Trinity, July 16, 1945

The first atomic bomb was detonated on this day in 1945 [Trinity]. The second detonation of an atomic bomb took place over Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945.

So far, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the only examples of a nuclear device being used in war. We've managed to avoid dropping atomic bombs on each other for 67 years. If you think about it, that's a pretty remarkable achievement.

---

What Does a Secular Society Look Like?

Lots of people don't understand what we mean by a secular society. If you're one of them, watch this video by QualiaSoup. He uses a very good example—the saying of prayers at city council meetings.

Most of you have been to business and/or organization meetings of various sorts. You don't normally start those meetings with a Christian prayer in spite of the fact that you might be making some very big decisions. At the recent evolution conference in Ottawa, for example, there were five society meetings of boards of directors and (I'm told) not one of them began with a prayer!

People believe in many different gods. Evey person on the planet thinks that the vast majority are false gods that do not exist. Some of us think that applies to all gods. You have no right to promote the existence of some gods over others at public meetings in a secular society, especially a multicultural society like those that exist in most modern, industrialized nations.

Whether or not you believe in god(s), the only reasonable approach in a modern society is the secular one where religions is a private matter, not a public one.

A link to this video was sent to Katie Mahoney, city councillor for Ward 8 (my ward) in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.

---

Hat Tip: Friendly Atheist

The Top Ten Problems with Darwinism

It was only a few months ago that lawyer Casey Luskin presented us with The Top Three Flaws in Evolutionary Theory. Now he's back with the top ten problems with Darwinian evolution. Here they are, read 'em and weep.

1. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information.
2. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution.
3. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand "tree of life."
4. Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient.
5. The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant -- at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely.
6. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code.
7. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.
8. The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species.
9. A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called "junk" DNA.
10. Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).

I started to work on the top 1000 problems with Intelligent Design Creationism but then I realized that it was a waste of time. There are only two essential problems with Intelligent Design Creationism: (1) There's no evidence for supernatural design in nature, and (2) There's no evidence for a supernatural designer.

---

Slip Slidin' Along - How DNA Binding Proteins Find Their Target

Many proteins bind to double-stranded DNA and most of them bind specifically to a particular target site. The lac repressor, for example, binds to a specific DNA site that blocks transcription of the genes required for lactose uptake and utilization. The lac repressor protein is a dimer of two identical subunits and each one binds a short segment with the core sequence ATTGT.¹

If you look closely at the structure shown above, you can see how parts of the protein lie in the grove of double-stranded DNA where they can detect the sequence by "reading" the chemical groups on the edges of the base pairs. It's important to realize that DNA binding proteins interact with the DNA double helix and not with unwound DNA where the individual bases are exposed.

How does a DNA binding protein like lac repressor find its specific site in the genome? The most obvious explanation is that the protein binds non-specifically to any piece of DNA and checks to see if it's a specific binding site. If it is, the protein binds very tightly and doesn't fall off. If it isn't, the interaction is much weaker and the protein falls off quickly so it can check out another potential site.

The Science Behind CSI

The Faculty of Medicine at my university runs a Youth Summer Program (Medicine) for high school students. There are four one-week modules: Human Physiology, Molecular Biology & Genetics, Pharmacology & Toxicology, and Microbiology. The final module is two weeks of working in a research lab.

One of the modules that takes place in my building is the analysis of forensic evidence at a mock crime scene [The Science Behind CSI]. Here's the description from the website.

From stem cell research to criminal convictions, the science of molecular biology and genetics is at the centre of many of today’s most contentious issues. In this module, students learn about DNA fingerprinting, forensic investigations, and genetic transformation through a variety of hands-on laboratory activities and lectures from world-class speakers. Highlighting the program is the mock crime scene investigation where students collect and analyze crime scene evidence. After students have collected the appropriate evidence, they move into the laboratory to perform their analysis and, assuming they have collected the correct pieces of evidence, solve the case.

I can understand why students might find this appealing but there's a problem. One of my goals is to teach students, including high school students, about the wonder and excitement of science as a method of knowing. I would like students to appreciate the knowledge for it's own sake. I would like them to be excited when they learn how life operates at the molecular level (i.e molecular biology & genetics).

One of the major impediments to this goal is the widespread belief that science is just a tool and the main objective is not knowledge for its own sake but applications of science. According to this view, you only learn about molecular biology and genetics because it will somehow cure cancer, detect genetic diseases, and solve crimes.

I think it's wrong to reinforce this belief when we have a chance to educate a select group of high school students. I would much prefer to teach them about molecular evolution, how genes are expressed, and how we solve the structure of proteins.

This isn't going to happen in a program with such a heavy emphasis on medicine and medical applications but, in the long run, science will lose out when these bright students enter medical schools or forensic programs instead of pure science programs.

What's the appropriate balance between catching and holding the attention of students by having them solve a "crime" and trying to teach them the value of scientific discovery for its own sake?

---

Dancing

Ms. Sandwalk sent me the link to this video. She knows that I love this sort of thing. It makes me happy.

---

The "Harper Government" Responds

Basic, fundamental research in Canada is in big trouble. The current government, led by Stephen Harper's Conservatives, have cut back on the funding of basic research while promoting applied research of various sorts. The consequences in academic departments have been nothing short of disastrous. In university biochemistry and molecular biology departments, for example, there are hundreds of mid-career scientists who have lost their grants and many of them will never get back funding for their basic science projects. This means that research technicians are being fired, graduate students and postdocs can't complete their projects, and PI's find themselves unable to do what they've been hired to do, with 15-20 years before retirement age.

The recent protest on Parliament Hill [Protest on Parliament Hill] highlighted some of these problems with science funding in Canada. That prompted a response from Gary Goodyear, Minister of State for Science and Technology (see below). Recall that Gary Goodyear is a chiropractor and a creationist [Gary Goodyear "Clarifies" His Stance on Evolution].

Here's the Harper Government's¹ response to criticism that it has neglected basic research in favor of applied research.

The Harper government has made historic investments in science, technology and research to create jobs, grow our economy and improve the quality of life for Canadians.

Support for science and technology has been a fundamental priority of our government since 2006. This year, through Economic Action Plan 2012, we enhanced federal government support for leading-edge research.

As a world leader in post-secondary research with a highly skilled workforce, Canada has strong fundamentals for innovation. While several countries around the world are reducing funding in science and research, our government continues to invest in research, development and technology. In fact, Canadian higher-education research and development expenditures are higher than any other G7 country, as a percentage of GDP.

While the government is returning to a balanced budget, science, technology and innovation remain a strong priority with an added $1.1-billion investment over five years. University presidents, academic leaders and industry leaders have praised our government's leadership in recognizing the important role that research and innovation play in our economic prosperity.

Economic Action Plan 2012 funding allocated to science, technology and innovation includes:

• $12 million per year to make the Business-Led Networks of Centres of Excellence program permanent.
• $6.5 million over three years for a research project at McMaster University to evaluate team-based approaches to health care delivery.
• $17 million over two years to further advance the development of alternatives to existing isotope production technologies.
• $105 million over two years to support forestry innovation.
• $37 million annually starting in 2012-13 to the granting councils to enhance their support for industry-academic research partnerships.
• $60 million for Genome Canada to launch a new applied research competition in the area of human health and to sustain the Science and Technology Innovation Centres until 2014-15.
• $10 million over two years to the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research to link Canadians to global research networks.
• $500 million over five years, starting in 2014-15, to the Canada Foundation for Innovation to support advanced research infrastructure.
• $40 million over two years to support CANARIE's operation of Canada's ultra-high-speed research network.

Our government is investing in science and research that is leading to breakthroughs that are strengthening our economy and the quality of life of all Canadians. Our investments are enabling Canadian scientists in universities, colleges, businesses and other organizations to help secure Canada's prosperity today and into the future.

Does that sound like a government that understands the importance of basic research and knows the difference between research and "innovation"? He forgot to mention that these "increases" in spending are not on top of existing funding but often instead of support for fundamental research. That's why scientists all over the country are losing their grants unless they can find a way to make them sound applied or translational.

UPDATE: See how Denyse O'Leary manages to turn this into whining about Darwinists at Scientists, including evolutionary biologists, carry coffin through streets in Canada, to protest cuts to funding?.

---

1. Before Stephen Harper took over, it was common to refer to the "Government of Canada" in press releases. Now, it's always the "Harper Government."

A History of Science Blogging

Blogs have been around for more than a decade but it's still not clear what purpose they serve (if any). We still don't know how to distinguish a science blog from other types of blogs—perhaps it's foolish to try.

Bora Zivkovic of A blog Around the Clock has written a short history of science blogging [Science Blogs – definition, and a history]. It's well worth reading since Bora has been active for a long time and he's very well connected to the science blogging community.

Here's how he describes the category that applies to Sandwalk.

The earliest science bloggers were those who started out doing something else online – updating their websites frequently, or participating in Usenet groups – then moving their stuff to blogging software once it became available in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

As much of the early online activity focused on countering anti-science claims, e.g., the groups battling against Creationism on Usenet, it is not surprising that many of the early science bloggers came out of this fora and were hardly distinguishable in form, topics and style from political bloggers. They brought a degree of Usenet style into their blogs as well: combative and critical of various anti-science forces in the society.

In my case the usenet groups were talk.origins and sci.bio.evolution. Both of those groups are hosted on a server in my office; talk.origins is still very active but sci.bio.evolution isn't.

PZ Myers is the most famous talk.origins veteran. He's the one who convinced me to start a blog back in 2006 when I realized that blogs had many advantages over usenet, especially images. I don't know how many other talk.origins veterans have a blog. Can you help me out? Here's a partial list. (Some of these blogs are not science blogs.)

PZ Myers: Pharyngula
John Wilkins: Evolving Thoughts
Jeffrey Shallit: Recursivity
Jim Lippard: The Lippard Blog
various people: Panda's Thumb
John (catshark) Pieret: Thoughts in a Haystack
Troy Britain: Playing Chess with Pigeons

I know there are many more but I just can't remember them right now.

The other thing that Bora points out is that many science bloggers were connected to each other in different ways. Often we had met in person—this is certainly true of the talk.origins veterans. The early blogs were characterized by in jokes and incestuous cross links.

This has now disappeared as a whole new generation of science bloggers have entered the blogosphere, although there's still a certain amount of personal contact (see Evolution and Poutine and Beaver Tails.) I don't know if this is important or not. Blogger cliques can be a good thing and a bad thing.

---

Protest on Paliament Hill

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is destroying basic research in Canadian universities. His government is also shutting down government research facilities and muzzling government scientists. The current Canadian government is famous for ignoring science and evidence on many issues.

Several student organizations and scientists decided to take advantage of Evolution Ottawa 2012 to organize a protest based on the theme "No science, no evidence, no truth, no democracy." The protest took the form of a funeral for the death of evidence.

We gathered at the Conference Centre and marched across Confederation Square, up Wellington Street, and onto Parliament Hill.

Ryan Gregory and I had a good view from the steps of Parliament Hill.

There were about a dozen speakers who addressed the crowd. They included the President of the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution, Jeffrey Hutchings (left), Maude Barlow (centre), and Liberal MP Ted Hsu (right). (Ted Hsu has a Ph.D. in physics form Princeton University and he worked at Atomic Energy of Canada's Chalk River Laboratories (AECL) before becoming a member of parliament.

The crowd of 1100 was well-behaved. The police were bored. Everyone had a good time. I've never been to a protest that emphasized good science and support for evidence-based policy. That's the message that all the speakers supported.

Ryan Gregory has more pictures, and a video [Pro-science rally on Parliament Hill].

Ford Denison was there ... check out the photo at: Thousands protest suppression of science in Canada -- the "Death of Evidence" rally.

---

Rosie Redfield at Evolution Ottawa 2012

Rosie Redfield gave a talk on Sunday night. She described the work she did on the so-called "arsenic-incorporating" strain of bacteria that was made famous in a NASA press release and a subsequent Science paper last year [Arsenic and Bacteria] [Arsenic-associated bacteria (NASA's claims)] ["This Paper Should Not Have Been Published"].

You might recall that Rosie was among the first scientists to point out the flaws in the original paper and this led to a delay in its publication. When it finally was published there were several critical comments—including one from Rosie—that appeared in the same issue.

Rosie obtained the GFAJ-1 strain and tested its growth characteristics. She determined that it absoltutely required phosphate for growth and growth stopped when the phosphate in the medium was depleted. The strain did tolerate high levels of arsenic in but there was no evidence that it could replace phosphorus.

Rosie purified DNA from cells grown in the presence of arsenic and sent it to her collaborators. There was no arsenic in the DNA. (Carl Zimmer takes you through a blow-by-blow summary of Rosie's talk at Live-blogging Arsenic Life].)

The work was submitted to Science and the paper was accepted for publication It was due to be published on July 26th which meant that, under the conditions imposed by Science, Rosie wasn't allowed to talk about her work until then. Rosie informed Science that she intended to violate the embargo and describe her results at this meeting. Science responded by moving the publication date forward and posting the paper on their website at 8pm Sunday night [Absence of Detectable Arsenate in DNA from Arsenate-Grown GFAJ-1 Cells]. Carl Zimmer was watching the website as Rosie spoke and at one point in her talk she turned to Carl to ask if the paper was up—it was.

The audience recognized that this was a major victory for open science. As the moderator put it at the end of her talk, you can mess with NASA, you can mess with Science, but don't mess with Rosie Redfield!

There are two papers being published in Science. The other one [GFAJ-1 Is an Arsenate-Resistant, Phosphate-Dependent Organism] says essentially the same thing as Rosie's paper.

The bottom line here is that the original paper by Wolfe-Simon et al. (2011) was deeply flawed and should never have been published by Science. More importantly, the latest results show that Felisa Wolfe-Simon was dead wrong when she claimed at the NASA press conference that GFAJ-1 incorporated arsenic into its DNA. You can watch her say this in the video I posted at: The Arsenic Affair: No Arsenic in DNA!.

You may be wondering how NASA and the authors of the original paper are handling this issue. In spite of the fact that they held a public press release and in spite of the fact that Felisa Wolfe-Simon was interviewed multiple time in the press and even gave a TED talk, they maintain that the only proper forum to discuss criticism of their paper is in the peer-reviewed literature! (I hate hypocrites.)

When Wolfe-Simon heard that Rosie's paper was in press she said [Arsenic-based life finding fails follow-up] ...

Wolfe-Simon, who says she can’t comment in detail until Redfield’s results appear in a peer-reviewed journal, wrote in an email that her original paper never actually claimed that arsenate was being incorporated in GFAJ-1’s DNA, but that others had jumped to that conclusion. “As far as we know, all the data in our paper still stand,” she wrote. “Yet, it may take some time to accurately establish where the [arsenic] ends up.”

She's right about the fact that the original paper never actually said that arsenic replaced phosphorus in DNA but it did strongly imply that this was the logical conclusion. However, in her press conference, Wolfe-Simon explicitly talked about arsenic replacing phosphorus in DNA and nobody who listened to that talk could have come away with any other impression. You didn't have to "jump to that conclusion" after hearing the presss conference.

So what are they saying today? Read Rosie's blog at: NASA's cowardly responses to their #arseniclife FAIL. And here's what Wolfe-Simon is saying, quoted at: New Studies Say No, Life Can't Live on Arsenic Alone.

These Science authors have made it clear that they are convinced they have tightly shut the door on arsenic incorporation into biomolecules. Yet, low amounts of arsenic incorporation may be challenging to find and unstable once cells are opened," she writes, "so may merit comprehensive and systematic efforts with other assays and conditions.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect Wolfe-Simon to apologize but I do think the scientific community should continue to apply pressure on NASA.

Here's a very good account of what happened and why NASA should be ashamed: Scientist in a Strange Land. It also expresses some sympathy for Felisa Wolfe-Simon.

---

Photo courtesy of Seanna Watson.

Wolfe-Simon, F., Switzer Blum, J., Kulp, T.R., Gordon, G.W., Hoeft, S.E., Pett-Ridge, J., Stolz, J.F., Webb, S.M., Weber, P.K., Davies, P.C.W., Anbar, A.D. and Oremland, R.S. (2011) A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus. Science. 332:1163-1166. Published online 2 December 2010; published in Science magazine Jun 3, 2011 [doi: 10.1126/science.1197258]

Wolfe-Simon, F., Switzer Blum, J., Kulp, T.R., Gordon, G.W., Hoeft, S.E., Pett-Ridge, J., Stolz, J.F., Webb, S.M., Weber, P.K., Davies, P.C.W., Anbar, A.D. and Oremland, R.S. (2011) Response to comments on "A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus". Science. 332:1149. [doi: 10.1126/science.1202098]

Beaver Tails

Tonight a bunch of us went for dinner at a pub in the Byward Market area of Ottawa just a short walk from the conference centre. Afterward we ate Beaver Tails.

There were fifteen of us. Four of Ryan Gregory's graduate students, three people I met at the evolution education session, Bjørn Østman, Ford Denison (This Week in Evolution), Carl Zimmer, Steve Watson, Seanna Watson, Ryan Gregory, and Joe Felsenstein.

Everyone liked Beaver Tails. I had chocolate and banana.

We talked about evolution, blogging, science writing, and Rosie Redfield ('cause she wasn't there!).

---

Quantitative Trait Evolution

I'm at Evolution Ottawa 2012 and this afternoon I went to a session on New phylogenetic methods for quantitative trait variation.

I attended two talks.

Introduction and asymptotic behavior of trait evolution models under drift and stabilizing selection by Cecile Ane.

Placing fossils on molecular phylogenise with Brownian motion or Ornstein-Uhlenbeck models of continuous trait evolution by Joe Felsenstein.

It was interesting to be exposed to this kind of theoretical population genetics but I really didn't understand a single thing.

There were more than 200 people in the audience listening with rapt attention. They're a lot smarter than me. It was embarrassing.

There's one thing Joe said that I understood, and it was very impressive. He referred to a paper "published by me." Nowadays, almost everyone would say, incorrectly, "published by myself."

---

That's a photo of one of the speakers. Can you guess which one?

Communicating Science to Society

I attended a workshop on Communicating Science to Society at Evolution Ottawa 2012. The workshop was hosted by two science writers, Peter Calamai and Richard Webster and there were about one hundred people at the session.

The goal was ...

Whether you need to learn the basics or fine tune the dark art of science communication, this half day workshop is for you. Come for insider advice from a group of North America’s top science communicators. The session will open with evolutionary ecologist Tom Sherratt talking about his experience with the media and why he does it. The panellists will introduce an area of journalism and discuss their experiences with interviewing researchers. Then the panel discussion will expand on some of the challenges scientists face and the practical communication solutions. Finally a break-out session will allow for an interactive round table letting participants choose a topic of particular interest (how to give an interview, how to pitch a science book to a publisher, 101 for scientists using social media). The workshop will conclude with a networking session between fellow science communicators and the panellists. By the end, delegates can expect to have built a strategy as to how to effectively approach and handle different media opportunities (such as TV, radio, print & social media) and also leave with a handout of useful tips.

The panelists were ....

• Carl Zimmer (NYT columnist & author of A Planet of Viruses and many other best sellers)
• Penny Park ( Producer of CBC’s Quirks & Quarks and Discovery Channel’s The Daily Planet. Now Executive Director of the Science Media Centre of Canada)
• Elizabeth Howell Ottawa Business Journal, freelance science journalist and social media expert
• Tim Lougheed Freelance science journalist

I've been to half a dozen of these meetings at various conferences. The main theme is always the same. It consists of a bunch of science journalists telling scientists how we should help them (the journalists) make a living at science writing. We are told repeatedly that they have deadlines and editors and that they have to write about science in a way that appeals to the general public. We are told that if we want our research to be publicized then it has to to be cool and sexy and if it isn't then the science writers will help us "frame" it in a way that appeals to the public.

At this meeting, the emphasis was all about deadlines and writing about the latest papers from your labs. The science writers thought that we all wanted to get our latest hot results on the front pages of the newspapers. That's just not true. It's not what science is all about and it's not what we need in order to increase public awareness of science. (To his credit, Carl Zimmer seems to understand this better than other science journalists.)

What we need is not more splash about the latest Nature paper on the evolution of mimicry in insects. What we need is more articles on what evolution is and why it's so important. If science writers were really in the business of communicating science to the public then that's what they would be writing about. That, and topics like; what is DNA, how do genes work, what's in your genome, what causes speciation, why bacteria are important etc. etc.

The public needs to know the basics and they need to appreciate excitement of understanding what life is all about. They need Biology 101, not some senior level course that focuses on the latest research. That kind of science writing doesn't have to be done in a hurry before the embargo expires and it would be a much more useful way of communicating science to society.

Just once, I'd like to attend a meeting like this where the science journalists admit that they have been remarkably unsuccessful at educating the general public about science. Instead of telling us how to fit into the current failed system, I'd like them to ask us how they can change the way they write about science in order to advance science literacy.

I don't think that's ever going to happen. As a general rule, science writers seem to think that they are the experts on communicating science to the general public and all they need to do is teach us scientists how to work the system and tell people what they want to hear. It never occurs to them that the system is broken and that's why we have a scientifically illiterate society.

---

Evolution and Poutine

A bunch of us are attending Evolution Ottawa 2012. We set off to find the best poutine in the region and ended up at Jean Burger in Wakefield Quebec—about 30 minutes north of Ottawa.

Here's the group enjoying "French cuisine." From top left to right there's Bjørn Østman, Seanna Watson, Steve Watson, Ryan Gregory, Rosie Redfield, and Jerry Coyne.

Jerry really liked the poutine. Rosie ... not so much ... although she did say it wasn't as bad as she expected. For the record, it was the best poutine I've ever had so the trip was worth it.

Afterwards we drove into Wakefield and visited the bakery for dessert. I've been going to this bakery for 50 years—my favorite ski hill is nearby.

We talked about a lot of things, especially science, skepticism, and blogging.

---

Another IDiot Book: Science and Human Origins

The IDiots at Disco (Discovery Institute) have published another book. This time the authors are Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe, and Casey Luskin. Gauger and Axe are scientists so this book is supposed to be about science. Unfortunately, Casey Luskin is a lawyer which pretty much negates the authority of Gauger and Axe.

The book has been thoroughly reviewed by Paul McBride on Still Monkeys. McBride is a graduate student studying evolution in New Zealand. Read the reviews at ...

Science and Human Origins - Chapter 1 review
Science and Human Origins - Chapter 2 review
Science and Human Origins - Chapter 3 review
Science and Human Origins - Chapter 4 review
Science and Human Origins - Chapter 4 review: Part 2
Science and Human Origins - Chapter 5 review

Wanna know the bottom line?

1. Common descent is still alive and well.
2. Natural selection still works.
3. The human fossil record still demonstrates evolution.
4. Junk DNA still exists.
5. There's no evidence for Adam and Eve.

Here's how Paul McBride sums up his review.

Science and Human Origins has to be described first and foremost as being anti-evolution rather than pro-intelligent-design, or pro-science. If it offers solace to those seeking evidence against evolution for their faith, the solace should be as incomplete as the arguments made in the book.

This is a common criticism. Most IDiot literature is nothing more than a misguided attack on evolution. It's increasingly rare to see any defense of intelligent design. Perhaps that's because it's indefensible?

---

Carnival of Evolution #49

This month's Carnival of Evolution (49th version) is hosted Mousetrap: ecology and evolution footnotes. Read it at: Carnival of Evolution catch 49

Evolutionary studies are rich both in concepts and methods but not dis-integrated. As you will see, there is a common theme. Have fun.

The next Carnival of Evolution (August) will be hosted by Teaching Biology. If you want to volunteer to host others, contact Bjørn Østman. Bjørn is always looking for someone to host the Carnival of Evolution. He would prefer someone who has not hosted before. Contact him at the Carnival of Evolution blog. You can send articles directly to him or you can submit your articles at Carnival of Evolution.

---

Biochemists on Abbey Road

Jerry Coyne posted the photograph on the right and said, "If you don’t know what happened a few minutes after this picture was taken in 1969, you are either way too young or have no knowledge of rock history" [Music history about to be made]. I agree but, unfortunately, there are way too many people who are way too young. You can't blame them for not knowing what was about to happen.

I've been on that crosswalk dozens of times because it's right near a house in St. John's Wood where I once stayed while in London. Here's a photograph (below) of the owner of that house along with some of his friends. You don't have to be very old to have been around when this photo was taken but you do have to have some knowledge of the history of biochemistry and molecular biology.

How many of you can name all the scientists in this photo? (No peeking at the comments.)

---

Sebastian Thrun Will Change Education

John Hawks is a big fan of online education. He posted a link to a Wall Street Journal article about online education [Online education and Silicon Valley]. The article, Sebastian Thrun: What's Next for Silicon Valley?, is mostly about a Stanford professor and Google employee, Sebastian Thrun.

The entrance to his building is littered with the gaudy red, blue, yellow and green bicycles that Googlers tool around on. I'm at the secret headquarters of the not-so-secret Google X, where the way-out-there projects of the search giant turn into reality. The gregarious play master, Sebastian Thrun, leads us into a well-worn conference room. The chairs are a shade of green not found in nature and the disrupting clang and cheers from a rousing foosball game waft in through the door. Mr. Thrun, 45 and slight in stature, is sporting a gray T-shirt of a local start-up and speaks softly with German-English diction.

Thrun and his Google colleague, Peter Norvig, taught an online course on artificial intelligence that attracted a huge number of students. Apparently there were 23,000 students who completed the course. That's amazing. But there's more ...

Mr. Thrun's cost was basically $1 per student per class. That's on the order of 1,000 times less per pupil than for a K-12 or a college education—way more than the rule of thumb in Silicon Valley that you need a 10 times cost advantage to drive change.

So Mr. Thrun set up a company, Udacity, that joins many other companies attacking the problem of how to deliver the optimal online education. "What I see is democratizing education will change everything," he says. "I have an unbelievable passion about this. We will reach students that have never been reached. I can give my love of learning to other people. I've stumbled into the most amazing Wonderland. I've taken the red pill and seen how deep Wonderland is."

How in the world do you pay attention to 23,000 students and give them a grade that reflects what they learned for only $23,000? The only way you could do that is to have all assignments and tests evaluated electronically and that's no way to teach properly. (You also need very cheap servers, internet access, and software and Thrun and Norvig have to work for free.)

Udacity is a for-profit company. How will it make money? [Ex-Stanford Teacher’s New Startup Brings University-Level Education To All].

Classes are currently focused on computer science since that’s what the team already knows how to teach. Examples include: Building a Search Engine and Programming a Robotic Car. As one of the inventors of Google’s self-driving car, Sebastian is perfectly suited to teach a class on how to program one. Udacity plans to expand to other subjects with the goal of building a full university online.

All classes are currently free, and the goal is to keep it that way. When asked how it will make money, Sebastian pointed out that recruiting good technical talent is something that companies pay for. Udacity knows who the best students are and could pass them along to companies looking for new hires.

