The Darwinius Affair

 
The Darwinius Affair is getting messier. Not only did some scientists commit a serious breach of scientific ethics by exaggerating their claims about the fossil, but they also prevented legitimate science journalists from doing their job.

As most of you know, I think that science journalists should examine the claims of scientists in order to ensure they are accurate. They should not just take the word of the scientist, no matter how famous he or she is.¹

In order to do their job, the science journalists need access to the scientific paper before it is released to the public. This is standard practice. Journalists are used to, and respect, news embargos.

In this particular case, it appears that scientists and the editors of PLoS ONE prevented journalists from seeing the paper until the press conference and all the associated hoopla was under way. Carl Zimmer has the story at Science Held Hostage.

Shame on PloS ONE, on the scientists who wrote the paper, and on everyone else who is associated with this media event. This is not how science is supposed to work. This is not how we should be communicating with the general public.

Franzen, J.L., Gingerich, P.D., Habersetzer, J., Hurum, J.H., von Koenigswald, W., et al. (2009) Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5723. [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005723]

---

1. Most professional science journalists don't do this, but that's another issue.

It's that time of year, again.

The course is over, the exam has been written, the marking is done, and the grades have been submitted. There's a short lag while the marks are checked and then they're posted so that students can learn how they've done in the course.

At my university we submit grades as percentages. They are converted to grade points (out of 4) in order to calculate a grade point average. The percent score is reported on the transcript and so is the grade point average. A mark of 76% is a 3.0, a mark of 77% is a 3.5 and a mark of 80% is a 3.7. A mark of 76% is a 3.0, a mark of 77%-84% is a 3.7, and a mark of 85% or above is a 4.0. There is no 3.5—shows you how much attention I pay to those sorts of things.

The email messages start as soon as the marks are posted. Every year there are students who want more marks. Usually it's just a few more marks to raise their grade points from 3.3 to 3.7 or something similar. That's by far the most common request. Sometimes the student wants lots more marks because they worked really hard in the course and deserve a much higher grade.

The most common reasons for asking for more marks are ...

• losing a scholarship
• not going to get into medical school/graduate school
• grade doesn't reflect effort
• parents will be disappointed
• the final exam was unfair
• student wasn't feeling well during the test that gave the lowest score
• this is the lowest grade ever received

Some of the letters just ask me to give them more marks because I feel sorry for them. But many contain the suggestion that they are willing to pay for a higher grade. Fortunately, I can handle all these requests by just referring students to the standard appeal process. Once the grades are submitted to the Faculty I can't change them. It's one of the few times that I like the rules and regulations.

Every Professor in the Department gets these requests at this time of the year.

Here's the important part—it's not fair to put the entire blame on the students. There's something about the way we run the university that makes it seem acceptable to beg for higher marks. What are we doing wrong? How can we fix it?

I have a trivial solution that will deal with many of the problems.

ABOLISH GRADE POINTS AND GRADE POINT AVERAGES

---

Nobel Laureate: Charles Robert Richet

 

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1913

"in recognition of his work on anaphylaxis"

Charles Robert Richet (1850 - 1935) won the Noble Prize in 1913 for discovering the phenomenon known as anaphylaxis. This is a condition where the administration of an antigen causes severe symptoms, even death. Richet found that anaphylactic shock occurs only after an animal had been previously immunized and even then only after some days had passed.

It appeared as though the first immunization took several days to develop but when the process was complete a second attempt at boosting immunization causes a severe reaction. Anaphylactic shock was rare, it only happens in a small percentage of cases. We are familiar with the risk when people are known to be allergic to peanuts or insect stings.

Today we know what causes the symptoms of anaphylaxis; it's due to massive release of histamines, prostaglandins, and leukotrienes from mast cells. The release of these chemicals produces rapid heartbeat, sweating, and constriction of the airways. The symptoms can be relieved, and death prevented, by rapid treatment with epinephrine.

The primary cause of most anaphyaxis is overproduction of antigen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) molecules on the mast cells.¹ It's the IgE molecules that interact with the antigen to cause release of histamines etc. It's not known why some antigens lead to overproduction of IgE such that subsequent exposure to the same antigen cause a massive allergic reaction. (Normal antibodies are immunoglobulin G or IgG.²)

Immunology is complicated. That's why we can't cure asthma and other allergic reactions even though the phenomena have been intensely studied for more than 100 years.

