tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-345600632024-03-12T16:24:15.928-07:00theBIOguyReflections on science, teaching and the 21st century.theBIOguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04733992363383514915noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34560063.post-18285671544146866262013-03-15T05:12:00.000-07:002013-03-15T05:12:35.470-07:00An Atom In The UniverseRe-Posted from: <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/author/esiegel">http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/author/esiegel</a><br />
<br />
By Ethan Siegel<br />
<br />
“The atoms come into my brain, dance a dance, and then go out – there are always new atoms, but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday.” -Richard Feynman<br />
<br />
Here you are, a human being, a grand Universe of atoms that have organized themselves into simple monomers, assembled together into giant macromolecules, which in turn comprise the organelles that make up your cells. And here you are, a collection of around 75 <i>trillion </i>specialized cells, organized in such a way as to make up you.<br />
<br />
But at your core, you are still just atoms. A mind-bogglingly <i>large </i>number of atoms — some <span 115="" 11pt="" arial="" background-position:="" background-repeat:="" font-family:="" font-size:="" initial="" line-height:="" sans-serif="">10</span><sup style="outline: 0px;"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">28 </span></sup>of them — but atoms nonetheless.<br />
<br />
Those two things — you and an atom — may seem so different in scale and size that it’s hard to wrap your head around. Here’s a fun way to think about atoms: if you broke down a human being into all the atoms that make you up, there are about as many atoms that make up you (~<span 115="" 11pt="" arial="" background-position:="" background-repeat:="" font-family:="" font-size:="" initial="" line-height:="" sans-serif="">10</span><sup style="outline: 0px;"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">28</span></sup>) as there are “a-human’s-worth-of-atoms” to make up the entire Solar System!<br />
<br />
All the matter in the Solar System, all summed together, contains about <span 115="" 11pt="" arial="" background-position:="" background-repeat:="" font-family:="" font-size:="" initial="" line-height:="" sans-serif="">10</span><sup style="outline: 0px;"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">57</span></sup> atoms, or <span 115="" 11pt="" arial="" background-position:="" background-repeat:="" font-family:="" font-size:="" initial="" line-height:="" sans-serif="">10</span><sup style="outline: 0px;"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">29</span></sup> <i>human-beings-worth</i> of atoms. So an atom, compared to you, is as tiny as you are in comparison to the entire Solar System, combined.<br />
<br />
But that’s just for perspective. The <span 115="" 11pt="" arial="" background-position:="" background-repeat:="" font-family:="" font-size:="" initial="" line-height:="" sans-serif="">10</span><sup style="outline: 0px;"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">28</span></sup> atoms that are existing-as-you-right-now each have their own story stretching back to the very birth of the Universe. Each one has its own story, and so today I bring you the story of just one atom in the Universe.<br />
<br />
There was a time in the distant past — some 13.7 billion years ago — when there were no atoms. Yes, the energy was all there, but it was far too hot and too dense to have even a single atom. Imagine all the matter in the entire Universe, some <span 115="" 11pt="" arial="" background-position:="" background-repeat:="" font-family:="" font-size:="" initial="" line-height:="" sans-serif="">10</span><sup style="outline: 0px;"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">91</span></sup> particles, in a volume of space about equal to that of a single, giant star.<br />
<br />
The whole Universe, compressed into a volume of space that one large star takes up.<br />
<br />
Yes, back then it was too hot to have any atoms at all. But the Universe didn’t stay that way for long: it may have been incredibly hot and dense, but it was expanding and cooling incredibly rapidly back then. After less than a second, the quarks and gluons had condensed into stable protons and neutrons, the building blocks of all atomic nuclei.<br />
<br />
The atom we’re thinking of started out as a neutron. Protons tried to fuse with it to create deuterium, but the Universe was too hot for that to happen, and each time it formed deuterium, it was blasted apart less than a nanosecond later.<br />
<br />
After about three minutes, a few of the neutrons had decayed into protons, but this one remained, and finally the Universe had cooled enough so that nuclear fusion could proceed. The neutron quickly formed deuterium, then Helium-3, and finally found another deuteron to become a Helium-4 nucleus. Only about 8% of the atoms in the Universe became Helium-4 like this one; the other 92% were just plain old protons, also known as Hydrogen nuclei.<br />
<br />
It took another 380,000 years for the Universe to cool enough for this to become a neutral atom, and for two electrons to join this nucleus. The Universe — despite its rapid expansion and cooling — remains 100% ionized until the temperature drops to just a few thousands of degrees, which simply takes that much time.<br />
<br />
Over the next hundred-million years or so, this atom found itself caught up in the gravitational pull of the Universe, which began to form stars and galaxies. But the vast majority of atoms — more than 95% — weren’t a part of the first generation of stars, and neither was this one in particular.<br />
<br />
Instead, when the first stars formed, they kicked the electrons out of the atoms that surrounded them, creating ions once again.<br />
<br />
It was only by luck that this atom we’re following wound up in a dense molecular cloud, shielded from this radiation. After more than a billion years in this collection of neutral atoms, it finally found itself pulled in by gravitational attraction to what would become a giant star.<br />
<br />
This atom lost its electrons and fell to the core of the star, where it lay dormant for millions of years, as hydrogen nuclei fused into other helium nuclei just like this one. When the core ran out of hydrogen fuel, helium fusion began, and our atom fused with two others to become a carbon nucleus!<br />
<br />
While other atoms even closer to the center of the star fused further, carbon was as far as this particular atom went. When the core of the star collapsed and the star went supernova, our atom was blown out into the interstellar medium, where it resided for billions of years.<br />
<br />
While billions of other stars went through the life-and-death cycle, this carbon atom remained in interstellar space, eventually picking up six electrons to become neutral. It found its way into a gravitational collection of neutral gas, and cooled, eventually getting sucked in to another gravitational perturbation, as star-formation happened all over again.<br />
<br />
This time, the atom didn’t find its way into the central star of its system, but rather into the dusty disk that surrounded it. Over time, the disk separated into planetoids and planetesimals, and this atom found itself aboard one of those.<br />
<br />
It first joined together with four hydrogen atoms, becoming methane, and went through millions of different chemical reactions over time.<br />
<br />
After life took hold on Earth, it became a part of a bacterium’s DNA, then a part of a plant’s cell wall, and eventually became part of a complex organism that would find itself consumed by you.<br />
<br />
The atom is currently in a red blood cell of yours, where it will remain for a total of about 120 days, until the cell is destroyed and replaced by a different one.<br />
<br />
Although the cell — and all cells in your body — will be destroyed and replaced, you will remain the same person you are, and the atom will simply take on a different function, whether in your body or out of it. The atoms in your body are temporary, and can all be replaced — unnoticed by you — by another of the same type.<br />
<br />
And each of the <span 115="" 11pt="" arial="" background-position:="" background-repeat:="" font-family:="" font-size:="" initial="" line-height:="" sans-serif="">10</span><sup style="outline: 0px;"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">28</span></sup> atoms in your body has a story as spectacular and unique as this one! As Feynman famously said,<br />
<br />
“I / a Universe of atoms / an atom in the Universe.”<br />
<br />
The story of the Universe is inside every atom in your body, each and every one. And after 13.7 billion years, 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of them have come together, and that’s you. The Universe is inside of you, as surely as you’re inside the Universe.<br />
<br />
You, a Universe of atoms, an atom in this Universe.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
theBIOguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04733992363383514915noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34560063.post-15986109608482067622013-03-06T06:38:00.000-08:002013-03-06T06:40:43.935-08:00A Sample Size Of One and The Search For Life (part 4)<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVrnOKb5SkdN0WsTW1fDvwztJDflKULTxokaQfUnYkytXUaO4-7WD9SsBsrVLCEyW5beE3VNuxo6fjjr7hIaiw5e2OxleWECZsgtbFkdgKrHctk6Y9n8l3tYeFM1ZRSZgsSz832A/s1600/bacteria.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVrnOKb5SkdN0WsTW1fDvwztJDflKULTxokaQfUnYkytXUaO4-7WD9SsBsrVLCEyW5beE3VNuxo6fjjr7hIaiw5e2OxleWECZsgtbFkdgKrHctk6Y9n8l3tYeFM1ZRSZgsSz832A/s200/bacteria.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">In September 2011, researchers with the Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus or OPERA for short, reported an astonishing observation. They saw what they believed to be particles, muon neutrinos, travelling faster than the speed of light! This was startling because nothing, not even muon neutrinos, are allowed to travel that fast. Even before attempts to repeat the observations were conducted, the findings were met with criticism and skepticism, even from within the ranks of the researchers themselves! Five months later, they found the cause of the anomaly; a loose fiber optics cable. Repeated experiments with the same equipment, and around the world, failed to find any faster-than-light traveling by anything.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Why did the researchers doubt their own eyes? Why were the most vocal critics of the finding those who found it? Because the Universe and everything in it must abide by laws; laws that were elucidated by asking deep, probing questions to discover how the Universe works. They are powerfully explanatory. You had better make damn sure you know what you are talking about before you propose changing them because without them, it would be hopeless to discover anything about ourselves or our place in the Cosmos.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Life too must adhere to the laws of this Universe --chemical and physical-- and it’s those laws that place real limits on what’s possible and what’s impossible. For example; we know that life must be bounded; made of cells. How can we know this? Everything --the stars, planets, you-- are all made of the same chemical stuff. Life itself is the emerging property of complex chemistry. That chemistry must exist in sufficient concentrations to allow for reactions fast enough to interact and integrate with other reactions and to changing external conditions. Unbounded chemicals diffuse, lowering their local concentrations, which slows their rates of reactions until eventually they go so slow that they essentially stop. Life everywhere must be packed inside of cells.