Before I write this I will state a disclaimer. Disclaimer begins in 5...4...3...2...1...
I think Memphis has a very good mayor. For 14 years before I moved here the mayor of Memphis was apparently one of the most unlikeable, hate-filled, racist (he is black), corrupt politicians in the history of a city with a rich history of corrupt politicians. The current mayor, A.C. Wharton, seems by all accounts to be very different. I listened to him speak at St. Jude once. He exudes charisma and excitement. He is very positive about this city. He has cut some huge deals to bring big businesses to the city. He is very likeable, not hate-filled, and not a racist (he doesn't blame everybody's problems on white people). The refreshing thing is, I don't know if he's a democrat or a republican. I'm assuming he's a democrat because, hey, this is Memphis but I like him and will vote for his re-election in 2012.
Disclaimer is now over. However, a story in the local news today baffles me. As he always does, Mayor Wharton is this city's number one cheerleader and is always looking for ways to promote the city and for ways to take advantage of programs to bring money into Memphis.
Mayor Bloomberg of NYC has a personal foundation which offers grants to help cities that are suffering excessively from the typical woes that urban areas face (certainly Memphis fits that bill). The foundation focuses on public health, education, the arts, the environment, social services, and innovations in government.
Memphis has been selected to receive a portion of funds from this foundation to combat its many problems. One of Wharton's ideas that caught Mayor Bloomberg's attention is the notion of offering cash incentives to parents as a way to get them involved in their child's education.
I'm a little puzzled by this. On the one hand I want to say that at least Mayor Wharton realizes that a lack of parental involvement is at the top of the list of why Memphis's schools are failing. I mean, there really isn't much that city government can do to legislate better parental involvement.
But on the other hand I'm thinking, is this really the best that can be done with this money?? Offer it to parents, many who are going to spend it on heaven-knows-what?? And the ones who aren't going to spend it on cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, etc. are the ones who aren't involved because they are single moms and have to work full-time just to pay bills so they won't be able to increase their involvement very easily anyway.
Is this what we've come to in our society?? Inner city parents aren't motivated by love to supervise their child's education so we have to offer them money? How pathetic. And sad.
I like Mayor Wharton and I'll chalk this decision up to a moment of careless brainstorming for solutions. He's earned the benefit of the doubt, I think. But it's a sad day when we start rewarding deadbeat parents with a paycheck.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
Bacterial Origin of Certain Eukaryotic Organelles - Evidence for Evolution
The theory of an endosymbiotic relationship forming the origin of
certain organelles (cellular compartments) in eukaryotic cells is
pretty cool and the evidence is just too good to dismiss. This theory
was formally proposed in 1905 by a Russian botanist familiar with the
work of another botanist who noticed in 1883 that chloroplasts, the
organelle in plant cells that carries out photosynthesis, divide in a
manner strikingly similar to free-living cyanobacteria. This idea was
extended to include the mitochondria (the energy factories of our
cells) of all eukaryotic cells in the 1920s. Of course this idea was
not widely accepted at first, as is true with most scientific advances.
Newer microscopic technology revealed great structural similarity
between chloroplasts and cyanobacteria in the 1960s and the idea was
resurrected.
What is the current evidence supporting the idea that, at an ancient
date, one cell engulfed a bacteria and that the bacteria survived
inside that cell and was adapted over time to serve a specific and
unique, but vital, function inside the engulfing cell?
1) New mitochondria and chloroplasts are formed only by a process
similar to bacterial binary fission
2) These organelles are surrounded by 2 membranes; the inner membrane
shows differences in composition compared to other membranes of the
cell and it contains a peptidoglycan wall similar to a bacterial cell
3) Mitochondria and chloroplasts contain their own DNA (that's right
not all of your DNA is in the nucleus) that is similar to bacterial DNA
in its size and shape - ie nuclear DNA is straight, mitochondrial DNA
is circular like bacterial DNA
4) The ribosomes (important in protein manufacturing) of mitochondria
have biochemical properties resembling bacterial ribosomes rather than
the ribosomes of the cell
5) The amino acid that initiates protein synthesis for mitochondrial
proteins is the same as that used by bacterial cells which is not the
same amino acid as the cell uses to initiate protein synthesis.
There is more but those are the most convincing. This idea that at one
time our cell's ancestors were host to free-living bacteria is not
surprising. There are protists today that contain free-living bacteria
in their cytoplasm and the two get along quite nicely together. I think
it's an elegant illustration of symbiosis that has evolved to be
beneficial, even necessary, for the development of more complex
organisms. Adapting a bacterial cell to be our energy producers is an
ingenious detail of creation.
certain organelles (cellular compartments) in eukaryotic cells is
pretty cool and the evidence is just too good to dismiss. This theory
was formally proposed in 1905 by a Russian botanist familiar with the
work of another botanist who noticed in 1883 that chloroplasts, the
organelle in plant cells that carries out photosynthesis, divide in a
manner strikingly similar to free-living cyanobacteria. This idea was
extended to include the mitochondria (the energy factories of our
cells) of all eukaryotic cells in the 1920s. Of course this idea was
not widely accepted at first, as is true with most scientific advances.
Newer microscopic technology revealed great structural similarity
between chloroplasts and cyanobacteria in the 1960s and the idea was
resurrected.
What is the current evidence supporting the idea that, at an ancient
date, one cell engulfed a bacteria and that the bacteria survived
inside that cell and was adapted over time to serve a specific and
unique, but vital, function inside the engulfing cell?
