The Truth About Chiropractic

 
Fifteen years ago, my faculty association (union) negotiated some increased coverage to our health plan. They added visits to the chiropractor and increased the rates that we all pay for this extra coverage. At the meeting where this addition was ratified, every single scientist on our Governing Council opposed the extension on the grounds that most visits to the chiropractor were ineffective. What this means is that we are paying for our non-scientific colleagues to support quacks.

The general public seems completely unaware of the fact that chiropractic is "alternative medicine." In other words it is not evidence-based medicine.

Read "What you should know about chiropractic" in this week's issue of New Scientist to learn more.

FOR many people, chiropractic appears almost mainstream. Some chiropractors even call themselves "doctor". In the UK, chiropractors are regulated by statute, and in the US they like to be seen as primary care physicians. It is therefore understandable if people hardly ever question the evidential basis on which this profession rests.

The origins of chiropractic are surprising and rather spectacular. On 18 September 1895 Daniel Palmer, a "magnetic healer" practising in the American Midwest, manipulated the spine of Harvey Lillard, a janitor who had been partially deaf since feeling "something give in his back". The manipulation apparently cured Lillard of his deafness. Palmer's second patient suffered from heart disease, and again spinal manipulation is said to have effected a cure. Within a year or so, Palmer had opened a school, the first of many, and the term he coined, "chiropractic", was well on its way to becoming a household name.

The only true cure

Palmer convinced himself he had discovered something fundamental about human illness and its treatment. According to Palmer, a vital force - he called it the "Innate" - enables our body to heal itself. If our vertebrae are not perfectly aligned, the flow of the Innate is blocked and we fall ill. Chiropractors speak of these misalignments as "subluxations" (in conventional medicine, a subluxation means merely a partial dislocation). The only true cure is to realign the vertebrae by manipulating the spine, and in the logic of chiropractic it follows that all human illness must be treated with spinal manipulations. Many chiropractors also assert that we need regular "maintenance care" even when we are not ill so that subluxations can be realigned before they cause a disease. In the words of Palmer "95 per cent of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae, the remainder by luxations of other joints".

It's true that there are some chiropractors who don't believe all this nonsense. They concentrate on relieving back pain and stay away from all the quackery associated with most chiropractic. Those chiropractors exist, but you'll have a hard time finding them.

So, the key question is whether chiropractic works. Is there any evidence to support the claims of chiropractors? The short answer is no. There's some evidence that chiropractic helps relieve back pain but that's it. Here's how Edzard Ernst describes it in his New Scientist article.

In the book I co-wrote with Simon Singh, Trick or Treatment? Alternative medicine on trial, we dedicate a chapter to chiropractic. After weighing all the evidence, our conclusions were not flattering: "Warning: this treatment carries the risk of stroke and death if spinal manipulation is applied to the neck. Elsewhere on the spine, therapy is relatively safe. It has shown some evidence of benefit in the treatment of back pain, but conventional treatments are usually equally effective and much cheaper. In the treatment of all other conditions chiropractic therapy is ineffective except that it might act as a placebo."

It's nice to hear a voice of reason from time to time.

As you might expect, the chiropractors aren't happy. In fact, they are so unhappy that they're using the British legal system to silence their critics.

Simon later wrote an article in The Guardian newspaper about chiropractic. In it, he quoted from the website of the British Chiropractic Association which, at the time, made fairly clear claims that chiropractors can effectively treat a whole range of childhood diseases, including asthma. The evidence for treatment of this condition is less than weak: no fewer than three controlled trials have found that chiropractic spinal manipulation has no beneficial effect. The best of these studies, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, concluded that "the addition of chiropractic spinal manipulation to usual medical care provided no benefit".

Not supported

For alerting the public to all of this, and possibly preventing harm to unsuspecting children, Simon deserves much credit. Instead, he is being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association. I think this is a serious issue that raises two crucial questions. Is it acceptable that scientists and journalists are restricted in their criticism by the legal muscle of those who are being criticised? And is it acceptable that professional bodies, such as the British Chiropractic Association - or indeed any other organisation - are able to make therapeutic claims that are not supported by scientific data? I leave it to the reader to decide.