Somehow I doubt that Udacity will be offering courses in philosophy, French, or art history. I don't even think they'll be teaching biochemistry since very few of our undergraduates move directly from a Bachelor's degree to jobs in biotech or pharmaceutical companies.

Sebastian Thrun thinks he's going to "democratize" education but, if he succeeds, what he's really going to do is dumb down and cheapen education. The only thing in his favor is the fact that today's universities are doing the same thing so creating online courses is probably no worse that what students are currently getting in the classroom. If someone can offer the same quality of "education" for much less money then what's the point of attending classes?

---

Was the Origin of Life a Lucky Accident?

Nick Lane has written a very nice article in the June 23, 2012 issue of New Scientist: Life: is it inevitable or just a fluke?.

Nick Lane is a biochemist who works on the origin of life at University College London (UK). He's also a science writer who recently won the Royal Society Prize for Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution. His new book will be called, CHASM: The Outlandish Origins of Complex Life.

Lane is one of the main proponents of the "Metabolism First" view of the origin of life. The idea is that life began with the evolution of an energy source much like the main source of energy in today's cell. The energy is derived from a gradient of proton concentration across a membrane. This was first discovered by Peter Mitchell (chemiosmotic theory) and it was one of the most important discoveries in biochemistry—although most people, including most biochemists, haven't got a clue what it's all about [Ode to Peter Mitchell] [Why Are Cells Powered by Proton Gradients?] [Metabolism First and the Origin of Life ].

The ability to generate usable energy in this manner could have arisen near thermal vents in the ocean where the gradient exists between the alkaline interior of small cavities in the rock and the external seawater. The energy was then used to build up small organic molecules such as sugars and amino acids. Early metabolism arose when pathways for the simple molecules of life evolved using simple inorganic catalysts and/or simple peptide catalysts. "Metabolism First" is a much more reasonable scenario, in my opinion, than "Prebiotic Soup" [More Prebiotic Soup Nonsense].

If this view is correct then the origin of life depends only on the presence of simple chemical systems that create an energy producing gradient and this is likely to happen on many planets. However, the leap from simple cells to complex cells may have been the rate-limiting step in the evolution of sentient beings.

Lane suggests that large complex cells with large genomes could only have arisen if they discovered an abundant source of energy. That happened when some simple bacteria formed an endosymbiotic relationship with bigger cells to create a new life form with mitochondria [Energetics and genetics across the prokaryoteeukaryote
divide]. This unique event was not inevitable. It happened only once in the history of life—about 2 billion years ago. This sort of lucky accident may never occur on other planets so it may just be a fluke that sentient beings evolved on Earth.

We may be alone in the universe.

---

Monday's Molecule #176

Today's molecule has a common name and a much less common systematic (IUPAC) name. You need to supply both names in order to win. You also need to tell us what this molecule does.

Post your answer as a comment. I'll hold off releasing any comments for 24 hours. The first one with the correct answer wins. I will only post mostly correct answers to avoid embarrassment. The winner will be treated to a free lunch with a very famous person, or me.

There could be two winners. If the first correct answer isn't from an undergraduate student then I'll select a second winner from those undergraduates who post the correct answer. You will need to identify yourself as an undergraduate in order to win. (Put "undergraduate" at the bottom of your comment.)

Some past winners are from distant lands so their chances of taking up my offer of a free lunch are slim. (That's why I can afford to do this!)

In order to win you must post your correct name. Anonymous and pseudoanonymous commenters can't win the free lunch.

Winners will have to contact me by email to arrange a lunch date.

Comments are invisible for 24 hours. Comments are now open.

UPDATE: The molecule is dextromethorphan [(+)-3-methoxy-17-methyl-(9α,13α,14α)-morphinan]. It's a cough suppressant (DM). The first person with the correct answer is DR but unless he/she posts his/her name and status (undergraduate?) in the next 24 hours the prize will got to Raul A. Félix de Sousa.

Winners
Nov. 2009: Jason Oakley, Alex Ling
Oct. 17: Bill Chaney, Roger Fan
Oct. 24: DK
Oct. 31: Joseph C. Somody
Nov. 7: Jason Oakley
Nov. 15: Thomas Ferraro, Vipulan Vigneswaran
Nov. 21: Vipulan Vigneswaran (honorary mention to Raul A. Félix de Sousa)
Nov. 28: Philip Rodger
Dec. 5: 凌嘉誠 (Alex Ling)
Dec. 12: Bill Chaney
Dec. 19: Joseph C. Somody
Jan. 9: Dima Klenchin
Jan. 23: David Schuller
Jan. 30: Peter Monaghan
Feb. 7: Thomas Ferraro, Charles Motraghi
Feb. 13: Joseph C. Somody
March 5: Albi Celaj
March 12: Bill Chaney, Raul A. Félix de Sousa
March 19: no winner
March 26: John Runnels, Raul A. Félix de Sousa
April 2: Sean Ridout
April 9: no winner
April 16: Raul A. Félix de Sousa
April 23: Dima Klenchin, Deena Allan
April 30: Sean Ridout
May 7: Matt McFarlane
May 14: no winner
May 21: no winner
May 29: Mike Hamilton, Dmitri Tchigvintsev
June 4: Bill Chaney, Matt McFarlane
June 18: Raul A. Félix de Sousa
June 25: Raul A. Félix de Sousa
July 1: Raul A. Félix de Sousa

---

Adaptation vs Drift at Evolution Ottawa 2012

I've been looking over the program for the First Joint Congress on Evolutionary Biology to be held in Ottawa, Canada next week [Evolution Ottawa].

The talks are divided into sessions with six short presentations per session. Here's the list of sessions with the words "adaptation" or "selection" in the title.

Adaptation 1
Adaptation 2
Adaptation 3
Adaptation 4
Adaptation 5
Adaptation 6
Adaptation 7
Adaptation 8
Adaptation 9
Adaptation 10
Adaptation and Evolutionary Genetics
Sexual Selection and Mating Systems 1
Sexual Selection and Mating Systems 2
Sexual Selection and Mating Systems 3
Sexual Selection and Mating Systems 4
Sexual Selection and Mating Systems 5
Sexual Selection and Mating Systems 6
Sexual Selection and Mating Systems 7
Sexual Selection and Mating Systems 8
Sexual Selection and Mating Systems 9
Sexual Selection and Mating Systems 10
Sexual Selection and Mating Systems 11
Sexual Selection and Mating Systems 12
Sexual Selection and Mating Systems 13
Sexual Selection and Mating Systems 14
Sexual Selection and Mating Systems 15
Mating Systems and Sexual Selection 1
Mating Systems and Sexual Selection 2
Adaptation and Experimental Evolution 1
Adaptation and Experimental Evolution 2
Sexual Selection and Experimental Evolution
Adaptation and Gene Flow
Adaptation and Genomics
Adaptation and Evolutionary Ecolgy 1
Adaptation and Evolutionary Ecolgy 2
Adaptation and Evolutionary Ecolgy 3
Adaptation and Evolutionary Ecolgy 4
Adaptation and Evolutionary Ecolgy 5
Natural Selection in the Wild: from Genotype to Phenotype

Here's the list of sessions with "Random Genetic Drift" or Neutral" in their titles.

