For the sake of balance...

Having been inspired by Mondays Infinite Monkey Cage programme on Radio 4... it got me to thinking if there is a place for balance in science, the telling of opposing views on the same subject. My initial thought was- of course science has balance, it is open to all views and all ideas, it is the way science moves forward. After a while I began to think, actually balance is not really the nature of science, and instead depends on at what point the current research has reached.

So let me explain myself... In new research, the theories and experiments formed are variable and often answering different questions. In this way, science is balanced, different research on the same subject is fairly viewed and reviewed and criticised. The difference is I suppose, that science is always moving toward an end point, a consensus. After a while, experimental design and results are confirmed by multiple sources, multiple times. I guess it's like a mist clearing, when through science we gain clarity. Although nothing is 'proved' in science, research overtime can lead us to the best possible explanation. So let's take 'global warming', the consensus among scientists is that a) the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, b) Increased CO2 in the atmosphere correlates to the earth warming and c)  Various human activity has increased CO2 in the atmosphere. This is commonly accepted by any reputable scientist, and by consensus, I mean a large majority, a majority so large that you would be hard pressed to find any scientist apposed to this theory.

When I think back to my GCSE English teacher explaining that we must be 'unbiased and present both sides of the story' I wonder whether we can ever really apply this to science. Of course this works in a medium such as newspaper and press but as I stated above, finding scientists apposed to the majority view is difficult, and is it really valuable anyway? This kind of conflict of views in science is often put to the test through the media. It seems to be a favourite of various News programs to create this so called balance. However, providing Dr xx of the department (unknown) of University of Timbuktu to debate with a reputable climatologist is hardly balance. Even worse, when they bring on an politically motivated, emotive speaker who clearly has no grasp of simple facts, which is often the way when it comes to climate change issues. I despair at the number of times I've watched modest, intelligent scientists calmly communicate the facts which are soon bulldozed by ignorant, self righteous and often very loud dimwits..... I'm left feeling... that's not fair. It's not fair because the public are being exposed to incorrect, unjustified views, this is not balance but instead quite harmful. This issue of a warming world as a result of human activity should be taken as red, not the 'what do you believe then?' attidude taken by many people in the public domain.

So I guess I'm answering my question to ' is there balance in science?' as- sometimes.... But more importantly, balance in the media when science is involved isn't really balance at all. Science is logical, theories are posed, experiments constructed, observations recorded and conclusions made. If research is still in its infancy then differing theories maybe argued but if there is numerous studies to suggest a key fact or aspect then with the use of logic a consensus will be formed. The problem comes with a new wave of media coverage that depicts 'science verses the world'. It is sciences responsibility to answer questions that everyone is wondering, even non-scientists. What I don't understand is when people are quite comfortable to sit in the knowledge that the earth is in fact round (information discovered by scientists) yet flip out when it comes to an issue such as 'global warming' purely because the implications of such an issue may mean they will have to change their own behaviours to prevent exacerbation of the situation.

An excellent tweet by Professor Brian Cox in response to dimwit A that questioned Prof. Cox's 'fanatical' view on man made global warming and how various 'eminents' disagreed. He simply replied 'Evidence dear boy. Scientists don't hold views, they just keep plugging away trying to understand the data. The rest is politics.' Views are for politicians, science is a celebration of reason. So instead of arguing with someone who clearly doesn't know the facts for the sake of balance I instead urge you to take a look at the evidence it really does speak for itself...

Public ignorance of science, is it dangerous?

I suffer from mild annoyance at the general public for misinterpretation of scientific issues and evidence. Ignorance is a disease that is steadily growing in the UK if not the world. Don't get me wrong, I don't use the word ignorance lightly or arrogantly, I will be the first to admit I am ignorant of many things, even though I strive to correct this. There are just too many things to know in the world for such a small life time. However, we can always endeavour to learn the facts of issues we are interested in, in order to make sound judgment. The point at which my mild annoyance turns to anger is when people ignorant of the truth make judgments that put not only their lives but also the lives of others at risk.

Recently, the occurrence of measles outbreaks in the UK has rocketed with nine children in Brighten diagnosed with this potentially fatal, extremely infectious disease in the last couple of weeks. The MMR vaccine controversy was widely reported, and with it the huge body of evidence that suggested there is no link between MMR and autism. Yet through misinterpretation and ignorance, some of the public are refusing to inoculate their children based on this claim. I understand the confusion over the subject, the initial health scare was the outcome of a great scientific misconduct that should never have been published. However, the scientific consensus has been for a long time, that there is no evidence to link MMR to autism, based on the numerous epidemiological studies now reported.

