Hint

 
In my family we don't give gifts at Christmas (but we do have a Christmas tree and we do celebrate the season). We stopped giving gifts when the children were teenagers and it has eliminated a lot of the stress at this time of year. It also means that we don't have to pretend to like the cheesy presents that we used to get from distant relatives and acquaintances. Not to mention the cheesy ones from spouses.¹

However .... if anyone wants to give me a non-Christmas present just for fun, here's an excellent choice: Noah's Ark.


It would look really nice on my office bookshelf. Thanks to PZ Myers for finding this gem. Don't bother getting one for him, he doesn't seem to appreciate the quality workmanship and the attention to detail.

---

1. Oops, did I say that out loud?

Communicating the Truth about Climate Change

 
There's an ongoing dispute about how to present science to the general public. People like Matt Nisbet and Chris Mooney advocate framing—another word for spin—in order to appeal to the public's perceived biases. They seem to be comfortable with a little "lying for science" as long as it serves the greater good.

Matt Nisbet and Chris Mooney are experts at recognizing that greater good even when others can't see it.

Many scientists—I am one— believe that scientists have to tell the truth no matter how much it might confuse the general public. We believe that evidence-based conclusions are the one thing that separates science from pseudoscience and scientists should never compromise the truth.

Here's an example of how climate change should be presented. It's from an editorial in the Dec. 6 issue of New Scientist [It's the Carbon Stupid].

It's time for heretical thinking on climate change. After two decades in which science has told us more and more about global warming, climate modellers may have to recognise that we have learned most of what we can from their number-crunching.

Some of the detailed forecasts about exactly what the climate will be like in Albuquerque or Basingstoke in 2050 or 2080 are little more than statistical noise, as physicist Lenny Smith underlines this week (see "Bad climate science"). Even the global picture may depend more than we like to admit on feedbacks and tipping points produced by a system that is inherently chaotic. We need to beware of the known unknowns and - whisper it - the unknown unknowns.

Some politicians still demand certainty from climate scientists and are sitting on their hands until they get it. But certainty may be no more available here than in that other troublesome discipline, economics. This is not a counsel for inaction, but for grown-up government: for doing what we know is needed in the face of uncertainty, and for taking actions like those called for this week by the British government's Committee on Climate Change, from decarbonising electricity generation to culling carbon-spewing vehicles and aircraft.

Here's another heresy. Perhaps the endless negotiations to frame a successor to the Kyoto protocol - currently in mid-grind in Poznan, Poland - are becoming an impediment to action. The protocol's various market devices, like cap-and-trade and the clean development mechanism, could now be holding up the technologies we know will do the job. Invented by the Clinton/Gore administration, should they now be jettisoned by Barack Obama? Michael Le Page believes so (see "Time for change on climate: an open letter to Barack Obama") and argues that taxing carbon would be a better plan. It would be a bold move. But just as past economic certainties are failing, maybe it is time to think the unthinkable here too.

The point of this editorial is that there's no reason to be overly alarmist and there's no reason why we can't admit that our climate models are flawed. The bottom line is that we know the climate is warming and we know that we are contributing to the cause. It's time to do something.

The contrasting approach to communicating science is wonderfully described by Matt Nisbet on his blog. Today's posting talks about America's Top Climate Communicator. Matt is not happy with the choices being offered. He proposes his own choice for top climate communicator: the Reverend Richard Cizik, VP for Governmental Affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals.

To back up his nomination Matt quotes from a recent interview ...

GROSS: I imagine you didn't agree with Sarah Palin on environmental issues. For example, her emphasis on drill, baby, drill, and also the fact that she said she wasn't sure if human behavior contributed to climate change. Now, climate change and the environment are issues you're trying to put much more toward the top of the evangelical agenda.

REV. CIZIK: Yeah, I couldn't - you're right. I couldn't have disagreed with her more. Just a year ago, we found out from climate scientists that the melt in the Arctic had turned into a rout. It was happening so fast it was as if your hair turned gray overnight. Now, I have a receding hairline, but I don't have my hair turning gray overnight. Well, that's what happened with the environment. An area the size of Colorado was disappearing every week, and the Northwest Passage was staying wide open all September for the first time in history. And so, to look at this and not see what's happening, I think is, well, it was sort of the ignorance is strength idea. Well, not. It's not strength. Look, strength is knowing what's happening to the world around us, and moreover, as a Christian, we can't claim to love the Creator and abuse the world in which we live. To do so is like claiming to be a fan of Shakespeare and then burn his plays....