Here's an excerpt from the 1913 Presentation Speech.
THEME:
Nobel Laureates

In an age in which the leading members of the medical profession tend to concentrate on innumerable experiments demonstrating the growing immunity of the organism towards poisons already resisted successfully once, you, Sir, have found that in certain cases a completely opposite result is produced. You did not restrict yourself to this isolated observation: studied in depth by you, it has become the foundation on which you have based the evidence of a reaction that is sometimes just as regular as the phenomenon of immunity. We are not concerned solely with specific prophylaxis; thanks to you, we are now aware of a specific anaphylaxis.

We do not discount the work of those who, following your lead, have observed similar phenomena, but to you goes the honour of having established the basis of a new biological reaction, anaphylaxis, and of having been the first to demonstrate it clearly. Thereby you have opened up to medical science an enormous field of study as yet unexplored. The Staff of Professors of the Caroline Institute wishes to reward you for this achievement by conferring on you the prize instituted by our compatriot Alfred Nobel for those «who have made the most important discovery in the field of physiology or medicine».

Please accept the warm congratulations of the Institute and myself, together with the wish of us all that success will continue to crown your devoted work.

---

1. I do not mean to imply that IgE molecules are produced by mast cells. They are not.

2. There are several different classes (isotypes) of antibodies; IgG, IgD, IgM, IgA, and IgE. The most abundance class is IgG—that's the one most often depicted in the textbooks. It's probably the type most people think about when they think about antibodies. I did not mean to imply that the other classes are not "normal."

[Photo Credit: Wikipedia]

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.

Science Journalism at its Worst

 
This video is an embarrassment. At a time when we are trying to convince the public that science is credible, along comes a trashy exploitation that sets science back several decades.

This is not how science works. It is not accurate science and it is not an accurate depiction of how scientists will react to the discovery of Darwinius masillae.

---

Cafe Inquiry: Freedom of Speech and the Atheist Bus Campaign

 
Join us on Friday night for a discussion about Freedom of Speech and the Atheist Bus Campaign.

Modeled on the highly popular Cafe Scientifique, Centre for Inquiry presents Cafe Inquiry. Join us for a series of interactive forums exploring contemporary issues in science, reason, philosophy and politics. We bring you 2 or 3 guest experts that open by addressing the issue from a variety of perspectives and responding to moderator questions. Then we open it to the floor for your questions and comments to the panel and each other. This is your chance to interact with a diverse group of people on CFI's broad topics.

I've met some of the people who were involved in the atheist bus campaign. This promises to be a fun evening. If you've never been to an event at the Centre for Inquiry you can get in touch with me. I'll be happy to meet up with you and take you to the location.

---

What Fools Those Atheists Be!

 
Read Lord! What Fools Those Atheists Be! in Report Magazine. (Report Magazine is published in Edmonton, Texas Alberta. It bills itself as "Western Canada's Conservative Voice.") The author of the offensive article is Pastor Shafer Parker, a Texas native who is now with the Hawkwood Baptist Church in Calgary.

Before you read the article, answer the poll question in the left-hand sidebar: "Do you believe that there is a 'God'"? So far, the answer "Absolutely!" is leading over "Absolutely Not!" but it's early days.

Heathen Mike of Mike's Weekly Skeptic Rant has dissected most of the article at: Shafer Parker, Answered. You should read what Mike has to say. I'm sure you'll be convinced that it's not the atheists who are the fools.

Most of Pastor Parker's rant is against the bus ads promoting atheism. I want to address one particular point in Parker's article. He says ...

The Christian West's centuries-old tradition of free expression and open debate is unique in that nothing like it exists anywhere else on earth. No such tradition exists in any society dominated by a single non-Christian faith, including the atheistical Communist-materialist nations of China, North Korea and the former Soviet Union. It is not an accident that these ads have deliberately set out to offend the majority Christian theists living in London, Madrid and Washington, D.C. They would not have been allowed in Beijing, New Delhi or Riyadh.

Parker believes that Christianity is associated with free expression and open debate. He claims that no other religion has a similar tradition. This would have been news to the people of Cordova in the Moorish Kingdom from 800-1200 AD. It would also have been news to most Catholics throughout history and to most Protestant sects (e.g. Puritans). They aren't exactly noted for tolerating free expression and open debate. (Were the ancient Greeks Christians?)

But let's put history aside. It's obviously not one of Parker's strong points. Let's just look at Christian nations in the last century or so. Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain come to mind. So does Czarist Russia. I'm sure there are plenty of other Christian nations where free expression and open debate were not common—I'm thinking of several nations in Central and South America. I don't think he's making a valid point. I don't think the concept of free expression is in any way a product of Christianity.