Perhaps it is the media? Giving an unfair bias to the more interesting story, although I doubt this, as it was a Sunday times journalist that revealed the author of the paper to have certain misgivings... In any case information is so free and easy to obtain these days, it's easy to view multiple pieces of evidence on the Internet.. that's if you choose to of course. What I believe is more damaging and actually quite startling, is that many mothers are making decisions on their child's health care through hear say and whispers from other mothers. This cascading effect of 'someone said something 10yrs ago' has resulted in steady outbreaks not just in the UK but throughout the world in the past decade. Even more disturbing is the effect on children too young to receive the vaccination yet still vulnerable to the disease. This situation was reported in Brighton and Hove in which very young children have contracted the disease from older children who have not received the vaccination. One of the mothers of such a child said ' these mothers are playing Russian Roulette with their children's lives' but it seems not just their children, the whole community could be at risk.

I find myself thinking, do these people not understand how damaging these diseases are? Realising the cruel irony that in fact it is probably our amazing health care that has shielded them from the possible seriousness of these diseases. If we look at Africa the seriousness is clear to see, measles is one of the leading causes of child death, where for example Malawi's measles incidence rate per 100,000 total population is 490.8 compared to that of the UK 0.64 (WHO, 2010). I am reminded of a comment made by an Immunology lecture of mine, in which he described the reaction of one of his fellow Doctors born and working in Zimbabwe. He was shocked that parents in the UK were denying this potentially lifesaving vaccination to their children when it was so accessible. In Zimbabwe vaccination is rare and cases often prove fatal, the facts are plain to see with a 78% drop in measeals incidence 2000-2008 as a result of increased vaccinations worldwide.

I'm not sure how the situation can change in the UK, perhaps the exposure of parents to the consequences of no vaccination should be made more apparent in the media and by the NHS. Yet I fear these situations will only change once parents come face to face with the consequences of these diseases- pneumonia and encephalitis to name a few, but by then it is too late. When accurate information is so accessible, yet parents continue to make judgements that effect their children's health on hear say, I'm left thinking what an earth has happened to our sense of rationality? Will people really believe everything they hear?....

Can scientists turn bad? If so, can science save them?

I often get harassed by climate sceptics... It's not like I look for them, it's just they seem to be drawn to me like moths to a flame.... Not one who gains enjoyment from initiating an argument but also not one likely to let my opinions and views go left unsaid, I often unwillingly enter a debate. Agreed, much of the time I'm left relaying evidence and scientific theory that suggests climate change is occurring and yes we cause it, met with unaccepting ignorance. But sometimes a different argument is thrown in, one such argument that got me thinking was 'those scientists will say anything for money'. I know, the statement is rash and unthoughtful, and of course I argued about the stringent control and criticism in science and the openness that allows such peer review and questioning. But I was left thinking.... we are just human.

What drives science? Thought? Observation? or money? All three I would guess, it is however true that lack of funding means lack of research. You could write the most beautiful, succinct grant proposal ever seen yet if there is no future or at least way to gain merit in the future it won't succeed in receiving funding from one of the various bodies. So, with this in mind, is it possible that scientists would be fraudulent with data to secure future funding?


The above statement that originally accosted my thoughts was in relation to the University of East Anglia's 'Climategate'. A perfect example of how a slight turn of phrase can cascade through ignorance into a rolling ball of climate denier shit, showering the general public with fallacies and just plain untruths. In case a sceptic reads this I must confirm that following investigations into this incident 'The rigor and honesty of the scientists was found not to be in doubt' and it was also found that there was 'no evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments that human activities are causing global warming.' An interesting time for science and also a illustration of just how far we have to go to bridge the gap between publishing of science and research to the interpretation of it by the general public. Climate change is undoubtedly a big player in scientific research at the moment and with that, often the receiver of substantial funding, but could this really be a motive for fraudulence in science?


