Listen to Richard Lewontin

Here's an interview with Richard Lewontin from Nov. 20, 2003. He talks about all sorts of things that are relevant to what we debate on the blogs and he's a lot smarter than we are.

---

A New Way of Regulating Human Genes?

ScienceDaily is all over this revolutionary discovery [Primates' Unique Gene Regulation Mechanism: Little-Understood DNA Elements Serve Important Purpose].

Scientists have discovered a new way genes are regulated that is unique to primates, including humans and monkeys. Though the human genome -- all the genes that an individual possesses -- was sequenced 10 years ago, greater understanding of how genes function and are regulated is needed to make advances in medicine, including changing the way we diagnose, treat and prevent a wide range of diseases.

"It's extremely valuable that we've sequenced a large bulk of the human genome, but sequence without function doesn't get us very far, which is why our finding is so important," said Lynne E. Maquat, Ph.D., lead author of the new study published February 9 in the journal Nature.

The actual paper is ...

Gong, C. and Maquat, L.E. (2011) lncRNAs transactivate STAU1-mediated mRNA decay by duplexing with 3′ UTRs via Alu elements. Nature 470:284–288. [doi:10.1038/nature09701]

It's just one more example of how a transcribed Alu sequence can screw up gene expression. There's an outside chance that this is significant and has been selected as a regulatory mechanism but the most probable explanation is that it's just an accident. In any case, there's no reason to generalize from this single example.

This statement is unworthy of a scientist.

"Previously, no one knew what Alu elements and long noncoding RNAs did, whether they were junk or if they had any purpose. Now, we've shown that they actually have important roles in regulating protein production," said Maquat, the J. Lowell Orbison Chair, professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics and director of the Center for RNA Biology at the University of Rochester Medical Center.

The correct statement is that we've known for decades that the vast majority of Alu elements in the genome do absolutely nothing. However, there are a dozen examples already in the scientific literature of Alu sequences that affect transcription, RNA processing, mRNA, or translation. They've all proven to be unique, rare, cases. We strongly suspect that most long noncoding RNAs are junk but there are some excellent examples of ones that are functional.

Lynne Maquat has shown an effect of a transcribed Alu sequence but it's simply not true that every obscure phenomenon reveals an important role in regulating protein production. And it's simply not true that this example has any implications for the vast majority of Alu sequences in the genome. Save the hype for your grant application.

---

[Hat Tip: Ryan Gregory at Genomicron: Grumble grumble… media… evolution… junk DNA… grumble.]

The Accommodationist War: Josh vs Jerry

Jerry Coyne visited a group of Methodist in Chicago and had an interesting conversation [A confab with the faithful]. Josh Rosenau tried to paint this as a concession to accommodationism by emphasizing that Coyne was being polite [Minor Coyne snark].

Jerry is, quite rightly, having none of this as his comment on his blog indicates.

There's more discussion at "Gnu Atheist" does not mean "nasty"; "accommodationist" does not mean "nice".

The disappointing thing about this incident is that Josh has failed to grasp the point about accommodationism even though we've been trying to explain it to him for four years. If that's what the rest of the people at NCSE believe then the Gnus have been wasting their time.

And Josh isn't backing off in spite of all the criticism he's received: The danger of certainty.

Jerry fires back with Gnus can be gnice!.

---

DNA, Phosphorus, and Arsenic

Most of you know that DNA strands have a sugar-phosphate background. The bases in each strand are covalently linked to each other by phosphodiester linkages between the 5′ and 3′ carbon atoms of the deoxyribose sugar.

Recently there has been a claim by NASA-funded scientists that a certain bacterium can replace those phosphates with arsenic. Close examination of the Science paper has revealed that, at most, a few percent of the phosphorus atoms are replaced and even that amount is challenged. It has become abundantly clear from reading the paper that the bacteria absolutely required phosphorus and sufficient quantities were present in the media as contaminants.

I've already linked to Rosie Redfield's critiques of the paper and the press conference. Now I want to add Carl Zimmer's take on the whole affair—the title tells all: "This Paper Should Not Have Been Published".

Carl raises an issue that has cropped up in many of the comments sections of various blogs. Is criticizing a scientific paper appropriate outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature? Is it ethical to cast doubt on the integrity of scientists when questioning the quality of their science?

Felisa Wolfe-Simon¹ is the lead author of the study and she was the main spokesperson in the video below. Carl Zimmer asked her if she wanted to respond to the criticism of her paper and here's what she said, according to the Slate article,

"Any discourse will have to be peer-reviewed in the same manner as our paper was, and go through a vetting process so that all discussion is properly moderated," wrote Felisa Wolfe-Simon of the NASA Astrobiology Institute. "The items you are presenting do not represent the proper way to engage in a scientific discourse and we will not respond in this manner."