...I'm always looking for ways to reframe issues, give the biblical point of view a different slant, if you will, and look it - we have to. The whole world, literally, the planet, is changing around us. And if you don't change the way you think and adapt, especially to things like climate change, scientists like Bob Doppelt, he says, well, if you don't adapt and change your thinking, you may ultimately be a loser because climate change, in his mind, he is a systems analyst, has the capacity to determine the winners and losers, and your life will never be the same, growing up during, I say, the great warming. Our grandparents grew up during the Great Depression. Our parents, well, they lived in the aftermath of that and became probably, the most, well, the greediest generation and our generation, this younger one, needs to be the greenest....

If I have to choose between the New Scientist editorial and Rev. Cizik then New Scientist wins hands down.

What do you think? Is Rev. Cizik going to convince you that he understands the science behind climate change?¹

---

1. The area of Colorado is 269,837 km² and the area of the entire Arctic ocean is 14,056,000 km², which 52× the area of Colorado.

This Doesn't Seem Right ...

 
Scientific American is reporting on a growing trend among field biologists. When they discover a new species they sell the right to name it [Name that species--After yourself, Purdue auction suggests].

Naming your kid after you is one thing. But imagine if an entire species were named for you.

This week, Purdue University is auctioning off the rights to name seven newly discovered bats and two turtles, the Associated Press is reporting. The winners — who will shell out a minimum of $250,000 for at least one of the bats, a Purdue spokesman told ScientificAmerican.com — can link their own name or that of a pal to the animal’s scientific name.

"Unlike naming a building or something like that, this is much more permanent. This will last as long as we have our society," John Bickham, who co-discovered the nine species, told the AP.

In the ongoing battle between splitters and lumpers, you can bet that the splitters are going to gain the upper hand if they can earn so much money by creating a new species.

---

Nobel Laureate: Walter Gilbert

 

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1980.

"for their contributions concerning the determination of base sequences in nucleic acids"




Walter Gilbert (1932 - ) was awarded the Nobel Prize for developing a chemical method of sequencing DNA (with Allan Maxam). The method relied on chemical reactions that cleaved DNA at specific residues. By carrying out partial reactions where only one cleavage occurred in each DNA strand, it was possible to separate the cleavage products on an acrylamide gel and determine the position of each residue by the length of the fragment.

The chemical sequencing strategy has been replaced by the chain-termination technique of Fred Sanger who shared the Nobel Prize with Gilbert.

A brief description of DNA sequencing can be found on the Wikipedia site at DNA Sequencing.

On looking over the 1980 press release I came across this paragraph.

THEME:
Nobel Laureates

Gilbert and Sanger have independently developed different methods to determine the exact sequence of the nucleotide building blocks in DNA. Among applications of sequence methods may be mentioned that Gilbert has investigated the structure of those parts of a bacterial chromosome which control the reading (transcription) of the genetic message. Sanger is responsible for the first complete determination of the sequence of a DNA molecule. He has established the sequence of the 5375 building blocks in DNA from a bacterial virus called phi-X174. Sanger's method has also been used to determine the sequence of DNA from humans, which led to the surprising discovery that the genetic code is not universal, i.e. it is not the same in all living organisms, from viruses and bacteria to man.

I have no idea what they are referring to here when they mention the non-universality of the genetic code. I don't recall any revelations back in 1980. Are they referring to slight differences in mitochondria?

---

The images of the Nobel Prize medals are registered trademarks of the Nobel Foundation (© The Nobel Foundation). They are used here, with permission, for educational purposes only.

[Photo Credit: NNDB, original source unknown.]

Monday's Molecule #100

 
This is the 100th edition of Monday's Molecule! Today's "molecule" is a chemical reaction in several steps.

Your task is to identify what's going on and relate it to a single Nobel Laureate.

