Guitars Go Green

Even guitar makers are into the green revolution. Obviously, the concern with guitars is the sustainability of the logging practices used to obtain the wood. Most major guitar producers already voluntarily make at least some guitars with lumber certified as “sustainably harvested." Gibson, Taylor, Fender, Martin, Guild, Walden and Yamaha are all additionally partners with the Music Wood Coalition, a project of Greenpeace. According to Greenpeace Forest Campaign Coordinator Scott Paul, the biggest challenge is resistance from musicians, “Players expect a spruce soundboard, a mahogany neck, an ebony or rosewood bridge.” Tradition can be a bitch. For more, check out this SciAm.com article.

Don't Worry, Be Happy

Too often science journalism focuses on scientific evidence to be fearful of - we are constantly being told that too much of this or too little of that will have detrimental effects. In a somewhat old (July 2008), but unusually light-hearted article, John Tierney of the NYT tries to balance the coverage by listing 10 things NOT to worry about:

1. Killer hot dogs. What is it about frankfurters? There was the nitrite scare. Then the grilling-creates-carcinogens alarm. And then, when those menaces ebbed, the weenie warriors fell back on that old reliable villain: saturated fat.

But now even saturated fat isn’t looking so bad, thanks to a rigorous experiment in Israel reported this month. The people on a low-carb, unrestricted-calorie diet consumed more saturated fat than another group forced to cut back on both fat and calories, but those fatophiles lost more weight and ended up with a better cholesterol profile. And this was just the latest in a series of studies contradicting the medical establishment’s predictions about saturated fat.

If you must worry, focus on the carbs in the bun. But when it comes to the fatty frank — or the fatty anything else on vacation — I’d relax.

2. Your car’s planet-destroying A/C. No matter how guilty you feel about your carbon footprint, you don’t have to swelter on the highway to the beach. After doing tests at 65 miles per hour, the mileage experts at edmunds.com report that the aerodynamic drag from opening the windows cancels out any fuel savings from turning off the air-conditioner.

3. Forbidden fruits from afar. Do you dare to eat a kiwi? Sure, because more “food miles” do not equal more greenhouse emissions. Food from other countries is often produced and shipped much more efficiently than domestic food, particularly if the local producers are hauling their wares around in small trucks. One study showed that apples shipped from New Zealand to Britain had a smaller carbon footprint than apples grown and sold in Britain.

4. Carcinogenic cellphones. Some prominent brain surgeons made news on Larry King’s show this year with their fears of cellphones, thereby establishing once and for all that epidemiology is not brain surgery — it’s more complicated.

As my colleague Tara Parker-Pope has noted, there is no known biological mechanism for the phones’ non-ionizing radiation to cause cancer, and epidemiological studies have failed to find consistent links between cancer and cellphones.

It’s always possible today’s worried doctors will be vindicated, but I’d bet they’ll be remembered more like the promoters of the old cancer-from-power-lines menace — or like James Thurber’s grandmother, who covered up her wall outlets to stop electricity from leaking.

Driving while talking on a phone is a definite risk, but you’re better off worrying about other cars rather than cancer.

5. Evil plastic bags. Take it from the Environmental Protection Agency : paper bags are not better for the environment than plastic bags. If anything, the evidence from life-cycle analyses favors plastic bags. They require much less energy — and greenhouse emissions — to manufacture, ship and recycle. They generate less air and water pollution. And they take up much less space in landfills.

6. Toxic plastic bottles. For years panels of experts repeatedly approved the use of bisphenol-a, or BPA, which is used in polycarbonate bottles and many other plastic products. Yes, it could be harmful if given in huge doses to rodents, but so can the natural chemicals in countless foods we eat every day. Dose makes the poison.

But this year, after a campaign by a few researchers and activists, one federal panel expressed some concern about BPA in baby bottles. Panic ensued. Even though there was zero evidence of harm to humans, Wal-Mart pulled BPA-containing products from its shelves, and politicians began talking about BPA bans. Some experts fear product recalls that could make this the most expensive health scare in history.

Nalgene has already announced that it will take BPA out of its wonderfully sturdy water bottles. Given the publicity, the company probably had no choice. But my old blue-capped Nalgene bottle, the one with BPA that survived glaciers, jungles and deserts, is still sitting right next to me, filled with drinking water. If they ever try recalling it, they’ll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers.

7. Deadly sharks. Throughout the world last year, there was a grand total of one fatal shark attack (in the South Pacific), according to the International Shark Attack File at the University of Florida.