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">We can also say something about what those cells will look like; for example, their size is not limitless. There can be no single celled organisms the size of cities. Giant blob-like creatures are not permitted in this Universe. Why? Life everywhere is an open system. Closed systems run in one direction only; towards equilibrium (2nd law of thermodynamics). Once there, chemical reactions stop. Living systems are constantly in a state of disequilibrium, powered by a constant inflow of new material and energy (negative entropy). This requires a boundary that is capable of being selectively permeable and has enough rate of exchange to keep the internal chemistry at disequilibrium. Since surface area increases at a slower rate than the volume, cells larger than a critical size would effectively be “closed”. The cellular material would be used up faster than it could be replaced and the system would eventually stop running. This fact explains why elephants and fruit flies are made of cells that are the same size. Large organisms are not made of large cells. Cell size is limited by law.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Given that life is chemistry of encoded genetic information, storing, replicating and passing on error-prone protein building instructions generation after generation encased in a selectively permeable membrane of relatively small size, and given that life's chemistry requires a liquid medium of water to run, we can begin to strategize where to look. Follow the water used to mean looking only in the Goldilocks zone of planetary systems --not to far from a Sun, not too close, just right for liquid water to be present. But now we know that liquid water can exist almost anywhere in a solar system. For example, the distant moons Europa and Enceladus, under the tidal forces of their large host planets (Jupiter and Saturn respectively), can generate enough geothermal energy to have liquid water at remote distances from the Sun. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Once we locate the water, what kind of life can we expect to find there? Worms? Jellyfish? Algae? People? Ironically, the start of life is the easiest to predict. The first cells were likely simple. Very similar to our bacteria. But from here, any resemblance to life on this planet is pure speculation. There is simply no way to predict beyond that first instance of life what will follow. Even the history of life on this planet is not repeatable. If you rolled back the clock to the first cell, and let Natural Selection play out all over again anew, none of the organisms you recognize now would reappear; including us. Natural Selection is not goal oriented. It does not direct the future course of change. It only acts on random variations that appear in a population. But those alien life forms would be running virtually identical chemistry. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The variations on life’s theme are near infinite, but they are just variations. On this planet alone there may have been as many as a billion different variations on that theme. A typical galaxy contains 100 billion suns, and there are over 100 billion galaxies. The number of other worlds is unknown, but our count keeps growing. It seems likely that planetary systems form frequently, very frequently. The actual number of worlds is far greater than any normal human comprehension. As we begin to reach out and explore new worlds, isn’t it possible that we could fly right past a planet with life and not even know it? Not likely.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">A drive from coast to coast would surround you with different people, houses, communities, cities, etc. but you would have no trouble recognizing the public park, or the city square, or sports complex. The same holds true for trek through the cells of Earthly life and Alien life. Individual molecules may look different, but you would have no trouble recognizing the genetic storage facility or the molecular machines performing the biological activity. You would instantly recognize activities such as building the machine parts, genetic code replication, cell division and communication. The organism may look weird, but it’s inner workings would be very familiar. Don't expect a planet populated with sentient dinosaurs, or talking cockroaches. Those assemblages of cells are not likely to ever happen again, but do expect to be able to read their DNA.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">-End of part 4</span>theBIOguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04733992363383514915noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34560063.post-91944059545304232132013-03-04T08:40:00.001-08:002013-05-01T07:19:00.713-07:00A Sample Size Of One and The Search For Life (part 3)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaDk-1VMJ8EYomChzPh6Vg9lEmpurBoh9rk2xLvL5ocegaTTA4BF3rnc2ZZGlgjWH6lIOADiRtjepeRgRjjXI-zgBKhi4zmsPTRYLohyphenhyphenBKV0fYgs_od64SyG6cdyf6Nvjt-hloBw/s1600/Featured-shape-is-function-.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="245" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaDk-1VMJ8EYomChzPh6Vg9lEmpurBoh9rk2xLvL5ocegaTTA4BF3rnc2ZZGlgjWH6lIOADiRtjepeRgRjjXI-zgBKhi4zmsPTRYLohyphenhyphenBKV0fYgs_od64SyG6cdyf6Nvjt-hloBw/s320/Featured-shape-is-function-.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Living things have had it rough. We presently live among a measly 5% of the total number of different types of living things that have ever been. But even at 5% the numbers are staggering --an estimated 8.7 million different species alive, right now --a billion species or more, for all time. And amazingly every one, past and present, is running the same chemical machinery deep down inside. The chemical compounds that stored the genetic code of dinosaurs, also does yours and mine. The basic machinery is so precisely matched that pieces of DNA are completely interchangeable, across species (of even remote ancestry) and function perfectly well. No hiccups, no barriers, no mistakes. Carl Sagan once reflected, “Any tree, could read my DNA”. More to the point, any organism could read any other organism’s DNA. There is no fundamental restriction to this most essential of observations. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Life is one thing, one event, one instance, playing out over and over again, in “endless forms, most beautiful and most wonderful"1. The fact that life is, at its core, the same for all is not happenstance. As we are quickly learning, the early Universe is (and continues to be) primed for life, our life. The pieces of the molecular machinery that drives our cells is universal –they are found everywhere. It is no coincidence that life is constructed of the same building blocks --they are easily made and in great abundance. They are readily available to be assembled into the larger polymers needed for life to emerge. How does this fact, coupled with our understanding of the characteristics and requirements for life, allow us to make predictions about life elsewhere?</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">It helps to recognize that there is a very short list of elementary particles that make up everything in the Universe. And those particles come together to form a finite number of elements. And the stability required to make monomers that can assemble into large polymers is further limited to just one atom, carbon. Life is carbon based, not just because it is convenient but because nothing else will do the trick. There are no alternatives (sorry silicon-based life form fans). Large, stable polymers, built on skeletons of carbon, are an essential ingredient for any living systems. There is simply no other way to endow enough complexity into a system to make life emerge without them.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">One type of essential carbon compound is protein. Proteins are unique in the world of chemistry. They do something no other molecule is capable of doing. They behave. They move, adjust, act, react, turn, flip, grab, hold, hook, spin, open, close, etc. Every blob in this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jtmOZaIvS0" target="_blank">video</a>, showing the process of DNA replication, is a protein. It is impossible to watch and not think of them as well rehearsed; coordinating their behavior to achieve a task --as if they were alive. These proteins are performing just a single dance in the larger performance that makes your cells come alive. DNA replication is a universal process; every cell in every organism performs this activity whenever it divides, and the proteins that orchestrate it do so for all life, since day one (or very nearly so).</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Just how do proteins perform these incredible feats? Their trick is in their shape. Proteins are build as strings of amino acids and after they are made, then fold and twist into 3D shapes, looking a little like a tangled extension cord. From their shape emerges their function, their behavior. Protein strings can fold into an infinite number of shapes. Most have no interesting biological function (at least, for life here on this planet), but some do. Their shapes are the result of the interactions of the different amino acids and their position in the chain. Change the sequence and you change the shape. Since the proteins of Earthly life uses 20 different amino acids, there are more possible sequences, and therefore shapes and functions, than there are total number of atoms in the Universe! DNA replication only uses about a dozen.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">As remarkable are proteins are, surely there must be another way to build molecules of sufficient complexity and variability get life going. Is there any reason to suspect that all life, everywhere, would use the same building blocks?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">The ubiquity of the building blocks themselves is compellingly suggestive of the likely use of proteins in life throughout the Universe. Amino acids are everywhere. If life needs molecules like proteins, why not simply use proteins. The probability of another prebiotic system stumbling upon a novel chemistry to substitute the molecular complexity of proteins, while simultaneously missing the available building blocks to make proteins, must be incalculably low. Prebiotic chemistry is simple chemistry. The first “living” chemical pathways would have appropriated the material that was on hand, or could be easily synthesized. In a Universe filled with amino acid precursors, it is highly unlikely that anything else would have won. Life everywhere must have co-opted what was available.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Encoding protein information to ensure persistence across generations while simultaneously allowing for variations in amino acid sequences for selection to take hold, requires a molecule that works like DNA works. This line of reasoning is entirely anthropocentric (or should it be DNApocentric?), but considering that, like amino acids, nucleic acids are everywhere, the arguments for their incorporation into the machinery of life are equivalent as for proteins. In this case some flexibility is allowed. We know, for example, that proteins can perform double duty, encoding their own sequences or directing their own replication. We also know that nucleic acids can catalyze their own replication without the need for proteins to orchestrate it. Either way, these molecules work alone or in concert, but they are the ones that work. There is nothing else available.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Once you establish the common chemistry of life throughout the Universe, the next steps are to establish the common characteristics that chemistry produces and to then establish the range at which those characteristics can exist and persist. This is the <i>where </i>and <i>what </i>to look for.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">-End of part 3 (<a href="http://thebioguy.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-sample-size-of-one-and-search-for-life.html" target="_blank">part 4</a>)</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">1 </span></span><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 17.265625px;">Darwin, Charles (1859), </span><i><a href="http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1" target="_blank">On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life</a></i><span 12px="" 17.265625px="" font-size:="" line-height:="" sans-serif=""> (</span><span style="color: #663366; font-family: sans-serif;"><span 100="" 12px="" 17.265625px="" 18px="" 50="" background-position:="" background-repeat:="" commons="" cons-mini-file_acrobat.gif="" font-size:="" http:="" line-height:="" no-repeat="" padding-right:="" upload.wikimedia.org="" url="" wikipedia=""><a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/nytint/docs/charles-darwin-on-the-origin-of-species/original.pdf" target="_blank">Full image view</a></span></span><span 12px="" 17.265625px="" font-family:="" font-size:="" line-height:="" sans-serif=""><a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/nytint/docs/charles-darwin-on-the-origin-of-species/original.pdf" target="_blank"> </a>1st ed.), London: John Murray, pp. 502</span><span 12px="" 17.265625px="" class="reference-accessdate" font-size:="" line-height:="" sans-serif="">, retrieved 2013-03-04</span></div>
theBIOguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04733992363383514915noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34560063.post-4175212216793164692013-03-01T05:35:00.001-08:002013-05-01T07:18:32.759-07:00A Sample Size Of One and The Search For Life (part 2)<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh92SDNlocmdlYdVcWXmqTkwatQjEmvWH4jS1SnhwtNP7CxNtQI55od_jzvMigoh4nEdL97hB2WfetikS6p5GcdqTGrI0c9-Iizbcgd2qorzPKEvjQfatbgaL-4bO_iccgQHsZSUg/s1600/exoplanetpic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh92SDNlocmdlYdVcWXmqTkwatQjEmvWH4jS1SnhwtNP7CxNtQI55od_jzvMigoh4nEdL97hB2WfetikS6p5GcdqTGrI0c9-Iizbcgd2qorzPKEvjQfatbgaL-4bO_iccgQHsZSUg/s320/exoplanetpic.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">“The study of a single instance of extraterrestrial life, no matter how humble, will deprovincialize biology. For the first time, the biologists will know what other kinds of life are possible.” When Carl Sagan spoke these words over 30 years ago, he was arguing for caution against our human tendencies to over-emphasize our own significance. He wanted to allow for the possibility of life forms, however different from us to inhabit worlds equally as unimaginable. However, he was not advocating for a “no-holds-barred” free-for-all of ideas. Sagan was very much a rationalist and understood the limits of chemistry and physics. He knew that any instance of life, anywhere, would have to play by the rules. And he knew, very well, what those rules are. He was, as he put it, a carbon chauvinist and a water chauvinist when it came to musings on alien life. (He was also very much a nucleic acid and amino acid chauvinist, although less vocally so.) But how could he know? How could any of us really know what another example of life might be like? We only know of one example of life. Aren’t we hopelessly biased? Isn’t every speculation, by our very circumstance, provincial?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">As it turns out, we can know quite a lot from our limited sampling. “Follow the water” is a grade school prerequisite, but it speaks volumes to our present understanding and expectations for life on other worlds. It says that we fully expect life to be chemically based, as it is here. Atoms and molecules need to collide into each other to react, and those collision take place best in water. Water is a good solvent for organic molecules and is liquid over a wide range of temperatures. Plus, water is everywhere. All of our water is extraterrestrial in origin. There is water on the moon and Mars, and in the atmospheres of the gas giants, the moons of Jupiter, and even on our Sun’s closest planet, Mercury. It’s everywhere. Throughout the Universe, the watery stage is easily set for life to make its appearance. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Water is only the beginning. An examination of life reveals a remarkable pattern; one that reverberates throughout the Universe. The living machinery of life, the chemistry, is composed of a relatively small number of simple compounds. The tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of unique proteins and many millions (maybe infinite) versions of DNA, belies the simplicity of their construction. Just a few dozen monomers comprise virtually all of the chemical parts of cells. These building blocks include the 20 or so amino acids used to build all proteins, the 5 nucleotides found in all nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), and some odd and ends in the form of sugars and lipids. Notice the qualifier “all” in the previous sentence. There are no exceptions. The rich diversity of living things, past and present (and future), is the result of the near infinite ways in which these building block can be put together. Individually, these monomers are quite boring, but collectively the polymers they form can make everything from butterfly scales, to pollen grains, to tooth enamel. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Perhaps most amazingly is the fact that these few dozen monomers are not unique to Earth. They, like water, are found throughout the Universe. Life is built from these monomers because (but not solely “because”) these monomers are <a href="http://www.space.com/1686-life-building-blocks-abundant-space.html" target="_blank">everywhere we look</a>. From the tails of comets, to the pools of dark between the Stars, the Universe is littered with the stuff of life.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">We can interpret the close match between the chemistry of life and the chemistry of the Universe as extreme coincidence. Or we can propose a simpler alternative --as direct cause and effect; as the inevitable outcome of a Universe primed for life. But, to do so requires more evidence.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">-End of part 2 (<a href="http://thebioguy.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-sample-size-of-one-and-search-for_4.html" target="_blank">part 3</a>)</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Copyright 2013 <a href="http://www.thebioguy.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">theBIOguy</a></span></div>
<br />theBIOguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04733992363383514915noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34560063.post-4892870654589617012013-02-28T05:21:00.000-08:002013-05-01T07:16:03.520-07:00A Sample Size Of One and The Search For Life (part 1)<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHLDeSrTx5MAcrqmjlvGQ7YHwVpI-5L7PYJOiblmd4GS-5sSkLNQV5CfDa1FISdCKPfFh2GB5RHuoohfV8eYUwXSNXkr-6VYyb92n9AYvjiJTSM1JzFn48iQDbHGJGEH_0PI6E_Q/s1600/salt-shaker-pouring-400x400.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHLDeSrTx5MAcrqmjlvGQ7YHwVpI-5L7PYJOiblmd4GS-5sSkLNQV5CfDa1FISdCKPfFh2GB5RHuoohfV8eYUwXSNXkr-6VYyb92n9AYvjiJTSM1JzFn48iQDbHGJGEH_0PI6E_Q/s200/salt-shaker-pouring-400x400.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We can never know <i>everything</i>
about <i>anything</i>. No matter how narrow
our focus or determined our effort, there will always remain unknowns. Our
information is never complete; the gaps in our knowledge stubbornly persist. It
is this fact that drives us to conduct experiments; to ask questions of the
Universe and compare the answers with our best predictions, to see how close we
are for now. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But the Universe is vast, and our reach comparatively minute.
How do we know if we have asked the right question? Or gathered enough data?
How do we know when we have observed a sufficient number of meteors, for
example, before we can say <i>anything</i>
about them, with confidence? Perhaps all of our observations on meteors are
peculiar to this remote location of our solar system, or local group, or galaxy.
How do we quantify our confidence? How can we ever know for sure?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What if we only had <i>one</i>
example of a thing? Found just <i>one</i>
meteor, or experienced just <i>one</i> hurricane?
What can we learn from a sample size of one? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Before we answer we need to consider exactly what it is we
are trying to learn, and the nature of the thing to be sampled. For example, if
we are trying to learn the best time to pick and eat a newly discovered fruit,
a sample size of one is inadequate. Even if our fruit tasted good (or bad), we
wouldn’t know if it’s flavor improves or worsens given more time. The inherent
variation in fruit flavor, ripening time, etc., makes it impossible to
determine the optimum time to pick from a sample of just one. Now consider
trying to determine if our soup is properly salted. We only need a single taste
to find out. Why? The principle of diffusion, and the properties of dissolved salt,
guarantees that every sample will have nearly the same amount, so a sample size
of one is all we need.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Considerations like these are not trivial, they are
essential when we consider bigger questions such as “What will life on other worlds
be like?” Science fiction has offered up numerous hypothetical life forms
spanning a range from bipedal, bilaterally symmetrical, hominids (complete with
two eyes, a single nose, a mouth and ear, and all in the right place) to life as
a formless, boundless “pure energy” capable of traveling back and forth through
time. Given this apparent “the-sky’s-the-limit” attitude, how can we know what
we are looking for? Couldn’t life easily escape our notice? If not for their
clever camouflage but for our own inadequate means of detection? Couldn’t a
time-traveling organism of pure energy be sitting right behind me, looking over
my shoulder as I type these words, and go unnoticed? Doesn’t our sample size of
one (one planet, one life<sup>1</sup>) <i>fundamentally</i>
handicap our attempts at finding life elsewhere in the Cosmos? How do we build
a “life-detector” if we don’t know what we are looking for?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You may be surprised to learn that we do have an idea of
what to look for, as well as when and where. Our “life-detector” is fined tuned
to look for life within very narrowly defined limits. And it’s not likely to
miss the invisible, time-travelling, pure energy aliens, because there aren’t
any.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p><br /></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p>-End of part 1 (<a href="http://thebioguy.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-sample-size-of-one-and-search-for.html" target="_blank">Part 2</a>)</o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p><br /></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><sup>1</sup>One look at the diversity of life on this planet
gives the false impression that we are surrounded with millions of samples of
life. We are not. All living things, past and present, are modifications on a
single theme of life. The essential living machinery –the hardware, appeared
only one. But the software of the genetic code has been repeatedly modified.