The preliminary judgment has gone against Singh as reported in New Scientist a few weeks ago [Chiropractic critic loses first round in libel fight].

IF YOU have ever been tempted to call alternative medicine "bogus", choose your words with care. You could be sued for defamation. That's the message from a ruling in the High Court in London that censured science writer Simon Singh for claiming that the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) promoted "bogus" treatments.

Chiropractic is a system of alternative and complementary medicine that treats illnesses by manipulating the spine. Singh made the comment in an article in London newspaper The Guardian in April 2008. The BCA asked him to retract the statement, which it said was wrong and damaging to its reputation. Singh refused, so the BCA sued him for libel.

In a pre-trial hearing last week, the judge ruled that Singh was saying the BCA had knowingly made false claims. He rejected Singh's defence that it was fair comment. "The judge has given us a meaning [of bogus] that is very extreme and that I never intended," Singh told New Scientist.

You know we're in trouble when the courts stifle science in favor of quackery.

---

What Should Scientific Organizations Say about Religion?

 
The poll has closed and here are the results.


A slight majority say that organizations like AAAS (amd NAS) should say nothing about the compatibility of science and religion. I think that's the correct choice.

What's surprising (to me) is that 31% of you said these organizations should say that science and religion are incompatible. I believe this is true but I still think that scientific organizations should not say anything. They don't speak for their members on this topic.

I'm glad to see that only 14% of Sandwalk readers support the unsupportable statement that science and religion are compatible.

---

Monday's Molecule #124

 
Name this molecule. Be as specific as possible. You must also identify the missing products and reactants. Be sure to get the stoichiometry correct or it doesn't count!

Identify the Nobel Laureate who discovered this molecule.

The first person to identify the molecule plus its reactants and products and identify the Nobel Laureate, wins a free lunch at the Faculty Club. Previous winners are ineligible for six weeks from the time they first won the prize. Please note the change in the length of time you are ineligible. The idea is to give more more people a chance to win.

There are seven ineligible candidates for this week's reward: 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., Michael Clarkson of Waltham MA (USA), Òscar Reig of Barcelona, and Maria Altshuler of the University of Toronto.

The rest of the world has pulled ahead of the Canadians. If it wasn't for the special free lunch for people who can actually collect it, there would be no Canadian winners at all!! What's happened?

I still have one extra free lunch donated by a previous winner 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.

---

Vaccinate Your Children

 
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USA) post videos on YouTube under CDCStreamingHealth. Here's part of their blurb ...

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (or CDC) is an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services based in Atlanta, Georgia. Recognized as the leading United States government agency for protecting the public health and safety of people, the CDC provides credible information to enhance health decisions and promotes health through strong partnerships with state health departments and other organizations. The CDC focuses national attention on developing and applying disease prevention and control (especially infectious diseases), environmental health, health promotion and education activities designed to improve the health of the people of the United States.

Who better to give advice about childhood vaccinations. Here's the video that every mother and father needs to see to counter the anti-vaccination crowd who are threatening the health of everyone. [See the anti-vaccine body count icon in the sidebar.]

Watch it all the way through, including the outtakes at the end.

---

Hardening the Border

 
Want to know how to win friends and influence your allies? Shut down the border and turn your country into a fortress. That's one way to send a message.

Today's the day that new regulations go into effect at border crossings between Canada and the USA. Now Canadians need a passport to get into the USA—so do Americans who are returning from Canada. This hardening of the border is a direct response to American "national security" issues. The American government believes that it will be more secure if shuts down the open border that has existed for so long between Canada and the USA.

Canadians are upset for two reasons. First, it will have an economic impact because Americans, who by and large don't carry passports, will not visit Canada. Second, it makes Canadians feel like they are terrorist suspects instead of friendly neighbors.

Canadians, and presumably Americans, have been proud of the fact that our border was the longest undefended border in the world.

The newspapers are full of stories about the new rules. Nobody in Canada thinks it's a good idea [Passports please: Need for papers kicks in at Canada-U.S. border]. Janet Napolitano, the U.S. Homeland Security secretary with the Obama administration, made headlines in April when she suggested that the Sept. 11 terrorists entered the USA from Canada. That's patently false, as any number of studies have shown.¹ If that's the sort of thinking that's led to increased security at the border then shame on Janet Napolitano and the American government.

I suppose that one of the benefits of a restricted border is that Canada will be protected from American terrorists like the one who just killed George Tiller in Kansas. In spite of this, I oppose the new restrictions at the border. The negative psychological effect on Canadians and Americans is likely to cause problems and this isn't outweighed by the possibility that an American terrorist might come into Canada.

America is paranoid about terrorism and this paranoia is causing the American government to treat every foreigner as a potential enemy. In the long run, that's not how you make friends and allies.

---

[Photo Credit: Panoramio]

1. Napolitano, a former Governor of Arizona, subsequently apologized for her mistake.

Another Blogger Leaves the SEED Blogs (ScienceBlogs.con)

 
Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge is the latest blog to jump ship. That makes three or four blogs that have left the SEED group in the past few weeks. Most of them have been fairly cryptic about their reasons for leaving but Kevin Beck hints at something sinister happening behind the scenes [Bon(obo) voyage: the chimps are loping away from ScienceBlogs.com].

I also want to be open about what I say without fear of being castigated as a misogynist (a term often used inaccurately - try "sexist," folks), a tremendously ironic notion given that I harbor genuine ovaries (although going dormant) and had some pretty hair-raising experiences during my fairly long scientific career which allow me to speak from a solid platform of experience and credibility.

The latter sniping derives from my stumbling upon some very shoddy behavior in the back rooms of Science Blogs, stuff that removed any doubt that leaving Science Blogs for an independent venue was the thing to do. The majority of the folks that blog here do not participate in this -- uh -- "community" forum, but the ones who do are fairly heavy hitters and like it or not, they set a tone.

Does anyone out there want to explain this? What's going on n the back rooms of ScienceBlogs?

---

John Hawks on "Adaptationists vs Pluralists"

 
John Hawks recently posted a comment about adaptationists [see Richard Lewontin: "[T]oo rapid for genetic adaptation"].

Hawks said ...

I don't really find the "pluralist versus adaptationist" debate very interesting. Despite the vocal complaints of some, I can't ever seem to locate the mythical "adaptationists" who deny that non-adaptive evolution ever happens. So the "debate" always comes down to whether particular adaptive hypotheses are true. Since no scientific hypothesis is true a priori, and since "those adaptationists are always saying stupid things" is not a scientific argument, I don't see the point.

I'm astonished that, after all these years, the adaptationists still don't get it.

First, the mythical adaptationist is a straw man that only exists in the minds of the adaptionists. This particular straw man was easily disposed of in the original Spandrel's paper. It is only resurrected by those who haven't been paying attention

Second, the debate does not come down to "whether adaptive hypotheses are true." It comes down to whether any adaptive hypothesis is true. When speculating on mechanisms, adaptationists tend to ignore any mechanism of evolution other than natural selection That's the problem. As a general rule, they don't seriously consider the possibility that the correct explanation may not be adaptation.

It's a difference in worldviews. Pluralists tend to look at an evolutionary outcome and ask, "What mechanism of evolution caused this?" Adaptationists tend to look at the same outcome and ask, "How can this be explained by natural selection?" Adaptationists know about random genetic drift—they just don't think it's an important player when it comes to the parts of evolution that they're interested in. I think that's a bad assumption.

---

The Mouse Genome is "Finished"

 
The first draft of the mouse genome was published by the Mouse Genome Sequencing Consortium back in 2002. At the time it was the only available non-human genome sequence. Since then several dozen other draft sequences have been published and many more are in progress. You can view a complete list at NCBI: Mammalian Genomes.

A finished version of the human genome sequence was published a few years ago and up until this month it was the only one listed as "complete." Now you can add the Mus musculus (mouse) genome to the list of complete publicly available genome sequences (Church et al. 2009).