8. The Arctic’s missing ice. The meltdown in the Arctic last summer was bad enough, but this spring there was worse news. A majority of experts expected even more melting this year, and some scientists created a media sensation by predicting that even the North Pole would be ice-free by the end of summer.

So far, though, there’s more ice than at this time last summer, and most experts are no longer expecting a new record. You can still fret about long-term trends in the Arctic, but you can set aside one worry: This summer it looks as if Santa can still have his drinks on the rocks.

9. The universe’s missing mass. Even if the fate of the universe — steady expansion or cataclysmic collapse — depends on the amount of dark matter that is out there somewhere, you can rest assured that no one blames you for losing it. And most experts doubt this collapse will occur during your vacation.

10. Unmarked wormholes. Could your vacation be interrupted by a sudden plunge into a wormhole? From my limited analysis of space-time theory and the movie “Jumper,” I would have to say that the possibility cannot be eliminated. I would also concede that if the wormhole led to an alternate universe, there’s a good chance your luggage would be lost in transit.

But I still wouldn’t worry about it, In an alternate universe, you might not have to spend the rest of the year fretting about either dark matter or sickly rodents. You might even be able to buy one of those Nalgene bottles.

Coolest Fish Ever

Who needs eyes on the back of their head when you have a transparent, liquid-filled head? Not this fish, which lives at depths greater than 2,000 feet below the surface, and can rotate its green eyes up (as seen in this picture) to see through the back of its head - pretty freakin' cool!

Coen Bros: "Get Clean Coal Clean!"

The directors of such great films as Fargo and The Big Lebowski directed this ad aimed at debunking the myth that there is such a thing as "clean" coal:

Chew on This

Do you hate the dentist? - well their days may be numbered. Identification of a gene responsible for the production of tooth enamel might eliminate the need for fillings or dentures. OK - so this doesn't mean that there won't be any more dentists, but painful fillings and oral surgery could become a thing of the past (as well as dentures, at least as we know them today).

Researchers at Oregon University recently discovered a new function for a known gene, Ctip2, previously identified as a factor in immune responses and skin and nerve development. The new research shows that Ctip2 also plays a role in the production of tooth enamel. Mice engineered to lack Ctip2 can only form soft, rudimentary teeth, lacking a tough enamel coating.

Researchers believe a better understanding of the gene may lead to the repair of damaged enamel and tooth restoration, and even the production of "real" replacement teeth. Previous work has enabled the production of the soft, inner portions of teeth (using stem cells), but until now, researchers lacked knowledge of the genetic factors responsible for enamel production. Also of significance, researchers can now begin to study the process(es) involved in the production of enamel, one of the strongest coatings found in nature, knowledge of which may lead to the development of new compounds.

Cornell Professor Suggests Putting a Price on Endangered Species

I haven't read the actual article, but here is a tidbit from a post on Wired Science:

Rather than relying on warm, fuzzy feelings to protect animals, conservationists suggest appealing to something more reliable: greed.

By selling financial contracts pegged to species health, the government could create a market in the future of threatened animals, making their preservation literally valuable to investors.

"The incentive to conserve would increase as the likelihood of species survival decreases," said Cornell University biologist James Mandel. "If a species declines, investors have a bunch of paper that's now worthless."

It will be a hard sell, but it sounds like it might be worth a try.

Talking the Talk

Well, after watching Obama's address to Congress last night, one thing is sure: he can certainly talk the talk. In fact, I can say without much hesitation that Obama is one the best (if not the best) speakers I have ever had the opportunity to hear. He comes across as smart, confident, and even funny. And not only is his delivery excellent, he makes his messages and ideas seem brilliant in their simplicity (in other words, they seem like common sense solutions).

What we will have to wait to find out, is if he can walk the walk. Though his ideas often sound so simple they can't fail, inevitably some will. Does he have alternative solutions in the wait - and when those fail, will he be able to maintain his principles when caught between rock and a hard place? I have to say I am optimistic - based on his performance so far - that he will continue saying and doing not just what is easiest, but what is best. But then again, I can often be too trusting - so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

(but one thing I am sure of: no matter what he does it will be better than the last eight years! Oh yeah, and Nancy Pelosi looked like a nut!)

President Obama's Address to Congress

Obama will address Congress in almost exactly four hours - you can watch it live here:

Insanity

Insanity has been defined as repetition of the same action with expectations of a different result. This is also a perfect definition of America's war on drugs, which has employed the same techniques for the past forty years with no results. A recent report by the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, led by former presidents Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia and Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, calls out the United States on this issue.