1) New mitochondria and chloroplasts are formed only by a process
similar to bacterial binary fission
2) These organelles are surrounded by 2 membranes; the inner membrane
shows differences in composition compared to other membranes of the
cell and it contains a peptidoglycan wall similar to a bacterial cell
3) Mitochondria and chloroplasts contain their own DNA (that's right
not all of your DNA is in the nucleus) that is similar to bacterial DNA
in its size and shape - ie nuclear DNA is straight, mitochondrial DNA
is circular like bacterial DNA
4) The ribosomes (important in protein manufacturing) of mitochondria
have biochemical properties resembling bacterial ribosomes rather than
the ribosomes of the cell
5) The amino acid that initiates protein synthesis for mitochondrial
proteins is the same as that used by bacterial cells which is not the
same amino acid as the cell uses to initiate protein synthesis.
There is more but those are the most convincing. This idea that at one
time our cell's ancestors were host to free-living bacteria is not
surprising. There are protists today that contain free-living bacteria
in their cytoplasm and the two get along quite nicely together. I think
it's an elegant illustration of symbiosis that has evolved to be
beneficial, even necessary, for the development of more complex
organisms. Adapting a bacterial cell to be our energy producers is an
ingenious detail of creation.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
As Promised
Here is the first installment of my noble attempts to educate you sufficient to refute common arguments against the theory of evolution by natural selection. Remember (Ammon) that my purpose here is not to convince skeptics that current evolutionary theory is the final word, I merely wish to correct common misconceptions about evolution. In this way, as you continue to think about the validity of these theories you won't be encumbered by a false understanding of what the theory actually states.
Oh, and I won't cover all 10 of the previosly stated misconceptions in this post for the sake of time. I'll do 5 now and 5 later.
1 - "Evolution is just a theory" - The implication here is that evolution hasn't been proven, that it's just an unsubstantiated guess. People who say this are most likely to be people who don't know what Darwin actually theorized and are too lazy to look into it so they just dismiss it out of hand. They're like agnostics; they prefer to remain ignorant. But let's analyze the actual statement. While it's true that evolution is a theory, the use of the word "JUST" reveals a fundamental inability to comprehend what a scientific theory is. Well, first of all a simple definition of evolution is "a change in allele (ie - some variant of a gene) frequency over time" and is thus an undisputed fact. The informal usage of the word "theory" is very different than the scientific use of the term. In science, a theory is a collection of proposals to explain some observed phenomena. The proposals are supported and substantiated by alot of evidence over time. Often, some will claim that evolution is not a scientific law. Well, it's not a chain of progression. Scientific theories don't graduate to the status of law given a sufficient amount of evidence. Theories remain theories. These theories continue to accumulate evidence in support of them, or new evidence arises which causes the community to tweak the theory a bit. The theory of evolution by natural selection continues to be supported by all available evidence across all fields of biology (genetics, embryology, anatomy, microbiology, paleontology, behavioral science, molecular biology, etc.)
2 - There are no transitional fossils - A transitional fossil would be one that represents an intermediate between two species. Thus, it would have certain features representative of species A and others that are representative of species B. Well, first of all this is just false. Secondly, the fossil is record is imperfect and always will be given that the conditions for fossilization to occur are very stringent and the occurrence of fossil formation is the rare exception to the rule. However, we do have transitional fossils found in different strata of the earth documenting dramatic progressive changes in features of ancient animals. This, of course, all supports the idea of descent with modification.
3 - If we all evolved from apes, why are there still apes running around? - Well the first problem with this is that the asker doesn't understand that the theory of evolution doesn't claim that we evolved from modern apes. Modern apes and humans share a common ancestor that no longer exists. An ancestral species doesn't have to give rise to just one descendant. There can be parallel evolution where different species evolve differently (based on the available gene alleles and environmental conditions) from the common ancestor. This is apparently what happened. But either way, just because a new lineage begins to split off doesn't mean that an ancestral species HAS to go extinct. So even if we descended from modern apes, that doesn't mean modern apes would have to go extinct in order for us to exist.
The explanation for this one is a bit more subtle and I fear I'm having trouble explaining it but inside this statement is a fundamental misunderstanding about the theory of evolution so don't ever be foolish enought to say that evolution can't be true because there are still apes on the earth. On a personal note, if you've ever spent time really staring at an ape in the zoo you can't honestly tell me that there isn't something "more" there. Looking, really looking, into the eyes of an ape is worlds different that looking at a bird or even an elephant or giraffe. There's a closer relationship there, there's alot more commonality and it is very evident. It's quite an experience.
4 - Natural selection always leads to greater complexity (organisms are always "getting better") - Simply false. Selection is blind to anything except whether or not an organism can reproduce. In nature, good enough is good enough.
5 - Evolution promotes the survival of species - Evolution can take place at the level of a gene and what promotes the survival of a particular gene doesn't always lead to great reproductive fitness for a population. For example there are parasitic DNA elements that can spread through a population but cause disease. Hemophilia is caused by such a DNA element and this certainly doesn't promote survival. Varying mutation rates can affect survival as well. A mutation rate that is too high can be very detrimental to a species because nature doesn't have time to weed out the "bad" mutations before they spread too widely. For example, HIV exists on a very narrow error threshold. HIV mutates so rapidly that it is precariously close to destroying itself because many of the mutations create unviable virus.
Oh, and I won't cover all 10 of the previosly stated misconceptions in this post for the sake of time. I'll do 5 now and 5 later.