The first one to correctly identify the molecule and name the Nobel Laureate, 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 four ineligible candidates for this week's reward: Dale Hoyt from Athens, Georgia, Ms. Sandwalk from Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, Alex Ling of the University of Toronto, and Timothy Evans of the University of Pennsylvania. Dale and Ms. Sandwalk have offered to donate the free lunch to a deserving undergraduate so the first two undergraduates to win and collect a free lunch can also invite a friend. Alex gets the first one.

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 by clicking on the link in the theme box.

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

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

UPDATE: The reactions lead to cleavage of DNA at G residues. This is part of the chemical sequencing strategy developed by Maxam and Gilbert in 1976. The Nobel Laureate is Walter Gilbert.

I was surprised at how many old fogies well-established scientists read Sandwalk. We have now produced an entire generation of scientists who will have never experienced this sequencing method but, nevertheless, the correct answers flooded in within a few hours. The first was from John Bothwell of the Marine Biological Association of the UK in Plymouth, UK. Congratulations! Are you free for lunch tomorrow, John, or do you want to take a rain check?

---

How the Gipper "Wins"

 
Over on Uncommon Descent there was a discussion about macroevolution. The new moderator, Barry Arrington, was so impressed with the responses of his fellow IDiots that he draws attention to their comments in today's posting [UD Commenters Win One for the Gipper].

Below the fold I have reproduced an interesting comment thread in which ribczynski attacks ID proponents’ criticisms of macroevolution through NDE, and two ID proponents convincingly refute the Darwinist line.

Let's see how these two IDiots "refute" the Darwinian line by picking out one of the most common falsehoods that are often repeated by those who are completely ignorant of evolution.

gpuccio writes:

First of all there are saltations. Have you ever heard of “punctuated equilibrium”? That’s not an ID theory.

Jerry writes:

Gould said the whole history of the fossil record was one of apparent saltations. That was why he developed his absurd fix for Darwinian processes called punctuated equilibrium. I suggest you read Gould and as suggested by other, his ideas on punctuated equilibrium. Everybody immediately just lapped up his ideas and it is now part of the evolutionary canon.

Punctuated equilbira have absolutely nothing to do with saltations. This particular misunderstanding has been discussed and refuted dozens of times over the past thirty years. The fact that IDiots would use it in 2008 demonstrates something related to the "Gipper" (the Ronald Regan version) but it's not what they think.

Is this the best they can do? Yes, it is.

What's surprising is that the Intelligent Design Creationists are doing so well when they are so stupid.

---

What Would You Have Done?

 
The recent kerfuffle in Canada has prompted all kinds of talk from TV personalities, newspaper columnists, and bloggers. Everybody has an opinion.

One of the common threads is that all politicians in Ottawa are behaving badly and every single one of them needs to grow up and act like an adult. Some blame Harper and some blame Dion. Right now it seems to be Dion who is coming in for the most criticism.

Here's a handy way to distinguish facts from bias. Don't ask for what might have happened in an ideal world but ask instead what you would have advised when the crisis began. When you hear people spouting off about how Dion is ruining the country, for example, ask them what they would have done in his place.

Here's my take.

If Harper had called me before presenting his budget I would have told him to take out the clauses that eliminate party funding, ban civil servant's right to strike, and block pay equity challenges. I would have pointed out that all three are inflammatory and designed to alienate the opposition parties that he needs for support in the House. This is not the time for partisan politics, especially since none of these measures are necessary and, furthermore, they were not something that the Conservative Party made into election issues in October.

Obviously Harper didn't call me and didn't listen to anyone else who might have warned him of the consequences.

Once the budget was made public, what should Stéphane Dion have done? This is an important question and everyone who criticizes Dion should be prepared to answer it. Here's my answer.

The Liberal Party could not have supported such a budget because it was a deliberate slap in the face. It would have been devastating to party finances to eliminate federal funding of political parties and Harper knew that. In the previous sessions of parliament the Liberals abstained on many votes allowing the Conservatives to govern as if they were a majority. That behavior was widely, and correctly, criticized last year and it could not continue in the current session of Parliament.

The fact that Harper proposed an in-your-face challenge on the very first bill was an indication of how he intended to behave for the next few years. This was the only chance the Liberals were going to get to take a stand.

I would have advised Dion and the Liberals to vote against the budget no matter what the consequences. If Harper wanted to call and election, so be it. Having been forced into a corner, I don't believe the Liberals had a choice.

When the idea of a Liberal-NDP coalition came up, I would have advised Dion to agree, provided the plan did not compromise Liberal principles. If the Bloc agreed to not vote in favor of any non-confidence motion for 18 months then that would be perfectly acceptable. In other words, if I had been advising Dion I would have advised him to do exactly what he did. The coalition avoided an unnecessary election and was perfectly in line with the principles of a parliamentary democracy.

Anyone who criticizes Dion's decision should let us know what alternative was preferable. Here were the choices: abstaining, voting for the government, voting against the government?

During this waiting period we can ask ourselves the same questions. What's the best way out of the crisis? Here's my answer ...

The best solution is for Stephen Harper to resign as leader. His replacement should seek out a compromise budget that many parties can support. The new leader should announce that the three inflammatory proposals are not part of the new leader's priorities.

That's probably not going to happen.

Assuming that Stephen Harper is still Prime Minister at the end of January what should Liberals do? I don't think they can support a government led by Stephen Harper. They should vote against the budget, or the throne speech, at the first opportunity. Not only has Harper revealed his agenda in the earlier budget, he has made things much worse by lying about our system of government, stirring up regional bigotry, and provoking a constitutional crisis. Such a man cannot be Prime Minister of my country.

I really don't care whether Dion remains leader of the Liberal Party or whether he is replaced by an interim leader who becomes Prime Minister under a coalition government. The Liberals can even appoint a permanent leader if that's what they decide to do. (Not my preference.) The important point is that the Liberals cannot support Stephen Harper in January.

We cannot have an anti-French, anti-democratic, vindictive, megalomaniac, liar as Prime Minister. I hope that Conservative MPs will realize this themselves before January. If they don't, they should be moved to the Opposition benches, which they will share with the Bloc Québécois.

---

More Ph.D.s?

 
There's an interesting commentary in the latest issue of Nature. Apparently the UK goverment has plans to train 2,000 new PhDs in physics and engineering.

The UK's Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) is set to spend £250 million on creating 44 centres to train 2,000 PhD students over the next 5 years.

The interdisciplinary Centres For Doctoral Training will focus on areas including climate change, sustainable energy, healthcare technologies and nanotechnology. All of the new centres will be spread across 22 UK universities, and 17 will also have strong ties with businesses.

Businesses will also contribute some cash, EPSRC says, but how much is not clear.

The new centres will accept their first batch of students in October 2009. The students will have four years of funding for their PhDs — more than the roughly three years that most PhDs receive — and will spend up to 75% of their time training with the industrial partners.

Here at the University of Toronto we've been having a discussion about increasing the number of graduate students. The goal of the university is to increase the number of graduate students by 30% over the next few years. The objective is supposed to be achieved by providing extra money to fund graduate students.

Science departments here have cautioned the university not to expect much of a change. By and large, the number of graduate students we accept is not limited by funding. We are making offers of acceptance to every qualified student who applies and we still have excess capacity. More money isn't going to help because it's the qualified students who are limiting, not the ability to fund them.

Is the situation different in the UK? Are physics and engineering departments turning away good students because they don't have the money? Wouldn't that have to be the case is this plan is going to work?

---

99% Ape

 
The Natural History Museum in London (UK) is publishing a book that's supposed to explain evolution: 99% Ape: How evolution adds up. Here's part of the press release.

The book introduces the topic of evolution, and leading experts at The Open University explain this fundamental yet often complex subject, guiding the reader through the latest evidence.

Charles Darwin was mocked for suggesting that humans have apes for ancestors, but every scientific advance in the study of life in the last 150 years has confirmed the reality of evolution.

Read the latest research about how new species evolve, uncover the flaws in ‘intelligent design’, find out what evolution has to say about psychology, the development of the human mind and morality, and how we are still evolving, in this new book.

I'm certainly curious about what the book might have to say about morality but that's not my major concern.

My major concern is the title. Out of thousand of possible titles why did they choose one that is factually incorrect? Humans are NOT 99% ape—they are 100% ape. Humans are apes.