Just as there can be many different types of guitars, each playing many
different tunes, there is only one type of instrument called “guitar”. If we
wish to enumerate the instances of “life” on this planet, the total is just
one.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: #333333; color: #cccccc; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">Copyright 2013 by <a href="http://thebioguy.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">theBIOguy</a></span></div>
theBIOguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04733992363383514915noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34560063.post-31615163918701539042012-06-15T06:18:00.000-07:002012-11-15T17:36:22.754-08:00Our Humanity<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyvmrQHPBk2aDKyh6OiUIBoERA01DSofvcQQKmKh64-TpDJbE4DgbUGqJZBIr7KkCPuODbulkrrMiOV1-SKWIeldNdUVNUyCJAJwcMJGcOW5K4jKMd67vmkNSFy7J84hhtcxggqw/s1600/220px-GuaTewet_tree_of_life-LHFage.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyvmrQHPBk2aDKyh6OiUIBoERA01DSofvcQQKmKh64-TpDJbE4DgbUGqJZBIr7KkCPuODbulkrrMiOV1-SKWIeldNdUVNUyCJAJwcMJGcOW5K4jKMd67vmkNSFy7J84hhtcxggqw/s1600/220px-GuaTewet_tree_of_life-LHFage.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The last 150 years have not been a good for <i>Homo sapiens</i>. We
are a proud (if insecure) bunch. We relish in highlighting distinctions that separate
us from the rest of the animal kingdom. We are especially sensitive to features
that we believe distinguish us from closely related primates, both extant and
extinct. When the first hominid fossils were discovered in the mid 1800’s, they
revealed an organism with a brain the same size, or bigger, than ours. These fossils
(later identified as Neanderthals) were first thought to be us; to be human. What
else could we think? Our large brains clearly distinguish us from the great
apes. Our brains were responsible for those uniquely human qualities such as
language or art. It was the seat of our intellect, our morality. It made us
human. So, that first hominid fossil had to be a human, albeit slightly
deformed with a protruding face and large brow.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Over the last 150 years we’ve come to discover a lot about
our origins, and even more about Neanderthals. And, our discoveries have
systematically knocked down each and every feature and characteristic we
cherished as uniquely human. Neanderthals actually had larger brains, used
language, wore clothes, manufactured and used complex tools, controlled fire,
coordinated and hunted in groups, built shelters, and ritually buried their
dead. But they are not us. They are not <i>Homo sapiens</i>. They are not even our
ancestors. We did not come from Neanderthals.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This was a relief for some; a problem for many. How could a
non-human hominid embody so many human characteristics? How could anything,
other than human, speak to each other, plan for the future, live in complex
social hierarchies, and hope for an afterlife? There had to be something that
was all ours. There had to be something that clearly distinguished our
humanity. We thought there was.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Neanderthals never made art. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></o:p></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Cave art was uniquely ours. Every drop of pigment ever
applied to a wall was done by a <i>Homo sapien</i>. Art spoke directly to our humanity
because it demonstrated abstract thought. The representation of real world
objects on a flat 2 dimensional surface could only be done by organisms that
understood symbolism. It took time, patience, planning, preparation and, most importantly,
a vision. You had to see inside your own mind and recreate what you saw. And
the recreation had to be good enough so others understood what you saw. Other
humans could look inside your mind and see what you see. Perhaps art is the
first evidence of empathy. No matter what, the mind that painted the first cave
painting was a human mind. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The problem is, Neanderthals painted too.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6087/1409" target="_blank">Recent evidence</a> suggests that we might not be the only
artists to ever walk the earth. Evolution by natural selection may have
resulted in the origin of another type of hominid species that also painted. If
true, that last bastion of humanity must too fall. We were not the only hominid
to imagine a world different from our present. Others could also fantasize,
dream, hypothesize and wonder. Our humanity is not uniquely ours. It may have been
present in another, different hominid, that happened to live along side us. You
see, <i>Homo sapiens</i> and Neanderthals coexisted. We lived side by side for about
20,000 years.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, what happened to our brothers, the Neanderthals? The leading
hypotheses regarding their fate fall into three categories. Since Neanderthals
were adapted to ice age conditions, some argue that they went extinct as the
last ice age rapidly receded. Others argue, based on DNA evidence, that they
may interbred with some local populations of humans and disappeared through
hybridization. There is one more hypothesis; one that may finally speak to a
last remaining vestige of our unique status among hominids. Neanderthals may
have been victims of genocide; we may have <a href="http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/war/diamond-vengeance.pdf" target="_blank">exterminated them</a>. Maybe this
feature, more than any other, is the true mark of our humanity.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It would make for an interesting work of art.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Copyright 2012 by theBIOguy</span></div>
theBIOguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04733992363383514915noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34560063.post-89808712492704503342012-05-10T09:39:00.002-07:002012-05-11T04:31:49.604-07:00Hero Dog<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlcPEbrL9NvqpJhsBhmM25DNAIWxCSzFSN75lcx5Zts3XKe0XNCB9DDvR-fO1vA4uzDCr57mZQm0QkR_Olf0DIhtNXIPySra90YRqMMMZ4wLxlgACMifvZmWrKyQFoGEFmKJjscQ/s1600/Vicious-dog-attack.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="208" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlcPEbrL9NvqpJhsBhmM25DNAIWxCSzFSN75lcx5Zts3XKe0XNCB9DDvR-fO1vA4uzDCr57mZQm0QkR_Olf0DIhtNXIPySra90YRqMMMZ4wLxlgACMifvZmWrKyQFoGEFmKJjscQ/s320/Vicious-dog-attack.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
When I was 12 years old, my parents got me a pet snake. I
use to pick it up and let it snake over my arms and hands. It didn’t take long
to recognize that it had a preference for my neck and would often stop moving
and remain coiled there. It also didn’t take long for me to explain that
behavior by anthropomorphosis. The snake was coiled, motionless around my neck
as a sign of affection. It had grown comfortable with me, in a trusting
sort-of-way, and found a place to snuggle. We were friends.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
At 12, this explanation was the best I could come up with.
Now I understand the better explanation is that my neck is warm and snakes move
towards warmth.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, what are we to make of <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/hero-dog-risks-life-to-pu_n_1502887.html" target="_blank">a dog that apparently sacrifices itsown safety, maybe its own life, to save the life of its owner</a>? Well, we could
say just that, it was a “sacrifice”, and bring into the dog's world the notion of the
lesser value of its life relative to the greater value of its owners. We can
call the dog a “hero”, a title given to few humans (in fact, we are so guarded
against use of the word “hero” for humans that we have created an entirely new
category of “true hero” just for clarity).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But, is the dog a hero? Did it sacrifice? Dose it understand
the concepts of force and momentum to perceive the train as a threat? Does it understand
the human condition of “loss of consciousness” to realize that its owner wasn’t
going to move on her own? Probably not. So, how do we explain such behavior? By
remembering that dogs are predators and scavengers. After a kill or a find,
many predator/scavengers will drag the kill to a safe location before eating; a
“drag away” behavior. This is done to minimize the chance of losing your
hard-earned kill to another predator/scavenger. It’s a behavior molded over millennia
of natural selection; If you ate in the open, you were more likely to fight to
keep your kill, if you dragged it away, you got more to eat. The “drag away”
predator/scavengers left behind lots of “drag away” offspring, from which dogs
are descended.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Lilly was probably exhibiting a simple behavior pattern,
similar to the patterns that make them chase and return a stick, tug on a rope,
or burry a bone. Lilly probably thought her lifeless owner was food, and was
simply trying to drag her away, to eat in relative safety, but was too slow.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, cheers to you Lilly, for exhibiting typical
predator/scavenger behavior. You are a role model for dogs everywhere and a worthy
ambassador of your rich and long ancestry. Oh, and thanks for trying to drag
that hunk of food to a safer eating place. Good dog.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Copyright 2012 theBIOguy</div>theBIOguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04733992363383514915noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34560063.post-18988369657907675952012-04-24T10:47:00.004-07:002012-04-24T11:03:05.210-07:00Why We Need To Understand Science<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 17px;">Copyright ©1989 by Carl Sagan</span>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As I got off the plane, he was waiting for me, holding up a
sign with my name on it. I was on my way to a conference of scientists and
television broadcasters, and the organizers had kindly sent a driver.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCic21b3qd1O3YkNMi8nqRweydtsoj7NAL_LUU4IdN8AO4x9Qx34QajofsZvrMvfB3Z8YYLzxdCgxZTictoaj1zp4qPuhPA1U774byB6uJ5GbdE883POMY7Cl1HriBU3M-JBV1Yw/s1600/standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCic21b3qd1O3YkNMi8nqRweydtsoj7NAL_LUU4IdN8AO4x9Qx34QajofsZvrMvfB3Z8YYLzxdCgxZTictoaj1zp4qPuhPA1U774byB6uJ5GbdE883POMY7Cl1HriBU3M-JBV1Yw/s200/standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants.jpg" width="133" /></a></div>
“Do you mind if I ask you a question?” he said as we waited
for my bag. “Isn’t it confusing to have the same name as that science guy?” It
took me a moment to understand. Was he pulling my leg? “I am that
science guy,” I said. He smiled. “Sorry. That’s my problem. I thought it was
yours too.” He put out his hand. “My name is William F. Buckley.” (Well, his
name wasn’t exactly William F. Buckley, but he did have the name of a
contentious television interviewer, for which he doubtless took a lot of
good-natured ribbing.)<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As we settled into the car for the long drive, he told me he
was glad I was “that science guy”—he had so many questions to ask about
science. Would I mind? And so we got to talking. But not about science. He
wanted to discuss UFOs, “channeling” (a way to hear what’s on the minds of dead
people—not much it turns out), crystals, astrology. . . . He introduced each
subject with real enthusiasm, and each time I had to disappoint him: “The
evidence is crummy,” I kept saying. “There’s a much simpler explanation.” As we
drove on through the rain, I could see him getting glummer. I was attacking not
just pseudoscience but also a facet of his inner life.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And yet there is so much in real science that’s equally
exciting, more mysterious, a greater intellectual challenge—as well as being a
lot closer to the truth. <br />
<a name='more'></a>Did he know about the molecular building blocks of
life sitting out there in the cold, tenuous gas between the stars? Had he heard
of the footprints of our ancestors found in four-million-year-old volcanic ash?