When scientists say that a genome is complete or "finished" they don't really mean it. What they mean is that the effort has reached the point of diminishing returns. They are confident that they have found almost all of the genes and most of the important bits but they're well aware of the fact that some parts of the genome are missing.

This figure from the Church et al. paper illustrates the extent of a "finished" sequence. The green chromosomes represent the original draft sequence. Unsequenced regions are shown in black. As you can see, there were many gaps in the original sequence—176,000 to be exact.

The blue chromosomes represent the "finished" genome sequence. There are a lot fewer black regions and they are mostly confined to the centromeres/telomeres at the top ends of the chromsomes. As is the case with the human genome, these regions are mostly repetitive DNA that resists assembly into large blocks [The Human Genome Sequence Is not Complete].

The reason why the Y chromosome is missing is because it was a female genome that was sequenced.

Mice have 19 autosomes (non-sex chromosomes, see karyotype above). When you compare the mouse and human genomes you can see right away that the sequences of chromosomes aren't conserved. What is conserved are large blocks of sequence that may be found on one particular mouse chromosome but on a completely different human chromosome.

The mapping of these conserved synteny relationships reveals a great deal about the evolution of human and mouse chromosomes from a common ancestor. For example, the yellow block of sequence at the tip of human chromosome 1 (below) is found on mouse chromosome 4. The other parts of mouse chromosome 4 are found on human chromosome 6, 8, and 9.


What this means is that there are large blocks of genes that have been preserved since the time of the common ancestor. There are 334 chromosomal breakpoints that define the blocks of homologous sequence between human and mouse. The rearrangements took place in both lineages and the frequency of such rearrangements seems to be similar in most mammalian lineages.

The current "build" of the mouse genome has 20,210 protein-encoding genes. This is a substantial reduction from the 22,011 genes predicted in the initial draft sequence. As a general rule, the number of confirmed genes declines with each improvement in the sequence. This is mostly due to the joining together of gene fragments that were misidentified in the first draft. The authors note that 30% of the genes in the "finished" sequence were disrupted by errors and gaps in the first draft. Some new genes are added because of the addition of new sequence data but this doesn't compensate for the genes that are removed.

A total of 2,185 new genes were added. Most of them are duplicates of genes previously identified in the original draft sequence. In fact, the biggest change in the "finished" sequence is the identification of 126,000 Kb (126Mb) of duplicated sequences that were not detected in the first draft. This makes the mouse genome—with about 5% of segmentally duplicaed sequence—similar to the human genome. Initially there were hardly any duplicated regions in the mouse genome leading to speculation that duplications were much more common in primates.

Almost half of the duplicated regions exhibit different copy numbers in various strains of mice. Since the sequenced genome comes from a highly inbred line of laboratory mice (C57BL/6J), it is possible that the o0bserved copy number differs substantially from wild-type mice.

The human genome has 19,042 protein-encoding genes. Of these 15,187 (80%) have clear orthologs in the mouse genome. (Orthologs are homologous genes in the same location. They are related by descent from a common ancestor.) The orthologous genes represent 75% of the mouse genes. Most of the remaining genes are not novel genes but duplicates of the orthologs.

Surprisingly, there were only 12,845 orthologous genes in the first draft sequence. The difference is due to the identification of mistakes in the earlier data where sequence and assembly errors led to the misidentification of conserved genes. What this means is that a substantial number of papers comparing humans and mouse genomes will need to be re-evaluated. Here's how the authors put it ...

The shortcomings of the initial draft assembly are readily apparent now that a more-complete genome assembly is available. Undoubtedly these have led to incomplete or inaccurate understanding of some aspects of mouse biology. The availability of high quality genome sequence for the mouse will lead the way in dismissing some commonly held misconceptions and, more importantly, in revealing many previously hidden secrets of mouse biology.

The total length of protein-encoding exons in the mouse genome is 33,500 Kb (33.5 Mb). The revised genome size is 2,660,000 Kb (2.66 Gb). Thus, protein-encoding regions represent only 1.3% of the genome. This is similar to the value in the human genome (1.1% or 32.6 Mb out of 3.08 Gb).