Carl asked some other scientists about this and the best quote comes from Jonathan Eisen,

But Jonathan Eisen of UC-Davis doesn't let the scientists off so easily. "If they say they will not address the responses except in journals, that is absurd," he said. "They carried out science by press release and press conference. Whether they were right or not in their claims, they are now hypocritical if they say that the only response should be in the scientific literature."

My own impression of this fiasco is that the scientific authors of the paper can be accused of bad science and the lead author, Felisa Wolfe-Simon, is guilty of grossly misrepresenting her work at the press conference. There really can't be any excuse for that behavior if you want to call yourself a scientist. Those who think this is impolite and unethical are dead wrong. It's an absolute requirement of good science that we point out to the general public when scientists are behaving badly, otherwise we lose all credibility.

As you watch this video keep in mind that the bacteria absolutely require phosphate in the media in order to grow and that only a few phosphorus atoms, at most, are replaced by arsenic in DNA. If you think that's what Felisa Wolfe-Simon is telling you then you need to work hard on your listening comprehension skills.

---

1. The name of the bacterial strain is GFAJ-1. Rumor has it that this stands for "Get Felissa a Job." I wonder how that's working out? Do you think the job offers are pouring in?

The Value of Blogs

Many people have questioned the significance of blogs and bloggers. Some think that science blogs have no useful purpose and that they are undermining the peer review process of publication in scientific journals. Science journalists resent the fact that amateur writers can throw up something on a blog and claim that it's contributing to science education.

Over the years I've come to appreciate that science blogs do at least one thing that's new—they provide instant commentary on science news and that helps to serve as authoritative fact-checking. Science blogs monitor science journalism in the same way that political blogs monitor FOX news and the New York Times.

This role has been illustrated in spades over the past few days as we monitor the response to the NASA hype over bacteria that grow in the presence of arsenic. The weaknesses of the Science paper are now well-known thanks to many science bloggers. In the past, this kind of analysis would have had to wait for the publication of an appropriate critique in a scientific journal and that was very unlikely to happen for a number of very good reasons. Thus, in the past shoddy, over-hyped work got a free pass and science journalists who fell for the hype never even realized that they had been duped.

Read David Dobbs on Wired for a thoughtful analysis of the episode and the lesson we need to learn [Is That Arsenic-Loving Bug — Formerly an Alien — a Dog?]. It's interesting that even Nature News got sucked into promoting the hype. This shows that even journalists at the premier science journals are not very skeptical.

---

Was Darwin Wrong?

 
I understand, and agree with, the basic sentiment behind this poster but I wish they'd chosen better examples. Charles Darwin was wrong about lots of things.¹

---

1. But he's still the best scientist who ever lived.

Rock Stars of Science

 
This poster is from Rock Stars of Science. There are six people in the photo: one of them is a rock star (I'm told) and five of them are famous scientists (I'm told).

Is this a good way to promote science? Martin Robbins doesn't think so: 'Rockstars of Science' should be 'Scientists of Rock'.

I could be wrong. Maybe this is a good way of reaching out to people. Maybe GQ's readers are getting out their dictionaries and picking through those descriptions, stopping occasionally to stare at the blurry, bearded interloper in the background of Bob's photograph. And maybe those readers are now more inspired by science as a result. If so, I'd like to see some evidence of it - maybe a poll of readers?

But I still can't help but feel that if you have to resort to rockstars make science cool, you're really not very good at communicating science. Because science is way cooler than rock stars.

You won't be surprised to learn that Chris Mooney likes this campaign and ERV doesn't. Jerry Coyne doesn't like it either. Does anyone notice a pattern here? ... The one person who isn't a scientist is the one who thinks he knows how to promote science.

So, who's behind this promotion? It's a company called GEOFFREY BEENE that I've never heard of. But don't take that lack of knowledge seriously because I'm a scientist and I'm definitely not cool.

Here's a video put out by the company. Is this mostly about science or is it mostly about the company exploiting their support for medical technology?

---

The Scientific Method

 
Over at Respectful Insolence, Orac picked up on a comment by Dr. R.W. and said [Some excellent questions for medical reporters] ....

An excellent idea, and Dr. R.W. has a list of some things that every medical journalist should know. My favorites? These:

• Outline the scientific method. (I'm betting there are a lot of journalists out there reporting on medicine who can't outline the scientific method.)
• Explain why consideration of biologic plausibility is important in the evaluation of health claims and why evidence based medicine often fails when biologic plausibility is not taken into account. (This one is hard, but knowing the answer would eliminate a lot of truly ignorant articles like the one Parker-Pope wrote yesterday.)

I was surprised that Orac picked teaching the scientific method as one of his favorites. I don't think there's any such thing as a "scientifc method" that garners majority support among scientists and/or philosophers. This led to a discussion in the comments section of his post.

What do you think? Is there a "scientific method"? If so, what is it?

---

Communicating Science

 
The primary goal of science writers and science journalists is to be effective communicators of science. However, they have had little impact on the general public over the past few decades since the level of science literacy has barely budged.

Most citizens have little idea of how science works and many reject outright the basic fundamentals of science.