What about modern states? Israel, Japan. and India seem to be non-Christian states that have a certain degree of free expression and open debate. Parker says that the atheist signs would not be allowed on buses in New Delhi. I suspect he's wrong about that. In any case, he ignores the fact that the atheist signs will never be allowed in some of the most Christian parts of America. Isn't that strange?

---

Monday's Molecule #122: Winner?

 
UPDATE: The molecule is epinephrine or adrenaline. IUPAC name = (R)-4- (1-hydroxy-2- (methylamino)ethyl)benzene-1,2-diol.

The Nobel Laureate is Charles Robert Richet who discovered and described anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock. Epinephrine, in the form of an EpiPen, is used to treat anaphylactic shock.

Ten people got the molecule but Dima Klenchin was the only person to guess the correct Nobel Laureate. He isn't eligible so there is no winner this week.

---

Today's molecule is a drug as well as a biological molecule that's found in some species. You need to supply the common name and the correct IUPAC name for this molecule. The stereochemistry isn't shown in the figure but you have to specify it in your answer.

As a drug, this molecule is used to treat a common but life-threatening condition. Identify that condition and name the Nobel Laureate who first described and characterized it.

The first person to identify the molecule and the Nobel Laureate wins a free lunch at the Faculty Club. Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first won the prize.

There are seven ineligible candidates for this week's reward: Mike Fraser of Toronto, Alex Ling of the University of Toronto, Laura Gerth of the University of Notre Dame, Stefan Tarnawsky of the University of Toronto, Dima Klenchin of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Adam Santoro of the University of Toronto., and Michael Clarkson of Waltham MA (USA).

The Canadians are still ahead in the competition between Canadians the rest of the world but their recent dominance is coming to an end. I want to thank all those smart Canadians who have been holding back in order to give the rest of the world a chance.

I still have one extra free lunch donated by a previous winner (Michael Clarkson) to a deserving undergraduate so I'm going to continue to award an additional free lunch to the first undergraduate student who can accept it. Please indicate in your email message whether you are an undergraduate and whether you can make it for lunch.

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 Prizes 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.

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

---

Science for Humanity

 
Today's issue of The Toronto Star has an article on Andras Nagy, a colleague who works at one of the hospital research institutes here in Toronto. Apparently Nagy made a list of "Top 10 awards for work in science-related endeavours" in a magazine called Scientific Magazine [Scientist honoured for stem-cell coup].

I tried to find this magazine and the names of the other winners but nothing seemed to work. Google was not my friend today.

Later on, after lunch, I noticed a press release from "Scientific American." That magazine was naming "Ten researchers, politicians, business executives and philanthropists who have recently demonstrated outstanding commitment to assuring that the benefits of new technologies and knowledge will accrue to humanity" [Scientific American 10: Guiding Science for Humanity].

Sure enough, Andras Nagy was on that list. Here's the complete list. Congratulations to Genie Scott.

1. Todd Brady
   Corporate environmental manager
   Intel, Santa Clara, Calif.
   A chip company makes expansion of its environmental footprint a priority


2. Shai Agassi
   Founder and chief executive
   Better Place, Palo Alto, Calif.
   A wonderfully simple recharging scheme may ensure a future for electric vehicles


3. Wafaa El-Sadr
   Chief
   Infectious Disease Division, Harlem Hospital Center, New York City
   The physician leads a multipronged public health campaign to fight the scourge of HIV


4. Robert J. Lin­hardt
   Professor of Biocatalysis and Metabolic Engineering
   Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
   A chemical sleuth unravels the cause of deaths from a tainted drug


5. Eugenie Scott
   Executive director
   National Center for Science Education, Oakland, Calif.
   A champion for the teaching of evolution steps up her advocacy


6. Bill Gates/Michael Bloomberg
   Co-chair
   Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
   Mayor of New York City
   Celebrity heft propels a campaign to limit smoking


7. Bryan Willson
   Professor of mechanical engineering
   Colorado State University
   An engineer facilitates clean energy technology for the developing world


8. Kristian Olson
   Program Leader
   Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology, Boston
   Simple, low-cost resuscitators and incubators can save newborns in the developing world


9. Andras Nagy
   Senior investigator
   Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto
   A biologist discovers a practical method of making stem cells from mature cells


10. Barack Obama
    President of the U.S.
    The new chief executive begins his term by initiating a radical shift in science policy

It would be fun to see the top ten scientists—men and women who have contributed the most to our understanding of the natural world.