Here are some highlights from an op-ed article by the three former heads of state in the Wall Street Journal summarizing the report:

Prohibitionist policies based on eradication, interdiction and criminalization of consumption simply haven't worked. Violence and the organized crime associated with the narcotics trade remain critical problems in our countries. Latin America remains the world's largest exporter of cocaine and cannabis, and is fast becoming a major supplier of opium and heroin. Today, we are further than ever from the goal of eradicating drugs.

Despite some of the world's strictest drug laws, combined hard-core-user prevalence rates for hard drugs are four times higher than in Europe.

The first step in the search for alternative solutions is to acknowledge the disastrous consequences of current policies. Next, we must shatter the taboos that inhibit public debate about drugs in our societies. Antinarcotic policies are firmly rooted in prejudices and fears that sometimes bear little relation to reality. The association of drugs with crime segregates addicts in closed circles where they become even more exposed to organized crime.

In order to drastically reduce the harm caused by narcotics, the long-term solution is to reduce demand for drugs in the main consumer countries. To move in this direction, it is essential to differentiate among illicit substances according to the harm they inflict on people’s health, and the harm drugs cause to the social fabric.

In this spirit, we propose a paradigm shift in drug policies based on three guiding principles: Reduce the harm caused by drugs, decrease drug consumption through education, and aggressively combat organized crime. To translate this new paradigm into action we must start by changing the status of addicts from drug buyers in the illegal market to patients cared for by the public-health system.

We also propose the careful evaluation, from a public-health standpoint, of the possibility of decriminalizing the possession of cannabis for personal use. Cannabis is by far the most widely used drug in Latin America, and we acknowledge that its consumption has an adverse impact on health. But the available empirical evidence shows that the hazards caused by cannabis are similar to the harm caused by alcohol or tobacco.

I particularly agree with this statement: "we must shatter the taboos that inhibit public debate about drugs in our societies. Anti-narcotic policies are firmly rooted in prejudices and fears that sometimes bear little relation to reality," this is the reason such insanity has been allowed to continue for so long. It's time to get the facts straight and debunk the myths, only then can we move forward towards a practical (and obtainable) solution!

The Genetics of Beauty

Although the findings are still not officially published, researchers have identified six genes they believe may have significant effects on facial features. Exactly how much each gene influences any particular feature wasn't revealed, but the tentative results lead to speculation as to how this information might be used. Some potential applications noted in the article on the GenomeWeb Daily News website include:

-use in forensics - for example, to create a sketch of a criminal no one has seen based entirely on DNA
-and obviously in a pre-natal context, to have a computer predict what your child will look like based on DNA (although I don't see the point - I mean, what if you find out it's going to be ugly, you're not all of the sudden going to have an abortion - or at least I hope not!)

Anyway, just some more interesting ways genetics may change your life.

Hunter and Conan Do Art

Check out this hilarious, one-of-a-kind interview with Hunter Thompson in his natural element.

Procrastination

I think we can all relate to this, I mean - what are you really doing right now?

Giant Panda Live @ Castaways Tonight

For those of you who live in the I-town area, I strongly encourage you to come check out Giant Panda Guerilla Dub Squad (GPGDS) tonight at Castaways (9pm). For more about GPGDS and to hear some tracks - check out the side bar or the music player at the bottom of the page.

Taking advantage of the opportunity

Yesterday I finally got around to reading an article from the Feb. 1 NYT Magazine called “The Big Fix,” which outlined how the stimulus bill should be used. It was actually good timing because yesterday I also read the detailed outline of the stimulus package that was signed by President Obama on Tuesday.

I was struck by how closely the stimulus package adheres to the plan put forth in the article: that the bill should be used to fix problems that have been festering due to lack of political will to change them (among other reasons) – particularly in the areas of healthcare, research, education, and infrastructure – and that careful attention must be paid to finding a balance between short-term investments with immediate returns and long-term investments for the future.

Here are some snippets from the article:

Washington won’t merely be given the task of pulling the economy out of the immediate crisis. It will also have to figure out how to put the American economy on a more sustainable path — to help it achieve fast, broadly shared growth and do so without the benefit of a bubble. Obama said as much in his inauguration speech when he pledged to overhaul Washington’s approach to education, health care, science and infrastructure, all in an effort to “lay a new foundation for growth.”