What about the raising of the Himalayas when India went crashing into Asia? Or
how viruses subvert cells, or the radio search for extraterrestrial
intelligence, or the ancient civilization of Ebla? Mr. “Buckley”—well-spoken,
intelligent, curious—had heard virtually nothing of modern science. He wanted to
know about science. It’s just that all the science got filtered out before it
reached him. What society permitted to trickle through was mainly pretense and
confusion. And it had never taught him how to distinguish real science from the
cheap imitation.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All over America there are smart, even gifted, people who
have a built-in passion for science. But that passion is unrequited. A recent
survey suggests that 94 percent of Americans are “scientifically illiterate.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>A Prescription for Disaster</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and
technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.
This is a clear prescription for disaster. It’s dangerous and stupid for us to
remain ignorant about global warming, say, or ozone depletion, toxic and
radioactive wastes, acid rain. Jobs and wages depend on science and technology.
If the United States can’t manufacture, at high quality and low price, products
people want to buy, then industries will drift out of the United States and
transfer a little prosperity to another part of the world. Because of the low
birthrate in the sixties and seventies, the National Science Foundation
projects a shortage of nearly a million professional scientists and engineers
by 2010. Where will they come from? What about fusion, supercomputers,
abortion, massive reductions in strategic weapons, addiction, high-resolution
television, airline and airport safety, food additives, animal rights,
superconductivity, Midgetman vs. rail-garrison MX missiles, going to Mars,
finding cures for AIDS and cancer? How can we decide national policy if we
don’t understand the underlying issues?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I know that science and technology are not just cornucopias
pouring good deeds out into the world. Scientists not only conceived nuclear
weapons; they also took political leaders by the lapels, arguing that their nation—whichever
it happened to be—had to have one first. Then they arranged to manufacture
60,000 of them. Our technology has produced thalidomide, CFCs, Agent Orange,
nerve gas, and industries so powerful they can ruin the climate of the planet.
There’s a reason people are nervous about science and technology.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And so the image of the mad scientist haunts our world—from
Dr. Faust to Dr. Frankenstein to Dr. Strangelove to the white-coated loonies of
Saturday morning children’s television. (All this doesn’t inspire budding
scientists.) But there’s no way back. We can’t just conclude that science puts
too much power into the hands of morally feeble technologists or corrupt,
power-crazed politicians and decide to get rid of it. Advances in medicine and
agriculture have saved more lives than have been lost in all the wars in
history. Advances in transportation, communication, and entertainment have
transformed the world. The sword of science is double-edged. Rather, its
awesome power forces on all of us, including politicians, a new
responsibility—more attention to the long-term consequences of technology, a
global and transgenerational perspective, an incentive to avoid easy appeals to
nationalism and chauvinism. Mistakes are becoming too expensive.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Science is much more than a body of knowledge. It is a way
of thinking. This is central to its success. Science invites us to let the
facts in, even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions. It counsels us to
carry alternative hypotheses in our heads and see which ones best match the
facts. It urges on us a fine balance between no-holds-barred openness to new
ideas, however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of
everything—new ideas and established wisdom. We need wide
appreciation of this kind of thinking. It works. It’s an essential tool for a
democracy in an age of change. Our task is not just to train more scientists
but also to deepen public understanding of science.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>How Bad Is It? Very Bad</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
“It’s Official,” reads one newspaper headline. “We Stink in
Science.” Less than half of all Americans know that the earth moves around the
sun and takes a year to do it—a fact established a few centuries ago. In tests
of average 17-year-olds in many world regions, the United States ranked dead
last in algebra. On identical tests, the U.S. kids averaged 43 percent and
their Japanese counterparts 78 percent. In my book 78 percent is pretty
good—it corresponds to a C+, or maybe even a B-; 43 percent is an F. In a
chemistry test, students in only two of thirteen nations did worse than the
United States. Compared to us, Britain, Singapore, and Hong Kong were so high
they were almost off-scale, and 25 percent of Canadian 18-year-olds knew just
as much chemistry as a select 1 percent of American high school seniors (in
their secondary chemistry course, and most of them in “advanced” programs). The
best of 20 fifth-grade classrooms in Minneapolis was outpaced by every one of
20 classrooms in Sendai, Japan, and 19 out of 20 in Taipei, Taiwan. South
Korean students were far ahead of American students in all aspects of
mathematics and science, and 13-year-olds in British Columbia (in western Canada)
outpaced their U.S. counterparts across the board (in some areas they did
better than the Koreans). Of the U.S. kids, 22 percent say they dislike school;
only 8 percent of the Koreans do. Yet two-thirds of the Americans, but only a
quarter of the Koreans, say they are “good at mathematics.”<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Why We’re Flunking</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How do British Columbia, Japan, Britain, and Korea manage so
much better than we do?<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
During the Great Depression, teachers enjoyed job security,
good salaries, respectability. Teaching was an admired profession, partly
because learning was widely recognized as the road out of poverty. Little of
that is true today. And so science (and other) teaching is too often
incompetently or uninspiringly done, its practitioners, astonishingly, having
little or no training in their subjects—sometimes themselves unable to
distinguish science from pseudoscience. Those who do have the training often
get higher-paying jobs elsewhere.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We need more money for teachers’ training and salaries, and
for laboratories—so kids will get hands-on experience rather than just reading
what’s in the book. But all across America, school-bond issues on the ballot
are regularly defeated. U.S. parents are much more satisfied with what their
children are learning in science and math than are, say, Japanese and Taiwanese
parents—whose children are doing so much better. No one suggests that property
taxes be used to provide for the also limit the amount of mind-numbing
television their children watch.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>What We Can Do</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Those in America with the most favorable view of science
tend to be young, well-to-do, college-educated white males. But three-quarters
of new American workers between now and 2001 will be women, nonwhites, and
immigrants. Discriminating against them isn’t only unjust, it’s also self-defeating.
It deprives the American economy of desperately needed skilled workers.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Black and Hispanic students are doing better in standardized
science tests now than in the late 1960s, but they’re the only ones who are.
