Selling biometrics to the retail sector

The retail sector is a potentially ‘hot’ application area for the biometrics industry. Fraudulent transactions and identity theft are rising at unprecedented levels causing unacceptable losses to retailers. Biometric technology is proving successful in fighting these sorts of crimes, and is attracting attention from some of the world’s major retailers. This attention has not yet matured into contracts, however, so for now the use of the technology is confined to small chains of stores, which are using the technology primarily for secure cheque cashing.     

Rethinking the life sciences

The life sciences are at loggerheads with society and neither much trusts the other. To unleash the full potential of molecular life science, a new contract with society and more organized ways of doing research are needed.Suppose that an international group of scientists presents a 15-year, €750 million research programme to unravel the molecular mechanisms of metabolic syndrome, a disorder implicated in obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, cancer and other diseases. The results from this project will neither replace obvious preventive measures—such as reducing food intake or increasing exercise—nor will it magically generate pharmaceutical treatments. Instead, the research aims to gain a systems-level understanding of metabolic syndrome that could lead to more effective prevention schemes, improved food quality, improved early diagnosis of people with higher risk, and better therapies and drugs. From an economic point of view, this is an excellent investment, as the costs of obesity and its co-morbidities in the European Union are estimated to increase to €100 billion per year in 2030 [1]. If the proposed research project helped to lower the costs by only 10%, it would generate a considerable return on investment.Sadly, such a project would be unlikely to receive funding. The reason is not because it would be scientifically unrealistic or unfeasible, or because society does not want to support expensive research programmes. The Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN to identify the Higgs boson and the European Southern Observatory in Chile are all examples of large-scale research programmes that are publicly funded. Rather, the life sciences suffer from a unique set of problems that have developed in the past decades and would prevent such a project receiving popular support and funding. This article explores why this is the case and how modern life sciences could contribute more to society. Specifically, we argue that two areas need rethinking: the embedding of the life sciences in society and the way that research is organized.There are more than seven billion humans on this planet who need food, energy and health care, and life science research has a huge potential to address these needs. However, critics point out that many of the promises made by life scientists in the past have still not materialized. One example is the promises made to justify the US $3 billion spent on the Human Genome Project. It was supposed to provide a ‘blueprint of life'' that would quickly lead to new approaches for curing diseases. In the end, however, despite its success at generating new research fields and knowledge, the Human Genome Project has not (yet) lived up to its promises.…critics point out that many of the promises made by life scientists in the past have still not materializedWorse still, some critics perceive the life sciences as a problem that is creating physical and moral hazards. Rather than writing a blank cheque to allow scientists to pursue their research goals, governments are increasingly demanding control over the direction and application of research. This approach tends to reward short-term applications of scientific resources to help solve societal problems. Moreover, the success of projects has to be demonstrated at the application stage, before any of the research has even begun, which is fundamentally incompatible with the trial-and-error processes at the heart of creative research. Long-term, in-depth investments in research have become unpopular. Ironically, this ‘short-termism'' undermines the potential of the life sciences to be realized. Life sciences and society seem to be in a dead-lock.The life sciences must therefore regain the trust of society. This cannot be done merely by emphasizing academic freedom and the autonomy of science, or by promoting the so-called ‘cornucopia'' of science and technology, implying that both bring only precious gifts. It is also not useful to suggest that morals should follow scientific and technological developments rather than shape them. It is equally counterproductive when scientists deny taking responsibility for how their findings are applied after they leave the laboratory. As Ravetz [2] famously remarked: “Scientists claim credit for penicillin, while Society takes the blame for the Bomb”. In reality, the definition of ends is always influenced by the available means.One approach to restore the trust between the life sciences and society is to create platforms that allow for open and symmetrical dialogue. Fortunately, we do not have to start from scratch, as the recent discussions about responsible research and innovation (RRI; [3,4,5]) have already begun this process. According to René von Schomberg, policy officer at the European Commission, Directorate-General for Research, RRI is “a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products” [5]. An example is the EU ‘Code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research''. The concept is also expected to have a major role in the upcoming EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation ‘Horizon 2020'', and national research councils in the UK, Norway and the Netherlands are supporting initiatives under this heading. The National Nanotechnology Initiative in the USA heralds ‘responsible development'', and the Presidential Commission on the Study of Bioethical Issues recommends ‘responsible stewardship'' and ‘prudent vigilance'' in relation to synthetic biology.