I recently read an interesting article on fraud in science by Dr J Crocker, using Diederik Staple a social psychologist who recently admitted fabricating much of his data. Social psychology is not a subject I know much about but the reputable American psychological Association having published much of his work has now been slowly withdrawing many of his papers, with early signs suggesting the scale of his fraud as vast. A fascinating point she brought up was likely ramifications of committing such a crime. Damaging the careers of students and colleagues, damaging the reputation of the research body or University as well as doubts to co-author papers... would you still be left believing it was worth it? I don't think I would. Apparently according to Dr Crocker, it only takes a few steps to become comfortable with you actions before they escalate "dropping a inconvenient data point- and avoiding discomfort by justifying or rationalising their way out'. It is however, how the truth outted that I feel is of greatest importance, the colleagues and researchers that took steps to stop such misconduct at the risk to their own careers.


I hate to say it.. but these people acted for 'the greater good'. It may be about morality, or logic or just plain rationality, but something tells me it is unacceptable. Scientific theory is empirical and always open to falsification, and although fraud in science has been shown to occur, the openness of science should combat falsification of results. One of the biggest threats that such misconduct could have is to the publics mistrust of science and scientists. One could argue that 'climategate' illustrated the lack of trust already distilled in the general public, which could only be made worse with such revelations. Communication and understanding of the scientific medium is our greatest challenge, but with it comes responsibility for upholding the definition of science 'organising knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe' even if the outcomes are not quite what we expected. Science is fluid and changeable, its nature is what makes it so facinating. We are constantly moving forward with new thoughts and theories, so in this respect there are no right answers... just interesting ones.

Why I am an atheist

Am I an atheist? I guess I am, I have never defined myself and put it in a box, but I guess when an opportunity arises... I am a non believer, that’s to say my thoughts are justified by evidence and theory that, to the best of my knowledge explains the truth. As a child I believed in Santa and the tooth fairy and God. .. Not because of my parents, who are distinctly non-religious. I believed, simply because I thought ‘why not?’ Perhaps I wouldn’t have ever known about God was it not for my Church of England schooling, where prayer and bible studies were a common occurrence. As I grew and with it my curious mind, I began to ask why? And How? And what is the evidence for this? My parents never pressured me to be an atheist but instead encouraged me to question and take nothing for granted. As I questioned the less convinced I became and in the blink of an eye my religious phase was over and in its place a much more long lasting love that has lasted to this day. Science, one great adventure that will take a lifetime to learn.

I will always remember a conversation I had with a Mormon at University, out on one of their recruiting missions. He asked me ‘do you pray?’ I replied ‘no’ to which he said ‘How do you know what God has planned for you? And what the point of your life on earth is?’ I explained to him that I did not long for an inherent purpose to my life and any purpose made would be my own. I told him I was a scientist and that understanding everything in life from the behaviour of animals to the orbit of the planets was my life’s work, and that from each piece of knowledge I gained I found great contentment in life. After a little pause he told me he was happy for me. I felt great sadness, that he would not appreciate the great contentment found in the facts of science and nature and instead would lead a life in fear of God.

I live my life knowing it’s the only one I will have and I live it to the full. I guess that makes me lucky, lucky not to be indoctrinated into a way of life or follow unquestioningly something that is taken on blind faith. I love to live and I live to love. Through great chance this planet has come into existence. Through great chance this planet has evolved to sustain life, through great chance I was one of the millions of possibilities my parents' genes would mix to make me. Through great chance I was born into a family that does not practice brain washing. By great CHOICE I became an atheist, and that makes me.... one of the lucky ones.

Embrace your Gluteus maximus

Dr Alice Roberts' new program on BBC is a must watch. A kind of epic 'who do you think you are' she climbs along our extensive family tree from ape like ancestors to straight walking Homo erectus. Tracking evolutionary change to understand how and why we, (Homo sapians) came to walk tall, craft tools and ultimately, change the world. 

I was greatly intrigued when she revealed the facts about our indispensable Gluteus maximus. 

Gluteus Maximus-  from the Latin, largest and outermost muscle, it is in fact the largest muscle in the human body. Our evolutionary leap from quadrupeds to bipeds has caused a cascade of changes as many elements of the musculoskeletal system have reorganised to promote locomotion and posture. The distinctiveness of this prominent muscle lead scientists to believe that it must have been selected for, and was an important part of our evolutionary, anatomical history. Studies looked at how our bodies moved whilst walking and running and what was needed to maintain balance and our upright posture. They found that the GM was not essential for walking on flat terrain but acted as a trunk stabiliser during endurance running. This small change in anatomy of early hominids reveals an interesting story of our ancestors. Endurance runners that spanned the African deserts, hunting and running from formidable predators. I bet you didn’t think our bottoms were responsible for the survival of our ancestors?! Other theories suggest that the GM would have played a significant role in climbing and a novel adaption for foraging tasks such as digging. 