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Emanuel said. “What I mean by that is that it’s an opportunity to do things you could not do before.”

“Things we had postponed for too long, that were long term, are now immediate and must be dealt with,” Emanuel said in November…the fact that the economy appears to be mired in its worst recession in a generation may well allow the administration to confront problems that have festered for years.

…a moment when there are millions of people who are unemployed, when the federal government can borrow money over the long term at under 3 percent and when we face long-run fiscal problems is also a moment of great opportunity to make investments in the future of the country that have lagged for a long time.

As a country we have been spending too much on the present and not enough on the future. We have been consuming rather than investing. We’re suffering from investment-deficit disorder.

According to the article, spending on future investments such as healthcare, infrastructure, and future technologies has dropped from 7% of the national GDP to 4% GDP in the last 50 years, and private industry doesn’t spend much because the benefits are often societal rather than financial - and when they are financial, often only a fraction is returned to the investor.

Here are some highlights from the stimulus outline:

*Over $30 billion to transform the nation’s energy transmission, distribution, and production systems by allowing for a smarter and better grid and focusing investment in renewable technology
*$17.7 billion for transit and rail to reduce traffic congestion and gas consumption.
*$16.5 billion to modernize federal and other public infrastructure with investments that lead to long term energy cost savings
*$15 billion for science facilities, research, and instrumentation
*$7.2 billion to expand broadband internet access so businesses in rural and other underserved areas can link up to the global economy
*$5 billion to weatherize modest-income homes

detailed summary (pdf)

NEXT STEP: CAP-AND-TRADE?

It’s a harder idea to sell, but If we’re serious about stimulating green innovations, it’s going to have to be done. This is what the article had to say:

Various analyses of Obama’s cap-and-trade plan…suggest that after it is fully implemented, it would cost less than 1 percent of gross domestic product a year, or about $100 billion in today’s terms. That cost is entirely manageable. But it’s still a cost.

Or perhaps we should think of it as an investment. Like so much in the economy, our energy policy has been geared toward the short term. Inexpensive energy made daily life easier and less expensive for all of us. Building a green economy, on the other hand, will require some sacrifice. In the end, that sacrifice should pay a handsome return in the form of icecaps that don’t melt and droughts that don’t happen — events with costs of their own. Over time, the direct economic costs of a new energy policy may also fall. A cap-and-trade program will create incentives for the private sector to invest in alternative energy, which will lead to innovations and lower prices. Some of the new clean-energy spending, meanwhile, really will replace money now flowing overseas and create jobs here.

But all those benefits will come later. The costs will come sooner, which is a big reason we do not already have a green economy — or an investment economy.

We've got a long road ahead, but it's good to know we finally have someone at the reins who makes rational decisions that are based on scientific facts and are for the greater good.

The Solution to Our Economic Problems

This is pure comedy, so if you're looking for a serious solution - sorry!

What?!?!

I have to say, I'm a sucker for random comedy - and this is about as random as it gets:

But there's nothing we can do about it...

Tamino, in a recent post on his/her blog Open Mind titled "The Audacity of Hope," gave this great response to the ridiculous sentiment:

...I have a message for every nay-sayer and advocate of “there’s nothing we can do about it.” I refuse to resign. I do not accept the inevitability of failure. But the way I feel right now, it takes a lot of audacity to be hopeful.

I accept that global warming is going to be a lot of pain for a lot of people. But I will allow my intellect to overrule my anger because it knows that what we do does make a difference. The more we change for the better, the better the future will be. Although the future is not likely to be good, there’s no excuse for not doing what we can to prevent its being worse.

If you don’t want to do anything about global warming … get the hell out of the way of those of us who do.

And we're not just talking about climate change, this is a universal truth that applies to everything. One person CAN make a difference, and every little bit helps!

Malicious Intent

We’ve all had professors we thought were mean, but was it their intention? Here’s proof that at least one professor (not from Cornell, in case you were wondering) intentionally alienates students when teaching evolution to those who believe in creationism:

I make an explicit statement on day one that creationism would not be mentioned ever in this classroom. Then, for the rest of the semester, I mention creationism, always as an aside, always snarkily, always with disdain, always with humor, so an increasingly large number of students join in with uproarious laughter at the expense of the increasingly smaller and smaller number of "out" creationist. In other words, I invoke the ugly Weapon of Mass Destruction known as peer pressure.

Link to source

When I first read this I actually laughed out loud – but it’s really not that funny when I think about it. I mean, that's not cool.