1 - "Evolution is just a theory" - The implication here is that evolution hasn't been proven, that it's just an unsubstantiated guess. People who say this are most likely to be people who don't know what Darwin actually theorized and are too lazy to look into it so they just dismiss it out of hand. They're like agnostics; they prefer to remain ignorant. But let's analyze the actual statement. While it's true that evolution is a theory, the use of the word "JUST" reveals a fundamental inability to comprehend what a scientific theory is. Well, first of all a simple definition of evolution is "a change in allele (ie - some variant of a gene) frequency over time" and is thus an undisputed fact. The informal usage of the word "theory" is very different than the scientific use of the term. In science, a theory is a collection of proposals to explain some observed phenomena. The proposals are supported and substantiated by alot of evidence over time. Often, some will claim that evolution is not a scientific law. Well, it's not a chain of progression. Scientific theories don't graduate to the status of law given a sufficient amount of evidence. Theories remain theories. These theories continue to accumulate evidence in support of them, or new evidence arises which causes the community to tweak the theory a bit. The theory of evolution by natural selection continues to be supported by all available evidence across all fields of biology (genetics, embryology, anatomy, microbiology, paleontology, behavioral science, molecular biology, etc.)
2 - There are no transitional fossils - A transitional fossil would be one that represents an intermediate between two species. Thus, it would have certain features representative of species A and others that are representative of species B. Well, first of all this is just false. Secondly, the fossil is record is imperfect and always will be given that the conditions for fossilization to occur are very stringent and the occurrence of fossil formation is the rare exception to the rule. However, we do have transitional fossils found in different strata of the earth documenting dramatic progressive changes in features of ancient animals. This, of course, all supports the idea of descent with modification.
3 - If we all evolved from apes, why are there still apes running around? - Well the first problem with this is that the asker doesn't understand that the theory of evolution doesn't claim that we evolved from modern apes. Modern apes and humans share a common ancestor that no longer exists. An ancestral species doesn't have to give rise to just one descendant. There can be parallel evolution where different species evolve differently (based on the available gene alleles and environmental conditions) from the common ancestor. This is apparently what happened. But either way, just because a new lineage begins to split off doesn't mean that an ancestral species HAS to go extinct. So even if we descended from modern apes, that doesn't mean modern apes would have to go extinct in order for us to exist.
The explanation for this one is a bit more subtle and I fear I'm having trouble explaining it but inside this statement is a fundamental misunderstanding about the theory of evolution so don't ever be foolish enought to say that evolution can't be true because there are still apes on the earth. On a personal note, if you've ever spent time really staring at an ape in the zoo you can't honestly tell me that there isn't something "more" there. Looking, really looking, into the eyes of an ape is worlds different that looking at a bird or even an elephant or giraffe. There's a closer relationship there, there's alot more commonality and it is very evident. It's quite an experience.
4 - Natural selection always leads to greater complexity (organisms are always "getting better") - Simply false. Selection is blind to anything except whether or not an organism can reproduce. In nature, good enough is good enough.
5 - Evolution promotes the survival of species - Evolution can take place at the level of a gene and what promotes the survival of a particular gene doesn't always lead to great reproductive fitness for a population. For example there are parasitic DNA elements that can spread through a population but cause disease. Hemophilia is caused by such a DNA element and this certainly doesn't promote survival. Varying mutation rates can affect survival as well. A mutation rate that is too high can be very detrimental to a species because nature doesn't have time to weed out the "bad" mutations before they spread too widely. For example, HIV exists on a very narrow error threshold. HIV mutates so rapidly that it is precariously close to destroying itself because many of the mutations create unviable virus.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Soon to Come
I've been at a workshop all week on the Chesapeake Bay (it's been good to be on my native Maryland soil because this state is drop-dead gorgeous). The workshop is all about reforming the crappy undergraduate biology education that goes on in this country. It really is crappy. Want evidence of that? Try to explain, REALLY explain the theory of evolution by natural selection including in your explanation the relationship of natural selection to molecular genetics. Now, obviously I don't really expect you to do this but you SHOULD be able to do this because you probably all took an introductory biology course in biology. This is THE fundamental principle of biology and NOBODY (outside of science) understands it. This is why alternative explanations for the diversity of life on earth (ie - creationism) gain traction within the population.
Well, during this week I've been surrounded by 19 other postdocs who all think about very different things than immunity and viruses. Most of them are ecologists and evolutionary biologists. It's been really quite interesting to listen to these people. They think about very different things and their perspectives have been very unique. As part of this workshop, over the next year, we will be developing an introductory level biology course. My group is actually developing a basic biology course, very similar to what you would have taken. Part of that will include a section on genetic inheritance and evolution through natural selection. I volunteered to take that part, not because it's my specialty, but because I find it to be very, very interesting.
So. I'm going to educate you wonderful readers. What you can expect to read here in 2 or 3 days is an intelligent (and correct) rebuttal to the following common misconceptions about/arguments against evolution:
1 - Evolution is just a theory. Ooooh, this one make me want to die inside because it's a complete misunderstanding about science in general.
2 - There are no transitional fossils
3 - If we all evolved from apes, why are there still apes running around?
4 - Natural selection leads to greater complexity
5 - Evolution always promotes the survival of species
6 - Structures that are irreducibly complex could not have developed through a process of natural selection because there would have been no use for intermidiary structures
7 - Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics
8 - Evolution has never been observed. This is the big one because it's patently false. It HAS been observed, too many times to count.
9 - Evolution means that life changes 'by chance.'
10 - Natural selection involves organisms "trying" to adapt.
You see, these misconceptions stem from a misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution actually says. Because people don't really understand evolutionary theory they are duped by these faulty arguments.
It's gonna be awesome. You'll love it. Especially you Ammon.