Having failed to achieve their goal, and finding themselves irrelevant when it comes to making a profit (largely because of their own failure), they are now looking for someone to blame. Chris Mooney has decided to blame scientists for not being science journalists. See his latest contribution at On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up. He doesn't really mean "speak up" as scientists, of course. What he means is that scientists should learn how to "frame" and fudge their position in order to please the general public. Making friends with theists and promoting religious scientists is supposed to help.

What's interesting about this debate is that science writers like Chris Mooney are convinced they know how to teach the general public in spite of the fact that science writers—as a profession—have not been successful in the past.

Why should scientist listen to them?

---

2009 AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Awards

 
The American Association for the Advancement of Science has just announced the Kavli Science Journalism Awards for 2009. It's a very interesting group of winners. Among them is Carl Zimmer, who won in the category "Large Newspaper—Circulation of 100,000 or more."

Awards are nice, but the problem with science journalism awards is that they are decided by a panel of science journalists. What this means is that the awards are for good journalism and not necessarily for good science. As most Sandwalk readers know, I'm not happy with the way science is presented to the general public and my main complaint about science writers is that they don't do a very good job of getting the science right. (Many scientists aren't much better, but that's a different issue.)

If we are going to award good science journalism, don't you think that one of the main criteria should be whether the reporting is scientifically accurate? If you accept that premise, then the next question is who should make that call.

Take Carl Zimmer's articles for example. One of them was Now: The Rest of the Genome published in The New York Times in November 2008. This is an article about genes and genomes and the main point is that our concept of a gene is in trouble in light of recent discoveries in genomics.

Carl's article is better than most but it still misrepresents the modern status of a gene and the importance of phenomena like alternative splicing and epigenetics [Genes and Straw Men]. There's no doubt in my mind that Carl is the best of the science writers who could have written about this subject but I'm still troubled by the fact that the prize committee was probably incapable of evaluating the accuracy of the science in his article.

The award is sponsored by AAAS. What would be wrong with having a few scientists as judges?

From the press release ...

"The AAAS awards have long recognized the importance of high-quality science journalism across the board," said Cristine Russell, president of the nonprofit Council for the Advancement of Science Writing. "The Kavli Foundation’s decision to endow the awards is particularly important at a time when accurate, insightful writing about science is threatened by rapid changes in the media marketplace. The future of this program is now assured as a new generation of journalists tackles important science developments and their impact on society.

I don't know Cristine Russel but she's promoting these awards as examples of "accurate, insightful writing about science." I'd love to know who determines whether the reporting is accurate. How does she know they were scientifically accurate?

---

Amazon's Top Ten Science Books for 2009

 
Check out the Best of 2009 for two lists of the top ten science books. One list was chosen by "editors" and the other list was chosen by "readers."

There are some interesting differences ... and it's not what you expect.

---

[Hat Tip: Jason Rosenhouse whose book The Monty Hall Problem: The Remarkable Story of Math's Most Contentious Brainteaser made one of the lists.

An Exposé of the Evolution Industry?

Susan Mazur is a science writer. A few years ago she got wind of a conference that was planed for Altenberg in Austria. This was going to be a small meeting for 16 biologists who were promoting some unusual perspectives on evolution.

She started to write about this meeting, promoting the idea that there was some sort of conspiracy to overthrow modern evolutionary theory. She managed to raise enough of a stink that the odor reached Science and Nature. [See The Altenberg 16 Make It into Nature.]

Of course, by the time Nature got on to the story it was easy to debunk the conspiracy theory and demonstrate that some of the Altenberg 16 were, how shall I put it? ... not in the mainstream of biological thinking [Biological theory: Postmodern evolution?].

Susan Mazur contacted me at the beginning of this episode and I tried to help her understand the difference between legitimate controversies in science and pseudo-controversies promoted by kooks. For a while I thought she was making progress but this turned out to be an illusion. She soon discovered that there was more fame and glory to be had by associating with the kooks than by siding with good science.

But here's the problem. There really are some important issues in evolutionary biology that need to be worked out. I think the so-called "Modern Synthesis" (hardened version) has to be extended in order to incorporate a more pluralist ic view [We Need to Soften the Modern Synthesis]. In that sense, I agree with some of the participants at the Alternberg meeting. However, they made a big mistake by including other, not-so-legitmate, controversies. That allows many evolutionary biologists to dismiss the entire exercise; as reported by Elizabeth Pennisi, in Science [Modernizing the Modern Synthesis].

That hyperbole has reverberated throughout the evolutionary biology community, putting Pigliucci and the 15 other participants at the forefront of a debate over whether ideas about evolution need updating. The mere mention of the "Altenberg 16," as Mazur dubbed the group, causes some evolutionary biologists to roll their eyes. It's a joke, says Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago in Illinois. "I don't think there's anything that needs fixing." Mazur's attention, Pigliucci admits, "frankly caused me embarrassment."