If the title is referring to our relationship to chimpanzees then even that is misleading. There are plenty of studies to suggest that the overall percent similarity might be less than 99%, especially if you take indels (insertions/deletion) into account. Why make trouble for yourself by promoting the 99% figures when there are many other titles that could have been chosen?

Judging by the title, this book may do more to contribute to confusion among the general public than to educating them. What a wasted opportunity. (The cover image isn't what I would have chosen either.)

---

Let's Help Out an American Friend

 
John Aravosis asks the following question on AMERICAblog.com: I want your input. Are drugs from Canada safe or not?.

Get over there and help him out. Let him know that Canadian drug suppliers are reliable. These are same generic drugs that are sold to Canadians.

Why does John need to know whether Canadian drugs are safe? Because he can't afford the prescriptions his doctor gave him unless he buys his drugs from Canada where they are half the price. I probably wouldn't hurt to remind him of the advantages of socialized medicine.

---

[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic]

This Week's Citation Classic

 
John Dennehy (The Evilutionary Biologist) has posted "This Week's Citation Classic."¹ The classic paper demonstrated back in 1964 that the gene and the protein it encodes are colinear [This Week's Citation Classic]. Remember, this was before DNA sequencing and just around the time that the genetic code was being worked out.

Before you follow the link, try and come up with an experiment that you might have done in 1964 to show colinearity. Are you as smart as Sidney Brenner?

---

1. Is it just me, or have we missed a few weeks?

The Globe and Mail Calls for Harper's Resignation

 
The Globe and Mail claims to be Canada's national newspaper. It has a status in Canada that's comparable to that of the New York Times in the USA. Traditionally, the editorial staff of the Globe and Mail has been more conservative than most of the country and they have supported Stephen Harper in the past.¹

Today's editorial calls on Harper to resign for the good of his party and the good of the country [Competence and trust in question].

Not only has Mr. Harper's government failed to adequately address the economic crisis; it has created a political crisis and potentially a national-unity crisis in the process. Rather than working co-operatively on measures to strengthen the economy – something the opposition initially appeared willing to do – Parliament is now locked down, with the government's legitimacy undermined. Meanwhile, the Conservatives' excessive attacks on the Bloc Québécois, and indirectly on the millions of Quebeckers who voted for that party, have fuelled regional divides and reinvigorated the sovereigntist movement – raising a prospect of Quebec's federalist Liberals losing power in Monday's election, or at least failing to win the majority they seemed on track for.

If there is a saving grace in all this, it is that anger with the Conservatives is directed more toward Mr. Harper than his party. That raises the hope that, were he replaced as leader, the greatest barrier to inter-party co-operation with a Conservative minority government would be removed.

It is on that end, rather than the ascent of a coalition government, that the Liberals ought to focus. By hinting that the replacement of Mr. Harper as Tory leader could lessen the crisis, the Liberals would make clear that they are not engaged in a mere power grab – and allow themselves time to resolve their own leadership issues. If the Conservatives accepted that proposition, they could demonstrate that personal interests were secondary to those of the country. Both parties, in other words, could behave like adults. And the economy, rather than the personality of a single polarizing figure, could retake its rightful place as the primary focus of this Parliament.

I agree with the sentiment here. Replacing Harper as leader of the Conservative Party would go a long way toward restoring democracy to Canada.

Incidentally, let's not lose site of the fact that in addition to a provocative budget that the opposition could not accept, and in addition to stoking the flames of bigotry in Western Canada, Harper also misrepresented the nature of our parliamentary system by falsely claiming that it was illegitimate for Parliament to vote him out of office [Harper wrong on democracy claims: experts]. A man like Harper does not deserve to lead my country.

---

1. Canadian Cynic provided a link to the Globe and Mail editorial that endorsed Stephen Harper last October 9th. I urge everyone who has an interest in this issue to read that editorial, it is astonishing in it's accuracy and warning of what might happen: Harper is growing into the job .

Say Again?

 
Stephen Harper. the current dictator Prime Minister of Canada received an award in New York City yesterday from Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Here's the press release.

Prime Minister Harper Given International Leadership Award

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be honoured today in New York City by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which is presenting him with its first-ever International Leadership Award. Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon will attend the reception and awards ceremony to accept the award on behalf of the Prime Minister.