The average math gap between white and black U.S. high school graduates is
still huge—two to three grade levels; but the gap between white U.S. high
school graduates and those in, say, Japan, Canada, Great Britain, or Finland is
more than twice as big. If you’re poorly motivated and poorly
educated, you won’t know much—no mystery here. Suburban blacks with
college-educated parents do just as well in college as suburban whites with
college-educated parents. Enrolling a poor child in a Head Start program
doubles his or her chances to be employed later in life; one who completes an
Upward Bound program is four times as likely to get a college education. If
we’re serious, we know what to do.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What about college and university? There are obvious steps
similar to what should be done in high schools: salaries for teachers that
approach what they could get in industry; more scholarships, fellowships, and
laboratory equipment; laboratory science courses required of everyone to
graduate; and special attention paid to those traditionally steered away from
science. We should also provide the financial and moral encouragement for
academic scientists to spend more time on public education—lectures, newspaper
and magazine articles, television appearances. This requires scientists to make
themselves understandable and fun to listen to. To me, it seems strange that
some scientists, who depend on public funding for their research, are reluctant
to explain to the public what it is that they do. Fortunately, the number of
scientists willing to speak to the public—and capably—has been increasing each
year. But there are not yet nearly enough.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Virtually every newspaper in America has a daily astrology
column. How many have a daily science column? When I was growing up, my father
would bring home a daily paper and consume (often with great gusto) the
baseball box scores. There they were, to me as dry as dust, with obscure
abbreviations (W, SS, SO, WL, AB, RBI), but they spoke to him. Newspapers
everywhere printed them. I figured maybe they weren’t too hard for me. Eventually
I got caught up in the world of baseball statistics. (I know it helped me in
learning decimals.)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Or take a look at the financial pages. Any introductory
material? Explanatory footnotes? Definitions of abbreviations? Often there’s
none. It’s sink or swim. Look at those acres of statistics! Yet people
voluntarily read the stuff. It’s not beyond their ability. It’s only a matter
of motivation. Why can’t we do the same with math, science, and technology?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
By far the most effective means of raising interest in
science is television. There’s lots of pseudoscience on television, a fair
amount of medicine and technology, but hardly any science—especially on the
three big commercial networks, whose executives think science programming means
rating declines and lost profits, and nothing else matters. Why in all America
is there no television drama that has as its hero someone devoted to figuring
out how the universe works?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Stirring projects in science and technology attract and
inspire youngsters. The number of science Ph.D.’s peaked around the time of the
Apollo program and declined thereafter. This is an important potential
side-effect of such projects as sending humans to Mars, the Superconducting
Supercollider to explore the fine structure of matter, and the program to map
all human genes.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Every now and then, I’m lucky enough to teach a class in
kindergarten or the first grade. Many of these children are curious,
intellectually vigorous, ask provocative and insightful questions, and exhibit
great enthusiasm for science. When I talk to high school students, I find
something different. They memorize “facts.” But, by and large, the joy of
discovery, the life behind those facts, has gone out of them. They’re worried
about asking “dumb” questions; they’re willing to accept inadequate answers;
they don’t pose follow-up questions; the room is awash with sidelong glances to
judge, second by second, the approval of their peers. Something has happened
between first and twelfth grade, and it’s not just puberty. I’d guess that it’s
partly peer pressure not to excel (except in sports); partly that
society teaches short-term gratification; partly the impression that science or
math won’t buy you a sports car; partly that so little is expected of students;
and partly that there are so few role models for intelligent discussion of
science and technology or for learning for its own sake.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But there’s something else: Many adults are put off when
youngsters pose scientific questions. Children ask why the sun is yellow, or
what a dream is, or how deep you can dig a hole, or when is the world’s
birthday, or why we have toes. Too many teachers and parents answer with
irritation or ridicule, or quickly move on to something else. Why adults should
pretend to omniscience before a five-year-old, I can’t for the life of me
understand. What’s wrong with admitting that you don’t know? Children soon
recognize that somehow this kind of question annoys many adults. A few more
experiences like this, and another child has been lost to science.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are many better responses. If we have an idea of the
answer, we could try to explain. If we don’t, we could go to the encyclopedia
or the library. Or we might say to the child: “I don’t know the answer. Maybe
no one knows. Maybe when you grow up, you’ll be the first to find out.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But mere encouragement isn’t enough. We must also give the
children the tools to winnow the wheat from the chaff. I’m haunted by the
vision of a generation of Americans unable to distinguish reality from fantasy,
hopefully clutching their crystals for comfort, unequipped even to frame the
right questions or to recognize the answers. I want us to rescue Mr. “Buckley”
and the millions like him. I also want us to stop turning out leaden,
incurious, unimaginative high school seniors. I think America needs, and
deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how
the world works.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Public understanding of science is more central to our
national security than half a dozen strategic weapons systems. The sub-mediocre
performance of American youngsters in science and math, and the widespread
adult ignorance and apathy about science and math, should sound an urgent
alarm.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 17px;">Copyright ©1989 by Carl Sagan</span>theBIOguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04733992363383514915noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34560063.post-53137027514474229712012-04-16T07:10:00.001-07:002013-06-07T09:06:16.743-07:00Inconceivalbe<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQWdLrDr6Mxgc0MGOrfjl2Tghz3wgSAooU1F4Hil8PHRUnZl7gDQ11npxtcnJTSBXNWuB6R4l8FYOBW5kJZbomWkKzHczjGg1qS0YOeFnq943QjrBOdiaMZEq0okTvTDOlTT0qMA/s1600/vizzini.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQWdLrDr6Mxgc0MGOrfjl2Tghz3wgSAooU1F4Hil8PHRUnZl7gDQ11npxtcnJTSBXNWuB6R4l8FYOBW5kJZbomWkKzHczjGg1qS0YOeFnq943QjrBOdiaMZEq0okTvTDOlTT0qMA/s1600/vizzini.jpg" /></a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Impossible is a word that comes up a lot in my class,
especially during discussions of physical or chemical properties. For example,
electrons are often described as occupying a region (called an orbital) around
an atom’s nucleus. However, these orbitals are only representations of the
space where the electrons <i>probably</i>
are. (Sort of like saying your child is <i>probably</i>
at the mall; you can’t say exactly where, but you are pretty sure of the
boundaries where they could be.) But that is not the true behavior of an
electron. Electrons (like kids) don’t have to be in their orbital at all. They
can be anywhere. It’s just very unlikely that they will be. In fact, it’s very,
very, very, very, very, very, unlikely that they will be anywhere else other
than their orbital, but it's not <i>impossible</i>.
We say, there is a non-zero probability of finding the electron anywhere in the
Universe.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The same rules apply to you. Since you are made of
particles, and all your particles have a non-zero probability of being anywhere
in the Universe, it is possible that you could instantly wind up on the other
side of the Earth. For this to happen, all of your particles would have to
simultaneously cash in their non-zero probabilities of being anywhere <i>and</i> simultaneously cash in their other
non-zero probabilities for a new location. Unlikely, but technically not
impossible.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">When I mention this to my class, I am usually met with a
healthy skepticism and general agreement that this will <i>never</i> happen. But there is always one student that insists on
grabbing hold of the notion that it <i>could</i>
happen. This is a seminal moment for those students. They are presented with a
clear choice to either allow the meaning of words to be plastic; subtlety affected
by the nuanced context in which they are used, or adhere to rigid definitions, unaltered
by context. Impossible either is or it is not. It is not subject
to interpretation. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I get it. But what does it mean to say that something is
technically possible when it is practically <i>im</i>possible? Context matters. And in
areas of extreme improbability, it matters most. It places reasonable limits in
our pursuit of knowledge. We use the notion of technically possible but
practically impossible to determine the cutoff for cause and effect. Did that new
treatment really cure the disease or was it a fluke? What if I get the same
result twice? Five times? What if the fluke only occurs 1 time in 20? In 100?
Those individuals with the ability to shade meaning with context will thrive,
while those that adhere to strictness will not. They will become curmudgeons,
decrying every outcome as un-interpretable because there was a non-zero
probability of another interpretation.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">But isn’t this how science is supposed to work? Aren’t we
lauded for pursuing new knowledge in the most unlikely of places, and
criticized for snap judgments? Aren’t we supposed to be skeptical, ask for
evidence, check and recheck, over and over again? Aren’t we expected to never
say “never”?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The answer is a qualified “yes”. Scientific discourse does
allow for the free pursuit of all ideas. It does allow for the open scrutiny of
everyone by anyone. However, it does not allow for unfettered argument. There
are rules of engagement. Contradictory points of view must build on current
knowledge and be evidentiary. Alternative hypotheses must be able to withstand
the glare of inquiry. The status of the author is irrelevant to the validity of
the idea. It must stand alone. And not every idea will be permitted to
participate in the scientific discussion. The ideas <i>themselves</i> must play by the rules. There are some that simply run afoul
of expectation. They are not acceptable, dismissed outright, given no benefit
of the doubt. Why? Because they are impossible. You are not allowed to claim
you have created a perpetual motion machine or that you can travel faster than
light. These (and others) are not permitted in our Universe. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington" target="_blank">Arthur Eddington</a>
captured the limits to scientific acceptability in 1928 when he wrote, "But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of
Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse
in deepest humiliation.”</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">But what about ideas that are technically
possible, however unlikely they may be? For example, what are we to do with a
claim that another planet may harbor a civilization composed entirely of
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/advanced-dinosaurs-alien-chemistry_n_1421414.html" target="_blank">sentient Dinosaurs</a>? </span>Are these ideas allowed to get in queue alongside others? Do we, in the interest
of open-mindedness, commit any effort do disproving the hypothesis?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">No. Ideas of extreme improbability break the rules. They are
a distraction, unworthy of our attention. They are dismissed outright, on their
own merits, for the simple reason that they are practically impossible. The
probability of a Dino world is near zero, because the solution set of all possible
organisms is near infinite, but there is only one organism that is a Dino. And
that’s just here! The fact that this planet had dinosaurs is happenstance and irrelevant
to the possibility of a Dino planet somewhere else. In much the same way that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams" target="_blank">DouglasAdam</a>’s sentient puddle wakes up to find itself in a hole that fits itself
staggeringly well, we are biased towards making the impossible possible due to reflection
upon our present circumstance. “We had Dinos, so there must be a Dino planet
somewhere. It’s not <i>impossible</i>,
right?”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">This line of reasoning is related to the notion that if
something can be imagined, it must exist in reality. Its origins date back to
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury" target="_blank">St. Anselm</a>’s philosophical argument for the existence of that which can be
imagined to exist. <a href="http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/god_ontological.html" target="_blank">This argument was disproved</a> almost as quickly as it was
proposed, but remains latent in the population, only to recur during arguments
of the impossible. “We can imagine a Dino planet, so it must be real. “ But,
this philosophical fallacy notwithstanding, extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. And claims so extraordinary that they are practically impossible would
require evidence equally impossible to obtain. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">There is a non-zero probability of a Dino planet, somewhere.