Jerry Coyne was wrong. There are some things that need fixing. Anyone who has read Stephen Jay Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory should know that.

Susan Mazur has now published the book that we all expected. As you can see from the title, the theme is still conspiracy, plus the idea that evolution is in trouble. It would have been great if Mazur had focused on the real problems in evolutionary theory and helped the general public understand that some of the "controversies" are not legitimate.

Alas, that lofty goal is too difficult for her. We'll have to wait until a better science writer picks up the baton.

---

Ardi and Ida

 
"Ardi" is the nickname of Ardipithecus ramidus, the recently described hominid fossil. "Ida" is the nickname of Darwinius masillae, an early primate fossil that made a big splash last year.

The "Darwinius" affair has become notorious as a bad example of scientists getting into bed with book publishers, movie producers, and PR professionals [see The dangerous link between science and hype].

The "Ardi" publicity campaign seemed to be different. Sure, there's the 11 papers published simultaneously in Science—this clearly involves a coordinated attempt to maximize the impact of this fossil—but this seems like only a minor trangression. Coordinating publication happens lots of times.

But now there's the Discovery Channel documentary that's going to air next weekend.

A DISCOVERY CHANNEL EXCLUSIVE, WORLD PREMIERE SPECIAL BRINGS YOU THE STORY OF THE LATEST NEWS ABOUT HUMAN EVOLUTION

DISCOVERING ARDI airs Sunday, October 11 at 9 PM (ET/PT)

Following publication in the journal Science on the discovery and study of a 4.4 million-year-old female partial skeleton nicknamed "Ardi," Discovery Channel will present a world premiere special, DISCOVERING ARDI, Sunday October 11 at 9 PM (ET/PT) documenting the sustained, intensive investigation leading up to this landmark publication of the Ardipithecus ramidus fossils.

UNDERSTANDING ARDI, a one-hour special produced in collaboration with CBS News will air at 11 PM (ET/PT) immediately following DISCOVERING ARDI. The special is moderated by former CBS and CNN anchor Paula Zahn and includes research team members Dr. Tim White, Dr. Yohannes Haile-Selassie, Dr. Giday WoldeGabriel, Dr. Owen Lovejoy, and science journalist Ann Gibbons

The scientific investigation began in the Ethiopian desert 17 years ago, and now opens a new chapter on human evolution, revealing the first evolutionary steps our ancestors took after we diverged from a common ancestor we once shared with living chimpanzees. "Ardi's" centerpiece skeleton, the other hominids she lived with, and the rocks, soils, plants and animals that made up her world were analyzed in laboratories around the world, and the scientists have now published their findings in the prestigious journal Science.

"Ardi" is now the oldest skeleton from our (hominid) branch of the primate family tree. These Ethiopian discoveries reveal an early grade of human evolution in Africa that predated the famous Australopithecus nicknamed "Lucy." Ardipithecus was a woodland creature with a small brain, long arms, and short legs. The pelvis and feet show a primitive form of two-legged walking on the ground, but Ardipithecus was also a capable tree climber, with long fingers and big toes that allowed their feet to grasp like an ape's. The discoveries answer old questions about how hominids became bipedal.

The international research team weighed in on the scope of the project and its findings:

"These are the results of a scientific mission to our deep African past," said project co-director and geologist, Dr. Giday WoldeGabriel of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

"The novel anatomy that we describe in these papers fundamentally alters our understanding of human origins and early evolution," said project anatomist and evolutionary biologist, Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, Kent State University.

Project co-director and paleontologist Professor Tim White of the Human Evolution Research Center at the University of California Berkeley adds, "Ardipithecus is not a chimp. It's not a human. It's what we used to be."

DISCOVERING ARDI begins its story with the 1974 discovery of Australopithecus afarensis in Hadar, northeastern Ethiopia. Nicknamed "Lucy," this 3.2 million year old skeleton was, at the time, the oldest hominid skeleton ever found. As the Discovery Channel special documents, Lucy's title would be overtaken twenty years later by the 1994 discovery of "Ardi" in Ethiopia's Afar region in the Middle Awash study area. It would take an elite international team of experts the next fifteen years to delicately, meticulously and methodically piece together "Ardi" and her lost world in order to reveal her significance.

We all know that this documentary took a long time to make. That means the authors of the scientific papers were cooperating with Discovery Channel (and CBS News?) long before the papers were published. Perhaps even before the papers were accepted.

Something isn't right about all of this. John Hawks senses it too ["Discovering Ardi"].

Oh, my. Well it stands to reason that something this coordinated wasn't just science. I wonder whether anyone will ask the questions about the timing of Science's publication and the documentary release only a week later.

I have to tell you, I've been wondering about all the bogus-looking Darwin paraphrases these guys have been throwing out -- you know, the ones about how Darwin taught us about how chimpanzees changed from their common ancestors, and how fossil humans would tell us about the apes. I can't find anything like that in any of Darwin's publications -- please e-mail if it's there and I'm missing it.