There are many important non-coding sequences including centromeres, telomeres, origins of replication, scaffold attachment regions etc. All genes have substantial regulatory regions that aren't counted in the 1.3% of the genome that encodes protein. In addition, there are hundreds of tRNA genes, ribosomal RNA genes, and genes for essential small RNAs.

Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of the mouse genome (>90%) appears to be junk DNA with no known function. Most of it (~50%) consist of active and degenerate transposons similar to the LINES and SINES found in all other mammalian genomes.

---

[Photo Credit: Oak Ridge National Laboratory]

Church, D.M., Goodstadt, L., Hillier, L.W., Zody, M.C., Goldstein, S., et al. (2009) Lineage-Specific Biology Revealed by a Finished Genome Assembly of the Mouse. PLoS Biol 7(5): e1000112. [doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000112 ]

A Nomination Meeting

 
Last Fall I joined the Liberal Party of Canada in order to have a say in electing a new leader and a new candidate in my riding. My riding is Mississauge-Erindale in the city of Mississauga, just west of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

The candidate in the last election was Omar Alghabra, who at the time was the sitting member of the House of Commons in Ottawa. He lost the election by 400 votes.

Well, as it turns out, I didn't get a chance to vote for a new leader. The new leader, Michael Ingatieff, was acclaimed when when eveyone else dropped out of the race last December.

I looked forward to a healthy debate on choosing a candidate in my riding.

I received a notice in the mail on May 12th stating that there would be a nomination meeting in two weeks. All nomination forms must be received by the Liberal Party office in Toronto on May 18th at the latest. That left six days, counting Saturday and Sunday, to fill out a raft of forms [Nomination Rules].

The meeting was last night and the only candidate was Omar Alghabra. I took a picture of him on my cell phone at the meeting. I was told by the riding Chair that no other candidates would have been permitted but it was a moot point since the system was set up in such a way that it would have been almost impossible to get another nomination in on time.

This doesn't seem very democratic and it seems inconsistent with the openness that the Liberal Party desires. I don't know if Omar would have been nominated anyway but what I do know is that I would have been a lot happier if there had been some debate and discussion about choosing a person who could win the next election.

I feel that I've been manipulated. I wasn't the only one at the meeting who felt that way.

It's going to be hard to get excited about working for Omar during the upcoming campaign. The whole idea behind openness and democracy is to let everyone have their say. When that happens, people feel they're part of the process and they're willing to work with the system no matter which candidate is chosen to run in a riding. Competition and debate are healthy. Secrecy and manipulation are not.

---

Nobel Laureate: Willem Einthoven

 

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1924

"for his discovery of the mechanism of the electrocardiogram"

Willem Einthoven (1860 - 1927) won the Noble Prize in 1924 for discovering a practical machine for detecting the electrical actions of the heart. He discovered the electrocardiogram and identified its characteristic features.

Einthoven's apparatus was based on the string galvanometer, which he had developed a number of years earlier. The importance of an accurate electrocardiogram in diagnosing various heart conditions was instantly recognized. But first, the actions of a normal heart had to be carefully recorded and explained. The explanation put forth by Einthoven proved to be substantially correct.

Here's how the standard electrocardiogram is described in the Presentation Speech.
THEME:
Nobel Laureates

