Resistance is Futile...You Will Be Assimilated

Following up on the previous post about belief in science, here's an interesting article about why some folks "don't believe in science". Basically, it's all about how and what we learn as children and what is (or isn't) reinforced by our parents and immediate cultural surroundings. To be overly crude and simplistic: Ignorant people breed ignorance.

BTW, my favorite line from the article:

All other things being equal, a rational person is wise to defer to a geologist about the age of the earth rather than to a priest or to a politician.

Hear, hear!

Can you believe in science?

Reading Sheril Kirshenbaum's posts on Framing Science as guest blogger over at The Intersection got me to thinking about the language of science. Actually, it's more the language used by media, politicians, and a large mass of the general public when talking about science or scientific ideas. I am in no way a scholar of linguistics, but have always been interested in words - their etymology, history, use, connotations, power to clarify, and power to bewilder and confuse. Words can have many meanings that often differ between people so we have to be careful of the words we choose when we want to convey specific meanings otherwise we run the risk of our audience inadvertently hearing the wrong message, whether explicitly or "between the lines".

The most obvious of this problem is the use of the word "theory" - as in "Evolution is just a theory". Coverage of the importance and misuse of this word has been beaten to death, so I won't go into it here. What I do want to go into however (regardless if it has been beaten to death, though to my knowledge it hasn't) is the use of the word "believe" as applied to science.

[+/-] Show more/less

This usage took center stage during the first Republican presidential candidate debate when the candidates were asked "Do you believe in evolution?" and three of them answered that they did not. While I understand what the question means and am horrified (though not surprised) by the response, I must take issue with the wording used.

By using the words "believe" and "evolution" together we are implicitly suggesting that evolution is based on belief and not on scientific facts. In fact I would argue that "believe" suggests the absence of facts. Isn't that what belief is? The acceptance of something sans empirical evidence? Or at best "believe" suggests a gut feeling or an opinion. The phrase "I believe in evolution" is easily translated as "In the absence of any tangible facts, it is my gut feeling that evolution is real". It is therefore just as easy for an anti-evolutionist to say "I don't believe in evolution". I think that the scientific community as a whole does a disservice whenever we use the phrase "I believe in [insert scientific principle]" when we mean "Scientific evidence has lead to the conclusion that [insert scientific principle] is at work". Belief suggests choice - you can choose whether or not to believe in something. But does anyone ever say "I believe in photosynthesis" or "I don't believe in redox reactions!"? (well, I'm sure there are a few crackpots out there, but you get my point).

Am I arguing semantics? Well, yes, but that's my point - words and their meanings are powerful and can define the argument. When it comes to science in general and evolution in particular, belief has nothing to do with it - or at the very least it doesn't have anything to to with its veracity.

The other night my mother-in-law cooked a "Turducken" (you know, a chicken stuffed inside a duck stuffed inside a turkey). My wife asked which type of meat she had on her plate and a variety of quips followed - "Poultry", "Some kind of fowl", "Something that had feathers", etc. I answered with "Something that descended from dinosaurs". Facetiously (I hope), she quipped back "Only if you believe in evolution" to which I said "Actually, they descended from dinosaurs whether or not you believe in evolution". Belief (or lack of it) doesn't change facts.

I think that we're playing into creationist's and IDist's hands when we make our stand and say "I believe in evolution!". We need to change the framing. So, I will go on record as saying I don't believe in evolution.

It's existence doesn't need me to.

Estrogen: Good for Birth Control, Bad for Fish

A recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by members of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the U.S. EPA reports on the detrimental effects of synthetic estrogen on wild fish populations. Estrogen is a naturally occurring sex hormone found in vertebrates. This hormone is responsible for stimulating the development of female secondary sex characteristics and, in mammals anyways, for readying the uterus for the fetus embryo during pregnancy. The production of estrogen by the placenta and corpus luteum during pregnancy in turn helps maintain the pregnancy and prevents further ovulation.