But now I see where they're coming from. It's the tagline from the Discovery show!

I smell a rat.

---

Good Science? Bad Science Journalism?

It was inevitable that science writers all over the world would screw up the story of Ardipithicus ramidus as reported in a series of papers published in Science [see the special Science webpage: Ardipithicus ramidus].

Everyone will have their favorite example. Mine comes from today's issue of The Toronto Star in an article by Joseph Hall titled Did apes descend from us?

Man didn't descend from apes.

What is closer to the truth is that our knuckle-dragging cousins descended from us.

That's one of the shocking new theories being drawn from a series of anthropology papers published Friday in a special edition of the journal Science.

Scientists say a 4.4-million-year-old fossil called Ardi – short for ardipithecus ramidus – is descended from the "missing link," or the last common ancestor between humans and apes.

The 4-foot, 110-pound female's skeleton and physiological characteristics bear a closer resemblance to modern-day humans than to contemporary apes, meaning they evolved from humanlike creatures – not the other way around.

We did not descend from apes—humans are apes. Modern humans and other modern apes share a common ancestor. It's silly to say that humans descend from monkeys, or apes, and it's just as silly to say that chimpanzees descend from humans.

The second part of the quotation is pretty accurate but it's overshadowed by the unnecessary hype in the first few sentences. There are no "shocking new theories" being promoted.

C. Owen Lovejoy is one of the authors on several of the papers just published (e.g. White et al. 2009; Suwa et al. 2009). He is quoted in the Star article, presumably from a 'phone interview by the author.

"It's transformative. This is a lot closer to anything that you'd call the missing link than anything that's ever been found," says Lovejoy, a biological anthropologist at Ohio's Kent State University.

Among other things, research on Ardi suggests humans are far more primitive in an evolutionary sense than today's great apes – like chimps and gorillas – which have continued to evolve from the missing link.

"In a way we're saying that the old idea that we evolved from a chimpanzee is totally incorrect," he says. "It's more proper to say that chimpanzees evolved from us."

Can you blame the reporter when this is what one of the authors says? Yes you can, because, as Carl Zimmer points out, it's up to science reporters to do a bit of digging to find out the real story behind the scientific papers and the press releases.

But we also need to blame scientists for the sorry state of scientific literacy. That was a remarkably stupid thing for C. Owen Lovejoy to have said to a science journalist. As a scientist he should have known that the "old idea" (we evolved from a chimpanzee) is wrong and the "new idea" (chimpanzees evolved from us) is also wrong for the same reasons.

Maybe Lovejoy was misquoted? After all, he's a member of the National Academy of Sciences so he must know what he's talking about. Let's look at the Kent State University press release [Kent State University Professor C. Owen Lovejoy helps unveil oldest hominid skeleton].

KENT, Ohio -- Oct. 1, 2009 -- Throw out all those posters and books that depict an ape evolving into a human being, says Kent State University Professor of Anthropology Dr. C. Owen Lovejoy. An internationally recognized biological anthropologist who specializes in the study of human origins, Lovejoy is one of the primary authors who revealed their research findings today on Ardipithecus ramidus, a hominid species that lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia.

"People often think we evolved from apes, but no, apes in many ways evolved from us," Lovejoy said. "It has been a popular idea to think humans are modified chimpanzees. From studying Ardipithecus ramidus, or 'Ardi,' we learn that we cannot understand or model human evolution from chimps and gorillas."

Not much better, although Loverjoy does emphasize the fact that "people often think we evolved from apes." However, he doesn't do much to dispel this way of thinking when he says, "apes in many ways evolved from us."

I don't think we can blame our reporter for this one.

What about the scientific papers? What do they say? Remarkably, the papers actually address the idea that humans might have evolved from chimpanzees as though this was a real scientific belief held by real scientists. Here's the conclusion of the White et al. (2009) paper.

Conclusions. Besides hominids, the only apes to escape post-Miocene extinction persist today as relict species, their modern distributions centered in forested refugia. The markedly primitive Ar. ramidus indicates that no modern ape is a realistic proxy for characterizing early hominid evolution—whether social or locomotor—as appreciated by Huxley. Rather, Ar. ramidus reveals that the last common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees (CLCA) was probably a palmigrade quadrupedal arboreal climber/clamberer that lacked specializations for suspension, vertical climbing, or knuckle-walking (24–27). It probably retained a generalized incisal/postcanine dentition associated with an omnivorous/frugivorous diet less specialized than that of extant great apes (22, 23). The CLCA probably also combined moderate canine dimorphism with minimal skull and body size dimorphism (22, 23), most likely associated with relatively weak male-male agonism in a male philopatric social system (22, 23, 31).