Well, during this week I've been surrounded by 19 other postdocs who all think about very different things than immunity and viruses. Most of them are ecologists and evolutionary biologists. It's been really quite interesting to listen to these people. They think about very different things and their perspectives have been very unique. As part of this workshop, over the next year, we will be developing an introductory level biology course. My group is actually developing a basic biology course, very similar to what you would have taken. Part of that will include a section on genetic inheritance and evolution through natural selection. I volunteered to take that part, not because it's my specialty, but because I find it to be very, very interesting.
So. I'm going to educate you wonderful readers. What you can expect to read here in 2 or 3 days is an intelligent (and correct) rebuttal to the following common misconceptions about/arguments against evolution:
1 - Evolution is just a theory. Ooooh, this one make me want to die inside because it's a complete misunderstanding about science in general.
2 - There are no transitional fossils
3 - If we all evolved from apes, why are there still apes running around?
4 - Natural selection leads to greater complexity
5 - Evolution always promotes the survival of species
6 - Structures that are irreducibly complex could not have developed through a process of natural selection because there would have been no use for intermidiary structures
7 - Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics
8 - Evolution has never been observed. This is the big one because it's patently false. It HAS been observed, too many times to count.
9 - Evolution means that life changes 'by chance.'
10 - Natural selection involves organisms "trying" to adapt.
You see, these misconceptions stem from a misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution actually says. Because people don't really understand evolutionary theory they are duped by these faulty arguments.
It's gonna be awesome. You'll love it. Especially you Ammon.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
The Blog Post That Needs No Title
This is likely to be the only political post I ever write wherein I have nothing negative to say about our president. In fact, I'm very proud of Barack Obama today. But I'll get to him in a minute.
The highest amount of praise is to be given to the awesome US intelligence network that has been working behind the scences for 10 years to nab this creep. I've been listening to NPR interviews with former intelligence guys and it's fascinating to hear about all of the clandestine actions that are taken and how everything needs to fall into place perfectly for something of this magnitude to happen. This is a very important symbolic victory for the United States. I say symbolic because I don't think this really changes much, al-Qaeda is still around and they still are organized well enough to carry out attacks. But this demonstrates that the US is still very active and gaining A+ intelligence, our military is freakin' awesome (don't pretend like there isn't a part of you that wouldn't love to have been in on that raid if you were freakish enough to be a Navy Seal), and that we are capable of winning this. Those in intelligence and in the military who carried this out are national heroes and are unlikely to participate in anything this big, career-wise, ever again.
The president demonstrated excellent leadership here. Obama often has seemed (to me at least) to not be up to the task. He has seemed to be one-step behind and incapable of being decisive and quick to act or respond. Well, when we've needed a decisive and unshakable president the most, he stepped up. Good for him and good for the United States. Sunday's raid has been forming behind the scenes since August according to Obama's message. It was an amazing task and as commander-in-chief, the guy who has to make the final call, he deserves a tip of the hat. I'm proud. There are concerns now that Pakistan was helping to shelter Osama and I'm sure the US government will be asking tough questions and giving them an earful if that turns out to be true but the president's speech Sunday night was very well delivered. It was cautious, deliberate, and aware of the fact that there is still much to learn. He's traveling to New York this week to meet with 9/11 victims' families and that's great. It's a big moment.
And what better way to celebrate a big moment for America than at America's game. This photo comes from a spontaneous, late-inning home run celebration last night by Boston's David Ortiz. David Ortiz was not born in this country, making this display of appreciation for the US military a little more meaningful and highlighting that Bin Laden's death should be welcomed by people the world over because his resume of terror hasn't been limited just to the United States.
The highest amount of praise is to be given to the awesome US intelligence network that has been working behind the scences for 10 years to nab this creep. I've been listening to NPR interviews with former intelligence guys and it's fascinating to hear about all of the clandestine actions that are taken and how everything needs to fall into place perfectly for something of this magnitude to happen. This is a very important symbolic victory for the United States. I say symbolic because I don't think this really changes much, al-Qaeda is still around and they still are organized well enough to carry out attacks. But this demonstrates that the US is still very active and gaining A+ intelligence, our military is freakin' awesome (don't pretend like there isn't a part of you that wouldn't love to have been in on that raid if you were freakish enough to be a Navy Seal), and that we are capable of winning this. Those in intelligence and in the military who carried this out are national heroes and are unlikely to participate in anything this big, career-wise, ever again.
The president demonstrated excellent leadership here. Obama often has seemed (to me at least) to not be up to the task. He has seemed to be one-step behind and incapable of being decisive and quick to act or respond. Well, when we've needed a decisive and unshakable president the most, he stepped up. Good for him and good for the United States. Sunday's raid has been forming behind the scenes since August according to Obama's message. It was an amazing task and as commander-in-chief, the guy who has to make the final call, he deserves a tip of the hat. I'm proud. There are concerns now that Pakistan was helping to shelter Osama and I'm sure the US government will be asking tough questions and giving them an earful if that turns out to be true but the president's speech Sunday night was very well delivered. It was cautious, deliberate, and aware of the fact that there is still much to learn. He's traveling to New York this week to meet with 9/11 victims' families and that's great. It's a big moment.
And what better way to celebrate a big moment for America than at America's game. This photo comes from a spontaneous, late-inning home run celebration last night by Boston's David Ortiz. David Ortiz was not born in this country, making this display of appreciation for the US military a little more meaningful and highlighting that Bin Laden's death should be welcomed by people the world over because his resume of terror hasn't been limited just to the United States.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Have No Fear, The World's Police Force is Here!!