For this last reason, synthetic estrogen, specifically 17α-ethynylestradiol, is a main component of the birth control pill (essentially the pill tricks the body into thinking that it's pregnant, thereby preventing ovulation, thus preventing pregnancy - ironic, no?). It turns out however, that the efficacy of the pill (which I will go on record as saying I think is a good thing for a multitude of reasons) has resulted in a large amount of estrogen being released into our waterways (normally via waste water treatment plants). Excess estrogen in the water has serious effects on the resident wildlife - including male sterility, delayed sexual development, and the feminization of males (males having female sex organs/characteristics). These effects have been reported before (e.g. here and here)

[+/-] Show more/less

The new study in PNAS takes this issue a step further by following a population of fish over seven years to assess the effects of estrogen-related sexual disruptions on the population as a whole. In this study, the sizes, numbers, gonad development, and male feminization of individuals were compared between two populations of flat-head minnows. One population was kept under natural conditions (the control) while the other was kept in a lake augmented with low doses of synthetic estrogen. As expected, those fish exposed to estrogen showed high levels of male feminization, irregular gonad develppment, and delayed sexual maturity.

However, the estrogen not only messed with individuals' reproductive system, but also had serious consequences for the long-term survival of the minnow population. Low doses of synthetic estrogen not only lead to feminization of males and delayed maturity in females, but also to the near extinction of the population. Compared with the control population, the experimental population showed little reproductive ability (and possibly higher mortality if I am interpreting the data/graphs correctly). As adult fish got older and died, there were no young fish to take their place.

This is an example of how the presence of anthropogenic chemicals in our waterways is not just causing a few biological freaks, but is messing with survival of populations and, perhaps, species. It's also an example of how complex most environmental issues are. Synthetic estrogen and the pill have given us cultural, social, and medical benefits. It's also given us environmental benefits by limiting human population growth. Of course, few things give benefits without a cost (and some would argue that the benefits I allude to are nothing of the sort), so we need to make choices - do we sacrifice fish and other wildlife and, potentially, human health? do we spend money on updating/improving our waste water treatment plants? do we limit the use of synthetic estrogen? do we make women on the pill pee into hazardous waste bottles?

(go ahead, I dare you to try that last one, but I take no responsibility for any physical harm rained down on you.)

Sigh...what now?

Well, the AP Biolgy exam is done, so even though the school year is not yet over I feel as though my ties to AHS are also done. I would love to hear what was thought about the exam, but as far as I can tell, no AHS students are still lurking here. So, what happens to this blog, now that I've lost my presumed audience? I could shut it down I suppose, but I must admit that I get some level of vain entertainment from posting - thinking that someone out there finds my words useful or interesting or entertaining. I guess I'll just have to continue writing and perhaps find an audience. Though, if I really want people to stop by and read consistently, I should probably be more active and perhaps try to be more original - how many bio-based blogs are out there anyways?

Still, I'd love to hear about the AP exam, if anyone happened to take it.

Good luck

Not sure if any AHS students still stop by here, but if so, I wanted to wish you all good luck on the AP Bio exam (if I remember right it's coming up on Monday). Wish I could have stopped by sometime this semester, but the days have moved by quicker than I thought they would as I've settled into my new routine down at RWU.

By now I am sure your heads are chock full. I am sure all will go well. Just relax, remember to breath (it's biologically rather important - cellular respiration and all), and if you get anxious or overly stressed, just think of this

Just can't escape those darn Extremophiles

Those pesky, tough-as-nails microbes known as extremophiles have their own interactive website now. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has recently launched an information-filled, multimedia site dedicated to these amazing lifeforms. The site covers some of the standard extreme living conditions (extreme cold, extreme heat, extreme acidity, etc), but also touches upon some critters I had no idea existed - the "radiation eaters". Apparently there are some relatively newly-discovered bacteria that get there energy from the byproducts of the radioactive decay of uranium and other radioactive elements. Yup, their metabolism requires radioactive materials. Doc Brown would be so excited. They're found 2 miles or so below ground, far, far from the "life-giving" rays of the sun, much like their deep-sea hydrothermal vent brethren.