…‘short-termism'' undermines the potential of the life sciences to be realizedThe starting point of RRI is that society, science, technology and morality comprise a single system. If one component changes, the others are also affected. The traditional division of labour—science provides knowledge and instruments, whilst society determines values and application—therefore does not work anymore. Life scientists have to acknowledge and accept that society is co-shaping their agenda. Scientists should also realise that vice versa they co-shape society, rather than just offering knowledge and tools. In other words, science and society co-evolve [6]. Bringing life sciences and society closer together requires the concerted efforts of life scientists, social scientists, ethicists, legal experts, economists, policy-makers, market parties and laypeople.Research and technology are rational activities at the micro level. Science is superior to other methods for creating reliable, testable knowledge, and technology is unmatched in providing solutions to many problems. But both tend to become irrational at higher levels of organization—we drive highly sophisticated cars and still get stuck in traffic jams, nuclear waste remains a huge problem for generations to come, and knowledge and technology have enabled increasingly lethal weaponry. Science and technology therefore need moral guidelines—such as ‘the precautionary principle''—to direct what kind of knowledge is worth pursuing and should be applied, why and for whom. This is a one-sided view, however, that ignores the perspective of the scientific method. As science proceeds by trial and error, it must be fundamentally open to pursue any avenue of knowledge. As such, new scientific insight and technological opportunities can often necessitate a reappraisal of established morals. Keeping science, technology and morality in contact with each other requires more than rules and prohibitions that can be ticked off on a form. It needs a culture of attentiveness and reflection to avoid tunnel vision whilst allowing flexibility and improvisation to learn from mistakes and change course if needed.During the past two decades, many experiments in public understanding, awareness and participation in science and technology have been conducted. In the Netherlands, for instance, this has included science cafes, citizen panels [7], nation-wide public debates about nuclear energy [8], biotechnology and food in 2001 [9], and public participation (http://www.nanopodium.nl). It is yet to be determined how effective these efforts have been. Appreciating that science and technology, as well as society and morality, constitute parts of a larger system demands skills, institutions and procedures that have not as yet been adequately developed. Indeed, many scientists continue to adhere to a ‘knowledge deficit'' model of public outreach that has scientists ‘explaining'' scientific developments to an audience that is perceived to be ignorant at best and technophobic at worst. On the other hand, NGOs have sometimes hijacked discussions by simply being ‘against'', rather than contributing to the debate in an open and constructive manner. Another problem is that the life sciences are poorly organized. They lack an organization that represents the community and can professionalize the relationship between society and life sciences.What are the requirements for developing responsibly the relationship between society and the life sciences? First, it is important that scientists are explicit about the trial-and-error character of research, and are honest and transparent about the results they expect, rather than inducing unrealistic expectations. Laypeople should be made aware of how the life sciences function and what they might achieve. It is also important that citizens understand that science produces theories that can be corroborated to some degree rather than absolute certainties, and that technology offers solutions that can do both more or less than expected. This should also make clear that the distinction between fundamental science and applied technology is both real and illusionary. It is real because it is important to allow space for unfettered curiosity. It is illusionary because even the most ‘fundamental'' research is usually embedded in a general normative vision about its possible use. Moreover, even truly applied research can generate new fundamental insight.Second, it is important to engage societal actors as early as possible in the research enterprise, so that they can determine the research agenda rather than be confronted with final results and products. A specific suggestion would be to attach a ‘layman advisory board'' to large research programmes. Although the tasks of such boards should be defined carefully to avoid tying them up in minutiae, such boards can help to enhance the involvement of society in the life sciences. Engaging interested individuals and stakeholders early on in the process and offering them an opportunity to influence the research agenda would help to foster a constructive attitude.These boards should put the definitions, visions and goals of scientific research to the social test and set research priorities accordingly. Research is inevitably conducted with reference to priorities—such as advancing knowledge, improving public health, economic development and military use—but setting these priorities exceeds the authority of science. We need social scientists, philosophers, lawyers, policy-makers, politicians, companies, opinion-makers, NGOs and patient organizations to discuss with life scientists how scientific results can be developed to benefit society. For example, because knowledge can be viewed as an economically valuable resource, we have to consider whether intellectual property laws are adequate to deal with new forms of knowledge. The ongoing debate about the legal and moral problems of intellectual property [10] also highlights issues of fairness and justice. How will science and technology influence prevailing ideas about the meaning of a ‘healthy life''? How much do we value physical and mental health, how much are we willing to invest in this value, and how will society react to choices made by individuals? The life sciences are creating enormous data collections about individuals, which raises issues about access, privacy, ownership