One thing we know for sure, is that it wasn’t meant to be sat on! So embrace you Gluteus maximus and use it well. I feel a little better about running the Bath Half marathon. Because now I know it’s what I, and my ancestors were built for.....

Dinosaurs: Dim-witted, cold-blooded and slow?

Dinosaurs were first thought to have appeared on earth over 260million years ago and subsequently remained for over 160million years. Having been the fascination of many a school child and adult too! You wouldn't be blamed in thinking Dinosaurs were just dim-witted, sluggish and cold blooded over-sized lizards, because during the first half of the 20th Century most of the scientific community believed this to be true also. With new research, the story of Dinosaur's is slowly unravelling and I would like to illustrate the diversity of this intriguing and varied group of species. Whilst tidying up there unfair rep and answering the question were they really stupid, cold-blooded and slow?

The word “cold-blooded” is rather scientifically vague, today we use terms such as poikilothermy or ectothermy in which body temperature is expected to fluctuate and is controlled by external means. Homeothermy and endothermy refer to “warm-blooded” animals, which regulate their temperature with the use of thermal homeostasis internally. Previously, it was widely believed that dinosaurs were ectotherms, similar to lizards of today but now it is believed that many could have been endotherms similar to modern day mammals.

Temperature records illustrate alternating warm and cool periods over millions of years. These suggest that during the Jurassic, Triassic and Cretaceous periods the climate was relatively warm through out. This could be evidence for the theory that all dinosaurs were ectotherms. Because of the steady temperatures that occurred throughout this period ectothermic animals would have flourished in this environment. Ectotherms could have maintained a relatively stable core body temperature because temperatures were not likely to fluctuate greatly; some biologists suggest that the smaller dinosaurs had body temperatures close to 25ºC – which is the expected average temperature of that time. With this constant environmental temperature there would be no need to regulate their temperatures internally, also if the conditions were often dry and arid then food and water may have been in short supply, this would have meant that mammalian like creatures could not have had obtained enough food for their high metabolic rates, whereas reptiles can tolerate ranges in temperature and are able to maintain water. But temperatures must have fluctuated seasonally so this would suggest a need for thermoregulation during the very cold or very hot months.

Evidence of dinosaur fossils at the poles could suggest endothermy in dinosaurs, although the climate would have been much warmer and forest was expected to reach towards the poles in the absence of ice caps, because of the Earths tilt this area would still experience long periods of cold and dark. Signifying that the dinosaurs must have had some sort of thermoregulatory system to survive the winter, but this could also be evidence for a migration because the pole areas would have flourished during the summer, so dinosaurs may have migrated during the 6 cold months of the year. Other theories such as the reason for the mass extinction of dinosaurs could have been that at the end of the cretaceous period temperatures dropped dramatically and there was increased variation across the Earth, this could have meant that ectothermic dinosaurs would have struggled to survive and regulate their temperature and therefore perish.

The evidence of growth rings on dinosaur teeth is valuable when suggesting whether the dinosaur was endothermic or ectothermic. Growth rings are attributed to the inability of ectotherms to maintain high levels of activity, feeding and growth during months in which food is sparse and temperatures are at extremes. Because endotherms can maintain a constant body temperature seasonal growth rings do not appear. The discovery of dinosaur teeth from Alberta Canada include that of Saurischia, Ornischia and Ceratopsidae from the late Cretaceous period. They show similarities to that of modern day crocodilians, affected by seasonal variations. The rings demonstrate periodicity of growth, when there is a narrow hypercalcified band this means a hard winter in which productivity was low and the dinosaur struggled to maintain a constant temperature and other bodily functions. Because of the similarities between crocodiles and dinosaurs of this area, this would suggest similar thermal physiologies, thus implying that these dinosaurs were ectotherms.

Using growth rate, mass of dinosaur, environmental temperature and productivity, temperature of dinosaur can be predicted. Results suggest that larger dinosaurs had higher constant body temperatures which could be evidence for endothermy. But other theories suggest that large dinosaurs maintained their temperature using thermal inertia. Dinosaur body temperatures change over the ontogeny of an individual, body temperatures increased by less than 3ºC over ontogeny for a species reaching 300kg but more than 20ºC for a species reaching 25000kg. This relative change in body temperature is similar to observed increase in temperature for extant crocodiles. The model suggests that larger dinosaurs were able to maintain a constant temperature because they were so big and not because they had thermoregulation. Soft tissue of Theropod dinosaurs suggests that they may have had unmodified septate lungs, ventilated with the assistance of an active hepatic piston-diaphragm mechanism. The presence of this mechanism could be the answer to why dinosaurs maintained a routine metabolic rate like ectotherms but still managed to sustain active oxygen consumption rates and activity levels beyond living reptiles.

Other evidence for endothermy is need for high arterial pressures particularly in large dinosaurs. In dinosaurs such as the brachiosaurus reaching heights of 25 meters high arterial pressures must have been essential, because of its large vertical distance from heart to head it would have required a 6.5meter blood column producing pressures of 500mmHg to provide adequate exchange of metabolites. No reptiles of today show such large heart to head ratios and are often low lying animals, these dinosaurs may have bowed their heads but skeletal structure suggests it remained in fairly up right position. If these large animals were aquatic then this would have suggested that the pressure needed for the blood column would have been equalized by hydrostatic pressure. Pterosaurs, like birds possessed an insulating cover of hair like structures similar to feathers this would suggest a need of insulation and therefore an endothermic animal. A lot of other dinosaurs did not posses this so could be considered as ectotherms. Histologically dinosaur bone is neither like that of endotherms or ectotherms but in some dinosaurs primary bone shows fibro-lamella bone deposited in zones separated by lines of arrested growth. This fairly slow growth punctuated by slow or even ceased growth is evidence of seasonal alterations between fast and slow rates of bone deposition. There is little evidence for this kind of growth in endotherms today however some dinosaurs such as the small ornithopod have azonal fibro-lamella suggesting continuous growth.

For many years dinosaurs have been considered as being slow moving animals, especially large dinosaurs as rapid gaits would have been impossible because of their sheer size this is similar to modern day elephants who are relatively slow movers so absolute speed does not increase with body size. Other evidence suggests that their physiology simply would not allow it. The position of the dinosaur scapula in relation to the vertical humerus is also maximally protracted position for the scapilohumeral complex, further protraction of glenoid would have resulted in impossible positions. Also further reach of the vertebrate could have only been accomplished by flexing fore limb and elbow and for a heavy animal this would create sheer forces which would ultimately increase with speed. This shows that in some dinosaurs such as the triceratops reaching high speeds would have been impossible. Other ideas on dinosaur locomotion suggest that certain dinosaurs would not have enough knee extensor muscles to run slowly and hip extensor muscles would not have been able to sustain high speeds.

Although dinosaur morphology has suggested that many of them were slow moving new evidence from track sites states that some species could be fast moving. Previous trackway sites in British Columbia and Queensland state that many of the trails show slow moving animals. In Texas a new trackway site has been used to estimate the speed of the dinosaurian trail maker from the size of its foot prints and stride. Here some species of dinosaur appear to be reaching speeds of 22msֿ¹ much faster than previous evidence. Although this evidence doesn’t categorically prove the speeds of these dinosaurs it states that either these were the speeds they were traveling or they had unusually long legs. It’s also worth noting that in these investigations it was largely found to be a smaller species that was fast moving and that in fact speed decreased as the animals size increased.

When looking at creatures that lived millions of years ago it is difficult to determine intelligence with only skeletal structures and a few soft tissues as evidence. But one method used in determining the complexity of neural development is comparing brain size of a particular animal to that expected of an animal of that size. By using endocasts developed from dinosaur skulls brain size and size of brain sections can be determined or at least estimated. Brain size and therfore intellect is important in predicting behavior of dinosaurs, for example sense of smell and foraging ability or predation skills.