The title of this post is to be read with as must sarcasm as you can muster. Sarcasm and disgust because I'm beginning to think that we will never live to see a day when the US (and many western nations for that matter) realizes that it is not, in fact, its responsibility to police the world, sticking its hands into others' civil wars.
Well that's we're doing right? Imposing our will onto a civil war that is taking place on the other side of the world? Where exactly is the imminent threat to the USA? There is none. In this case there isn't even any evidence that can be twisted to make it appear that there is a threat like there was in the case of Iraq. Gaddhafi has no potential to do harm to the United States.
In 2007, candidate Obama said the following:
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
"As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch."
Those are wise words if he actually believed it, because congress was not approached. This military action was unauthorized. Sure there was a UN resolution but as a sovereign nation the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land and that supreme law requires that Congress authorize the use of military force.
So I suppose it is too early to tell whether this new foray into battle will result in a long-term commitment of US and allied military. It's too early to tell whether soldiers will ever hit the ground and start shooting Libyans. But it's not too early to tell that Obama is acting no differently than our past presidents by unwisely and illegally putting US troops in harm's way. And it's not too early to be sure that it is unwise for the United States to stick our nosey hands into a civil war that doesn't involve us at all. A civil war taking place in the Middle East no less, a part of the world where we're already hated for this very thing!
And is anybody even sure who these rebels are that we've decided to help? Are we so in tune with Libyan society and political trends to be sure that a president of their choosing would be any better for the region? For the west? Or are we planning to stick around and try to build yet another Middle Eastern country? Because that's always worked out sooooooo well for us in the past 10 years.
There is already in-fighting and dissension within the ranks of the western alliance that is operating the no-fly zone and dropping the bombs and we're less than a week in. This is not going to end well. Our military is there foolishly. Our military is there unconstitutionally. Hopefully, our president changes course and pulls us out of this. But we've already made a mark, we've already begun to be damaged by this.
Well that's we're doing right? Imposing our will onto a civil war that is taking place on the other side of the world? Where exactly is the imminent threat to the USA? There is none. In this case there isn't even any evidence that can be twisted to make it appear that there is a threat like there was in the case of Iraq. Gaddhafi has no potential to do harm to the United States.
In 2007, candidate Obama said the following:
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
"As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch."
Those are wise words if he actually believed it, because congress was not approached. This military action was unauthorized. Sure there was a UN resolution but as a sovereign nation the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land and that supreme law requires that Congress authorize the use of military force.
So I suppose it is too early to tell whether this new foray into battle will result in a long-term commitment of US and allied military. It's too early to tell whether soldiers will ever hit the ground and start shooting Libyans. But it's not too early to tell that Obama is acting no differently than our past presidents by unwisely and illegally putting US troops in harm's way. And it's not too early to be sure that it is unwise for the United States to stick our nosey hands into a civil war that doesn't involve us at all. A civil war taking place in the Middle East no less, a part of the world where we're already hated for this very thing!
And is anybody even sure who these rebels are that we've decided to help? Are we so in tune with Libyan society and political trends to be sure that a president of their choosing would be any better for the region? For the west? Or are we planning to stick around and try to build yet another Middle Eastern country? Because that's always worked out sooooooo well for us in the past 10 years.
There is already in-fighting and dissension within the ranks of the western alliance that is operating the no-fly zone and dropping the bombs and we're less than a week in. This is not going to end well. Our military is there foolishly. Our military is there unconstitutionally. Hopefully, our president changes course and pulls us out of this. But we've already made a mark, we've already begun to be damaged by this.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Stumbling into Progress
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
That's a quote from Isaac Asimov, an author and biochemist at Boston University; and it's true. Most real scientific advances, not pedestrian steps forward but really important progress, do not come about from a linear progression from hypothesis to experiment to result. No, most great advances are stumbled upon somewhat by accident. I had a personal run-in with this myself just this morning. I'm not sure that my observation can be considered a great advance. It may very well be but you can never know that at the time, this is why Nobel Prizes are usually awarded for work that is 20 or 30 years old. So here's an insight into the process of science for you and it's stuff like this that makes me feel like I've got the coolest job in the world.
So you'll need a bit of background. You've got immune cells called macrophages and they're really important in the early fight against infection, including influenza viruses. Removing macrophages from mice and/or pigs will kill them if you then infect them with an influenza strain that typically wouldn't kill. Okay? Okay. Well, influenza viruses don't replicate in macrophages. They can enter the cell but they can't replicate in there and make the macrophage spit out lots more flu particles. Well, that's only half true because I have found that bird flu strains actually WILL replicate in macrophages. That's really important. I have gone on to figure out which gene allows bird flu to replicate in macrophages (it wasn't that hard, there are only 11 genes after all). Well, I took a non-bird flu strain and engineered it to express the bird flu version of that gene. Lo, and behold, that non-bird flu now replicates in macrophages and kills mice with a vengeance.
The next question was 'how does this happen?' The most obvious place to look first was cell death. It's possible that non-bird flu strains (we'll call them seasonal flu) kill the macrophages so quickly that replication never gets underway. The alternative, then, would be that bird flu viruses keep the macrophage alive long enough to make lots of new copies of itself. Well, that actually isn't the case. I was expecting to say 'Eureka!' I've got it! But I did the experiment and instead I noticed some other information lying underneath the surface. I had my 'hmmm, that's funny' moment. What I noticed (this just happened this morning so I'm pretty excited) was that after being infected for 18 hours the macrophages infected with seasonal influenza strains had stopped dividing. Cells normally divide of course and these macrophages had stopped. The macrophages infected with bird flu, however, were still dividing. Apparently, bird flu interacts differently with the macrophage and keeps the cell in its normal cycle of division and this is somehow necessary for the virus to replicate inside the cell. Now I'm excited to get back to work next week and test this hypothesis directly.