and consent. Discussing these issues would neither put the life sciences in a strait jacket nor would it curtail curiosity-driven research. On the contrary, we should be more worried about the current situation, in which governments set the agenda by choosing which areas are funded without consulting the life sciences community or other stakeholders.The sequencing of the human genome and the rapid development of new technologies and research fields—genomics, proteomics, advanced light microscopy, bioinformatics, systems biology and synthetic biology—have not yet paid off in terms of highly visible applications that provide a significant benefit to society. However, there are many examples of progress both scientifically and clinically, such as the ongoing Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements project (ENCODE; http://encodeproject.org), the stratification of patients for anti-cancer therapies based on molecular markers or the creation of genetically modified disease-resistant plants. Notwithstanding, applying the new technologies made scientists realize that biological systems are much more complex than anticipated. The multi-layered and multi-scale complexity of cells, organisms and ecosystems is a huge challenge for research in terms of generating, analysing and integrating enormous amounts of data to gain a better understanding of living systems at all levels of organization.However, and remarkably, the life sciences have not adapted accordingly to tackle bigger challenges with larger teams comparable with their colleagues in physics and astronomy. Most research is still carried out by small groups or collaborations that are woefully inadequate to address the full complexity of living systems. This type of research is grounded in the history of molecular biology when scientists focused on individual genes, proteins and metabolic pathways. Scientists hope that many small discoveries and advances made by many individual research groups will eventually add up to a more complete picture, an approach that clearly does not work and must change. The new challenge is to systematically acquire and integrate comprehensive data sets on the huge number of components at the cellular level and that of tissues, organs and complete organisms. This requires the life sciences to scale up their research efforts into larger projects.The putative research programme described at the beginning of this paper could help to reduce the health and economic burden of metabolic syndrome. This multifactorial disorder is an excellent example of the complex interplay between organs, tissues, cells, molecules, lifestyle, genetic factors, age and stress. Unravelling this daunting but finite complexity requires a major and well-coordinated effort. It would have to combine diverse skills and disciplines, including biology, chemistry, medicine, mathematics, physics and engineering. Similar considerations are true for research into areas such as cancer, Alzheimer disease or the development of efficient biofuels. Why, then, are we not making the necessary investments? The answer to this question has four components that we address below: scaling and management of research programmes, the academic culture and funding.First, one could argue that many national and European research programmes already focus on many aspects of metabolic syndrome. Together, they probably represent an investment of several hundred million Euros. So why spend another €750 million? The problem is that the results from individual research efforts simply do not add up due to a lack of standardization in regard to experiments, the use of model systems and protocols. Given the complexity of the disease, defining standard operation protocols (SOPs) is not a trivial task and requires a considerable research effort. However, experience shows that developing SOPs should be an integral part of larger research programmes. Moreover, SOPs change as our knowledge increases. SOPs can only be effective and stimulate research in the context of a sufficiently large and receptive research community, dedicated to a common well-defined research goal. An example of the successful development and implementation of SOPs in a ‘learning-by-doing'' setting is the German Virtual Liver Network (VLN) programme (http://www.virtual-liver.de). Obviously, a considerable fraction of the €750 million should come from regrouping and readjusting existing research in the field of metabolic syndrome.Second, we have remarkably little experience in managing concerted large-scale research efforts in the life sciences in the range of €100–1,000 million. The Human Genome Project cost US $3 billion. However, genomes are just DNA sequences, and it is relatively easy to define SOPs and integrate the contributions of many research groups. In terms of research management it was relatively straightforward compared with, for instance, a metabolic syndrome programme, which would have many more dimensions and components. It would require a highly coordinated approach, as the experiments of the participating research groups from different institutes and countries are strongly interdependent and the results must add up to a larger picture.To keep such a complex research programme on track, on time and within budget, strategic decisions will inevitably need to be made at a central level, rather than by individual researchers. A serious risk is that scaling-up coordinated research efforts will result in excessive bureaucracy and inflexibility that could kill creativity. Avoiding this problem is a major challenge. The life sciences could learn here from large, long-term projects in other fields, such as high-energy physics, astronomy and ecology. An instructive example is the Census of Marine Life programme [11] that successfully measured the diversity, distribution and abundance of marine life in the oceans over ten years. It involved 80 countries and 640 institutions and had a budget of US $650 million [12]. A recent overview and analysis of large-scale research efforts in the life sciences has been presented and discussed in [13,14,15].A third aspect is academic culture, which cherishes freedom, independence and competition and will not necessarily mesh well with