But since we already had a Dino planet, right here, I would check that one off
the list. It’s not going to happen twice.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Copyright 2012 theBIOguy</span></div>
theBIOguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04733992363383514915noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34560063.post-17338930732013808382012-03-02T09:10:00.000-08:002012-05-10T09:03:19.291-07:00Living in fear, of everything<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5OfbdSVwC67ZaHOy_MnJwb9pAWmYPodtu3iT95_l45RnFNItfi1mZRWHixbvkAUtlsF4B0_WIKIBEjJf1CXkZstHr8dRJYOwFNNiSvCznOqUP63We1nVNYt03VFmHV41Igm-htg/s1600/71156_237889471668_2484778_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5OfbdSVwC67ZaHOy_MnJwb9pAWmYPodtu3iT95_l45RnFNItfi1mZRWHixbvkAUtlsF4B0_WIKIBEjJf1CXkZstHr8dRJYOwFNNiSvCznOqUP63We1nVNYt03VFmHV41Igm-htg/s1600/71156_237889471668_2484778_n.jpg" /></a></div>
Lisa Belkin (<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-belkin/one-more-terrifying-thing_b_1311765.html" target="_blank">One More Terrifying Thing Parents Haven't Thought Of</a>) warns parents of the dangers of inhaling helium. But, helium is not dangerous. To suggest otherwise is irresponsible at best, and fear mongering at worst. There is a greater (and calculable) risk due to latex allergies than to asphyxiation by helium (which was not the cause of death to Ashley Long). Helium is inert, and non bioactive. It does nothing, except prevent oxygen from reaching hemoglobin, which is very different than <i>competing </i>for hemoglobin. (Wait a minute! Did you just say prevent oxygen from reaching hemoglobin?! That’s dangerous, right?) What she fails to inform her readers is that we all prevent oxygen from reaching hemoglobin every day. Talking, laughing, swallowing, brushing your teach, washing your face, blowing a bubble, singing, orgasms, etc., all interrupt normal breathing and are biologically equivalent to inhaling helium. (But they use helium in suicide kits, so it <i>must </i>be dangerous!) Wrong. Contemplating suicide is where the danger is, not the helium. If you are ready to kill yourself by asphyxiation, there are hundreds of methods. (So why the helium then?) Because, it helps to prevent the panic response that occurs with asphyxiation. Nitrogen gas does the same thing. So does breathing into a carbon dioxide scrubber (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3dDQQcWhyU">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3dDQQcWhyU</a>). Or taking sleeping pills and then tying a garbage bag around your head. (So, what’s the difference?) If you are NOT trying to kill yourself, AND you manage to asphyxiate with helium to the point of unconsciousness (nearly impossible), you will stop breathing the helium and start breathing oxygen normally. You will not die, but you may have a headache. Ashley was killed by pressure, not concentration (they are different) and certainly not helium. Lisa Belkin's article to parents should have been educate them about the real dangers of asphyxiation such as sitting in the garage with the car engine running or using a kerosene space heater in their dorm room. And to encourage parents to do everything they can to get their kids to experience and enjoy life. Parents can live, or they can live in fear. Which one is she promoting?<br />
<br />
Copyright 2012 theBIOguytheBIOguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04733992363383514915noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34560063.post-79508448474444014642012-02-19T07:15:00.000-08:002012-03-30T05:59:26.690-07:00The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World" target="_blank">A quote from Carl Sagan's 1995 book.</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJFjDGXFKP_j5Iomx5ckjuiw4HjTwHZELWKba6t_vlHtIE6NBIDh1qP9nMi3k6sGoDn7teZmSOdVUDSELmzXXaRzEKp-X2BhHgh2yi8OSJUcTnhEWFxf_sVTcRF4hJ8_xa5h2Uzw/s1600/sagan2-279x400.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJFjDGXFKP_j5Iomx5ckjuiw4HjTwHZELWKba6t_vlHtIE6NBIDh1qP9nMi3k6sGoDn7teZmSOdVUDSELmzXXaRzEKp-X2BhHgh2yi8OSJUcTnhEWFxf_sVTcRF4hJ8_xa5h2Uzw/s200/sagan2-279x400.jpg" width="139" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Education on the value of free speech and the other freedoms reserved by the
Bill of Rights, about what happens when you don’t have them, and about how to
exercise and protect them, should be an essential prerequisite for being an
American citizen — or indeed a citizen of any nation, the more so to the degree
that such rights remain unprotected. If we can't think for ourselves, if we're
unwilling to question authority, then we're just putty in the hands of those in
power. But if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions, then those
in power work for us. In every country, we should be teaching our children the
scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain
decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we
inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and
the enveloping darkness.</span></div>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>theBIOguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04733992363383514915noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34560063.post-71980732840577429942012-02-16T10:38:00.000-08:002012-05-10T09:03:36.251-07:00Redos and Retakes Done Wrong<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 17px;">Rick Wormeli</span> (<a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5o0WinzELirYjJjZTU1YmMtODJmYy00MDY4LWJiMDMtZjczZTE5NTZjZDRi" target="_blank">Redos and Retakes Done Right. Effective Grading Practices, November 2011, Volume 69, number 3</a>) <span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">argues
that setting deadlines is arbitrary and creates a system that punishes students
for failing to achieve a certain level of competency within a certain amount of
time. He further argues, that this system is counterproductive and not modeled
in the working world. He claims that professionals thrive in an environment
where and when redos are allowed and encouraged. His examples include an
Olympic runner, surgeons, musicians, and pilots (among others). The argument is
that all of these professionals achieved their level of competency only after
years of redos, and further, are not judged by the aggregated compilation of
all their past redos, just on their present level of achievement. He chides
teachers that adhere to deadlines and a work-place readiness philosophy.</span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi992nT5vGO4s0x_wa6mgwijv6ufxayLkmcW11orBroFtqbrRuDPhM7InhNDuSEpMcZtDKLRjTVc2_ZDp0fHccRmR7JUNYGCBa_fQDsPatpRxnxooqKiURMHL7dVrzlc7j-aIxouw/s1600/FF3WTQIGEI92R6Q.MEDIUM.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="153" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi992nT5vGO4s0x_wa6mgwijv6ufxayLkmcW11orBroFtqbrRuDPhM7InhNDuSEpMcZtDKLRjTVc2_ZDp0fHccRmR7JUNYGCBa_fQDsPatpRxnxooqKiURMHL7dVrzlc7j-aIxouw/s200/FF3WTQIGEI92R6Q.MEDIUM.gif" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">
<br />
Here is why he is wrong.<br />
<br />
Unless there is an assumption of universal improvement; a notion that all
students can achieve competency if only given the chance (and time) to do so;
allowing a redo simply creates another arbitrary deadline. Redos cannot be
given indefinitely. At some point, someone is going to say enough is enough. In
such a case, the deadline will be imposed from outside; the end of the marking
period, the end of the school year, or graduation day, for example. To suggest
that deadlines don't reflect the real world has never missed a credit card
payment, or a mortgage payment, or a doctor’s appointment without consequences.<br />
<br />
Let us consider the professionals Wormeli offers as evidence of the value of
redos. He claims the Olympic runner is past the redo phase and is in the
proficient-runner stage. But this misapplies the notion of redos. It wasn't the
redo phase that got the runner to a level of proficiency. It was practice. The
only reason why the runner has achieved an Olympic level of proficiency is
because they survived the CUT phase. The proper analogy would be to suggest
that the runner was allowed to re-run a losing race. The problem is, races have
deadlines.<br />
<br />
And many professions, with high levels of achievement and proficiency, DO
aggregate their past redos in forming the final assessment. The first place
team is in first because of their season's performance, the good and the bad.