So this is how science happens most of the time. I was asking one question (concerning cell death) but I was observant enough to realize that my question was not the right question. Serendipitously, the experiment I ran was set up to provide me the information that has proven vital to moving forward, even without my intending to acquire that information. I love science and you should too because it's awesome and learning to think like a scientist makes you a cooler person. I should mention that the reason I'm so excited about this is that I am not a patient person and I probably miss this kind of information more often than not. So it's quite a rare occurrence that this time I took the time to notice it rather than get discouraged that there were no differences in cell death.
That's a quote from Isaac Asimov, an author and biochemist at Boston University; and it's true. Most real scientific advances, not pedestrian steps forward but really important progress, do not come about from a linear progression from hypothesis to experiment to result. No, most great advances are stumbled upon somewhat by accident. I had a personal run-in with this myself just this morning. I'm not sure that my observation can be considered a great advance. It may very well be but you can never know that at the time, this is why Nobel Prizes are usually awarded for work that is 20 or 30 years old. So here's an insight into the process of science for you and it's stuff like this that makes me feel like I've got the coolest job in the world.
So you'll need a bit of background. You've got immune cells called macrophages and they're really important in the early fight against infection, including influenza viruses. Removing macrophages from mice and/or pigs will kill them if you then infect them with an influenza strain that typically wouldn't kill. Okay? Okay. Well, influenza viruses don't replicate in macrophages. They can enter the cell but they can't replicate in there and make the macrophage spit out lots more flu particles. Well, that's only half true because I have found that bird flu strains actually WILL replicate in macrophages. That's really important. I have gone on to figure out which gene allows bird flu to replicate in macrophages (it wasn't that hard, there are only 11 genes after all). Well, I took a non-bird flu strain and engineered it to express the bird flu version of that gene. Lo, and behold, that non-bird flu now replicates in macrophages and kills mice with a vengeance.
The next question was 'how does this happen?' The most obvious place to look first was cell death. It's possible that non-bird flu strains (we'll call them seasonal flu) kill the macrophages so quickly that replication never gets underway. The alternative, then, would be that bird flu viruses keep the macrophage alive long enough to make lots of new copies of itself. Well, that actually isn't the case. I was expecting to say 'Eureka!' I've got it! But I did the experiment and instead I noticed some other information lying underneath the surface. I had my 'hmmm, that's funny' moment. What I noticed (this just happened this morning so I'm pretty excited) was that after being infected for 18 hours the macrophages infected with seasonal influenza strains had stopped dividing. Cells normally divide of course and these macrophages had stopped. The macrophages infected with bird flu, however, were still dividing. Apparently, bird flu interacts differently with the macrophage and keeps the cell in its normal cycle of division and this is somehow necessary for the virus to replicate inside the cell. Now I'm excited to get back to work next week and test this hypothesis directly.
So this is how science happens most of the time. I was asking one question (concerning cell death) but I was observant enough to realize that my question was not the right question. Serendipitously, the experiment I ran was set up to provide me the information that has proven vital to moving forward, even without my intending to acquire that information. I love science and you should too because it's awesome and learning to think like a scientist makes you a cooler person. I should mention that the reason I'm so excited about this is that I am not a patient person and I probably miss this kind of information more often than not. So it's quite a rare occurrence that this time I took the time to notice it rather than get discouraged that there were no differences in cell death.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Admit It, You Know You Want to Laugh.
This is a very sad story about a bear.. Everybody should heed the warnings not to feed wildlife because they become dependent and don't forage for themselves any longer. It is such a tragedy to see what has been done to our country's wildlife! The photo below captures a disturbing trend that is beginning to affect U.S. wildlife.
Animals that formerly were self-sufficient are now showing signs of belonging to the Democrat Party. They have apparently learned to just sit and wait for the government to step in and provide for their care and sustenance. This photo is of a black bear in Montana turned Democrat. He's nicknamed Bearack Acorn Obearma. It is believed that he has become a campground organizer.
I had to post this, thanks Ammon. I know it plays on stereotypes and generalizations about the democratic party but those stereotypes are, after all, based in some truth. And besides, if there's even a discussion to be had about what the entitlement attitude has done to this country then it's already too late.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Spring. When Young Men's Hearts Turn To Baseball
Spring has arrived in Memphis. The temperatures have settled nicely into the upper 60s/low 70s and that causes my attention to turn to my beloved baseball. While much of the country still grapples with temps in the 30s and 40s, players are headed off to spring camp and I'm scouting out the teams and players. This year I have an additional reason to keep tabs on who is expected to do what because this year, for the first time, I have joined a fantasy league. We haven't had the draft yet and I'm already excited for this year.
I've gone on ad nauseum in the past about why I love baseball and about why you're foolish if you don't, so let's get right to my 2011 predictions.
AL East - this division is going to be crazier than normal in 2011 given the upgrades made by the Red Sox and Orioles.
1 - Red Sox
2 - Yankees
3 - Orioles
4 - Rays
5 - Blue Jays
AL Central
1 - Twins
2 - Tigers
3 - White Sox
4 - Indians
5 - Royals
AL West
1 - Rangers (barely)
2 - A's
3 - Angels
4 - Mariners
NL East
1 - Phillies - this year featuring the most accomplished pitching rotation that the sport has seen in at least 40 years.