Isn't that strange? There are many more neutral alleles than beneficial alleles and random genetic drift is overwhelmingly the most common mechanism of evolution. I guess most evolutionary biologists have a huge bias toward studying adaptation. One can't help but wonder how many studies were abandoned when the investigators discovered that they couldn't prove natural selection was involved.

Why weren't those studies completed and published as examples of random genetic drift?

There are more than one thousand talks being given at this meeting and only five (5) have the word "drift" in their title—and one of those is about education!

---

What's Wrong with Michael Ruse's View of Accommodationism?

Michael Ruse wrote a book called Science and Spirituality: Making Room for Faith in the Age of Science (2010). It's a defense of accommodationism—the position of atheists who maintain that science and religion are compatible because they are different ways of knowing. Ruse is one of the main proponents of Methodological Naturalism, which postulates that science is restricted, or limited, to investigations of the natural world. Since religion deals, by definition, with the supernatural world, it falls outside the domain of science and is, therefore, compatible with science. This leads Ruse to define several criteria of Christianity that are immune to scientific investigation [The Essence of Christianity].

This position used to be overwhelmingly accepted by the majority of scientists and philosophers, especially in America. It has become the standard view of most professional scientific organizations and of The National Center for Science Education (NCSE). It's a convenient way for atheist scientists and religious people who are mostly accepting of science to avoid conflict as they make common cause against the extreme creationists.

But that view is now being challenged and it's no longer acceptable to claim that it represents the only view of science. That's what the good guys did during the Dover trial a few years ago but it wouldn't work today because there are dozens of prominent philosophers of science who would argue against such a limitation of science.

One of them is Peter Slezak of the School of History and Philosophy, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. He recently wrote a review of Ruse's book: Michael Ruse: Science and Spiritutality: Making Room for Faith in the Age of Science (Slezak, 2011).

Much of the conflict depends on definitions and Slezak clearly endorses a much broader view of science than Ruse. Here's how Slezak challenges the view that science has limits.

This is a widely held and obviously appealing line to adopt for those, like Ruse, who are committed to the scientific enterprise and its claims. However, I will suggest that, despite its appearance of open-minded ecumenicalism, the posture faces insuperable intellectual difficulties. In wishing to leave room beyond ‘‘the allowable scope of science’’ (p. 235), Ruse is effectively endorsing a traditional demarcation between science and metaphysics in order to restore respectability to some claims in the latter category. However, this recidivist project does not properly address the hegemonic nature of the scientific enterprise. This conception is expressed in the final remarks of Bertrand Russell’s (1935) book Religion and Science. Aside from questions of value that lie outside the realm of truth and falsehood,

Russell says:

Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know (1935, p. 243).

The title of Freud’s (1927, 92) book The Future of an Illusion refers to religion and ends with the exactly the same sentiments: ‘‘an illusion it would be to suppose that what science cannot give us we can get elsewhere’’. These expressions of a positivist conception are less dogmatic than they appear because they may be understood as statements of the openmindedness of science rather than its opposite. That is, ‘‘science’’ doesn’t exclude anything simply because the honorific label is used for anything worth believing. That is, if there are any rational grounds for a proposition, it will become included within the domain of established science. Or, rather, perhaps we should say that it will be included on the spectrum of claims ranging across ‘good, bad and bogus’ to use the sub-title of Gardner’s (1981) book. The point is captured in Laudan’s (1983) account of the ‘‘Demise of the Demarcation Problem’’ since he shows that ‘‘the problem of demarcation … is spurious’’ and the heterogeneity of beliefs and activities means that there are no lines to be drawn (see Special Issue of Science & Education, 2011, volume 20, 5–6). In particular, this means that the claims of religion fall somewhere on the spectrum, arguably nearer the bogus end. However, this means that they are subject to the usual criteria for deciding what is worth believing, which is, in any case, clear enough from the nature of the claims as we will note presently.

Ruse and his allies believe that any attempt to step outside the limits of science constitute a venture into metaphysics and this is not science but something else. Peter Slezak rejects this argument ...

Plantinga (1991, 8) suggests that the question of the clash between faith and reason is ‘‘enormously difficult’’ requiring ‘‘penetrating grasp of the relevant theological and philosophical issues’’ as well as the complex science. However, this is sheer bluff since the arguments don’t depend on any such arcane knowledge. Thus, citing Plantinga, Ruse (p. 183) seeks room for claims alongside and independent of science on the grounds that there are alternative ‘‘world views’’ and, therefore, a choice between two ‘‘metaphysical’’ options— naturalism and theism. The air of reasonableness and even profundity in this stance produces a vacant illusion of explanation but disguises sophistry. First, even if we are to talk this fancy philosophical way with Plantinga, it remains obscure why the Christian theistic ‘‘metaphysics’’ is the only alternative to the ‘‘naturalistic’’ one. One could presumably find or invent many others that would have equal status as alternatives to naturalism by virtue of having nothing to recommend them. Does Plantinga think that Mexican metaphysics based on the theology of Quetzalcoatl deserves equal consideration with his Christian variety?

The very idea that we can transcend what Ruse calls the ‘‘limitations of a science based knowledge’’ (p. 10), or that we have a choice between alternative ‘‘metaphysics’’, is an illusion. There is no alternative to our best theories other than worse ones. Naturalism is just the picture provided by our current science and is, therefore, the best we’ve got. Pretentious philosophical talk of ‘‘metaphysical’’ options can’t change the fact that naturalism is the only game in town since it is simply the totality of our theories in physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, geology and so on. Does Christian metaphysics provide a better account of quantum physics, cosmology or the structure of DNA?

Slezak is going to be accused of scientism or, at the very least, naturalism. The accommodationists will claim that the leap to naturalism is overstepping the limits of what science can or cannot claim. That's not true. Science teaches us that the scientific approach works and that most things have a naturalistic explanation. It follows that any claim of a valid a non-naturalistic explanation must have at least as much to recommend it or else it is nothing more than hand-waving.

---

Slezak, P. (2011) Michael Ruse: Science and Spiritutality: Making Room for Faith in the Age of Science Sci & Educ 21:403-413. [DOI 10.1007/s11191-011-9373-0]

Guess Where We're Going Tonight?

I hope Neil Diamond sings Sweet Caroline, we know the actions better than this crowd does! See you at the Air Canada Centre at 8pm!

---

Monday's Molecule #175

If you look closely, you'll see that today's molecule is an unusual variant of a very common cell component. Your task for today is NOT to give this molecule a specific name but rather to describe it in general terms and identify three (3) ways in which it differs from the more common molecules. Finally, you have to tell us where these molecules are found.