For more about the "radiation-eaters" and other extremophiles, check out the NSF's site:

X-treme Microbes

A humongous fungus among us

In the 1850s, a very large and very weird fossil was discovered in Quebec. It was named Prototaxites because it was thought to be a type of conifer (proto means 'first'; taxites from the latin taxus meaning 'yew', a type of conifer). This organism lived between 420 and 350 million years ago and has subsequently been found worldwide. At that time, land plants had been around for about 40 million years, but none stood more than a few feet high, yet here was a 20-foot monstrosity that simply dwarfed everything around it. Over the past 150+ years since its discovery, scientists have been arguing about what exactly is Protaxites. Based on more detailed observations of the organism's anatomy, the idea that it was a tree has long been abandoned. But if it wasn't a plant what was it? An exceptional large algae? An enormous lichen? How about a humongous fungus?

New research seems to have confirmed that yes, Prototaxites, was indeed a humongous fungus. By examining the carbon isotopes in the fossils and comparing them to other organisms that lived in the same area at the same time, scientists have found that chemical signature of Prototaxites most closely resembles that of fungi.

Read more:
Prehistoric mystery organism confirmed as giant fungus

Order of the Science Scouts

I may not technically be a scientist anymore, but I am a member of the Order of the Science Scouts of Exemplary Repute and Above Average Physique and these are the badges I've earned.



The "I've set fire to stuff" badge (LEVEL I)
In which the recipient has set fire to stuff*, all in the name of general scientific curiosity.

Can you really be a scientist without having this one?
*paper, wood, leaves, plastics, food, hair, Pledge®, ants, my brother's Luke Skywalker X-wing Pilot figure



The "works with acids" badge.
In which the recipient has worked with acids.

Well, I have.



The "I may look like a scientist, but I'm actually also a pirate" badge.
Drinks rum. Into pillaging and stuff. Soft spot for evolutionary biology.

Yup. Sure. Absolutely. I mean..Arrrrr.



The "I've done science with no concievable practical application" badge.
There are probably more who are deserving of this badge than you would expect.

Let me count the ways (one, two, three, four...)



The "I know what a tadpole is" badge.
In which the recipient knows what a tadpole is.

And what Phylum, Class, and Order it's in.



The "experienced with electrical shock" badge (LEVEL III)
In which the recipient has had experience with the electrical shocking of himself/herself.

I was 6 (7? 10? 16?). Mr. Key meet Mr. Wall Socket. Mr. Jim meet Mr. Floor.



The "statistical linear regression" badge.
We figured that if you actually know what those three words together mean, then you deserve a badge. Statistics rock!

Bonus points for having attended the "Summer Institute for Statistical Genetics"!



The "I blog about science" badge.
In which the recipient maintains a blog where at least a quarter of the material is about science. Suffice to say, this does not include scientology.

Self-obvious, don't you think?



The "has frozen stuff just to see what happens" badge (LEVEL I)
In which the recipient has frozen something in the freezer for the sake of scientific curiosity.

Mainly insects. A few spiders.



The "has frozen stuff just to see what happens" badge (LEVEL II)
In which the recipient has frozen something in dry ice for the sake of scientific curiosity.

Again, mainly insects. A few spiders.



The "has frozen stuff just to see what happens" badge (LEVEL III)
In which the recipient has frozen something in liquid nitrogen for the sake of scientific curiosity.

Really, the list is too long. Certainly insects though. Amazingly, no spiders.



The "inordinately fond of invertebrate" badge.
In which the recipient professes an arguably unhealthy affinity for things of this category.

I bought a copy of Brusca & Brusca, "just because". First edition, of course.



The "talking science" badge.
Required for all members. Assumes the recipient conducts himself/herself in such a manner as to talk science whenever he/she gets the chance. Not easily fazed by looks of disinterest from friends or the act of "zoning out" by well intentioned loved ones.

Most of my friends don't even bother to try to listen anymore.

I'll probably have to update this as time goes on and as I earn more badges or as more badges are created.

Bueller? Bueller?

A picture is worth a thousand 150 million words years?

Evolution of Mammals

Marmosets: who's who?

Now, this is something I had never heard of before that is just too weird/crazy/cool not to blog about. Apparently, female marmosets (small South American primates) normally give birth to fraternal twins. Kind of quirky, but nothing too shocking there. However, it turns out that during early fetal development, the twins swap lots of stem cells. Twin A gives some stem cells to Twin B; Twin B gives some stem cells to Twin A. These stem cells then go on to differentiate into various other types of cells, tissues, and organs. So, a single marmoset is actually a mixture of two different sets of DNA - a phenomenon known as chimerism (named after the mythological creature Chimera - a beast made up of multiple animal parts).