2 - Braves
3 - Marlins
4 - Nationals
5 - Mets - Ha! Remember when these guys were relevant? Yeah, me neither.
NL Central
1 - Cardinals
2 - Reds - they can't possibly repeat what they did last year
3 - Brewers
4 - Astros
5 - Pirates - I'm going out on a limb with this one
6 - Cubs
NL West
1 - Giants - duh!
2 - Rockies
3 - Padres - Adrian Gonzales is a huge loss
4 - Dodgers
ALCS - Red Sox vs. Twins
NLCS - Phillies vs. Giants (a rematch for the ages!)
World Series - Phillies over Red Sox. And I swear if the Red Sox, who I hate with a passion, lose a world series at the hand of my Phillies then I will never complain about anything again, ever, for as long as I live. I will have reached nirvana. This is one of my long-time sports fantasies.
I've gone on ad nauseum in the past about why I love baseball and about why you're foolish if you don't, so let's get right to my 2011 predictions.
AL East - this division is going to be crazier than normal in 2011 given the upgrades made by the Red Sox and Orioles.
1 - Red Sox
2 - Yankees
3 - Orioles
4 - Rays
5 - Blue Jays
AL Central
1 - Twins
2 - Tigers
3 - White Sox
4 - Indians
5 - Royals
AL West
1 - Rangers (barely)
2 - A's
3 - Angels
4 - Mariners
NL East
1 - Phillies - this year featuring the most accomplished pitching rotation that the sport has seen in at least 40 years.
2 - Braves
3 - Marlins
4 - Nationals
5 - Mets - Ha! Remember when these guys were relevant? Yeah, me neither.
NL Central
1 - Cardinals
2 - Reds - they can't possibly repeat what they did last year
3 - Brewers
4 - Astros
5 - Pirates - I'm going out on a limb with this one
6 - Cubs
NL West
1 - Giants - duh!
2 - Rockies
3 - Padres - Adrian Gonzales is a huge loss
4 - Dodgers
ALCS - Red Sox vs. Twins
NLCS - Phillies vs. Giants (a rematch for the ages!)
World Series - Phillies over Red Sox. And I swear if the Red Sox, who I hate with a passion, lose a world series at the hand of my Phillies then I will never complain about anything again, ever, for as long as I live. I will have reached nirvana. This is one of my long-time sports fantasies.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
My Pilgrimage
I spent the last week in the Salt Lake area and Provo. The fortuitous occurrence which necessitated my trip was a Keystone Conference on TGF-beta at the Snowbird Ski Resort in the mountains east of Sandy. Every single expense associated with the conference was paid for through a professional development allowance provided to postdocs by St. Jude and a scholarship awarded to me through the Keystone organization. To top it off, Sarah came with me. Really none of this would have been nearly as great if she hadn't been there. I'll admit, my wife is pretty much my reason for existing.
First I'll describe the conference and then I'll give an honest assessment of the state of Utah. The conference was great. It was at Snowbird, up in the mountains. The drive, the setting, and the conference accomodations couldn't have been more spectacular. It was truly gorgeous. I presented our work in a poster format on Saturday night and then as an invited oral presentation on Monday. Both came off very well. The work generated a lot of interest. I got some great suggestions about future experiments and I handled the questions that I received very well. I came away loving my science and excited to get back at it.
Now for the serious stuff. When it came time for me to move out of Utah upon my graduation from BYU I was very excited. This trip made me realize that I'm still very excited about NOT living in Utah. First of all, upon deplaning we realize that the entire Salt Lake valley is enveloped in a very thick smog. I had forgotten how awful the air quality is out there. Visibility couldn't have been more than 1/2 mile, no joke. It was disgusting and only added to the grossness of dirty snow and entire cities (Sandy, South Jordan, Taylorsville, Holladay) constructed of strip malls, big box stores, and chain restaurants. Seriously, if it isn't a chapel or a temple it's either a Del Taco, a Carl's Jr., or a Nordstrom's.
On Monday it finally started to clear up a bit and I could see that there were actually MORE chain stores than I had originally thought. So we went to Temple Square and the Church History Museum. The Church History Museum was faaaaantastic. If you ever get the chance you must go. I had no idea that some of those things still existed. But the coolest item, and by coolest I mean stupidest, was in the gift store. Yes, fellow Saints, it truly is the dispensation of the fulness of times when, for just $60 every member of the church can own their very own Liahona. No, not the foreign language version of the Ensign. I'm talking about a genuine brass replica of the Liahona. If you move it words appear just like on those magic 8 ball toys. Don't believe that the sacrilege of commercial Mormonism could stoop so low? You underestimate the power of commercialist Mormons to denegrate the sacred. They're capable of anything out there:
For only $10 you can buy a cheaper, toy version for your kiddies to play with. I'm sure that Lehi would find peace in knowing that the sacred object provided to him to receive revelation and guidance in the Judean wilderness is now a mere child's play thing. Honestly, I don't know why the church doesn't put the kibosh on crap like this. And then to think that there are suckers out there who will pay SIXTY dollars to have this in their home!!!! Good grief I hope I'm not friends with any of them.
First I'll describe the conference and then I'll give an honest assessment of the state of Utah. The conference was great. It was at Snowbird, up in the mountains. The drive, the setting, and the conference accomodations couldn't have been more spectacular. It was truly gorgeous. I presented our work in a poster format on Saturday night and then as an invited oral presentation on Monday. Both came off very well. The work generated a lot of interest. I got some great suggestions about future experiments and I handled the questions that I received very well. I came away loving my science and excited to get back at it.