“I am deeply honoured to be recognized for helping improve Western relations with Israel,” said the Prime Minister. “Canada stands with Israel, and will stand with any nation willing to put its trust in its people and follow the principles of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.”

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations was founded in 1954 to promote the State of Israel in the United States. An umbrella group representing 50 national religious, philanthropic and civic American Jewish organizations, it serves as a central coordinating body and primary forum for deliberations and discussions among its members on national and international issues of concern to Jews.

Yesterday was a busy day for Harper. He also shut down the Canadian parliament in order to avoid losing a non-confidence vote.

Interesting how his action contrasts with the words, "Canada ... will stand with any nation willing to put its trust in its people and follow the principles of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law."

Stephen Harper is a threat to Canada and to democracy. He must be removed from office. If that means putting up with a temporary Prime Minister in his place then so be it. This is one of those circumstances where the greater good trumps everything.

---

Conservative Lies

 
The Conservative Party under Stephen Harper has been spreading false information about how our parliamentary system works. They have been claiming that the transfer of power from the Conservative Party to the coalition under Stéphane Dion is a "coup" and that Dion does not have the right to lead a government.

Why are the Conservatives doing this? There are two possible explanations ...

• They believe what they are saying, in which case they are stupid and ignorant about how parliament works. They don't deserve to be the government.


• They know they are lying but they hope to convince Canadians that they're telling the truth. Because they are liars and because they have such a low opinion of the average Canadian, they don't deserve to lead a government.

Here's the problem. Harper and his Conservatives are doing great harm to the country by spreading lies. They are trying to convince Canadians that we have a US Presidential style of democracy and that he (Harper) was voted in as Prime Minister. Our young people are confused enough about politics without having this kind of false information spread by our Prime Minister.

Peter Russell is a Professor Emeritus in the Dept. of Political Science at the University of Toronto. We have tangled on a number of issues but always with mutual respect (I hope). He is a very smart man and you don't want him to catch you spreading lies about politics. Here's part of his column in today's Toronto Star [Constitution and precedent are on coalition's side].

If there is an alternative government available that has a reasonable prospect of being supported for a period of time by a majority in the House of Commons, she would have reason to decline Harper's request. Harper would then have to resign, and the Governor General would commission Dion to form a government.

If this happens, again there would be no "usurpation" of power but a proper application of the rules and principles of parliamentary democracy. It has been very disturbing to hear over the last few days, from people who should know better, wild unparliamentary theories about our system of government. Elections are not simple popularity contests in which the leader whose party garners the most votes gets all the power.

I am greatly concerned that there is so little public knowledge of the constitutional rules that govern our parliamentary system of government. These rules are not formally written down in a legal text or taught in our schools. Maybe the most important lesson to take from the situation we are now living through is to begin to codify as much as we can of this "unwritten" part of our Constitution and to ensure that it is well taught in our schools.

Harper is wrong. The only remaining question is whether he is stupid or a liar (or both).

Who is to blame for this mess? Peter has the correct answer ....

These precedents and many, many others illustrate the basic point that in parliamentary democracies we elect parliaments not prime ministers, and that the Governor General (or the presidential head of state in a republican parliamentary system) must be advised by ministers who are supported by a majority in the elected house of parliament.

Now let's apply these rules of parliamentary democracy to the situation Canada now faces. After the Oct. 14 election, Stephen Harper remained Prime Minister, formed a new government and prepared to face the House. Although his party had improved its seat total it was still in a minority position in the House. This meant that to continue in office Harper would have to win enough support from the opposition benches to secure the confidence of the House.

For a few days it appeared that Harper would reach out in a conciliatory manner and garner the parliamentary support he needs on order to have the right to govern.

But, to put it mildly, on Nov. 27 just a few days into the session, through his finance minister's economic update, he made an abrupt U-turn. Instead of seeking support from the opposition, his government presented an in-your-face, take-it-or-leave-it position.

The opposition parties – all three of them – decided not to take it. Instead, they announced that they would use their collective majority in the House to vote no confidence in the Harper government and support an alternative coalition government.

---

Nobel Laureate: Eric Kandel

 

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2000.