Scientists have also found that almost half of male marmosets actually carry two lineages of sperm, and in some rare cases, females can carry two lineages of eggs. This means that some of their gametes are genetically NOT THEIR OWN, but instead are genetically their sibling's. If you will allow a somewhat crude elaboration, this means that a male may fertilize an egg with his brother's sperm, thereby siring not his own child, but his niece or nephew. Likewise, it is possible that a female could give birth to her niece or nephew and not her son or daughter. Genetically speaking of course.

Told you it was wierd/crazy/cool.

Read more:
NY Times article

March Madness, Geek Style

Just in case there was any question about my geek status, here's a link to something I am finding all too entertaining - the Science Spring Showdown. Basically it's an NCAA-basketball-tournament-style science playoffs. Complete with game breakdowns and news items (see the controversy surrounding Surgery's Internal Medicine's disqualification). I'm partial to the Octopus Bracket myself and must admit that I am fully pulling for the #1 seed, the Invertebrates. If only I had found this site before the games had begun - there's even a printable bracket to fill out.

Who's your Final Four?
(is ANYONE here any more?)

Science Showdown 2007

Evolution essay contest - win $300

I'm a bit late finding this out, but the Alliance for Science is holding an essay contest for high school students. First prize is $300. The topic of the essay is: "Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?" and it is due March 31st.

Details can be found here

At first glance this seems like a silly question, but you would be amazed at the number of doctors who are "anti-evolution". I'm amazed that there are any at all. A good summary of physicians vs. evolution can be found here

I know March 31st is approaching quickly and that you have plenty of things on your plate, but I also thought you might like to know about a chance to use your knowledge of evolution to win $300. Let me know if anyone decides to enter the contest.

Yes, it's a worm.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute has an interesting piece on the discovery of a new deep-sea worm. This worm, Chaetopterus pugaporcinus, is unlike any worm you have probably ever seen. In fact, it was unlike any worm anyone had ever really seen. To figure out what exactly it was, scientists needed to combine a number of taxonomic techniques, including DNA analysis. What makes this discovery particularly interesting is that it resembles the larval stages of closely-related species, but is up to 10x larger than any known larvae - so either it is an adult that has maintained larval features or it is one giant baby (well, giant as far as deep-sea worms go).

Also rather interesting is where and how this worm lives - floating along 1,500 meters (4,000 feet) below the surface, mouth pointed downward so it can release a "mucus cloud" to trap bits of food (lunch anyone?). Follow the links below to the discovery and more photos and to the Monterey Aquarium website.

A worm like no other

Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) website

Monterey Bay Aquarium website - if you're ever near Monterey, CA you definitely need to check this place out

An Inconvenient Truth

I finally saw An Inconvenient Truth last night. I thought it was very well done and if you haven't seen it yet I highly recommend that you do, especially if you don't know too much about the causes and effects of global climate change. The message is good and clear, the visuals are impressive, Al Gore is at his best, and even the music is well done. I've seen and read about all the data before, but Al Gore does an excellent job of presenting them in a user-friendly, yet not dumbed-down way. Americans have for too long now been wavering on the topic of global warming - is it real? are we really the cause? what could possibly happen if it gets a little warmer? Well: yes, yes, and a lot. It is time we all took a long hard look at ourselves and the way we live and make some changes.

I'll get off my soap box now. Seriously though, go rent this movie. And check out the website:

An Inconvenient Truth

Galapagos: set your TiVo

On March 18, the National Geographic Channel is premiering a three-part documentary on the Galapagos that looks like it should be excellent. The islands are an amazing place and I'm willing to bet that National Geographic does an incredible job with the show, so I would recommend tuning in for it. (The photo here is a Sally Lightfoot Crab - taken by yours truly)

Added bonus: check out
the show's website and enter to win a 10-day trip to the Galapagos!