Not because of the result of their last game. The most improved team in
baseball can still finish in last place, especially if that improvement came
too close to the deadline.<br />
<br />
Wormeli suggests that musicians get better by playing a lot. He's right. But
his point is that "applying expectations for a high level of proficiency
to students who are in the process of coming to know content is
counterproductive, even harmful". But no one was suggesting that the
intermediate expectation is the same as the final one. A first-week guitarist
should know how to tune the instrument. If they can't master that, all future
learning is affected. It is not counterproductive to "drop" a guitar
student that can't learn how to tune. Not everyone can be a musician. The real
harm comes from suggesting that they can. (Just watch American Idol).<br />
<br />
Redos have their place, but to suggest that the LACK of redos is a problem is
false.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">Copyright 2012 theBIOguy</span>theBIOguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04733992363383514915noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34560063.post-60489390178055603382012-02-16T08:45:00.000-08:002012-03-30T06:13:31.717-07:00Education Articles<span style="font-size: large;">Critical Thinking is Neither Thinking Nor Critical</span><br />
By Bruce Deitrick Price<br />
<br />
Critical Thinking is a glorious thing. That’s what our
public schools are telling kids and parents.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Critical Thinking is said to be synonymous with fairness,
impartiality, science, logic, maturity, rationality, and enlightenment. If you
read some of the literature on Critical Thinking, you will have the sense that
you are being welcomed into a new religion. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
In truth, that is a fairly accurate description of this
highly popular and much promoted pedagogy.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdUrAfgO5-7nBuIE1LxyTrxkq-Eg2Crf1L07BQc15oHB9hYFBpPXnBkYqehhbjpjHwUVZD3ejh7rSNlD26HDha8T_H5QEL_FRGE_q2i_R6rbY-i0n2LpOUkS1Ti2D8Q5jsLWBhNA/s1600/what-is-critical-thinking.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdUrAfgO5-7nBuIE1LxyTrxkq-Eg2Crf1L07BQc15oHB9hYFBpPXnBkYqehhbjpjHwUVZD3ejh7rSNlD26HDha8T_H5QEL_FRGE_q2i_R6rbY-i0n2LpOUkS1Ti2D8Q5jsLWBhNA/s200/what-is-critical-thinking.jpg" width="172" /></a></div>
Now, let’s start looking at Critical Thinking as if we, in
fact, are critical thinkers.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
The first thing that would need to be stated is that
Critical Thinking, after all is said and done, in merely endorsing the age-old
values of being open-minded and willing to consider all the evidence. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But nobody disputes those virtues. So what are all the
high-level educators going on about? When supposedly smart, enlightened people
carry on as if they are tipsy on something, you should be on guard.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.edarticle.com/article.php?id=12992" target="_blank">Read more...</a></div>theBIOguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04733992363383514915noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34560063.post-64850870251858641862012-02-14T08:25:00.000-08:002012-03-30T06:05:02.803-07:00Carl Sagan and his Fully Armed Spaceship of the Imagination<a href="http://ninjerktsu.blogspot.com/2011/01/carl-sagan-and-his-fully-armed.html#.TzqLC0Oljok.blogger" target="_blank">Pseudoscience brings a knife to Carl Sagan's gun fight. Click to see it.</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://ninjerktsu.blogspot.com/2011/01/carl-sagan-and-his-fully-armed.html#.TzqLC0Oljok.blogger" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbk8LPG-_lphPWVbvEYIT60cjxOSQnKZWIkFtwwFLWLv2Usu3G0VFZ0J2LvhIgr3oCiDBNT6voeD3ZscYOF3EvKpKsj6gN3NRfWkE1moEZk2w6oPoJMjpL44rFqBcpVP_2gB5Yvw/s320/06.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />theBIOguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04733992363383514915noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34560063.post-14821132987903445392012-02-13T06:28:00.000-08:002012-05-10T09:04:19.946-07:00Science Literacy in the 21st Century<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Recent polls
on American competitiveness foretell of a future </span><st1:place style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> losing its position as a
global leader in scientific research and development, and in its production of
science and engineering graduates. This should be no surprise. Nearly 20% of people polled feel that science
classes were irrelevant to students </span><i style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">not</i><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">
pursuing science as a career, and more than 50% avoiding science as a career
because </span><i style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">they</i><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> felt it would be too
difficult or uninteresting. Is there a relationship between the failure of science
education to capture our collective imagination and sense of wonder, and our
loss of global competitiveness? </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">If so, does it mean that imbibing students with
a dose of scientific </span><i style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">literacy</i><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> will
positively impact our social science-collective and affect our global
competitiveness? Are the two even related?</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBMAb2bgXUbsua3tXqEV4O8ottbEi57zkq6TaHB_18jL1ioMewAkfRTDZS1V_lTdDxEhzIwXxxHBxwRq8fe2gK9aDnXVVr1MeEUVg2aIe6m_-AdShbdizTQmK8ktIXip2aNrNywQ/s1600/aplausos.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBMAb2bgXUbsua3tXqEV4O8ottbEi57zkq6TaHB_18jL1ioMewAkfRTDZS1V_lTdDxEhzIwXxxHBxwRq8fe2gK9aDnXVVr1MeEUVg2aIe6m_-AdShbdizTQmK8ktIXip2aNrNywQ/s200/aplausos.png" width="171" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I am
skeptical of aspirations of science literacy. I don’t believe our decision
makers, media and businesses <i>want</i> a
scientifically literate populous. The benefits from a science-<i>illiterate</i> populous are too great. When
opposing political talking heads present conflicting sides of a scientific
argument—global warming for example—a scientifically-literate populous would
never tolerate the charade of “equal weight”. Consider the recent eye-health
vitamins offered by Bausch & Lomb. They have decided that independent, scientific
support for the purported claims of their product is no longer necessary. They
have weighed short-term corporate profit against the potential long-term
damaged from a loss of scientific credibility and decided it’s worth the
gamble.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Which <i>specific</i> science
literacy would empower the average American consumer to properly evaluate the
specious claims made about Omega-3, Lutein and eye-health? What <i>is</i> eye-health anyway?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">This issue is
not science literacy but rather science appreciation. We need to change the
American consciousness towards a greater appreciation for the creativity of
science, the artistry of its craftspeople and the fruits of their labor. An
appreciation for science would raise the admiration for the efforts of our best
and brightest in their field and envelope them with a greater sense of public
trust. Science appreciation would oblige science for input on issue of public
importance, because we would anxiously want to here what they had to say.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Raising the
American conciseness towards a greater appreciation of science will not be
accomplished via an endeavor to infuse a prescribed level of science literacy.
It is disingenuous to suggest the only way to appreciate Michelangelo’s David
is to learn how to sculpt, or the only way to be a true soccer fan is to have
played the game. A National science literacy is no more important to the appreciation
or quality of science than a National music literacy is to the appreciation or quality
of music. There will always be talented musicians to produce beautiful music
for the rest of us to enjoy and admire.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">How do we
introduce today’s students to a love and appreciation of science? We can look
to the American love affair with professional sports and athletes for a
possible route to that appreciation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The National
Football League currently enjoys a fan-base of 75 million in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>
though a small number of these fans ever <i>played</i>
the game. They developed their love and appreciation for the sport without ever
participating in it. A lack of hands-on experience did not preclude them from
enjoying the game or admiring the players and coaches. How did this happen?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Imagine that high
school sports programs were administered like our National science programs, with
mandatory participation for all students, no tryouts and no cuts. All players
would be required to study and learn how to play all team positions. Each component
of the game would be coached in a prescribed sequence, (three weeks on defense
and four on strategy). Proficiency would be assessed by a variety of methods (written
exams, small group projects, or a creative multi-media presentation). Any failure
to become proficient at a position would be interpreted as a failure of the
coach, not a limitation of the player. Finally, each coach would conduct their
program for approximately 100 players every year, and work alone.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">In this
scenario, football would quickly lose its current status as the top sport in interscholastic
competition. Colleges would stop spending time and money scouting and
recruiting. The local media would stop covering their hometown players and
season exploits. There would be no homecoming parade, no pep-rally. Most
important, players with the most potential would lose interest in the sport.
Players with the least potential would think the effort to learn and
participate, a waste of their time. The coaches would lose their “love of the
game”, grow disillusioned and become frustrated. Football would loose its base
of appreciative fans.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Now imagine
the reverse; administering National science programs within the current
framework of high school sports programs. There would be recruitment and
tryouts for only the best students, with most students not making the cut. Students
would be matched to various disciplines based on their specific proficiencies. Students
would participate in interscholastic competitions, complete with local media
coverage of the local “rising star”, and a homecoming parade with a pep-rally. What
do you believe would happen to the quality of our science programs? Would we
create appreciative fans?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Some may
argue that this critique is unfair, that high schools <i>do</i> require mandatory participation in team sports, in their
physical education programs, or that high schools <i>do</i> offer science competitions for the best and brightest in their
after school programs, such as the national Science Olympiad. But these science
programs don’t have the same stature as sports programs. They do not enjoy the
same budget. Does anyone really expect dodge ball in gym class to produce the
next great athlete, or adoring fans?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">If we are to
raise the status of science, to encourage students to challenge themselves and
the limits of our understanding, and to make attractive the notion of public
adoration and trust, then our National agenda must be to foster a new love of
science, and admiration for scientists. They must be our superstars, chased by
the paparazzi, and sought after for TV appearances. We must all desire to see
the view from the shoulders of giants, and appreciate its beauty, even if we do
not understand what we are looking at.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Copyright 2012 theBIOguy</span></div>theBIOguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04733992363383514915noreply@blogger.com2