Post your answer as a comment. I'll hold off releasing any comments for 24 hours. The first one with the correct answer wins. I will only post mostly correct answers to avoid embarrassment. The winner will be treated to a free lunch with a very famous person, or me.

There could be two winners. If the first correct answer isn't from an undergraduate student then I'll select a second winner from those undergraduates who post the correct answer. You will need to identify yourself as an undergraduate in order to win. (Put "undergraduate" at the bottom of your comment.)

Some past winners are from distant lands so their chances of taking up my offer of a free lunch are slim. (That's why I can afford to do this!)

In order to win you must post your correct name. Anonymous and pseudoanonymous commenters can't win the free lunch.

Winners will have to contact me by email to arrange a lunch date.

Comments are invisible for 24 hours. Comments are now open.

UPDATE: This is a typical bacterial membrane lipid found in archaebacteria (Archaea) and in some gram-negative bacteria. It differs from the glycerophospholipids in eukaryotes and other bacteria in three ways. (1) The backbone molecule (a three carbon glycerol molecule) is sn-glycerol-1-phosphate, a stereoisomer of the more common backbone sn-glycerol-3-phosphate, found in other lipids. (2) The long fatty acid chains are attached to the glycerol moiety by an ether linkage, rather than an ester linkage. (3) The hydrocarbon chains of the fatty acid chains are composed of isoprenoid units methyl units. Today's winner is Raul A. Félix de Sousa (again).

Winners
Nov. 2009: Jason Oakley, Alex Ling
Oct. 17: Bill Chaney, Roger Fan
Oct. 24: DK
Oct. 31: Joseph C. Somody
Nov. 7: Jason Oakley
Nov. 15: Thomas Ferraro, Vipulan Vigneswaran
Nov. 21: Vipulan Vigneswaran (honorary mention to Raul A. Félix de Sousa)
Nov. 28: Philip Rodger
Dec. 5: 凌嘉誠 (Alex Ling)
Dec. 12: Bill Chaney
Dec. 19: Joseph C. Somody
Jan. 9: Dima Klenchin
Jan. 23: David Schuller
Jan. 30: Peter Monaghan
Feb. 7: Thomas Ferraro, Charles Motraghi
Feb. 13: Joseph C. Somody
March 5: Albi Celaj
March 12: Bill Chaney, Raul A. Félix de Sousa
March 19: no winner
March 26: John Runnels, Raul A. Félix de Sousa
April 2: Sean Ridout
April 9: no winner
April 16: Raul A. Félix de Sousa
April 23: Dima Klenchin, Deena Allan
April 30: Sean Ridout
May 7: Matt McFarlane
May 14: no winner
May 21: no winner
May 29: Mike Hamilton, Dmitri Tchigvintsev
June 4: Bill Chaney, Matt McFarlane
June 18: Raul A. Félix de Sousa
June 25: Raul A. Félix de Sousa

---

Do the IDiots Understand Evolution?

David Klinghoffer noted recently that an anthropologist, Richard Leakey, and some lawyer named Jonathan H. Adler seem to be using different meanings of the word "evolution" [For Richard Leakey and So Many Other Darwin Advocates, Evolution Is a Word that Can Mean Anything]. It doesn't seem to matter to Klinghoffer that one of those men is a scientist and the other isn't.

Picking up on the point that evolution is a word that can mean anything, Joshua Youngkin¹ adds his 2 cents [On the Useful Instability of the Word "Evolution"].

David's concern, I think, is that Darwinists use the term "evolution" in various and even conflicting ways in order to occasionally serve less-than-noble purposes. It's almost as if Darwinist usage of the term "evolution" is sometimes meant to keep skeptics and even the public guessing, as if to avoid a fair fight on the evidence about a stable, commonly understood set of propositions. Why would anyone want to do that?

The meanings of the word "evolution" can be found in evolutionary biology textbooks and at many places on the web. You can read two of my contributions at What Is Evolution? and Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory. It seems to me that many evolutionary biologists are making a very serious effort to define their terms.

Some of the IDiots actually get it as I pointed out a few weeks ago [All IDiots Believe in Evolution!]. That was in response to a posting by johnnyb who said ....

So what is one to do? Well, thankfully, our friends the evolutionists have given us a way out. In their zeal to claim consensus on the “fact of evolution,” they have had to steamroll together such a large diversity of opinion into the single term “evolution”, that the word “evolution” no longer has the grand meaning it used to. The only real meaning everyone can agree on is “change in allele frequency over time” – and that is a definition that literally everyone can agree with.

Apparently his fellow IDiots didn't get the memo.

It doesn't take a lot of effort to recognize what evolutionary biologists mean when they use the word "evolution." You have to be really stupid to imagine that they are deliberately using different meanings in in different contexts for the sole purpose of confusing the IDiots. As you can see, the IDiots are quite capable of confusing themselves without our help.

Speaking of deliberate obfuscation ... I wonder why they continue to refer to "Darwinists" when they've been told hundreds of times that this is not a synonym for "evolutionary biologists"? Is that for a "less-than-noble purpose" or is it just because the IDiots are stupid? I think we know the answer to that one.

I have some sympathy for bloggers who are ignorant but I don't like liars. However, the people I really hate are the hypocrites.

---

1. Joshua Youngkin is a lawyer who works for the Discovery Institute. He's probably an expert on the meaning of the word evolution.

A Tribute to Stephen Jay Gould

Stephen Jay Gould died ten years ago on May 20, 2002. Last month there was a conference in Venice, Italy, that celebrated his legacy [Stephen J. Gould's Legacy: Nature, History, Society]. I wish I could have attended because all the main characters were there (Richard Lewontin, Niles Eldredge, Elisabeth Lloyd, and many more).

Ryan Gregory gave a talk on A Gouldian view of the genome and he has posted the video of his presentation (see below). I urge you to watch the whole thing but, if you only have a few minutes, then watch the beginning where Ryan describes the important lessons that Gould taught us.

Evolution Ottawa July 6-10 2012

I'll be going to this meeting next month. Let me know if you'll be there and we can arrange to meet for lunch, dinner, beer, or coffee. We'll definitely be doing a poutine run into Quebec and a walk to Byward Market to get beaver tails.

This is the year Canada celebrates it's victory over the USA in the war of 1812. You can thrill to the spectacle of the changing of the guards on Parliament Hill and see the fearsome redcoats up close. Americans (the losers) are welcome! :-)

Welcome to the site of the First Joint Congress on Evolutionary Biology (aka ‘Evolution 2012’), to be held in Ottawa, Canada’s capital city. This landmark event will bring together five of the world’s largest academic societies devoted to the study of ecology and evolutionary biology: the American Society of Naturalists (ASN), the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution (CSEE) the European Society for Evolutionary Biology (ESEB), the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE), and the Society of Systematic Biologists (SSB). This event merges the traditional ‘Evolution’ meeting, the joint annual meeting of the ASN, SSE and SSB, with both its European and Canadian counterparts (the biennial ESEB congress and annual CSEE meeting). This will be the first time that these five societies have met together, creating a truly international event that spans the fields of ecology and evolution. The meeting will be the premier showcase in 2012 for the presentation and discussion among peers of the latest, leading-edge research in ecology and evolution, and will also be an important forum for outreach and education.