And on the topic of teaching evolution, there are better (and probably more effective) ways to deal with the issue. In my humble opinion, this is the best way to deal with students who are hesitant to believe in evolution because it conflicts with their belief in creationism: just make it fit. In other words, don’t try to undermine their religion, simply point out that most of the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. Many scientists who retain their faith are able to reconcile the conflict between creationism and evolution by interpreting each day of the creation as a period in time rather than a strict 24-hour day. Easy solution. No one gets hurt.

A Glimpse Into The Future?...Masdar City

Why is it that the countries with the oil are the ones who are taking the biggest steps toward initiating research on alternative energy and sustainable living? Abu Dhabi’s Masdar City is a 2.3-square-mile state of the art complex that should be up and running by 2016. The city will house 40,000 people working on next-generation energy technologies, and will serve as a "manifesto for sustainable living" - NO CARS (click the picture to the right to find out more), 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY, LOCAL AGRI- CULTURE, WASTE FULLY RECYCLED - AND ALL IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DESERT! Why can't a project like this be a part of the stimulus plan? It would certainly create a lot of jobs and put the US in the forefront of the green revolution - which may determine the international balance of power for generations to come. So I say, why not turn some of those wasteful golf courses in the South West into similar model cities for sustainability? Check out the promotional video below for a virtual tour - IT IS SIMPLY AMAZING! Whether or not their goals are realistic remains to be seen, but at least they have goals! (The video quality is lacking a little to be desired, but if you go to the actual site, you can find a much higher quality version)

Obama Poster Debate

We talked about it in class, so I figured I'd post this debate on the Obama poster dispute from The Colbert Report. Both sides make good points, and funny as always. Enjoy!

Steven Pinker On The Colbert Report

Below find two interviews with the author of The Stuff Of Thought and an essay, "My Genome, My Self," that I blogged about recently (Click HERE or picture above to link to post). You should definitely check them out, both hilarious and informative.

Am I really that naive?

I would like to think that I am not a naive person, but maybe I am. I went to one of the best public high schools in the country, and for some reason I believed my teachers were above just skipping over unpleasant parts of US history - but apparently I was wrong. All I remember being taught about the 1920-1940’s in the US is regarding the huge wave of immigration, industrialization, prohibition, the start of the feminist movement, and I’m sure some more or less significant stuff – but what was blatantly omitted was US involvement in the eugenics movement (Nazi Germany sure got its fair coverage). Furthermore, as a genetics major at Cornell, you would think eugenics would have come up as an example of a misuse of genetics in at least one of my classes, but surprisingly it has not.


In case you don’t know, eugenics is the social philosophy that genetic principles can be used for the improvement of human populations (see poster/advertisement above). Although eugenics is most often associated with Nazi Germany and the holocaust, few people talk about the more than 60,000 people that were forcibly sterilized in the US between 1920-1940 - because they were carriers of supposed genes for traits such as “pauperism” and “feeblemindedness.” Similar numbers were sterilized in Canada and Sweden, and sterilization programs continued into the 1970’s in all three countries. The movement was so popular in the US that state fairs during the period often had eugenics exhibits in which families could undergo eugenic evaluation for the “fittest family” competition, held in the “human stock” sections.

How could such an atrocity have been ignored in all my high school history classes. It was possibly the worst case of mass discrimination in US history, and something that we all can, and should, learn from. And if you think eugenics is a problem of the past, you’re wrong. As recently as 1995, China passed a law requiring that couples with unspecified genetic diseases “considered to be inappropriate for childbearing” can get married only if both agree to practice long-term contraception or to be sterilized. Absolutely ridiculous, and a perfect example of why we all need to be taught the history of eugenics - so we can try to avoid repeating such a regrettable period in history.

SOURCES
Kelves (1999) Eugenics and human rights. BMJ 319:435–438
Beardsley (1997) China Syndrome Sci Am. 276:33-34

Chromatic Cognition

Ravi Mehta and Juliet Zhu describe the effects of color on human cognition in a new study published on February 5th. The study began with tests designed to measure avoidance and attraction. Students vehemently avoided red and were strongly attracted to blue. In a follow-up experiment, test subjects given attention-demanding tasks did best when given a red background, and when asked to be creative, they responded best to blue. Below is a graphic showing the results of the study from a The New York Times article about the findings (click here to link to article, click image to enlarge).