Ardipithecus reveals the first hominid adaptive plateau after the CLCA. It combined facultative terrestrial bipedality (25, 26) in a woodland habitat (28–30) with retained arboreal capabilities inherited from the CLCA (24–27). This knowledge of Ar. ramidus provides us, for the first time, with the paleobiological substrate for the emergence of the subsequent Australopithecus and Homo adaptive phases of human evolution. Perhaps the most critical single implication of Ar. ramidus is its reaffirmation of Darwin’s appreciation: Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees but rather through a series of progenitors starting from a distant common ancestor that once occupied the ancient forests of the African Miocene.

Hmmm ... I'm not that familiar with the scientific beliefs of anthropologists. Maybe they really did think that humans evolved from chimpanzees! That's pretty scary.

Owen Lovejoy has a single author paper where he makes the case for just such a mistaken view of human evolution (Lovejoy 2009). It's a good read. He might be right that his colleagues tended toward a ladder-like view of evolution.

Not all of the reporting is bad. Yesterday I linked to the article by Carl Zimmer [Ardipithecus: We Meet At Last] and today we get to see the reports in Science. One of these reports, A New Kind of Ancestor: Ardipithecus Unveiled by Ann Gibbons, is particularly good. It contains important bits of information like this ...

But not everyone agrees with the team’s interpretations about how Ar. ramidus walked upright and what it reveals about our ancestors. “The authors … are framing the debate that will inevitably follow,” because the description and interpretation of the finds are entwined, says Pilbeam. “My first reaction is to be skeptical about some of the conclusions,” including that human ancestors never went through a chimpanzee-like phase. Other researchers are focusing intently on the lower skeleton, where some of the anatomy is so primitive that they are beginning to argue over just what it means to be “bipedal.” The pelvis, for example, offers only “circumstantial” evidence for upright walking, says Walker. But however the debate about Ardi’s locomotion and identity evolves, she provides the first hard evidence that will inform and constrain future ideas about the ancient hominin bauplan.

It's important to remember that the scientific papers are promoting a particular view of human evolution and the importance of the very fossils that the authors have been working on for many years. They have a big stake in this. There will be biases that creep into the conclusions. It would be wrong to conclude that everything we today hear about Ardipithicus ramidus will stand up to subsequent scrutiny.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the most significant finding is the evidence that Ardipithicus lived in a woodland environment and not on a savanna [see Habitat for Humanity]. This could change the way we think about how humans evolved. If early humans were more likely to lived in wooded areas than in open savanna, then many adaptationist explanations for certain characters will have to be revised. (See the Lovejoy (2009) paper.)

Such a result will make it difficult to explain our supposed instinctual preference for savanna-like terrains, for example [E.O. Wilson in New York]. Why would our ancestral population have fixed alleles making us admire savanna when our ancestors lived in the woods?

---

[Image Credit: The map of the Afar Rift is form The View from Afar]

Lovejoy, C. O. (2009) Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus. Science 326:74e1-74e8. [doi: 10.1126/science.1175834]

Suwa, G., Asfaw, B., Kono, R.T., Kubo, D., Lovejoy, C.O., and White, T.D. (2009) The Ardipithecus ramidus Skull and Its Implications for Hominid Origins. Science 326:68e1-68e7. [doi: 10.1126/science.1175825]

White, T.D., Asfaw, B., Beyene, Y., Haile-Selassie, Y., Lovejoy, C.O., Suwa, G., and WoldeGabriel, G. (2009) Ardipithecus ramidus and the Paleobiology of Early Hominids. Science 326:75-86. [doi: 10.1126/science.1175802]

Science Education by Press Release

 
Futurity was officially launched on September 15th.

As an online research magazine, Futurity highlights the latest discoveries from leading universities in the United States and Canada.

Who is Futurity?

Duke University, Stanford University, and the University of Rochester lead a consortium of participating universities (see list below) that manages and funds the project. All partners are members of the Association of American Universities (AAU), a nonprofit organization of leading public and private research universities.

Futurity aggregates the very best research news. The content is produced by the partner universities, and submitted to Futurity’s editor, Jenny Leonard, (editor@futurity.org) for consideration. The site, which is hosted at the University of Rochester, covers news in the environment, health, science, society, and other areas.

We're talking about press releases. Most of the information comes from press releases written by the "leading" universities. Does anyone see a problem with that?

Carl Zimmer does. He rightly points out that universities and reasearch hospitals have a vested interest in promoting the work done at their institutions [Apocalypse Via Press Release].

What Futurity does do, however, is allow universities and research institutions to go straight to the reader. Originally, press information officers at these places wrote press releases, which, as the name implies, were things intended to get the attention of the press in the hopes that they’d cover something you’re doing. Futurity calls what it publishes “news,” but it’s still being written by employees of the organizations that are the subject of that news.

I have great respect for some public information officers; the stuff they write is, in some cases, wonderfully clear and informative. There’s good information to be had on Futurity. But I always treat press releases as a starting point. I do not, for example, assume that a piece of research is actually important just because a press release says it is. Imagine a press release with the headline, “Minor study published that is really not all it claims to be.” Such things just don’t exist.