"for their discoveries concerning signal transduction in the nervous system"

Eric R. Kandel (1929 - ) won the Noble Prize in 2000 for his work on understanding the biochemistry of memory. He discovered that short term memory in the sea slug Aplysia depended on the phosphorylation and dephosphorylation of proteins and that the regulation of these covalent modifications was under the control cyclic AMP mediated signal transduction pathways.

Kandel shared the prize with Arvid Carlsson and Paul Greengard.

Here's what the press release says about Kandel's work

THEME:
Nobel Laureates

Eric Kandel

Sea slug, a model system for learning
A phosphorylation of proteins has great importance also for the discoveries for which Eric Kandel is rewarded, that is for revealing molecular mechanisms, important for the formation of memories. Eric Kandel started to study learning and memory in mammals, but realized that the conditions were too complex to provide an understanding of basic memory processes. He therefore decided to investigate a simpler experimental model, the nervous system of a sea slug, Aplysia. It has comparatively few nerve cells (around 20.000), many of which are rather large. It has a simple protective reflex that protects the gills, which can be utilized to study basic learning mechanisms.

Eric Kandel found that certain types of stimuli resulted in an amplification of the protective reflex of the sea slug. This strengthening of the reflex could remain for days and weeks and was thus a form of learning. He could then show that learning was due to an amplification of the synapse that connects the sensory nerve cells to the nerve cells that activate the muscle groups that give rise to the protective reflex.

Short and long term memory
Eric Kandel showed initially that weaker stimuli give rise to a form of short term memory, which lasts from minutes to hours. The mechanism for this "short term memory" is that particular ion channels are affected in such a manner that more calcium ions will enter the nerve terminal. This leads to an increased amount of transmitter release at the synapse, and thereby to an amplification of the reflex. This change is due to a phosphorylation of certain ion channel proteins, that is utilizing the molecular mechanism described by Paul Greengard.

A more powerful and long lasting stimulus will result in a form of long term memory that can remain for weeks. The stronger stimulus will give rise to increased levels of the messenger molecule cAMP and thereby protein kinase A. These signals will reach the cell nucleus and cause a change in a number of proteins in the synapse. The formation of certain proteins will increase, while others will decrease. The final result is that the shape of the synapse can increase and thereby create a long lasting increase of synaptic function. In contrast to short term memory, long term memory requires that new proteins are formed. If this synthesis of new proteins is prevented, the long term memory will be blocked but not the short term memory.

Synaptic plasticity, a precondition for memory
Eric Kandel thus demonstrated that short term memory, as well as long term memory in the sea slug is located at the synapse. During the 1990's he has also carried out studies in mice. He has been able to show that the same type of long term changes of synaptic function that can be seen during learning in the sea slug also applies to mammals.

The fundamental mechanisms that Eric Kandel has revealed are also applicable to humans. Our memory can be said to be "located in the synapses" and changes in synaptic function are central, when different types of memories are formed. Even if the road towards an understanding of complex memory functions still is long, the results of Eric Kandel has provided a critical building stone. It is now possible to continue and for instance study how complex memory images are stored in our nervous system, and how it is possible to recreate the memory of earlier events. Since we now understand important aspects of the cellular and molecular mechanisms which make us remember, the possibilities to develop new types of medication to improve memory function in patients with different types of dementia may be increased.

Figure 4.
A sea slug, Aplysia, has a simple nervous system and a gill withdrawal reflex that Eric Kandel has utilized to study learning and memory.

Figure 5.
A schematic description of how molecular changes in a synapse may produce "short term memory" and "long term memory" in the sea slug, Aplysia. The figure shows a synapse that is affecting another synapse. Short term memory can be produced when a weak stimulus (thin arrows in the left lower part of the figure) is causing a protein phosphorylation of ion channels, which leads to a release of an increased amount of transmitter. For a long term memory to be created, a stronger and more long-lasting stimulus is required (bold arrows in the figure). This causes an increased level of the messenger molecule cAMP, which causesa further activation of protein kinases. They will phosphorylate different proteins and affect the cell nucleus, which in turn will issue orders regarding the synthesis of new proteins. This may lead to changes in the form and function of the synapse. The efficacy of the synapse can then be increased and more transmitter released.

---

[Photo Credit: Eric Kandel: Wikipedia]