When exploring the neurology of a dinosaur it is difficult to make a measure of intelligence, for example just using brain size isn’t enough as a larger brain size could imply better eyesight but not necessarily increased intelligence. Dinosaurs are thought to have had some of the smallest brains for their body size of any vertebrates with the view that they could only produce simple behaviors but if you compare the brain size of the animal to that of an expected brain size for an animal of that size dinosaurs fall well within the expected range for their body size. Soft tissue structure or imprints can be retained inside the skulls of dinosaurs, taking endocasts of these skulls enables us to interpret brain size and function. The large Sauropod dinosaurs had comparatively small brains for their size but this could have been influenced by adaptive requirements of head size and weight so far from ground so is not used in the relationship between brain and body size. An equation was used to estimate intelligence which was the size of dinosaur divided by the size of brain of an animal of that size, known as EQ the lower the EQ the less complex its brain. Dinosaurs such as the stegosaurus had low a low EQ and this can be confirmed by its limb structure which suggests a lack of agility and speed which was not essential it also had defensive weapons on its tail suggesting a passive defence. Theropods were found to have larger brains and therefore higher EQs which is understandable as they were mostly carnivores and would have required a more complex neurology to hunt with an agile, lightly built physique and grasping fore limbs.

Other evidence is obtained from the similarities of neurological features in dinosaurs and animals from today. The caiman endocasts and alligator brain exhibit notable similarity with A.fragilis endocasts. In the A.fragilis endocasts there are well defined structures of vestibular sense organs with distinct similarities to the alligators vestibular apparatus not shared with turtles, iguanas or birds. Behavior can be proposed based on modern day reptiles, substantial elaboration of cerebrum imparts greater neuronal complexity enabling organisms to extend foraging ability.

In conclusion, Dinosaurs were pretty awesome. Ok, so they won't loose their name...- from the greek 'potent lizard' but I hope you're now inspired to find out more about these varied creatures as I have only touched on there facinating physiology and behaviour. So what were Dinosaurs? Not just over-sised lizards thats for sure....

Rapid evolution: Swept under the proverbial oceanic carpet...

It is clear that human activities are effecting the environment at an unprecedented rate.
Fishing is a major source of food and other resources for humankind. Today most marine fish stocks are heavily exploited, and many are overexploited. Such intensive utilization has raised concerns about the sustainability of the modern fishing industry. But the problem lies deeper than this, as fish stocks crash, it is likely that other environmental variables are experiencing the secondary effects of such large scale disturbances. In recent times it has become clear that such actions by humans may be responsible for the rapid evolution of a species.

An understandably tentative theory involving the genetic changes of exploited fish stocks in a diverse and variable environment. Over the last few decades scientists have been observing phenotypic changes in fish populations, producing theories as to why such changes may be occurring.

Due to the high levels of mortality, size and selective nature of commercial fisheries, it is likely that particular life history traits will be selected for in exploited fish populations. Differentials have been found to be high for characteristics such as body size and age of maturation. Historically, larger fish are more valuable and more sort after, a late maturation means species spend more time in areas that are at risk from fishing practices, being caught before they even spawn. With such risk, there has been a reversal of fitness. With those that a smaller less easily caught and spawn early becoming more fit within the population. For example, heavy harvesting of Pacific salmon of a population returning to spawning streams; severely alters selection on life history traits. By differentially removing larger fish from harvested populations, fishing exerts intense selection on age and size at sexual maturity, this response to harvesting practices has been reported for many fish stocks.

Using the BFF (Big Female Fish) rule, when maturation takes place earlier and average size of fish is decreases, sustainable yield of large fish, producing many more offspring decreases and so does the market value of catches. If the observed changes in maturation have a genetic component, unless harvesting methods are radically changed it is unlikely that stocks will recover and more importantly it is unlikely that species will never recover to their former large sizes and late maturations. Genetic recovery occurs much more slowly than ecological recovery. It is therefore in the interest of fisheries managers to prevent unwanted genetic changes as early as possible.

It is important to acknowledge that there is till much conflict surrounding the role of fisheries induced evolution, however, most scientists agree that it does occur in some form yet to what extent in debateable. For example present day cod mature at a much younger and smaller size than their ancestors at the begining of the 20th century would have done when faced with similar growing conditions. Suggesting genetic changes rather than a plastic response to environmental variation.

Not only is the suggestion that the over exploitation of the oceans is causing a rapid evolution of many species alarming, but these effects may cascade to other species causing impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Or quite simply, the monsters our Great Great Great Grandfathers caught off Britains coast line will be a thing of the past and remain there indefinately.