This makes a lot of sense. I really like the fact that Carl is speaking out against the excesses of bad journalism and the gross misunderstandings of science education. He's exactly right about university press releases. They are entirely one-sided—don't look for balance from a PR department.

Not only that, most press releases are horrible. I think it's fair to say that many of the worst examples of science journalism come from university press offices. That's not to say that they're all bad. I've seen some pretty good examples from my own university and from some others, but they are the exceptions, not the rule.

How soon we forget. Remember The Darwinius Affair?

You can't blame science journalists for getting their science wrong if they get it straight from the horse's mouth, right? Wrong! Read Carl Zimmer and learn how real science journalist should behave. They should investigate a story to see if the hype is justified.

Investigative science journalism is the subject of yesterday's posting by Bora Zivkovic over on A Blog Around the Clock. He points out that most science journalists do not investigate in spite of the fact that this is often what they claim to be doing. This is what distinguishes the average science journalist from the good ones, like Carl Zimmer.

That much we know. Where Bora and I part company is when it comes to press releases. Here's what Bora says ...

While we have all screamed every now and then at some blatantly bad press releases (especially the titles imposed by the editors), there has been generally a steady, gradual improvement in their quality over the years. One of the possible explanations for this is that scientists that fall out of the pipeline as there are now so many PhDs and so few academic jobs, have started replacing English majors and j-school majors in these positions. More and more institutions now have science-trained press officers who actually understand what they are writing about. Thus, there is less hype yet more and better explanation of the results of scientific investigation. Of course, they tend to be excellent writers as well, a talent that comes with love and practice and does not necessitate a degree in English or Communications.

That's not been my experience. Just look at the main page on the Futurity website for examples of bad science journalism. As I write this, the top story is ....

Wonder drug may treat cancer, addiction

UC IRVINE—A drug in development to treat cancer could have the added benefit of helping prevent relapse in people trying to overcome cocaine addiction.

In mice conditioned to cocaine, drug-seeking activity was inhibited faster and to a greater extent with sodium butyrate than without it, neuroscientists at the University of California-Irvine say.

"Our results are exciting because sodium butyrate taps into fundamental molecular mechanisms, providing a novel approach to understanding and treating drug addiction," says the study’s lead author Marcelo Wood, assistant professor of neurobiology and behavior....

That's sounds just like the kind of story that could come from the PR office of a political party or the head office of a major pharmaceutical company.

---

SEED Magazine

 
The last issue of SEED magazine was published in June. Since then, I've been scanning the shelves of my local convenience stores looking for the latest informative article by PZ Myers and the latest fuel for complaints about the quality of science journalism.

No luck so far. According to the SEED website ...

We are currently finishing an exciting redesign that will be on press this fall. This will also be our first issue with the new tagline.

This sounds ominous. Is the print version of SEED dead?

---

A List of Banned Words

 
Carl Zimmer is teaching a course on science writing. Here's a picture of his classroom.

It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it.

Carl has banned certain words and phrases and he posted the list on his blog: The Index of Banned Words. We can all agree that "breakthrough" and "paradigm shift" must be on the list. What about the others? Share your opinion on The Loom.

I'd like to add "Darwinism," "cancer" (unless the article is actually about cancer), and "revolutionary."

---

Tracking a Press Release

 

David Hone recently published a paper on theropod behavior [see: Baby killers: hunting and feeding behaviours of large theropods].

When the paper came out he made up a press release that he distributed to a bunch of people. He tracked the number of articles that picked up on his press release. Initially there was only one report in the media, then five, then twenty [Media tracking].

He was generally satisfied with the articles that appeared but some of his complaints are interesting ...

This leads us onto the next point here. The press release was often regurgitated in very large and near complete chunks. Now that is part of what it is for of course, but equally I would hope that part of their job would be to give it a bit of a literary polish (since they are, you know, writers) and make it a bit more accessible to the public. If not, then the press might as well just publish the press release in full and save themselves a bunch of money on reporters. On the other had, most of them did add in new introductory paragraphs and needless to say this is where the errors mostly came in. So they either copied stuff without writing anything new, or wrote a couple of paragraphs that they got wrong. Really how hard is to check up on a couple of dinosaur facts (one could contact the authors for example) when already 80% of the article is written for you and you don’t have to read the paper itself? Remember that these are supposed to be not just journalists but science reporters and fact checking (especially from a published paper) should be first nature, let alone second nature and is hardly difficult or even especially time consuming, no matter the deadline.

I've never heard of a scientist who makes the effort to personally advertise a paper that's just been published. Usually it's the institution who sends out the press releases and they go directly to the various wire services who specialize in science stories.

I must admit that the concept of publicizing your own work troubles me a bit.

---

[Hat Tip: Panda's Thumb]

Advice for Scientists on How to Communicate

 
Carl Zimmer is an excellent science writer. He reviews three books directed at scientists on how they should communicate science to the general public. Two of the books are by science writers and the third is by a former biologist who is now a filmmaker in Hollywood.