UPDATE - 3/20/07: I watched the first two hours and was impressed with the footage and the information. Some of the narration is a bit schlocky, but I guess that can be forgiven. There is one piece that I found humorous in a way - when they speculate on "what might have happened" if Darwin had paid closer attention to the tortoises as if then he REALLY may have come up with some intereting ideas. Cause man, it's a shame that he didn't really notice those tortoises and had to settle for causing a major paradigm shift in modern science and influencing the future of biology, religion, and human culture. Just think what he could have done if he collected some tortoises. Seriously though - it's a well done series and you should definitely check it out if for no other reason than to ooh and aah at the visuals.

Milk: a driving force of evolution?

How many of you are lactose-intolerant? If you are, no need to fret - it's the normal mammalian trait to have.

As you know, lactose is the sugar found in milk, and lactase is the enzyme that helps break it down. Mammals obviously have a need for lactose and the production of lactase - after all, one of the defining mammalian characteristics is that moms produce milk as nourishment for their young. If a mammal is born without the ability to produce lactase, chances are they're going to have a hard time surviving. But, eventually, mammalian babies grow up and wean. For all mammals but us, this is the last time they ever drink milk. Thus, most mammals stop making lactase as they get older - what's the point of spending energy to make an enzyme you don't need anymore. Therefore, most adult mammals are lactose-intolerant.

But a curious thing happened during human history - the domestication of cattle, goats, and sheep. Being able to digest milk became beneficial in adults. So, as you could guess, natural selection has pushed adult humans towards lactose-tolerance. A new study has actually determined that the evolution of adult lactase production in humans happened as recently as 8,000 years ago. This is way after the evolution of Homo sapiens. In fact, by this time most of the globe had been settled by modern humans and various ancient cultures were beginning to establish themselves. Thus, it is likely that lactose-tolerance evolved in only some places, or it evolved multiple times independently. Lactose intolerance is least common in people of Northern European descent, while 80% or more of African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Native Americans are lactose intolerant - these numbers are probably consistent with if, when, and how much these groups' ancestors utilized domesticated milk sources (though I don't know this for sure).

For some of our ancestors, milk has been a strong evolutionary force - it only took 8,000 years to evolve lactose tolerance (yes, only 8,000 years).

Evolution: It Does a Body Good

Ancient Human Timeline

update on 2/2/07: Just found a blog entry by Carl Zimmer discussing this topic as well.

Winds of change...and a Giant Colossal Squid

Sorry I haven't added anything here recently, but I have been busy starting up at my new job - teaching AP Biology at North Attleboro High...



...OK, admit it, how many of you fell for that?

Seriously, I do have a new job. I'm the (get ready for this title) Coordinator for the Center for Undergraduate Research, Education, and Outreach in Marine Life Sciences at Roger Williams University. Basically, the colleges and universities in Rhode Island got a large grant to bolster undergraduate research in the state. Roger Williams used part of the grant money to create my position to help them organize, publicize, and increase their undergraduate research experience, particularly in Marine Biology. The job will involve a lot of different things, including collaborating with the other colleges in the state to form "research partnerships" between students and scientists at different schools. I'll also be creating a website to showcase the excellent student research that is being done at Roger Williams. I'll also be teaching a couple of courses starting in the Fall. Did I mention making newletters and issuing press releases? Or what about helping bring some grant money in? Organizing an intensive summer research program?

Yeah, I should be busy. But hopefully not so busy that I can't add a few things to this blog every week. In fact, given the salty nature of my new job, here's a quick link for ya:

Colossal Squid Caught - the largest squid ever caught (approx: 33 feet, 1,000 lbs)

Just curious...

I've been wondering how many of you (my former students) are still stopping by now and then to read this blog. The only way I have of knowing is when you leave comments and there has only been one comment in the past several weeks. I'm enjoying maintaining the blog, so I will continue to do so, but I would love to know how many of you are checking back here (and how often). Thanks!

The fastest way to a person's heart? Through their ribcage.

We all know that our emotions reside in our brain, but the heart has long been linked to the ideas of love and affection. Logically then, the heart has become inextricably attached to Valentine's Day. Therefore, in honor of the heart, here are some links for you to peruse:

The Interactive Heart - less interactive than I had hoped and Firefox users will have to use the site map to navigate around, but lots of info here

Heart Evolution - a good visual comparing various vertebrate hearts

Some heart facts/trivia

Cardiovascular system video - rather dry, but informative