Previous research on the cognitive effects of the color red have provided mixed results. Red has been linked to cognitive impairment on IQ tests, but also to improvement on low-demand tasks and clerical work. Red has also been shown to attract people to food and enhance sexual arousal. This study strengthens the link between red and an increase in cognitive ability. When asked to explain why red might be linked to concentration, and blue to creativity, Zhu offered this explaination,

Think about red, and what comes to mind: stop lights, stop signs, danger, ambulances - people want to avoid those things, and that's why they do better on detail-oriented tasks. Blue is the color of the sky, the ocean, safety - when their environment is safe, people are more explorative.

Interestingly, creativity has apparently not been given much consideration in past studies examining the effects of color on cognition. Furthermore, the strength of the link between blue and creativity in this study is far from solid. The score for creativity was not exactly quantitative; when asked to come up with as many creative uses for bricks as possible, the red group actually came up with the same number of responses, suggestions from the blue group were merely graded by a panel of judges to be more creative - so take that result with a grain of salt. The link between red and concentration is much stronger, and supports many previous studies.

As for the implications, Zhu suggests people engaged in creative tasks surround themselves with blue, and people trying to focus should forget about energy drinks, and surround themselves with red (hey look at that, my background is red!). The study also points to the possible consequences associated with unintentional uses of color. According to Stony Brook University psychologist Markus Meier, co-author of a conflicting study that linked red to drops on IQ test scores,

In our university, some professors use different color sheets for different groups during exams…Using them in an unthinking way could produce bad results for some students, and good for others.

It really makes you think about other ways in which colors may be impacting your life - without your knowledge!

SOURCES

Mehta, R and Zhu, J. 2009. "Blue or Red? Exploring the Effect of Color on Cognitive Task Performances." Science, Vol. 324, Issue 5915.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/science/06color.html?

Archaeology Rules!

Well, at least it did this week, stealing the science headlines three days in a row:

Tuesday, Feb. 3 – A paper was published describing two fossils found in Pakistan of a whale-like species that may have been able to walk (or more likely drag themselves around) on land. Furthermore, one of the fossils was of a pregnant female, and evidence suggests the animal gave birth on land. Dating from 47.5 million years ago (MYA), these fossils provide A MISSING LINK IN THE TRANSITION OF MAMMALS FROM LAND TO OCEAN – quite a significant find!

Wednesday, Feb. 4 – Just one day later, an arguably more significant paper was published. However, while it could be more significant, the evidence behind this paper is not as solid – literally. The paper reports the discovery of traces of a chemical currently known to be produced only by demosponges – considered by many to be descendants of the last common ancestor of animals – dating to 635 MYA. What’s the significance? This discovery represents THE EARLIEST SIGNS OF ANIMAL LIFE, at least 5 million years older than what was previously considered to be so, which may help to explain – if not solve – the mystery behind the sudden proliferation of animal life, often referred to as the Cambrian explosion.

Thursday, Feb. 5 – In my opinion, the paper published today is more cool than significant. The paper describes the fossil remains, dating to 60 MYA, of the LARGEST PREHISTORIC SNAKE ON RECORD. Scientists believe it WEIGHED OVER A TON (2,500 lbs) and measured almost 45 FT. LONG, tip to tail – a big fatty over 6x heavier and 10 ft. longer than the largest of todays snakes (according to the Guinness Book of World Records, the largest living snake to be measured was 33 ft. long, and the heaviest snake recorded weighed in at a measly 400 lbs). Two significant implications of the find are: 1) not all giant reptiles died with the dinosaurs – this snake survived for 6 million years after the extinction of the dinosaurs; and 2) the temp. of the equator must have been at least 10 deg. (F) warmer than it is today in order to support such a large, cold-blooded beast.

SOURCES

Gingerich, et al. "New Protocetid Whale from the Middle Eocene of Pakistan: Birth on Land, Precocial Development, and Sexual Dimorphism." Public Library of Science ONE, Vol. 4 No. 2, Feb. 3, 2009.
Brocks & Butterfield. "Early animals out in the cold." Nature, Vol. 457 No. 7229, Feb. 4, 2009.
Head, et al. "Giant boid snake from the paleocene neotropics reveals hotter past equatorial temperatures." Nature. February 5, 2009

