The next edition of Gene Genie will be hosted by Neurophilosophy. That's the neurophilosopher on the right (right) outside the Natural History Museum in Kensington, London (UK). Please send your articles to him ASAP. We have lots of genes to cover and only six decades to do it. 
Welcome to the 4th edition of Gene Genie: "A blog carnival on genes and gene-related diseases. We plan to cover the whole genome before 2082." 
The roles of Factor VIII and Factor IX in blood clotting are described in a recent posting [Blood Clotting: Intrinsic Activity]. Defects in the gene for Factor VIII cause a bleeding disorder called hemophilia A [OMIM 306700]. The gene is called F8 and it's located on the X chromosome at q28. The fact that it's X-linked means that males are more likely to be affected than females since females would have to be homozygous for the recessive allele. Heterozygous females are unaffected.
Deficiencies in Factor IX are caused by mutations in the F9 gene, which is also located on the X chromosome (q27.1-q27.2). The disease is called hemophilia B or Christmas disease. Factor IX used to be called Christmas factor after Stephen Christmas (1947-1993), the first patient with a known defect in this clotting factor [OMIM 306900]. It took some time, and a considerable amount of effort, to determine that there were two different genes on the X chromosome and hemophilia A was a different disease than hemophilia B.
I admit it. I was fooled by Ann Coulter. I thought her latest book was one of the standard IDiot attacks on evolution. The fact that it was so stupid was something I have come to expect from the Intelligent Design Creationists.Coulter has very cleverly written a fake criticism of evolution, much like the way NYU physicist Alan Sokal in 1996 published a fake physics article in a literary journal, an affair that has become known as the “Sokal hoax.” A self-proclaimed “old unabashed leftist,” Sokal was disturbed by the sloppily antiscientific, postmodernistic mentality that had started to replace reason and rationality within the academic left and ingeniously made his point by managing to get his nonsense article published by the very people he wished to expose.This is amazing. I congratulate Coulter on her expose of the Intelligent Design movement. She has cleverly pointed out every single flaw.
Coulter’s aim at antiscience is at the other end of the political spectrum. An equally unabashed rightist, she is apparently disturbed by how factions within the political right abandon their normally rational standards when it comes to the issue of evolution. However, whereas Sokal revealed his hoax in a separate article, Coulter challenges her readers to find out the truth for themselves. Without claiming to do justice to Coulter’s multifaceted and sometimes subtle satire, I will attempt to outline some of her most amusing and salient points.
Very short summary: words have effects beyond their dictionary definitions. Language evokes emotional responses: 'frames' (as in 'frames of mind'). There is no such thing as emotion-free language. If you can understand a piece of text (and that includes math, not just English), you will respond emotionally. The kind of response to language results in one accepting or rejecting the message (and the messenger). The kind of response to language is dependent on one's worldview - the same sentence will elicit different responses (and thus acceptance or rejection) in different people.No argument there. People have different worldviews. but what does that mean for science writers?
Good news: most people are biconceptual, i.e., they possess both frames in their minds. By evoking the right frame by careful use of language, you gain trust and authority with the audience and as a result they believe that what you are saying is true. In other words, just saying the truth is not enough, as it is processed through ideological glasses. By invoking the correct frame, you allow the truth to penetrate and get accepted. By dismissing framing as method and by being careless in the use of language, you are bound to "buy into" the currently dominant Rightwing frames and will thus reinforce them while at the same time preventing your audience from accepting the truth. Since conservatism, religion and pseudoscience do not have the truth on their side, their frames are deceptive and Orwellian. Since our frames are backed up by truth, in a head-to-head competition we should win, but we cannot let the opposition frame the issues in the first place.First things first.
The first meaning of 'framing' is the use of language to evoke pre-existing frames in a very small, limited audience for a quick and effective "conversion" for a cause that has immediate political consequences, i.e., the next bill in congress, or the next election, etc. You do not educate them in details of science - they are not interested, do not have enough background and it does not matter if they do or don't understand the fine points. The goal is to bring them over to your side and recruit them to do whatever is politically necessary to win a particular battle over the side of pseudoscience/religion/conservatism. This is what Matt and Chris are discussing.If this is what Chris and Matt are discussing then it's not science education and it's not science writing in the sense that I understand it. It's polemical writing that just happens to be about science.
