In Brief, April 2008

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

KISSING COUSINS HAVE MORE KIN

Icelandic women born between 1800 and 1824 who mated with a third cousin had more children and grandchildren (4.04 and 9.17, respectively) than women who mated with someone no closer than an eighth cousin (3.34 and 7.31). Those proportions held up a century later, when family size shrunk. Mating with a relative might reduce a woman's chance of having a miscarriage caused by an immunological incompatibility with her child. There is a limit to family closeness, however: couples that were second cousins or more closely related did not have as many children, probably because the kids inherited mutations that cut their lives short. —Nikhil Swaminathan

RUNNING DIALOGUE


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


New languages spin off from older ones with an initial burst of alterations to vocabulary before settling down and gradually changing over time, British researchers report. The group focused on three major language families: Bantu (Swahili and Zulu, for example), Indo-European (English, Latin), and Austronesian (Tagalog, Seediq). Some 10 to 33 percent of divergence between languages stemmed from key vocabulary changes at the time of language splitting.

This discrete evolutionary pattern occurs when a social group tries to forge a separate identity, the researchers say, citing as examples the sudden emergence of American English when Noah Webster published his dictionary in 1828 and, more recently, the development of black American English. —Nikhil Swaminathan

NOT GOING OUT TO PLAY

Americans are losing interest in going outdoors. Researchers analyzed trends in visits to parks and forests and in licenses for activities such as hunting and fishing. All peaked between 1981 and 1991 after 50 years of steady increase. But since then, they have been declining at roughly 1 percent each year, an overall drop of as much as 25 percent. Electronic diversions may be taking over; increasing school and work pressure and “stranger danger” fear absent in previous generations may also be contributing. —David Biello

Scientific American Magazine Vol 298 Issue 4This article was published with the title “In Brief” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 298 No. 4 (), p. 36
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0408-36a

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe