Monday's Molecule #72

 
Today is Victoria Day in Canada so it must be Monday—time for Monday's Molecule.


Today's molecule is essential for all life as we know it, but biochemists didn't even know it existed 'till after World War II. It's discovery was hailed as one of the greatest contributions to modern biochemistry when the Nobel Prize was awarded for working out its structure and the role it plays in metabolism.

You need to identify the molecule and give its correct common name. We don't need the formal IUPAC name in this case. Pay attention to the correct common name—some incorrect trivial names just won't do.

There's an direct connection between today's molecule and a Nobel Prize. The first person to correctly identify the molecule and name the Nobel Laureate(s) wins a free lunch at the Faculty Club. Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first collected the prize. There are three ineligible candidates for this week's reward.

THEME:

Nobel Laureates
Send your guess to Sandwalk (sandwalk (at) bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca) and I'll pick the first email message that correctly identifies the molecule and names the Nobel Laureate(s). Note that I'm not going to repeat Nobel Laureate(s) so you might want to check the list of previous Sandwalk postings.

Correct responses will be posted tomorrow. I may select multiple winners if several people get it right.

Comments will be blocked for 24 hours. Comments are now open.

UPDATE: We have a winner! The molecule is uridine diphosphate glucose (UDP-glucose), one of several nucleotide-sugar coenzymes. The Nobel Laureate is Luis Leloir (1970). Several people got the right answer this week—either the quiz was too easy or lots of people have more free time now that undergraduate classes are ending! The first person to email the correct answer was Brian Rosenberg from Harvard University in Boston (Cambridge) (USA). Brian has been invited to a free lunch.

---

I "Get" This Part

 
James F. McGrath is one of those theologians who criticize Richard Dawkins and the new atheists. According to McGrath, those atheists simply don't get it when it comes to modern sophisticated theology. The sophisticated theologians say that Dawkins and his fellow atheists are attacking a strawman version of religion.

Alister McGrath's¹ defense of religion falls into this category [Alister McGrath's Defense of Religion]. Like most theologians who employ the "sophisticated religion", defense their actual attempts end up sounding very much like the Courtier's Reply.

Over the past few weeks, James McGrath has attempted to educate atheists about modern theology. In response to many questions he has tried very hard to explain "sophisticated religion" and why the new atheists just don't get it. He hasn't been all that successful, in my opinion. I just don't see why his explanation of god is any different than the ones that have already been addressed by atheists over the past several hundred years. It looks a lot to me like the same-old, same-old, argument from personal experience.

That's exactly what it is. Yesterday McGrath posted an honest and forthright description of his views. A view that he has been very reluctant to describe in any other recent posting or in any of the comments that he has posted. Here's what he wrote on his blog in an article that was addressed to his followers [Spirits in a Material World: A Multi-Blog Conversation].

Would if be going too far to say that those who have had mystical experiences are in very much the position of sighted people trying to explain color to the blind, or music lovers trying to explain why a piece moves them so much to someone who is tone deaf? In this conversation, however, it is not clear that the other side of the conversation is "disabled". They simply have no interest in understanding the experience or appreciating the music. And there is no way I can introduce someone to the music or why it moves me just by talking in abstract terms about something that is deeply experiential.

On the other hand, part of the issue is that I have no interest in defending any particular doctrines about God, and so my "views" seem hard to pin down, because I hold them so loosely. I realized long ago that the life-changing experience I had when I cried out to God in surrender and felt a sense of peace wash over me does not prove that a tomb was empty 2,000 or so years ago, or that God is 3-in-one, or any other such claims. What seems to confuse some people is that I still can find Trinitarian language helpful and inspiring and meaningful, not as a statement about what God is "really like" (as though I had a means to study that scientifically or objectively), but as an image of how this God that we speak of only in inadequate symbols and metaphors can be eternal love (since love requires more than one person).

Thank-you James for being so honest. Your sophisticated explanation of God is just the old argument from personal experience dressed up so that it conflicts as little as possible with modern science and rationalism.

Atheists have addressed the argument from personal experience. Dawkins covers it in his book. I wish his opponents would pretending that they have a "sophisticated" explanation of God that atheists have not refuted.

James, I "get" your explanation. I understand how someone can feel "a sense of peace" when you give up the struggle to be rational and "cry out to God in surrender." I can understand why you draw a parallel between your mystical experience and being able to see clearly. I know why you think atheists are like a blind person.

Here's a question for you. People who believe in aliens and UFO's think the same way. They honestly believe that they have been granted special insight. They see things that the rest of us can't see. They will use the same analogies and metaphors that you use. Do you take that as evidence that UFO's and aliens actually exist?

If the answer is "no", then why do you think Richard Dawkins should pay attention to your personal mystical experience if it conflicts with everything he knows about the natural world? You have every right to interpret your mystical experience however you want. But you go beyond that, don't you? You claim that the case for atheism is weak because we cannot explain your sophisticated personal experience. As soon as you make that claim you are stepping outside of your own personal experience and asking others to validate it from the outside. When you do that, you are obliged to present evidence that your personal experience reflects reality and not an illusion. What is the evidence that an objective outsider like me should consider?

---

1. No relation to James McGrath.

Clear as Mud

 
James F. McGrath is still trying to explain what modern sophisticated religion is all about, and why amateur atheists, like me, just don't get it.

His latest attempt is on his blog at Does Being Exist?. The most revealing paragraph is the last one ...

So if you are looking for evidence that ancient deities and angels exist, with or without wings, residing on Mt. Olympus or just beyond the moon, I don't believe that such entities exist. They were ancient explanations for what we today recognize as natural phenomena. But if you are asking about language that can give symbolic expression to the sense of awe many people feel about the "miracle" that anything exists at all, much less that we exist and can ponder the nature of our existence and wonder about these mysteries, then theology has a lot to offer. Not logical arguments for the existence of invisible persons, but metaphors that allow us to give voice to our limited and inadequate perception of life's inexpressable mystery, then theology has a lot to offer. That doesn't mean that amateurs can't do theology, or write poetry, or make music, or even make scientific discoveries. But in every field, there is a body of knowledge and wisdom that has accumulated that allows one to not repeat all the mistakes and positive groundwork done in the past and build on what has gone before, rather than reinventing the wheel. If one wishes to discuss theology at that sort of level of academic sophistication, it involves significant reading and research to inform oneself, and not simply a handful of conversations with fundamentalists.

Translation: You can't say that the Emperor has no clothes because you haven't invested years of study at the best institutes of fashion design in Paris and Milan. There are hundreds of smart people who have written sophisticated, metaphorical books on the Emperor's clothes. Don't talk to me until you've read all of them and can quote mystical passages and scholarly names as easily as I do.

What McGrath is illustrating here is referred to as The Courtier's Reply [The Emperor's New Clothes and the Courtier's Reply]. The term refers to an elaborate justification of a questionable viewpoint. Instead of addressing whether of not the Emperor is clothed, the courtier defends the "sophisticated" rationalization that the sycophants have constructed to preserve the delusion, and avoid admitting that they can't see the clothes either.

McGrath thinks that theology can be justified because it addresses "life's inexpressable mystery." This is reason enough to reject atheism even though he denies the existence of any of the classical gods. Furthermore, this is reason enough to call himself a Christian.

I'd like to discuss why he is impressed by some "inexpressible mystery" and why he thinks it's a "miracle" that anything exists at all. Why does he feel that this is enough to cause him to posit something beyond the natural world? Why are these feelings so powerful that he rejects the label of atheist and adopts theology as a way of knowing? Those are the key points.

But I'm not allowed to discuss those points, according to McGrath. I can't enter into a debate with him until I've read all of the sophisticated theologians who agree with him. I haven't done my homework. Until then, I'm just an amateur who doesn't understand the arguments against atheism and in favor of modern mysticism/theology.

That's not very helpful. It's a way of protecting one's core beliefs from close scrutiny by skeptics.

There's nothing new about McGrath's argument. It's just a version of the Argument from Personal Experience. Those arguments have been dealt with by atheists. There's nothing sophisticated about them.

Perhaps McGrath has been fooled into thinking that the argument from personal experience is valid because there are many scholars who find it convincing? If so, this is evidence of another logical fallacy called Argumentum ad nauseam.

---

Steve Paikin Interviews Richard Dawkins

 
Last week I went to a talk at the Centre for Inquiry by Wodek Szemberg, one of the producers of TVO's The Agenda. The topic was Why So Few Atheists in the Media?.

It was a horrible talk. Wodek Szemberg spend most of his alloted time criticizing atheists and proclaiming that facts and evidence are not important on television shows. Szemberg is an atheist and he claims that most producers, writes, directors, etc. are atheists. They don't need to hear the atheist point of view on television because they are already familiar with it.

The host of The Agenda is Steve Paikin. Paikin is not an atheist. He has made this very clear on numerous shows where his bias against non-believers is patently obvious. He is one of those people who are overly respectful of believers no matter how silly their arguments.

Last year The Agenda ran a series on religion that was, to say the least, quite embarrassing. Near the end of the series the producers were pressured to bring on some atheists for balance. When I asked Wodek Szemberg about this he avoided the topic—it didn't fit into his theme that atheists have nothing to say.

Shortly after that, on May 10, 2007, the producers of the show broadcast an interview with Richard Dawkins [Richard Dawkins: Can We Live by Reason Alone?]. (The producer was Sandra Gionas, not Wodek Szemberg.) Videos of the show have just now been posted on YouTube ...
Part 1, Part 2, Part 2, Part 4, Part 5

If you listen to the opening remarks on the first episode you will hear Steve Paikin admitting that they have Richard Dawkins on the show in response to viewers who requested it. This is a direct refutation of what Wodek Szemberg was telling us last Friday night when he tried to make us believe that nobody wants to hear atheists on television.

Here's part 4 where Steve Paikin tries to argue that religion deserves much more respect and deference than Dawkins is willing to grant.

---

[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]

The Toronto Star Reviews "Darwin: The Evolution Revolution"

 
Darwin: The Evolution Revolution is currently on at the Royal Ontario Museum (until August 4, 2008). There was a review of the exhibit by Peter Calamai in yesterday's Toronto Star [Darwin still battling creationists]. It seems like an excellent review. I haven't yet seen the exhibit so I can't comment on the details but everything that Peter Calamai says rings true.

One of the criticisms of the exhibit is that there are too many things to read. Calamai estimates that it would take five hours to read all the explanatory panels. Another criticism is that the written information tilts heavily toward defending Darwin's ideas, and that sometimes this zeal trumps the truth ...

For make no mistake about it, parts of "Darwin: The Evolution Revolution" are an exercise in anti-creationist persuasion, usually subtle but often blatant.

Take this statement from a panel headed "Creationism" at the close of the exhibit:

"For 150 years since the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, the theory of evolution by natural selection has not been seriously challenged by any other scientific explanation."

The weasel word here is "seriously," since that's very much a qualitative judgment. Yet, even setting Creationism aside, well-respected historians of science such as Peter Bowler (The Non-Darwinian Revolution) have maintained that alternate scientific theories of evolution, such as mutation and Lamarckism, were resolutely championed by mainstream scientists until after World War I.

Evolution through the mechanism of natural selection, the core of Darwin's approach, was simply not a "slam-dunk" scientific revolution after On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, as the ROM exhibit repeatedly implies.

Yet Darwin's thesis is widely accepted by today's scientific community. So why all the defensive proselytizing, as though his ideas were under siege?

Calamai makes a good point. The statement on the exhibit is clearly incorrect and that's embarrassing.

Why is there such an emphasis on defending Darwin when such a defense is serious overkill in Canada?

Because they are – at least in the United States, where this "show-in-a-box" originates. ROM officials acknowledge that they had minimal input on the thematic level to the travelling exhibit from the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

Where evolution is concerned, a chasm yawns between the U.S. and Canada. Polling by Angus Reid published two years ago found that one in five Canadians surveyed agreed with the statement that God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years. Nearly half the Americans surveyed chose this option.

The resulting anti-creationist mindset, while at times annoying, cannot ruin an exhibit that will reward multiple visits at several different levels.

Finally, I'm glad that Peter Calamai closed his article by mentioning the problem of funding.

Perhaps we haven't progressed as far from such times as we'd like to believe. The Darwin exhibit opened without an outside sponsor, although several groups have since rallied to the cause, including the Humanist Association of Canada.

But there's still no major corporate sponsor. They're all too spooked by the prospect of the one-in-five minority of Canadians who believe – despite an Everest of evidence to the contrary – that human beings sprang upon the Earth in their current form a mere 10,000 years ago.

I know the members of the Humanist group who put up the money. Thank God goodness we have some wealthy atheists in town! But that's no excuse for the cowardly behavior of the usual sponsors. Where are the SikKids Foundation, The Gairdiner Foundation, the University of Toronto, and the leading biotech companies in Toronto?

Is it true that some of these potential sponsors have declined because evolution is too controversial? Yes, in some cases that's true. There are members of the Gairdiner family, for example, who have doubts about evolution.

---

Atheists Behaving Badly

 
A reader has used the Conservapedia article on Atheism to support his/her belief in supernatural beings.

I thought it might be fun to post some quotes from that article for your Friday amusement. Are these examples of "sophisticated" arguments against religion or do they fall into another category?

In regards to atheism and morality, the Barna Group also found that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.

Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies.[61][62][63][64] The Bible asserts that "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (Psalms 14:1 (KJV)). The biblical fool is said to be lacking in sound judgment and the biblical fool is also associated with moral depravity. For example, the biblical book of Proverbs states: "A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil, But a fool is arrogant and careless. A quick-tempered man acts foolishly, And a man of evil devices is hated. The naive inherit foolishness, But the sensible are crowned with knowledge."(Proverbs 14:16-18 (NASB)). The book of Proverbs also has strong words regarding the depravity of biblical fools: "The desire accomplished is sweet to the soul: but [it is] abomination to fools to depart from evil." (Proverbs 13:9 (KJV)). Regarding the deceitfulness of fools Proverbs states: "The wisdom of the sensible is to understand his way, But the foolishness of fools is deceit." (Proverbs 14:8 (KJV)). Noted Bible commentator and clergyman Matthew Henry wrote regarding atheism: "A man that is endued with the powers of reason, by which he is capable of knowing, serving, glorifying, and enjoying his Maker, and yet lives without God in the world, is certainly the most despicable and the most miserable animal under the sun."

Rates of atheism are much higher in countries with a state sanctioned religion (such as many European countries), and lower in states without a sanctioned religion (such as the United States). Some argue this is because state churches become bloated, corrupt, and/or out of touch with the religious intuitions of the population, while churches independent of the state are leaner and more adaptable.

Some argue that a troubled/non-existent relationship with a father may influence one towards holding the position of atheism.[69] Dr. Paul Vitz wrote a book entitled Faith of the Fatherless in which he points out that after studying the lives of more than a dozen leading atheists he found that a large majority of them had a father who was present but weak, present but abusive, or absent.[66][70] Dr. Vitz also examined the lives of prominent theists who were contemporaneous to their atheist counterparts and from the same culture and in every instance these prominent theists had a good relationship with his father.[66] Dr. Vitz has also stated other common factors he observed in the leading atheists he profiled: they were all intelligent and arrogant.

Although atheists claim there are reasonable arguments for atheism, the quality of atheist debate has been quite poor from the proponents of atheism. Below are some examples which demonstrate the unreasonableness of atheist debaters.

Doug Jesseph: In October of 1997, atheist Jeffrey Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels, stated that he believed that in regards to atheism "the most impressive debater to date" was Doug Jesseph.[85] Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with William Lane Craig in 1996 that the origin of life had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).[86] In 1996, John Horgan wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher Stanley Miller believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: "Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”"[87] In addition, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in Scientific American: "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion."[88]

Gordon Stein: In 1985, Christian apologist Dr. Greg Bahnsen and prominent proponent of atheism Gordon Stein had a debate at the University of California, Irvine regarding the positions of atheism and theism. John Frame wrote regarding the debate in which Dr. Bahnsen used the transcendental argument for the existence of God that "In the end, Stein walked and talked like a broken man."[89] The Greg Bahnsen-Gordon Stein debate was recorded and transcribed and was dubbed "The Great Debate"

Atheism and its Decline as a Theoretical Position

According to Munich theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg "Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide."[103] Oxford scholar Alister McGrath agrees and has stated that atheism's "future seems increasingly to lie in the private beliefs of individuals rather than in the great public domain it once regarded as its habitat."

Atheism in Academia

In 2001 atheist and philosopher Quentin Smith stated the following in respect to atheism: "Naturalists [atheists] passively watched as realist versions of theism … began to sweep through the philosophical community, until today perhaps one-quarter or one-third of philosophy professors are theists, with most being orthodox Christians…. God is not 'dead' in academia; he returned to life in the 1960's and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments."

Some have asserted that atheists do not exist. In regards to a biblical statement on atheism Sir Francis Bacon stated in his essay Of Atheism the following regarding atheism: "The Scripture saith, The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; it is not said, The fool hath thought in his heart; so as he rather saith it, by rote to himself, as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be persuaded of it....It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip, than in the heart of man.[82]"

In addition, Christian philosophers and apologists Dr. Cornelius Van Til and Dr. Greg Bahnsen argued there are no atheists and that atheists are actively suppressing their belief and knowledge of God and enigmatically engage in self-deception.

Charles Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a materialist which is a type of atheist.[11][12] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following:

In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilization of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature — I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away. ”(Argyll 1885, 244)

---

[Photo Credit: God is for Suckers!]

Pretty Flower

 
Nick sent me this picture of a beautiful flower.¹ I hope it makes your Friday more pleasant.

---

1. The Best Flowering Plant.

ORFans

 
ORFans are putative genes that are only found in a single species or in a small number of closely related species. They are interesting examples of evolution. Creationists have focused on the large number of putative ORFans that have been reported in the scientific literature in order to cast doubt on evolutionary theory.

In today's Panda's Thumb Ian Musgrave has posted a long and excellent article on ORFans [Inordinately Fond of Viruses: ORFans and Intelligent Design]. It's a perfect example of how to refute a creationist ... in this case Paul Nelson.¹

---

1. I know. It's usually about as difficult as shooting fish in a barrel. But in this case Ian is making a number of important points that also challenge some scientists who are confused about ORFans.

It Happens to All of Us Eventually

 
We all make mistakes from time to time. Some of us make way more than others.

John Dennehy is not one of those people. His blog is excellent and he almost always comes up with wonderful citation classics that truly deserve the attention he gives them.

Today's citation classic is not one of those classics. John seems to have slipped up this time. I hope it's only temporary [This Week's Citation Classic].

---

Sophisticated Believers

The sophisticated believers have risen to the challenge. They are attempting to present reasons for believing ... reasons for not being an atheist.

One of the responses comes from Andrew Tatusko (Drew) on Notes from Off Center [God and Supernaturalism].

Drew is well qualified to represent the sophisticated view of religion ...

Andrew Tatusko is a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary (1999, 2000) from which he earned an M.Div. and Th.M. There he focused on philosophical theology, philosophy of education, and postmodern theory. From there he was a senior instructional designer at Seton Hall University where he worked on initiatives to integrate technology into teaching and learning. Currently he is the program activity director for a Title III grant to integrate technology into teaching, learning, retention and advising at Mount Aloysius College in Cresson, PA.

He currently lives in Duncansville, PA with wife Brenna, sons Alexander and Evan, Stella (Rhodesian Ridgeback mix) and Sophie (Rhodesian Ridgeback) and two cats Digit and Kit Kat. Drew has published articles on postmodern theory, theology, and education. He is working on his dissertation in an effort to complete the Ph.D. in Higher Education Leadership, Management and Policy at Seton Hall University. The focus of the dissertation in on the influence of theological tradition on policy development in religiously-affiliated higher education since the 1970’s.

I'm looking forward to hearing his best arguments against atheism. I assume he's just getting started.

The other sophisticated believer is James F. McGrath on Exploring Our Matrix. McGrath is also well qualified to represent the sophisticated believer position. He is an Associate Professor of Religion at Butler University in Indianapolis (USA). He is the author of John's Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology [Amazon.com].

James is having trouble explaining his position and his frustration is showing at Not Geting Through.

If you are interested in this discussion then please read their blogs to learn more about how modern sophisticated believers refute Richard Dawkins and the other "new atheists."

See Sophisticated Religion for more discussion.

---

Nobel Laureates: George Beadle and Edward Tatum

 

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1958.

"for their discovery that genes act by regulating definite chemical events"

George Wells Beadle (1903 - 1989) and Edward Lawrie Tatum (1909 - 1975) received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work on the relationship between genes and enzymes—the "one-gene-one-enzyme" concept. They showed that single mutations usually affected production of a single enzyme in a pathway. This lead to the idea that genes encode proteins (enzymes). The concept of one-gene-one-enzyme was not meant to exclude the possibility that genes could encode RNAs or something else, in spite of the fact that this interpretation has become widely believed. The point of Beadle and Tatum's work was to show that there was a one-to-one correspondence between a gene and a protein.

THEME:Nobel LaureatesJoshua Lederberg, a former student of Beadle and Tatum's, shared the Nobel Prize with them in 1958.

The presentation speech was given by Professor T. Caspersson, member of the Staff of Professors of the Royal Caroline Institute.

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen.

One of the most striking features in the development of science during the past two decades is the rapid advance in the diverse fields of biology. Here the tempo of progress continues to quicken. The research contains a vast and complex material whose major portion remains the business of specialists. The observations they make in the laboratories of basic research are apparently distant from the needs of the everyday world. But again and again we discover how short the step is from these basic findings to advances in medical therapy or diagnosis that are of importance to all of us in our daily lives.

For an example we need turn only to the previous Nobel Prize in Genetics, awarded to H.J. Muller for his discovery that X-ray irradiation can change the genetic material in living organisms. The discovery was made, and the detailed analysis carried out, in a type of small fruit fly, and at the time that the prize was awarded, perhaps gave the impression that its greatest interest was in its contribution to basic principles. Now, with the era of atomic energy upon us, we all know that the genetic risks from the high-energy radiation threatening man, belong to the things I just mentioned, of vital and immediate importance to us all.

Experimental genetics is a branch of modern biology in which progress has been especially rapid. The methods and points of view of this and its allied disciplines are indispensable for many fields of medicine today. This rapidly increasing importance of experimental genetics and cell research is easily understood. The research is now reaching towards the very elements of heredity, the structures within each cell that control its life and its behavior, and thus ultimately determine the development of the whole organism. Now we begin to see what the fundamental biological processes may be. That discoveries in this field have consequences in many others is surely no surprise to any of us.

The work of all three winners of the prize lies on this plane. Their studies are concerned with the very basis of heredity and the manner in which the genes function. That hereditary characters are transmitted from parents to offspring via special elements in the ovum and spermatozoon, the so-called genes, has long been known. The organism that develops from the fertilized ovum receives certain of the parents' characters through these genes, and the genetic material in the fertilized egg, that is to say, all these genes combined, determines the development of the organism.

The cells that together constitute an organism as a rule contain a complete set of genes characteristic of the species. In ordinary cell division these are divided and subsequently distributed equally between the two daughter cells. At fertilization, the different genetic materials from two individuals unite in the fusion of the egg and the sperm. The result of the sexual reproduction is to provide offspring with genes from both of their parents. In this way, individuals with differing combinations of characters originate. And just herein lies the biologic value of the sexual process, which can be traced throughout practically the entire animal and plant kingdoms. Without the renewal such a constant recombination of characters involves, an animal or plant species would not be able to survive the struggle for existence.

The characters, which are transmitted by the genes from generation to generation, present a picture of bewildering multiplicity. This very multiplicity of the genes' effects made it difficult to attack experimentally the problem of their structure and manner of functioning; it was impossible to trace straightforward lines that could serve as a background for an experimental study.