The second meaning of 'framing' is the use of language to introduce new frames into the public discourse and, as a result, change the entire intellectual landscape. This is necessarily a long-term project - as in: a couple of decades at best. By placing new frames into people's minds - more science-friendly or reality-friendly frames - it makes it easier in the future to recruit greater numbers of people to the cause-du-jour. A frame that is new now, and perhaps rejected by many as silly, will in ten or twenty years be a normal part of everyone's (especially the next generation's) emotional armamentarium. You put them in there now, and evoke them later when you need them. This is what PZ and Moran are talking about.That's only part of what I'm talking about. What I'm really saying is that I value truth and honesty. If I believe in something I'm going to tell people about it. If that turns out to be a minority opinion then that's the way the cookie crumbles. I don't lie awake at night thinking about how the people of North Carolina might interpret my words. My worldview doesn't get "framed" by others. Does yours? Do you worry about how the average Canadian will look at your articles and then make appropriate adjustments to avoid offending them?
First rule: Know your audience.I write for intelligent lay-people, period. I don't change my style from day-to-day depending on whether I think most people will agree or disagree. Quite frankly, I usually assume that most will disagree. That's what curmudgeons do!
Adjust your language to the audience. One language for fellow scientists, another for educated lay-people who are inclined to agree with you, another for people who are disinclined to agree with you, etc.
Second rule: Truth will not let you free.Truth may not be everything but it's so far ahead of whatever's in second place that it might as well be everything. Once you abandon truth you've lost.
Truth is not sufficient. Dry data will not sway non-scientists. Their eyes will glaze over and they'll move on. Reserve your precision for your papers, posters and talks. You can talk like that to your fellow scientists. But as soon as you leave that narrow circle you will have to adjust your language.
It totally does not matter if the targets of your framing have no comprehension of evolution as long as they believe you when you tell them it is true and then act accordingly in the voting booth. This is not a sell-out to our high-minded principles: we will still adhere to our high standards of accuracy in the classroom and in our research reports. But not in our "Natural History Magazine" articles, or on our blogs, where that is inappropriate (at least in some types of blog-posts, like this one, for instance). That is why I, contra PZ and Larry, think that this movie is an excellent tool. It gets evolution wrong, but that is not the point. It visually frames evolution in a way that an uneducated, uninterested, ADHD-riddled layperson can "grok" it in about two minutes. The movie prepares the person for your carefully crafted spiel. And if the person ends up believing that evolution is a fact, it makes no difference if his/her conception of evolution is not 100% correct (hey, Dawkins and Dawkins get it wrong, so why not some Joe Schmoe?). If one out of a thousand viewers of the movie shows more interest, there are plenty of resources you can use to teach that person finer points and make his/her understanding better.Coturnix, I will not follow you down that path. I do not adhere to a "high standard of accuracy" in the classroom and something else in my textbooks and my blog. If that's what you truly believe we should do, then you are on the verge of losing my respect. If that's what Mooney and Nisbet are saying then they are absolutely, totally wrong about science writing.
This is what I reject about the Dawkins/Moran/PZ aggressive atheism - it takes the most stupid version of religion, argues against it, and then claims to have given reasons for not being religious. At best (and here I concur) they have given reasons not to be stupid theists. But a good argument takes on the best of the opposing view, not the worst.John, I debate the existence of God. I have not ignored any arguments for the existence of God that I know of. If you think there are good arguments for the existence of God that I have avoided then please make them known to me. I'm not interested in any of the baggage that comes along with accepting the existence of God. As far as I'm concerned they are completely meaningless unless you can prove that God exists.
Mooney is a regular columnist for Seed, covering the intersection of science and politics. His blog, “The Intersection”, is a part of the ScienceBlogs network, a Seed Media Group venture. He is the author of two books, The Republican War on Science and the forthcoming Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming (Harcourt, July 2007).I enjoy reading Chris' blog and I think he does a good job of explaining some aspects of science. However, I must admit to being a little bit nervous when non-scientists tell me how to write about science. I don't see overwhelming evidence that non-scientists are doing a good job ... with some notable exceptions.
Dr. Nisbet contributes the “Framing Science” blog to the ScienceBlogs network. He is a professor in the School of Communication at American University. His research focuses on the intersections between science, media and politics, and he is the author or co-author of more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies in the area.