---

Monday's Molecule #122

 
Today's molecule is a drug as well as a biological molecule that's found in some species. You need to supply the common name and the correct IUPAC name for this molecule. The stereochemistry isn't shown in the figure but you have to specify it in your answer.

As a drug, this molecule is used to treat a common but life-threatening condition. Identify that condition and name the Nobel Laureate who first described and characterized it.

The first person to identify the molecule and the Nobel Laureate wins a free lunch at the Faculty Club. Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first won the prize.

There are seven ineligible candidates for this week's reward: Mike Fraser of Toronto, Alex Ling of the University of Toronto, Laura Gerth of the University of Notre Dame, Stefan Tarnawsky of the University of Toronto, Dima Klenchin of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Adam Santoro of the University of Toronto., and Michael Clarkson of Waltham MA (USA).

The Canadians are still ahead in the competition between Canadians the rest of the world but their recent dominance is coming to an end. I want to thank all those smart Canadians who have been holding back in order to give the rest of the world a chance.

I still have one extra free lunch donated by a previous winner (Michael Clarkson) to a deserving undergraduate so I'm going to continue to award an additional free lunch to the first undergraduate student who can accept it. Please indicate in your email message whether you are an undergraduate and whether you can make it for lunch.

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 Prizes 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.

Comments will be blocked for 24 hours.

---

Who Knew?

 
The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site. Unfortunately, much of the news coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in some cases, overtly biased. Evolution News & Views presents analysis of that coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution.

Evolution News & ViewsJonathan Wells has a Ph.D. He can explain why "Darwinism" is false in only two paragraphs [Persisting in Spite of the Evidence: Why Darwinism Is False].

Darwin called The Origin of Species “one long argument” for his theory, but Jerry Coyne has given us one long bluff. Why Evolution Is True tries to defend Darwinian evolution by rearranging the fossil record; by misrepresenting the development of vertebrate embryos; by ignoring evidence for the functionality of allegedly vestigial organs and non-coding DNA, then propping up Darwinism with theological arguments about “bad design;” by attributing some biogeographical patterns to convergence due to the supposedly “well-known” processes of natural selection and speciation; and then exaggerating the evidence for selection and speciation to make it seem as though they could accomplish what Darwinism requires of them.

The actual evidence shows that major features of the fossil record are an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution; that early development in vertebrate embryos is more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry; that non-coding DNA is fully functional, contrary to neo-Darwinian predictions;¹ and that natural selection can accomplish nothing more than artificial selection — which is to say, minor changes within existing species.

Amazing.

When it comes to evaluating Creationist arguments, we are often faced with a difficult decision. Is the Creationist just ignorant or is he lying? I think it's much easier to answer that question in Wells' case. He has a Ph.D. in biology from a reputable university. It's not possible for him to be that ingnorant about the basic facts of biology.

---

1. It's a lie that non-coding DNA is fully functional and it's a lie that "neo-Darwinism" predicts the presence of large amounts of junk DNA in some species.

One Angry Christian

 
Charlotte Allen doesn't like atheists very much. She writes in Los Angeles Times [Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining].

I can't stand atheists -- but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.

She then proceeds to describe all the "boring" things that upset her.

I'd like to comment on one of the points that she makes.

The problem with atheists -- and what makes them such excruciating snoozes -- is that few of them are interested in making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against God's existence, or in taking on the serious arguments that theologians have made attempting to reconcile, say, God's omniscience with free will or God's goodness with human suffering.

This is becoming a mantra for Christian apologists and it's about time we put an end to it.

The reason why atheists aren't interested in making serious arguments against God's existence is that it's impossible to prove the non-existence of something. On the other hand, we can easily show that the arguments in favor of supernatural beings are nonsensical. There are no "serious mtaphysical or epistemological arguments" for God and that's what we point out to anyone who takes the time to listen.

I suppose that makes us boring.

Furthermore, atheists are not interested in "taking on" the "serious" (sic) arguments of theologians when they attempt to reconcile their God with free will and evil. Why should we be interested in such arguments? The premise behind these arguments is that God exists. Atheists reject the premise. If they want to be taken seriously, "serious" theologians have to first prove that God exists before they begin their apologetics.

Christians like Charlotte Allen make me angry. It's not because they're Christians, it's because they are so irrational.