The situation was radically changed by Beadle and Tatum, who, through a daring and astute selection of experimental material, created a possibility for a chemical attack upon the field. Circumstantial evidence pointed to a similarity of the genetic mechanisms throughout the entire plant and animal kingdoms. Beadle and Tatum selected as object for their investigations an organism with very simple structure, a bread mold, Neurospora crassa, which is far easier to work with, in many respects, than the objects usually studied in genetics. It is able to synthesize its body substances from a very simple culture medium: sugar, salts, and a growth factor. When cultures of the mold are exposed to X-ray irradiation, mutations - that is, changes in individual genes - result as they do in other organisms. By producing a large number of such mutations and by means of an analysis of the material, which should serve as a model for analytic research, Beadle and Tatum succeeded in demonstrating that the body substances are synthesized in the individual cell step by step in long chains of chemical reactions, and that genes control these processes by individually regulating definite steps in the synthesis chain. This regulation takes place through formation by the gene of special enzymes. If a gene is damaged, for example through irradiation-induced mutation, the chain is broken, the cell becomes defective - and may possibly be unable to survive. Even in the formation of comparatively simple substances the steps in the synthetic chain are many, and consequently the number of collaborating genes large. This explains simply why gene function appeared to be so impossibly complex. The discovery provides our best means of penetrating into the manner in which the genes work and has now become one of the foundations of modern genetics. Its importance extends over other fields as well, however.

Especially valuable is the possibility it affords for detailed study of the processes of chemical synthesis in the living organism. In Neurospora material it is easy by means of X-ray irradiation to produce quickly a large number of strains in which the function of different individual genes has been disturbed. By comparing these strains we are able to determine in detail how the different stages of synthesis succeed one another when the cell's substances are formed. Beadle and Tatum's technique has become one of our most important tools for the study of cell metabolism and has already yielded results of significance to various problems in the fields of medicine and general biology.

The successful results with Neurospora also provided an incentive to continued efforts to probe the basic processes further with the aid of even simpler organisms. The bacteria are even more primitive than Neurospora. The bacterial genetic mechanism was little known; many even doubted that they had one comparable with that of the higher forms of life. Tatum extended the approaches worked out in Neurospora to the bacteria. When Lederberg came to Tatum's laboratory as a young student, they discovered that different bacterial strains could be crossed to produce an offspring containing a new combination of genetic factors. This is the counterpart of the normal sexual fertilization in higher organism; it is usually considered preferable here, however, to speak of «genetic recombination». Bacterial genetics has been developed, primarily through the efforts of Lederberg and his coworkers, into an extensive research field in recent years. He also contributed further evidence that the genetic mechanism of the bacteria corresponds to that of the higher organisms. Moreover, thanks to their simple structure and extraordinarily rapid growth, bacteria provided new and excellent possibilities for a more profound study of the genetic mechanisms. Lederberg has made many contributions in this field. Particularly important is his discovery that sexual fertilization is not the only process leading to recombination of characters in bacteria. Bits of genetic material can, if they are introduced into the bacterial body, become part of the genetic material of the bacterial cell and thus change its constitution. This is usually termed «transduction», and it is the first example demonstrating that it is possible experimentally to manipulate an organism's genetic material and to introduce new genes into it and, the organism new characters. Studies in this are now being carried out in many laboratories in different parts of the world.

The transduction process and certain other related phenomena have greatly improved our means of penetrating experimentally into the basic processes of cell function and cell growth. In all probability they will also prove to have great significance in the study of the function of the higher organisms under normal and pathologic conditions. Work in this field, carried out in laboratories throughout the world, has already greatly expanded our knowledge of the basic processes in bacteriophage infection and of the mechanism of virus infection. The observations also have opened the way to a more profound understanding of certain growth problems. Certainly cancer research will be increasingly influenced by the evolution of our knowledge of the organization of the genetic material and its manner of functioning, that has been made possible by the discoveries of this year's three winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

Doctor Beadle and Doctor Tatum. In consequence of an exemplary collaboration in which each has complemented the other to unusual advantage, it has been given to you to make discoveries of fundamental importance to our understanding of the mechanism of Life's processes.

Doctor Lederberg. At first in collaboration with your co-winners of this year's Nobel Prize, and subsequently, along ever-broadening independent lines, you have made possible the advance of research to the structure of the actual genetic material.

