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.

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.

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.