What atheists don't seem to realize is that even for believers, faith is never easy in this world of injustice, pain and delusion. Even for believers, God exists just beyond the scrim of the senses. So, atheists, how about losing the tired sarcasm and boring self-pity and engaging believers seriously?

OK. Here's an attempt to engage believers seriously.

If believing is so hard in the face of the real world, and if your belief is "just beyond the ... senses," then why do you continue to believe?

---

[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]

Happy Victoria Day!

 
Today's the day we celebrate Queen Victoria's birthday (Victoria Day) in most Canadian provinces. Queen Victoria was actually born on May 24th but the modern holiday is the first Monday before or on May 24th.

Since the death of Queen Victoria, the holiday does double duty as a celebration of the birthday of the current monarch. Queen Elizabeth II was actually born on April 21st—it must be nice to have two birthday parties every year!

Although Queen Elizabeth II is officially Canada's head of state, the duties are actually carried out by her representative, the Governor General. Governors General are appointed every few years and their duties are largely ceremonial. I really like a system where the head of state is not the same person as the head of government. It avoids a lot of problems.

Officially, Canada's form of government is called a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliamentary System of government.

---

[The painting of Queen Victoria's Family in 1846 is by Franz Xaver Winterhalter.]

Michael Bliss - Anti-Science Conservative

 
Michael Bliss is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto. He has written some excellent books on the history of science, notably a book about the discovery of insulin.

Bliss has always been a small-c conservative and many of his opinion pieces have supported conservative policies.

On Thursday, May 14th, Michael Bliss entered the debate on Canadian science funding [Michael Bliss: Anti-Harper campaign politicizes research to the detriment of science]. His main point is that Canadian scientists are whiners and complainers who should keep their mouths shut because they are damaging the reputation of science in Canada.

It’s time that responsible leaders of the Canadian science and research communities began thinking of ways to cool down their more hot-headed colleagues. The strategy of declaring war on a government because some of its policies are temporarily inconvenient and vexatious can generate cheap short-term applause and support in some quarters, but in the long run tags its adherents as unreliable and unworthy, or worse. Eventually doors get shut in their faces, and/or they’re left to wither on the vine.

It’s a sad way to tarnish what often has been and still could be one of the success stories of Canadian public policy.

I've never been a fan of Michael Bliss but this diatribe goes way over the line. Scientists are justifiably criticizing a science policy that they feel is doing great damage to Canada's ability to be competitive in the 21st century. Michael Bliss is saying that scientists should not speak out when they disagree with government policy. That's a strange position for someone who has made a reputation of speaking out on controversial topics.

But it's at least consistent with conservative thinking.

Michael Bliss thinks it's OK for governments to direct scientific research. He thinks the only important kind of research is that which directly benefits business and consumers. Applied research and technology is "accountable."

By and large, Canadian researchers have not had a bad inning in recent years. Some observers think that the research community has actually had an easy ride, never having been forced to show exactly what benefits are being generated for the Canadian people by the money given researchers. If the government of Canada ever decided, for example, that this country should lead the world in demanding hard accountability from researchers who live off taxpayers’ largesse, today’s discontents would seem like extremely small beer.

I suppose that's why Bliss admires Banting and Best and the others who discovered and produced insulin. I suppose he hates those scientists who discovered recombinant DNA technology to help with their curiosity motivated research even though it led directly to the production of human insulin—a far more effective form than the old insulin from pigs.

The main product of research is knowledge and knowledge is always of more benefit to the Canadian people than ignorance. During his many decades at the University of Toronto, Michael Bliss and his students contributed to that knowledge base in many ways. Some of the work in history that he published was paid for by research grants. I wonder if he can meet the demand of "hard accountability" that he demands of others? With respect to his own scholarly work, I wonder if he can explain "exactly what benefits are being generated for the Canadian people"?

(Read Commentary strives to politicize science funding debate on Researcher Forum for a similar perspective on Michael Bliss.)

---

Stephen Harper: Just Leaving

 

---

Godless Radio

 
Yesterday I was interviewed on Godless Radio by Godless Dave and Godless Rob. It was a fun time. We spent an hour talking about the conflict between science and religion. I think we pretty much solved all the problems.

There will be a podcast version for those of who missed the live broadcast.

Godless is an internet radio show designed to give atheists at the University of Toronto, Scarborough Campus, a voice. We aim to reach out to non-believers, whether they call themselves atheists, agnostics, secular humanists or anything else, and provide a platform for the promotion of reality-based thinking.

---