"Unnatural" Selection

Article Review: The Future of Man - by Peter Ward

It is hard to argue against the fact that so-called “natural” selection has at least significantly slowed, if not come close to a complete halt. All one has to do is look at infant mortality rates today compared to even a few generations ago, let alone a few hundred years ago. Today, people with genetic disorders and/or weak immune systems due to heritable factors, can live to maturity - giving them essentially the same odds of reproducing as individuals with superior genes. Furthermore, another “natural” force driving evolutionary change in "natural populations – adaptations to different geographical environments, or niches – has been effectively negated by recent inventions, i.e. planes, trains, and automobiles. The reason increased mobility negatively effects the rate and quantity of change is that for rare adaptations - such as those that arise in small populations as a result of a niche environment - to persist and become prominent, there must be reproductive isolation. Otherwise, genes that are beneficial only in a niche environment will be diluted out by more prominent genes from immigrants, or lost due to migration of individuals who inherit said genes. In other words, THE DAYS OF “NATURAL” FORCES/PREDATORS SHAPING OUR EVOLUTION ARE ESSENTIALLY OVER.

The article (click the picture, title of the post, or here for the link) discusses the forces driving human evolution today, and some of the possible outcomes. What Ward claims, and I agree, is that THE STRONGEST DRIVING FORCE IN OUR EVOLUTION TODAY IS CULTURE. Meaning the strongest factor affecting what evolutionary biologists define as “fitness” – or the ability to reproduce – is the ability to “fit in.” This doesn’t necessarily mean being cool, but rather being able to find your niche in a particular society or culture. Some people may argue that human behaviors/personalities are not inherited - and therefore cannot influence evolution. However, there is increasing evidence that at least certain behavioral traits – ADHD for example, or tendency towards alcoholism and addiction – are in fact highly heritable traits.

While certainly not all behavioral traits are simply inherited (and therefore highly heritable), and those that are simply inherited are influenced by other factors like random chance and environmental factors, it is my belief that future discoveries will reveal that a significant portion of personality is in fact heritable. Psychologist Eric Turkheimer is quoted in the article “My Genome, My Self,” by Steven Pinker (discussed in the previous post), going as far as to say that,

THE NATURE-NURTURE DEBATE IS OVER… ALL HUMAN BEHAVIORAL TRAITS ARE HERITABLE.

When it comes to the future, Ward discusses two possible scenarios, both quite science-fiction in nature, but both rational possibilities. One is the infamous artificial intelligence (AI) scenario, in which we create robots with the ability to think for themselves, which then leads to the (inevitable?) ironic ending in which the machines we create, and ultimately come to depend on for survival, end up taking over. All I can say about the AI scenario is: I like to watch movies about the topic. But I certainly don’t have the expertise to speculate about the acumen of any arguments for, or against, the possibility.

The second scenario involves genetic modification, a topic with which I am much more familiar. But before I start , I want to preface my comments by saying that the proceeding concepts (along with AI) are still not feasible, and probably won’t be for quite some time (see previous post).

Now, genetic modification can be broken down into two categories: somatic cell modification (or gene therapy as it is often called) and germ-cell “therapy”. Somatic cell modification will absolutely be a reality at some point in the future, and probably far before germ-cell modification. And when it comes to somatic cell therapy, I personally have no objections (at this point – though I reserve my right to change my opinion – but I certainly have no “moral” objections to the concept). I’m sure, however, that when the possibility does become a reality it will be a hot topic for debate - as there will surely be plenty who feel strongly against it, just as there are many against genetically modified plants now.

When it comes to germ-cell genetic modification, all I really want to say is that, even when our great, great, great…grandchildren have a much better understanding of the human genome, I hope they are smart enough not to mess with germ-cells. What’s to keep every couple expecting a child to have the DNA analyzed to find what to fix. And if you ask me, that scenario can only play out to one end: everyone will be beautiful and intelligent, with an agreeable disposition – after all, WHO WOULD CHOOSE FOR THEIR KID TO BE UGLY AND STUPID?!? That's not to say the human race would turn into a completely homogenous group of “clones,” but it would be a very real possibility - and that’s one of the more benign forecasts when it comes to the possible consequences of messing with germ-cells.

Can your genes tell you who you are?

Article Review: My Genome, My Self - by Steven Pinker

It has now been almost exactly 13 years since the cloning of the first mammal (remember Dolly), and in case you haven’t realized, the genomics revolution is in full swing. For the price of a semester's worth of books, you can have your genome scanned for disease risks, ancestry data, and a small sample of traits; for the price of a luxury car, you can get a “complete” sequence (I use quotations because by complete what is really meant is the 1% that codes for proteins). And unlike most things these days, these prices are dropping precipitously. So the obvious questions are: WHAT CAN OUR GENES TELL US ABOUT WHO WE ARE, and what will be the consequences (good and/or bad) of having that information? Steven Pinker, a Harvard College professor of psychology, recently wrote the cover story for The New York Time Magazine on the topic (to link to the article, click on the title of the post - for some reason a direct link doesn't work, but you should be able to get to it from the page you are directed to).

