diversified GFP’s spectra, increasing its brightness and folding efficiencies as well as producing different colors, which allow for simultaneous imaging of multiple sets of proteins inside cells (Shaner et al., 2007). Mutagenesis has also led to the generation of forms of GFP that are photoactivable or photoconvertable, which make it possible to highlight specific protein populations to examine turnover and fate mapping (Lippincott-Schwartz and Patterson, 2009). Finally, fluorescent proteins (FPs) from marine corals have been mutated to produce a series of red-shifted proteins useful in deep tissue imaging due to their long wavelengths (Fradkov et al., 2000).
From what I've read, one cannot depend upon a similar effect on the remarkably tough Cape buffalo until something like a .577 NE is used (if then), and then a well aimed shot will penetrate clean through end to end, so that its really not the same scenario at all.