I'll also be attending two workshops on Friday July 6th.

EVO101
Science educators in the Ottawa area are invited to join evolutionary biologists and other science educators at the First Joint Congress on Evolutionary Biology for “EVO 101”, a one day workshop on evolution and using evolutionary data in the classroom. Come learn about exciting research in the field of evolution and attend sessions featuring hands-on activities designed to facilitate the integration of ecological and evolutionary data into your curriculum.

Workshop to include: Talks by scientists and educators and hands-on activities demonstrating effective and fun ways to teach evolution; FREE teaching resources and other give-aways for participants; an opportunity to meet and chat with professional evolutionary biologists who both study and teach evolution; attendance at the Gould Award Lecture, given by the recipient of the Stephen Jay Gould Prize, awarded annually by the Society for the Study of Evolution to recognize individuals whose sustained and exemplary efforts have advanced public understanding of evolutionary science and its importance in biology, education, and everyday life in the spirit of Stephen Jay Gould.

Communicating Science to Society
Whether you need to learn the basics or fine tune the dark art of science communication, this half day workshop is for you. Come for insider advice from a group of North America’s top science communicators. The session will open with evolutionary ecologist Tom Sherratt talking about his experience with the media and why he does it. The panellists will introduce an area of journalism and discuss their experiences with interviewing researchers. Then the panel discussion will expand on some of the challenges scientists face and the practical communication solutions. Finally a break-out session will allow for an interactive round table letting participants choose a topic of particular interest (how to give an interview, how to pitch a science book to a publisher, 101 for scientists using social media). The workshop will conclude with a networking session between fellow science communicators and the panellists. By the end, delegates can expect to have built a strategy as to how to effectively approach and handle different media opportunities (such as TV, radio, print & social media) and also leave with a handout of useful tips.

Hosts: Peter Calamai (Adjunct Research Professor, Carleton University School of Journalism and Communication; founding member of the Canadian Science Writers' Association) and Richard Webster (Science & Communications Officer for Row to the Pole and Biology Ph.D. candidate, Carleton University)
Speakers:

• Carl Zimmer (NYT columnist & author of A Planet of Viruses and many other best sellers)
• Penny Park (Producer of CBC’s Quirks & Quarks and Discovery Channel’s The Daily Planet. Now Executive Director of the Science Media Centre of Canada)
• Elizabeth Howell Ottawa Business Journal, freelance science journalist and social media expert
• Tim Lougheed Freelance science journalist
• Tom Sherratt Evolutionary ecologist, Carleton University

This second workshop is unusual because there's an actual scientist presenting! :-)

---

Monday's Molecule #174

This is a rather unusual molecule but it's found in many species. You need to identify the molecule AND tell us why it was a significant discovery.

Post your answer as a comment. I'll hold off releasing any comments for 24 hours. The first one with the correct answer wins. I will only post mostly correct answers to avoid embarrassment. The winner will be treated to a free lunch with a very famous person, or me.

There could be two winners. If the first correct answer isn't from an undergraduate student then I'll select a second winner from those undergraduates who post the correct answer. You will need to identify yourself as an undergraduate in order to win. (Put "undergraduate" at the bottom of your comment.)

Some past winners are from distant lands so their chances of taking up my offer of a free lunch are slim. (That's why I can afford to do this!)

In order to win you must post your correct name. Anonymous and pseudoanonymous commenters can't win the free lunch.

Winners will have to contact me by email to arrange a lunch date.

Comments are invisible for 24 hours. Comments are now open.

UPDATE: The molecule is pyrrolysine, an amino acid found in the proteins of some species of archaebacteria many species of bacteria. Pyrrolysine is made from lysyl-tRNA synthesized in the cytoplasm and attached to a specific pyrrolysyl-tRNA by a specific pyrrolysyl tRNA synthetase. Pyrrolysine is subsequently incorporated into protein during translation. It is inserted at a specific codon (UAG) and counts as the 23 amino acid. The 21st amino acid is N-formylmethionine and the 22nd amino acid is selenocysteine. Today's winner is Raul A. Félix de Sousa who responded before I remembered to turn on comment moderation so I had to delete his response.

Winners
Nov. 2009: Jason Oakley, Alex Ling
Oct. 17: Bill Chaney, Roger Fan
Oct. 24: DK
Oct. 31: Joseph C. Somody
Nov. 7: Jason Oakley
Nov. 15: Thomas Ferraro, Vipulan Vigneswaran
Nov. 21: Vipulan Vigneswaran (honorary mention to Raul A. Félix de Sousa)
Nov. 28: Philip Rodger
Dec. 5: 凌嘉誠 (Alex Ling)
Dec. 12: Bill Chaney
Dec. 19: Joseph C. Somody
Jan. 9: Dima Klenchin
Jan. 23: David Schuller
Jan. 30: Peter Monaghan
Feb. 7: Thomas Ferraro, Charles Motraghi
Feb. 13: Joseph C. Somody
March 5: Albi Celaj
March 12: Bill Chaney, Raul A. Félix de Sousa
March 19: no winner
March 26: John Runnels, Raul A. Félix de Sousa
April 2: Sean Ridout
April 9: no winner
April 16: Raul A. Félix de Sousa
April 23: Dima Klenchin, Deena Allan
April 30: Sean Ridout
May 7: Matt McFarlane
May 14: no winner
May 21: no winner
May 29: Mike Hamilton, Dmitri Tchigvintsev
June 4: Bill Chaney, Matt McFarlane
June 18: Raul A. Félix de Sousa

---

What Kind of People Take Vitamins?

"There's a sucker born every minute."

David Hannum
(frequently attributed to P.T. Barnum)For normal healthy people there's no evidence that vitamin supplements are necessary, or helpful, in any way [Good Food, Bad Food]. Megadoses of vitamins may be harmful [A bad week for the nutritional supplements industry].

So, why would anyone fork out good money for vitamin supplements?

Biochemistry instructors should make sure students understand the difference between science and pseudoscience. That's why I inserted boxes like this one in the latest version of my textbook.

Whatever happened to vitamin B4 and vitamin B8? They are never listed in the textbooks but you’ll often find them sold in stores that cater to the demand for supplements that might make you feel better and live longer.

Vitamin B4 was adenine, the base found in DNA and RNA.We now know that it’s not a vitamin. All species, including humans, can make copious quantities of adenine whenever it’s needed (Sections 18.1 and 18.2). Vitamin B8 was inositol, a precursor of several important lipids (Figure 8.16 and Section 9.12C). It’s no longer considered a vitamin.

If you know anyone who is paying money for vitamin B4 and B8 supplements then here’s your chance to be helpful. Tell them why they’re wasting their money.

---