the idea of large, tightly managed research programmes. Even so, research institutions will probably compete to participate in goal-oriented, large-scale research programmes. In fact, this is largely similar to the way most research is funded presently, for instance, through the Framework Programmes of the European Commission, except that the total collective effort is scaled up by one to two orders of magnitude. Moreover, as large-scale efforts involve longer timescales of between 10 and 15 years, it would offer a more stable basis of financing research. However, as the cooperation between parties and their interdependency will need to increase, participating research institutes and consortia will be held much more accountable for their contribution to the overall goals. ‘Take-the-money-and-run'' is no longer an option. This will obviously require explicit agreements between a programme director and participating institutions.In addition, academic institutions should rethink their criteria for selecting and promoting researchers. The impact factor, h-factor and citation scores [16] will have to be abandoned or modified as large-scale research efforts with an increasing number of multi-author publications will decrease their ability to assess individuals. Consequently, less emphasis will be put on first or last authorships, whilst project and team management skills might become more relevant.Academic freedom and creativity will be just as essential to a collective research enterprise as it is to small projects and collaborations. Large-scale research programmes will create new scientific questions and challenges, but they will not tell investigators how to address these. Academics will be free to choose how to proceed within the programme. Moreover, researchers will benefit from tapping into well-structured, large, knowledge bases, and they will have early access to the relevant data of others. Hence, being part of a large, well-organized research community brings benefits that might compensate for a perceived decrease in independence. Again, all of this depends strongly on how a large-scale programme is organized and managed, including the distribution of responsibilities, data-sharing policies and exchanges of expertise. Competition will probably remain part of the scientific endeavour, but it is important that it does not hamper collaboration and data sharing.Whilst we stress the need for larger-scale research efforts in the life sciences to have an impact on society, we also want to acknowledge the crucial role of classical curiosity-driven research programmes. It is essential to develop a reasonable and effective balance between different types of research in life sciences.A fourth issue is the lack of adequate funding mechanisms for international, large-scale research efforts. Given the ambiguous relationship between the life sciences and society—as argued in the first part of this essay—this problem can only be solved if life scientists convince policy-makers, funders and politicians that research can significantly contribute to solving societal problems and at reasonable costs. If not, life sciences will not flourish and society will not profit. As argued above, research efforts should be scaled to the complexity of the systems they intend to investigate. There are only a few problem-focused research programmes with a volume of more than €50 million. The VLN, funded to the tune of €43 million over five years by the German ministry for education and research, comes close. Its aim is to deliver a multi-scale representation of liver physiology, integrating data from the molecular, cellular and organ levels. The VLN involves 69 principal investigators dispersed throughout Germany and is headed by a director who is responsible for keeping the programme on track and on time. Issues such as standardization, division of responsibilities between the director and principal investigators, and decision-making procedures are tackled as the programme develops.If it is possible to rekindle the trust between society and the life sciences, will society be more willing to fund expensive, large-scale research programmes? Previous examples of publicly funded scientific and technological programmes in the multi-billion Euro range are the Large Hadron Collider, the Apollo programme and the Human Genome Project. Amazingly, none of these contributed directly to human well-being, although the Human Genome Project did make such promises. Hence, a life science programme that targets a crucial societal problem convincingly, such as metabolic syndrome, should have a fair chance of being acceptable and fundable.The above four issues must be addressed before the life sciences can successfully tackle major societal problems. It will need action from the research community itself, which is painfully lacking an organization to speak on behalf of life scientists and that can take the lead in discussions, internally and between society and science. Any such organization could learn from other areas, such as high-energy physics (CERN), astronomy (European Southern Observatory) and space research (European Space Agency). It would be tremendously helpful if a group of life scientists would get this issue on the agenda. This paper is meant to stimulate that process.In summary, we argue that if society wants to benefit from what the modern life sciences have to offer, we must act on two parallel tracks. One is to bring the life sciences closer to society and accept that society, science and morality are inseparable. The other is to rethink how we organize research in the life sciences. Both tracks create major challenges that can only be tackled successfully if the life sciences get organized and create a body that can lead the debate. At a more fundamental level, we need to decide what type of knowledge we want to acquire and why. Clearly, the value of generating knowledge for the sake of knowledge itself is important, but it must constantly be balanced with the values of society, which requires a dialogue between researchers and society.? Open in a separate windowTsjalling SwierstraOpen in a separate windowNiki VermeulenOpen in a separate windowJohan BraeckmanOpen in a separate windowRoel van Driel     