However, in his work in 1908 Einthoven gave an interpretation of the electrocardiogram. He starts from the fact that the stimulus (of the contraction process, the «negativity») is propagated as a wave in the muscular system of the heart. The string of the galvanometer, connected with the heart in a closed circuit in one of the usual ways, remains in the original position not only when the heart is at rest, but also when the «negativity» of the assemblage of points of the heart wall show the same value. A deflection is therefore in the first place to be expected at the beginning and at the end of a systole, and it presupposes that the condition of activity does not occur, respectively cease, simultaneously in all elements of the muscle. Further: if the contraction process (the stimulus) is propagated symmetrically in relation to the points connected to the galvanometer, then no deflection would take place either. Under such circumstances the electrocardiogram must be determined partly by the starting-point of the stimulus to the heart beat, partly by the conduction system within the heart. The point of departure for the normal heart beat has been sufficiently well known since the middle of the 1890's, the bundle of His also since that time, and Tawara's description of the ramification of the conduction system inside the ventricles known since 1906. According to Einthoven the P-peak is an expression of the propagation of the stimulus wave in the muscular system of the auricle. The negativity wave, corresponding to the stimulus wave in the His-Tawara system, is considered too weak by Einthoven to cause any deflection in the galvanometer. The QRS-complex is determined by the propagation of the stimulus wave in the muscular system of the two ventricles, proceeding in unsymmetrical fashion to the points of lead, starting at different moments at the transition of the tree-like ramified Purkinje's fibres into the various parts of the proper muscular system of the heart. When the contraction process has reached its maximum in all the points of the ventricular wall, the string returns to its original position. When the contraction ceases in the various parts at different moments, a T-peak is obtained.


It is unnecessary in this connection to consider the interpretations proposed by other investigators, as Einthoven's concept is the only one which has proved to be tenable. The interpretation that the P-peak belongs to the auricular systole is mainly based on his observation of electrocardiograms in cases of heart block in patients or during vagus stimulation in dogs. With regard to the interpretation of the QRS-complex Einthoven was evidently the first who has clearly recognized the significance of the conduction system in this connection. The train of thought in the interpretation of the T-peak can already be detected in Burdon-Sanderson's previously mentioned work.

---

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.

Mixing Science, Religion, and Politics

 
The first draft of the human genome sequence was announced on June 26, 2000. There was a huge press conference in the East Room of the White House with Craig Venter, President Bill Clinton, and Francis Collins. British Prime Minister Tony Blair appeared via videolink from London.

The event is recounted on pages 2 & 3 of Francis Collins' book The Language of God. It's worth recalling because it reminds Americans of what they can expect if Collins were to become head of NIH.

But the most important part of his speech that most attracted public attention jumped from the scientific perspective to the spiritual. "Today," [Clinton] said, "we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, and the wonder of God's most divine and sacred gift."

Was I, a rigorously trained scientist, taken aback at such a blatantly religious reference by the leader of the free world at a moment such as this? Was I tempted to scowl or look at the floor in embarrassment? No, not at all. In fact I had worked closely with the president's speechwriter in the frantic days just prior to this announcement, and had strongly endorsed the inclusion of this paragraph. When it came time for me to add a few words of my own, I echoed this sentiment: "It's a happy day for the world. It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God."

What was going on here? Why would a president and a scientist, charged with announcing a milestone in biology and medicine, feel compelled to invoke a connection with God? Aren't the scientific and spiritual worldviews antithetical, or shouldn't they at lest avoid appearing in the East Room together? What were the reasons for invoking God in those two speeches? Was this poetry? Hypocrisy? A cynical attempt to curry favor from believers, or to disarm those who might criticize this study of the human genome as reducing humankind to machinery? No. Not for me. Quite the contrary, for me the experience of sequencing the human genome, and uncovering this most remarkable of all texts, was both a stunning scientific achievement and an occasion of worship.

---

Faith and Evolution at the Discovery Institute

The Discovery Institute has a new website called Faith + Evolution. It's designed to explore the relationship, if any, between the Christian faith and science.

Prominently featured on the home page is an article by Jonathan Wells.

Is Francis Collins Right about Evolution?

Francis Collins feels that intelligent design poses a serious problem to Christian belief because it rejects Darwinian evolution, which he feels is supported by overwhelming evidence. But the only evidence Collins cites for Darwin’s mechanism of variation and selection is microevolution—minor changes within existing species. And the principal evidence he cites for Darwin’s claim of common ancestry is DNA sequences that he says have no function—though genome researchers are discovering that many of them do have functions.

Collins’s defense of Darwinian theory turns out to be largely an argument from ignorance that must retreat as we learn more about the genome—in effect, a Darwin of the gaps.

Wells is referring to the evidence of shared pseudogenes and other genomic signatures of common descent. This won't do, according to Wells. Collins is not one of the good guys.