Part of Carl's review is on his blog: Book [P]review: For The Scientist.

Three books are coming out this year directed at these scientists. Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future, by my fellow Discobloggers Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney, was the first. I talked to Chris about the book in this Bloggingheads talk. Cornelia Dean of the New York Times is publishing another, called Am I Making Myself Clear?: A Scientist’s Guide to Talking to the Public. It’s a lean, straightforward tour of the media landscape, led by a journalist who has written about science for many years.

The third is by a scientists–but it’s called Don’t Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style. The author is Randy Olson, a biologist who headed to Hollywood. Back in 2006, I wrote about his documentary, Flock of Dodos–which was his own response to the events in Kansas. Rather than post a statement on a web site, Olson made a funny movie that not only demonstrated the flim-flammery of creationists, but also showed how dismally evolutionary biologists communicated to those beyond their guild.

All advice is valuable but I'd just like to make sure that everyone keeps things in perspective.

The major goal of science writers is to communicate science to the general public. That's what their profession is all about. If we have not been successful at communicating science properly over the past few decades then isn't it reasonable to put some of the blame on the professionals?

Just out of curiosity, have there been many books written by science writers where they criticize their profession and give advice to fellow science writers on how to improve their science communication skills? Or, have science writers decided that it should be scientists, and not science writers, who need to correct the failures of the past?

---

Decoding the Structure of the HIV Genome

 
The title of the press release on Biology News Net caught my eye: UNC researchers decode structure of an entire HIV genome. I clicked the link on my aggregator and read the first two paragraphs.

The structure of an entire HIV genome has been decoded for the first time by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The results have widespread implications for understanding the strategies that viruses, like the one that causes AIDS, use to infect humans.

The study, the cover story in the Aug. 6, 2009, issue of the journal Nature, also opens the door for further research which could accelerate the development of antiviral drugs.

By the time I finished the article I thought I had a pretty good idea of what they were talking about but, just to be sure, I visited the Nature website to read the actual scientific paper.

Watts, J.M., Dang, K.K., Gorelick, R.J., Leonard, C.W., Bess Jr., J.W., Swanstrom, R., Burch, C.L. and Weeks, K.M. (2009) Architecture and secondary structure of an entire HIV-1 RNA genome. Nature 460:705-710 [doi: 10.1038/nature08237]

Single-stranded RNA viruses encompass broad classes of infectious agents and cause the common cold, cancer, AIDS and other serious health threats. Viral replication is regulated at many levels, including the use of conserved genomic RNA structures. Most potential regulatory elements in viral RNA genomes are uncharacterized. Here we report the structure of an entire HIV-1 genome at single nucleotide resolution using SHAPE, a high-throughput RNA analysis technology. The genome encodes protein structure at two levels. In addition to the correspondence between RNA and protein primary sequences, a correlation exists between high levels of RNA structure and sequences that encode inter-domain loops in HIV proteins. This correlation suggests that RNA structure modulates ribosome elongation to promote native protein folding. Some simple genome elements previously shown to be important, including the ribosomal gag-pol frameshift stem-loop, are components of larger RNA motifs. We also identify organizational principles for unstructured RNA regions, including splice site acceptors and hypervariable regions. These results emphasize that the HIV-1 genome and, potentially, many coding RNAs are punctuated by previously unrecognized regulatory motifs and that extensive RNA structure constitutes an important component of the genetic code.

The authors determined the two- and in some cases the three-dimensional structure of the HIV RNA genome. In other words, they figured out the way RNA folds to form regions of secondary structure (double-stranded RNA). This RNA molecule functions as a complex messenger RNA and the secondary structure plays a role in regulating how the molecule is translated.

The press release doesn't really convey this result very well, especially in the opening paragraph. Part of the problem is misue of the word "decode." We're familiar with journalists who use "decode" to mean "nucleotide sequence" as in "Scientists decoded the human genome." This elevates "decode" to an entirely new meaning.

In fairness, this confusion over the word "decode" is exacerbated by the language used by the authors in the paper.

Our discovery that the peptide loops that link independently folded protein domains are encoded by highly structured RNA indicates that these and probably other mRNAs encode protein structure at a second level beyond specifying the amino acid sequence. In this view, higher-order RNA structure directly encodes protein structure, especially at domain junctions. The extraordinary density of information encoded in the structure of large RNA molecules (Figs 1, 2 and 4d) represents another level of the genetic code, one which we understand the least at present. This work makes clear that there is much to be discovered by broad structural analyses of RNA genomes and intact mRNAs.

I'm not sure this language is helpful.

UPDATE: The press release from Scientific American is different: HIV genome structure decoded.

It might not be super high-res, but researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have described the first full structure of the HIV-1 genome.

The paper, published online today in Nature, maps out the virus' genome down to a one-nucleotide resolution with the help of a technique call SHAPE—selective 2'-hydroxyl acylation analyzed by primer extension—to paint the full, previously unknown picture of the virus (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group).

---