短柄五加大,小孢子发生和雌,雄配子体发育的研究

短柄五加花药５枚,每个花药四个花粉囊。小孢子母细胞减数分裂时,胞质分裂为同时型,产生正四面体形的四分体。花药壁由表皮、药室内壁、中层和绒毡层四层细胞组成,其发育类型为双子叶型。腺质绒毡层,其细胞为二核。三细胞型花粉。子房５室,每室两个胚珠,上胚珠败育,下胚珠可育。下胚珠倒生,具单珠被,厚珠心。大孢子母细胞减数分裂形成线性排列的四个大孢子,雌配子体发育属蓼型。开花当天,花粉散开,雌配子体尚未成熟,处     

The Studies on Embryology in Fritillaria ussuriensis Maxim

The development of the anther wall follows Basic-type. The cytokinesis at the time of pollen mother cell meiosis conforms to successive type. The arrangement of the microspores in the tetrad is referred to isobilateral. The primary wall between the generative cell and the vegetative cell is callose. The callose wall is easily detected under the fluorescence microscope. The mature pollen grain is 2-celled type. The ovule is bitegminous, tenui-nucellar and anatropous. The development of the female gametophyte follows Fritillaria-type. The mature embryo sac. consists of the six cells including the seven nuclei. The fertilization is referred to the premitotic syngamy type. The fusion of the female and male nucleoli is not observed at the end of the fertilization. The division of the primary endosperm nucleus is earlier than that of the zygote. The development of the endosperm is referred to nuclear type. The division of the zygote is transverse of longitudinal, the development of the embryo conforms to Onagradtype. When the seed is mature, the embryo is at the proembryo stage without differentiation and the endosperm cells are not absorbed.     

矮沙冬青雌配子体及胚胎发育研究

矮沙冬青子房单心皮1室,边缘胎座,弯生胚珠,胚珠具双珠被、厚珠心。大孢子孢原细胞发生于珠心表皮下,大孢子母细胞减数分裂形成直线排列的四分体,合点端大孢子具功能,并按蓼型胚囊发育,雌配子体成熟于4月中旬。双受精后,胚乳发育为核型。在矮沙冬青大孢子发生、雌配子体和胚胎发育过程中未发现异常现象,因此认为矮沙冬青濒危不存在雌性生殖结构与发育过程异常的内在因素。     

两型豆花粉和叶表皮的扫描电镜观察

两型豆花粉和叶表皮在扫描电镜下的形态特征：花粉近球形至矩球形,三孔沟,外壁表面较粗糙,侧壁具疣状突起至块状突起,极面具粗网状纹饰,但两型豆祖山居群属于萌发沟不明显型,两型豆燕塞湖居群属于萌发沟明显型。叶表皮细胞不规则,排列紧密,叶脉表皮细胞长圆柱形,长轴与叶脉平行,角质膜薄,表皮毛均为单细胞非腺毛,气孔器仅分布在下表皮,属于平列型,偶见不规则型。表皮毛和气孔器在叶片上分布不均匀,两型豆祖山居群叶表皮毛和气孔器的平均密度大于两型豆燕塞湖居群叶表皮毛和气孔器的平均密度,自然生长的两型豆叶表皮毛和气孔器的平均密度大于遮光条件下的两型豆。     