Seed Media Group is a leading science media and communications company. Headquartered in New York, with correspondents across the globe, Seed Media Group’s brands include the critically acclaimed science magazine Seed, and ScienceBlogs, the leading digital community dedicated to science. For more information, please visit www.seedmediagroup.com.
“In writing this article together, we argue that scientists shouldn’t exclusively blame politicians and journalists for gridlock on issues like climate change,” says Mooney. “Part of the problem is that scientists carry with them the wrong assumptions about what makes for effective communication.”That's one way of looking at it. However, I prefer not to hide my atheism and my liberal viewpoint under a bushel. I don't know what "framing" is—and reading the blog isn't much help—but it sounds an awful lot like spin to me.
The authors point out that when scientists discuss science-related policy questions in technical language, many members of the public tune it out. Moreover, even while continuing to employ traditional modes of communication, scientists themselves have come under increasing attack for being too atheistic, too self-interested and/or too liberal. Scientists can improve their communication skills by applying research on “framing” and other work in the social sciences. As the article puts it, “Frames organize central ideas in a debate, defining a controversy so that it will resonate with core values and assumptions. Frames pare down complex issues by giving some aspects greater emphasis than others. They allow citizens to rapidly identify why an issue matters, who might be responsible and what should be done.”
“Our suggestions should not be confused with spin; rather, we are advocating the conscious adoption of more effective (and thus, more informative) communication techniques,” said Dr. Nisbet. “Already, influential sectors of the scientific community are beginning to realize that new public engagement strategies are desperately needed.”
Blood clotting is initiated by the extrinsic activity which is localized to the surfaces of tissue factor (TF) bearing cells. These cells are located at the site of injury [Blood Clotting: Extrinsic Activity and Platelet Activation]. The initial steps result in activation of some blood coagulation factors and activation of platelets.
IXa, the active component of tenase, is produced when XIa cleaves the precursor factor IX. Deficiencies in factor IX cause hemophilia B. IX is another factor that contains a γ-carboxyglutamyl residue that chelates a Ca++ ion.Devlin, T.H. (ed.) (2006) Textbook of Biochemistry with Clinical Correlations 6th ed., Wiley-Liss, Hoboken, N.J. (USA)
Rand, M.L. and Murray, R.K. (2006) Hemostasis & Thrombosis in Harper's Illustrated Biochemistry 27th ed., R.K. Murray, D.K. Granner, and V.W. Rodwell eds. McGraw Hill Lange, Toronto Canada.
Wolberg, A.S. (2007) Thrombin generation and fibrin clot structure. Blood Reviews Jan. 5 2007. [PubMed]
Platelets are small bits of cells that aid in the formation of blood clots and help seal breaks in blood vessels.
When a blood vessel is injured a patch of endothelial cells are destroyed exposing the underlying collagen matrix. Platelets bind to collagen and then to each other leading to an aggregation of platelets and formation of a plug that stops the bleeding. The platelet plug also stimulates blood clotting at the site of injury because many of the factors that promote clotting are carried by platelets.
Arne Tiselius won the Nobel Prize in 1948 for discovering how to separate protein by electrophoresis. Beginning in the early 1930's, Tiselius developed techniques for separating proteins on the basis of their migration in an electric field. Positively charged proteins move toward the cathode and negatively charged proteins move toward the anode. The trick was to detect the proteins as they move in a solution (the "moving boundary"). By the late 1930's, Tiselius had constructed a complex apparatus that detected bands of protein by recording changes in the refractive index of the solution as the boundary moved past a lens ("schlieren" method).
These days electrophoresis is a common technique in biochemistry labs, especially using a gel matrix. Undergraduates easily separate complex mixtures at a resolution that Tiselius never dreamed of when he began his work 80 years ago.The value of the new methods which have been briefly described here, is especially brought to light by their use, which is nowadays general, in international research in biochemistry and in medicine. Tiselius' apparatuses for electrophoresis and analysis by adsorption nowadays form part of the normal equipment of a great number of laboratories and medical institutes not only in Sweden but also abroad. One notices continually in chemical periodicals new experiments made by using Tiselius' methods.Tiselius really is the father of electrophoresis and his contribution to modern biochemistry needs to be more widely appreciated.