Now for the serious stuff. When it came time for me to move out of Utah upon my graduation from BYU I was very excited. This trip made me realize that I'm still very excited about NOT living in Utah. First of all, upon deplaning we realize that the entire Salt Lake valley is enveloped in a very thick smog. I had forgotten how awful the air quality is out there. Visibility couldn't have been more than 1/2 mile, no joke. It was disgusting and only added to the grossness of dirty snow and entire cities (Sandy, South Jordan, Taylorsville, Holladay) constructed of strip malls, big box stores, and chain restaurants. Seriously, if it isn't a chapel or a temple it's either a Del Taco, a Carl's Jr., or a Nordstrom's.
On Monday it finally started to clear up a bit and I could see that there were actually MORE chain stores than I had originally thought. So we went to Temple Square and the Church History Museum. The Church History Museum was faaaaantastic. If you ever get the chance you must go. I had no idea that some of those things still existed. But the coolest item, and by coolest I mean stupidest, was in the gift store. Yes, fellow Saints, it truly is the dispensation of the fulness of times when, for just $60 every member of the church can own their very own Liahona. No, not the foreign language version of the Ensign. I'm talking about a genuine brass replica of the Liahona. If you move it words appear just like on those magic 8 ball toys. Don't believe that the sacrilege of commercial Mormonism could stoop so low? You underestimate the power of commercialist Mormons to denegrate the sacred. They're capable of anything out there:
For only $10 you can buy a cheaper, toy version for your kiddies to play with. I'm sure that Lehi would find peace in knowing that the sacred object provided to him to receive revelation and guidance in the Judean wilderness is now a mere child's play thing. Honestly, I don't know why the church doesn't put the kibosh on crap like this. And then to think that there are suckers out there who will pay SIXTY dollars to have this in their home!!!! Good grief I hope I'm not friends with any of them.On Tuesday we went to BYU and visited the Museum of Art where the contrast between modern Mormon kitsch (think Greg Olson, personal Liahona, and Captain Moroni action figure) and true spirituality was on full display. We were lucky enough to be there while the museum had on display a collection of Carl Heinrich Bloch's paintings of Christ including 5 of the 8 altar pieces that he painted. This was the first time that those 5 altar pieces have EVER been away from their native sites in Sweden and Denmark. The works were very impressive and spiritual and it made me think that it's quite disappointing that modern Mormons, having a knowledge of the full gospel and the guidance of the gift of the Holy Ghost, can't seem to come up with anything better than these gems:
In fact, it's a bit embarrassing and I think it's a bit of a mockery to have such AWFUL art for sale in the same building (Church History Museum) as Joseph and Hyrum Smith's death masks, the original Bible that Joseph used in his retranslation of the Bible, and original pages from the Book of Mormon translation in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting. Granted, these pieces are a sincere expression of the artists' testimonies, and I don't question their faithfulness, but is that enough to qualify it as worthy of mass production and retail sale for distribution in members' homes? Well, I suppose I could go on and on about this topic but it will just get me angry.
In fact, it's a bit embarrassing and I think it's a bit of a mockery to have such AWFUL art for sale in the same building (Church History Museum) as Joseph and Hyrum Smith's death masks, the original Bible that Joseph used in his retranslation of the Bible, and original pages from the Book of Mormon translation in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting. Granted, these pieces are a sincere expression of the artists' testimonies, and I don't question their faithfulness, but is that enough to qualify it as worthy of mass production and retail sale for distribution in members' homes? Well, I suppose I could go on and on about this topic but it will just get me angry.BYU was fabulous as always. Well, mostly. Based on the fashions that I saw on at least 50% of the females on campus I suppose it is now perfectly acceptable to wear form fitting clothing if you call them "skinny jeans." That was disappointing. Also disappointing was BYU's lack of green space. The new and beautiful Joseph F. Smith Building (which wasn't completed when I left Provo) has a very large courtyard which offered a great opportunity for green space. Instead it is a humongous space filled in with more concrete. Disappointing, but the overall image of BYU is one of extraordinary cleanliness compared to Ohio State.
The Cougareat still serves awesome salad wraps, and Sugar and Spice (I think that was the name of two of those co-eds in skinny jeans that I saw) still serves the BEST bread and honey butter in the history of the world.
Sarah and I met with our old virology professor, Dr. Brent Johnson. I really like him and he shaped my career. We sat in on one of his classes, a class which wasn't around when I was there. It was a small class (only 6 students) and it met in a boardroom where the students gathered around the table and had an open discussion about the material from the textbook. I thought it was a great format for encouraging critical thinking and scientific discussion. I'm pleased to see that BYU is continuing to offer a stellar, student-centered education. Dr. Johnson even introduced Sarah and me and allowed me to chime in on a few topics.
Lastly, our final two nights in the area Sarah and I stayed at Parrish Place Bed and Breakfast in Sugar House, just 5 miles south of downtown Salt Lake. It is an old historic home owned and operated by a couple very friendly Swedes with beautiful rooms and a spectacular breakfast of muffins, granola, yogurt, fruit, juice, milk, and hot chocolate delivered to your room. If you're ever in Salt Lake I highly recommend that you stay there.
So Utah is still out there. It's still unique. It still has some good points but in general I'm glad to be looking out my window right now onto Memphis, TN.Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Best Picture of the Year (Even if it is Only Jan. 5)
A picture of Nancy Pelosi passing her power to another, what a glorious day!! Quite frankly it doesn't matter to me who she passed that gavel to, just so long as it is out of her hands. But look at how badly Boehner wants to give her one solid crack over the head. And who can blame him? What kind of leader says, "We have to pass the bill so people can find out what's in it"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)