四川自贡发现合川马门溪龙新材料

记述了产自四川自贡上侏罗统的一具较完整的蜥脚类恐龙骨架 ,将其归入合川马门溪龙 (Mamenchisaurushochuanensis)中。新材料的发现弥补了合川种正型标本的不足 ,对合川种的特征作了重要补充 ,同时也使我们对马门溪龙的末端尾椎形态有了新的认识。     

羚牛(Budorcas taxicolor)部分脏器特点的观察

本文对2只羚牛的雌性生殖器官及肝、肾、脾等脏器进行了形态描述,并与黄牛及羊的相应器官进行了比较,为探讨羚牛的分类地位提供了解剖学资料。     

Morphogenesis of the cranium of Cavia porcellus L. I: Introduction, classification and descriptive part

The craniogenesis of Cavia porcellus has been investigated in 7 embryos of different ages. From the developmental stage of 36 mm CRL, a reconstruction of the chondrocranium is described. As there is still a gap in the tectum posterius, the foramen magnum is not closed posteriorly. The course of the notochord is retrobasilar at the beginning, more rostrally it runs intrabasilar. After ossification, the place where the notochord enters the basioccipital is marked by a cavity. This cavity is not identical with the posterior basicranial fenestra. The laminae alares build up strong paracondylar processes. The auditory capsule is connected with the occipital region only by the exoccipitocapsular commissure, but there is no supraoccipitocapsular commissure. The fossa subarcuata is pierced by a subarcuate foramen. The very short lamina parietalis is not in contact with the orbital wing as there is no orbitoparietal commissure. The processus recessus divides the perilymphatic foramen into fenestra rotunda and aquaeductus cochleae. The suprafacial commissure arises from the upper margin of the canalicular part of the auditory capsule, but it does not reach the superior surface of the cochlear part at this stage. The tegmen tympani is well developed. The foramen singulare is not yet separated from the inferior acoustic foramen. At the stage of 36 mm CRL there is no septum spirale cartilagineum. Mm. tensor tympani et stapedius are developed in the typical way. The auditory capsule is connected with the basal plate by the anterior basicochlear and the alicochlear commissures. The floor of the orbitotemporal region is incomplete, the temporal wings are small. The alicochlear commissure, the alar process, the anterior basicochlear commissure, and the basal plate surround the carotid foramen, but there is no blood vessel passing through it. The temporal wing is at the beginning of ossification and shows a fissura ovalis for the mandibular nerve. Although the hypophysial canal is still present, there are no structures passing through it. There is no foramen rotundum. The orbital wing is still cartilagineous. The basal plate and the pre- and postoptic roots border the optical foramen. The straight muscles of the eyeball are attached to the ala hypochiasmatica which projects from the postoptic root. The interorbital septum is absent. The ophthalmic artery, which instead of the obliterated internal carotid artery, contributes to the circulus arteriosus cerebri is well developed. There is no orbitonasal commissure . The epiphanial foramina are present.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

安南龟肝脏和肾脏的组织学观察

采用常规石蜡切片对安南龟的肝脏和肾脏进行了组织学观察。研究结果发现,肝脏分为3叶,肝实质内结缔组织少。肝脏由无数肝小叶构成,肝小叶分界不清。肝细胞为多角形的腺上皮细胞,细胞核圆球形,位于中央。胆小管沿着肝细胞索向肝小叶四周放射并连成细长的微细管道。肾脏由肾小体、颈段、近曲小管、中间段、远曲小管和收集管6部分构成,肾小体由肾小球和肾小囊组成,在肾小体附近可见致密斑样结构,未见髓袢结构。肾小球由盘曲的毛细血管构成。肾小囊是肾小管的起始端,由内、外两层壁层构成,内层与肾小球的毛细血管紧贴,外层为单层扁平上皮细胞。     

新疆察布查尔锡伯族体质特征调查

本文调查了新疆察布查尔锡伯族居民220人(男130人、女90人),年龄从20岁到78岁。观察22项,测量65项。调查结果表明,锡伯族居民具有典型的黄种人东亚人种的特征。如头圆宽且高,胡须少,眼裂狭窄、上眼睑褶皱多达睫毛处。耳大、鼻梁较直、鼻高中等,指距长、骨盆宽等。这些特征用等差级数法比较,与达斡尔族、华北地区汉族、蒙古族较接近,与苗族、黎族较远。     