According to Pinker, the two main concerns that have been raised are:

1) Possible discrimination based on genetic data

2) The possibility of companies taking advantage of hypochondriacs by “turning dubious probabilities into Genes of Doom”

In my opinion, the concerns, while something to be aware of, won’t cause significant problems. Bush has already passed a law against using genetic information as a basis for discrimination in the workplace or for healthcare - and there are many diseases for which tests already exist that can determine your susceptibility, so why should the same info coming from a different source cause a new problem? On top of that, I will explain below how discrimination based on genetic information is (like many forms of discrimination) simply a result of ignorance.

As for advantages, the two most obvious are:

1) The possibility for personalized medicine in which drugs are prescribed according to an individual's unique biochemistry

2) Possibility of being able to focus screening and prevention measures on those with the highest risk

Unfortunately, MOST OF THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF PERSONAL GENOME SEQUENCING WON'T BE REALIZED IN OUR LIFETIME. What most people don’t understand (including those who championed in the idea of eugenics, popular with many until relatively recently - Hitler being the most famous) is that there are two basic types of inheritance. The first is called Mendelian (aka qualitative, simple) inheritance.

Mendelian inheritance refers to traits that are the result of a single gene with two different versions. The classic example is from Mendel’s work with peas (hence Mendelian inheritance), in which height is controlled by a single gene with two versions, short and tall. In cases such as this, the trait (height) of an individual can be accurately predicted by which versions of the gene it possesses; tall version = tall plant, small version = small plant (another form of Mendelian inheritance has three classes in which 2 talls = tall, 1 tall + 1 short = medium, and 2 shorts = short). While there are a few examples of human traits that are inherited in this manner (diseases such as eye color, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs; also dwarfism), most follow a much more unpredictable mode of inheritance referred to as non-Mendelian (aka quantitative, complex, polygenic) inheritance.

Non-Mendelian inheritance refers to traits that are a result of many different genes, each contributing only slightly. This is the case for most traits in humans, including intellegence and height. Although we can all appreciate the fact that height is a highly heritable trait - “no one thinks Kareem Abdul-Jabbar just ate more Wheaties growing up than Danny DeVito,” - the reason that there aren’t just two or three classes of people (tall, medium, and short) is because dozens to hundreds of genes control human height, each contributing a small amount. This is the case for probably 99% of human traits.

On top of the fact that most traits are controlled by the small effects of many genes, in both kinds of inheritance, traits are also influenced by two other factors that can’t be predicted by your genome sequence: the environment and random chance. This means that even for Mendelian inheritance, where having a particular form of a gene directly determines the physical form of the trait, there will still be variation. This is inherently clear for anyone who has known identical twins. Their genomes are identical, but their personalities, and even physical appearances, are not. These differences are therefore a result of environment and/or random chance (there are actually many other factors that could cause variation, but I'm probably already getting more technical than I should).

Speaking of random chance, the last point I want to bring up is this: MANY MATHEMATICIANS CONSIDER THE PROBABILITY OF A SINGLE EVENT TO BE A MEANINGLESS CONCEPT. For example, when Pinker had his genome sequenced, he discovered he had a gene conferring upon him an 80% chance of baldness. But he’s not bald and shows no signs of balding being a problem in the future. The problem is trying to apply the proportion of people in a sample to an individual person – as Pinker says, “I’m not 80% bald, or even 80% likely to be bald. The most charitable interpretation of the number when applied to me is, ‘If you knew nothing else about me, your subjective confidence that I am bald, on a scale of 1-10, should be 8'.”

I know this post is a bit more than a nugget, but the overall point is this: don’t expect your genome to tell you much more about yourself than you can already find out by other means. In fact, old school means such as aptitude tests (like IQ scores for intelligence, or time in the fifty meter dash for athletic speed), are still much more accurate and informative - and will continue to be so for quite some time. I don't know about you, but I find some comfort in that. I mean, I think its nice to know that your genome can't tell you who you are, or as someone more poetic than I put it, "YOUR GENES ARE NOT YOUR DESTINY."