Gentlemen. In recognition of your outstanding contributions to science the Karolinska Institute has awarded you this year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. On behalf of the Institute I wish to extend the warmest congratulations from your colleagues on your brilliant achievements.

It is my honoured privilege now to invite you to receive your awards from the hands of His Majesty the King.

---

Who's Afraid of Bisphenol A?

 
The latest issue of the Tangled Bank points to an article on Giovanna Di Sauro about the dangers of bisphenol A. Recall that bisphenol A is a chemical found in polycarbonate drinking bottles [see Is Your Water Bottle Killing You?].

The first article outlines the chemistry of bisphenol A and its effect on mammalina cells. It refers to the latest papers that have prompted a ban on bisphenol A [Who's Afraid of Bisphenol A: (Part 1)].

The second article discusses whether bisphenol A is dangerous to humans. Can it cause cancer? [Who's Afraid of Bisphenol A: (Part 1)].

I won't tell you the conclusion because, if I did, you wouldn't read the excellent articles on Giovanna Di Sauro. But here's a teaser ...

Making decision in relation to BPA is made even more complicated by the fact that there are many estrogen-like compounds in our environment which are already in the food chain, and which we can absorb by consuming both animal and vegetable products: BPA absorption might only be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to xenoestrogen intake. It would be useful to see what the "total xenoestrogen insult" is in an average adult who consumes meat, vegetables and dairy, and to see what role BPA is playing to increase this insult. Only then we will be able to assess whether cancer risk arising from BPA ingestion is significant, or whether we would do better to worry about different sources of xenoestrogen.

---

Tangled Bank #105

 
The latest issue of Tangled Bank is #105. It's hosted at The Beagle Project Blog [Tangled Bank #105].

Welcome, readers, to this tag-teamed edition of the Tangled Bank blog carnival.

In the left-justified corner, all the way from the north Yorkshire coast, not far from where Darwin 'took the waters' in Ilkley, it's Peter McGrath.

And in the right-justified corner, coming to you from London, just a few miles away from Downe Bank, Darwin's inspiration for the tangled bank where "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved", it's Karen James.

Well, you glorious swine. Speaking for myself, my blogreading life was full enough without discovering some of the new delights carnivalled here. The long evening reading all these posts has been a 'mental riot' (Darwin's description of the intellectual ferment when he was incubating The Origin), for which many thanks and the RSS has a slew of new entries. A tangled bank is not a monoculture, and I think we can offer something for all here.

I would never call our dear readers much less our prolific bank-tanglers 'swine', however glorious, but I certainly do share Peter's admiration for this fortnight's entries.

---

If you want to submit an article to Tangled Bank send an email message to host@tangledbank.net. Be sure to include the words "Tangled Bank" in the subject line. Remember that this carnival only accepts one submission per week from each blogger. For some of you that's going to be a serious problem. You have to pick your best article on biology.

I Don't Care

 
There's been a lot of talk in the past two days about the true beliefs of Albert Einstein. A new letter has come to light suggesting that he was a pantheist at best. Richard Dawkins discusses it at Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters.

Albert Einstein died in 1955. I don't care whether he believed in a personal God, or a Spinoza God, or no God at all. What he believed has no bearing on whether supernatural beings exist or not. The beliefs of Francis Collins and Ken Miller are equally irrelevant.

What counts is the arguments they advance to bolster their beliefs and in the case of Albert Einstein we don't have a very good record of what those arguments are. This isn't true of some other scientists (Collins, Miller) where we can examine the claims to see if they are rational.

---

Bertrand Russell's Teapot

 
Here's the original version of Bertrand Russell's argument, quoted from Russell's teapot on Wikipedia.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

This is a very powerful argument; however, it relies on one important bit of information, namely that we could not detect Russell's teapot if it really were orbiting the sun.

This important assumption is about to be put to the test now that the teapot has been located and we have the Hubble telescope in orbit. See The Wedgewood Document on Sneer Review for all the details about the experiment.

We atheists could be in big trouble if this pans out ....

---

[See A Teapot in Space for the connection between Russell's teapot and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.]