鞑靼滨藜胚胎学研究

鞑靼滨藜（Ａｔｒｉｐｌｅｘ ｔａｔａｒｉｃａ Ｌ．）药壁４层细胞,中层１层;绒毡层腺质型。孢原细胞１列或２弄;同花药异花粉囊小孢子母细胞减数分裂为同步,同花粉囊减数分裂大部分同步,部分非同步;四分孢子多为四面体形,少数是左右对称形,胞质分裂同时型;成熟花粉粒为风状饰纹,３－细胞型;单子叶型药壁。弯生胚珠,厚珠心型;双珠被,四分子孢子直线。反足细胞受精前退化,属蓼型胚囊。胚的发育为藜型,胚乳细胞在球     

暗腹雪鸡食管和胃的形态学及组织学观察

为了解暗腹雪鸡(Tetraogallus himalayensis)食管和胃的形态及组织结构特征,利用生物显微技术对暗腹雪鸡的食管和胃进行了观察.结果表明,暗腹雪鸡嗉囊发达.食管壁由黏膜层、黏膜下层、肌层和外膜组成,黏膜层较厚,黏膜上皮为复层扁平上皮,固有膜内食管腺丰富,由腺细胞围成的腺管直接开口于黏膜上皮,食管肌层发达,由内环、外纵平滑肌组成.胃壁由黏膜层、肌层和外膜组成,胃的黏膜下层不发达或缺无,胃肌层的排列则为内纵外环.表明暗腹雪鸡食管和胃的结构可能与其消化功能及其生境密切相关.     

白鱀豚甲状腺及甲状旁腺的初步研究

本文是8头白鱀豚(Lipotes vexillifer)的甲状腺及甲状旁腺的初步研究结果。白鱀豚甲状腺的解剖学和组织学结构与其它海豚相似。其甲状腺滤泡呈圆形或椭圆形,滤泡胶质嗜酸性,滤泡平均直径为106.4微米,滤泡上皮平均高为9.4微米,滤泡旁细胞平均直径为11.0微米。甲状旁腺分布在甲状腺的腹侧面或前、后方,其上皮细胞被结缔组织分隔成团索状。文中并讨论了白鱀豚甲状腺的一些组织形态变化。       

中华花龟五种器官组织学观察

利用石蜡切片法对中华花龟的心脏、肝脏、脾脏、肺和肾脏等组织器官进行了组织学观察.结果显示心肌的特点是暗带较窄,心肌纤维束状排列.肝脏分3叶,肝实质内结缔组织少,肝小叶分界不清楚.脾脏分被膜和实质两部分,实质由白髓和红髓构成,白髓包括椭球周围淋巴鞘(PELS)和动脉周围淋巴鞘(PALS),红髓由脾索和脾窦组成,未发现淋巴小结和生发中心.肺一对,为长形扁平囊,肺泡囊状,肺泡内可见管壁的结节状膨大.肾脏由肾小体、颈段、近曲小管、中间段、远曲小管和收集管6部分构成,肾小体由肾小球和肾小囊组成,在肾小体附近可见致密斑样结构.     

大黄鱼精子的超微结构

大黄鱼的精子由头产和尾部两部分组成。头部结构较为独特,其腹侧有一较大的细胞核,背部有中心粒复合体。头部的后端是袖套。细胞核的腹面稍向外突出背面则稍向内凹。细胞核中的染以质浓缩成致密的团块状。团块状的染色质之间分布着松散的纤维状染色质。植入窝位于细胞核的背部表面,由细胞核背面向内凹陷而成,呈一沟状,其走向与精子的长轴平行。     

严重缺碘对体质及遗传性状影响的研究

对严重缺碘地区一个容貌特殊,身材较矮,智力低下的人群进行了体质特征及遗传性状的研究,并与国内有关本地区的调查资料进行了对照,提出人类体质特征和遗传性状除与人种、地理环境异同直接相关外,人体不可缺少的微量元素的摄入水平在一定程度上对其也产生影响。并且认为同一人种、民族居住同一地理位置所产生的体质差异应从水文、地质、生活方式、生活水平的不同进行综合分析。