I wonder if Jonathan Wells has read a book called The Edge of Evolution? It was published in 2007. The author is Michael Behe—a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute.

Behe also describes the evidence from pseudogenes. Here's an excerpt from pages 70-71.

When two lineages share what appears to be an arbitrary genetic accident, the case for common descent becomes compelling, just as the case for plagiarism becomes overpowering when one writer makes the same unusual misspellings of another, within a copy of the same words. That sort of evidence is seen in the genomes of chimps and chimpanzees. For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. As a result, neither humans nor chimps can make their own vitamin C. If an ancestor of the two species originally sustained the mutation and then passed it to both descendant species, that would neatly explain the situation.

More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from their hemoglobin—not just their working hemoglobin, but a broken hemoglobin gene, too. .... In the region between the two gamma genes and a gene that works after birth, human DNA contains a broken gene (called a "psedugoene") that closely resembles a working gene for a beta chain, but has features in its sequence that preclude it from coding successfully for a protein.

Chimp DNA has a very similar pseudogene at the same position. The beginning of the human pseudogene has two particular changes in two nucleotides that seem to deactivate the gene. The chimp pseudogene has the exact same changes. A bit further down in the human pseudogene is a deletion mutation, where one particular letter is missing. For technical reasons, the deletion irrevocably messes up the gene's coding. The very same letter is missing in the chimp gene. Toward the end of the human pseduogene another letter is missing. The chimp pseudogene is missing it, too.

The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.

That strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond the ancestry of humans. Despite some remaining puzzles, there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.

Behe and Collins are on the same page. They both recognize the powerful genetic evidence of common descent (macroevolution).

I wonder if Jonathan Wells and Michael Behe talk to each other? I'd love to be a fly on the wall.

---

Francis Collins and the National Institutes of Health (USA)

 
After many years of service as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), Francis Collins resigned from NIH last year. His reasons for quitting were widely reported in the media. Here's the press release from NIH [Francis S. Collins to Step Down as Director of National Human Genome Research Institute].

Dr. Collins explained that his decision to step down as leader of NHGRI came after much personal deliberation. "My decision was driven by a desire for an interval of time dedicated to writing, reflection and exploration of other professional opportunities in the public or private sectors," he said. "The demands and responsibilities of directing an NIH institute do not allow the time commitment necessary for this. In addition, I may need greater latitude than my current position allows to pursue other potential positions of service without encountering any possible conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived."

We now know that the "real or perceived" conflict of interest relates to the creation of The BioLogos Foundation. Here's the mission statement.

Dr. Francis Collins established The BioLogos Foundation to address the escalating culture war between science and faith in the United States. On one end of the spectrum, “new atheists” argue that science removes the need for God. On the other end, religious fundamentalists argue that the Bible requires us to reject much of modern science. Many people - including scientists and believers in God - do not find these extreme options attractive.

BioLogos represents the harmony of science and faith. It addresses the central themes of science and religion and emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with scientific discoveries about the origins of the universe and life. To communicate this message to the general public and add to the ongoing dialog, The BioLogos Foundation created BioLogos.org.

Funded by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation, the Web site is a reliable source of scholarly thought on contemporary issues in science and faith that highlights the compatibility of modern science with traditional Christian beliefs. BioLogos.org features responses to a myriad of questions received by Collins, author of The Language of God, Karl Giberson, author of Saving Darwin, and Darrel Falk, author of Coming to Peace With Science since the publication of their books.

It's pretty obvious why running such a foundation is not compatible with a leadership role at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

That's what makes this report in Scientific American so disturbing [Former Human Genome Project leader Francis Collins likely next NIH director].

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will likely bring on geneticist Francis Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project, as its new director, Bloomberg News reported on Saturday.

The agency, which has been run by acting director Raynard Kington since October 2008 after Elias Zerhouni stepped down, is in late stages of screening Collins, noted Bloomberg.

Fortunately, we can be confident that the rumor isn't true. With Barack Obama as President of the United States, the appointment of someone like Francis Collins should never happen. Things are going to change in Washington.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the rumor were true and the new head of NIH did not have the enthusiastic support of most scientists? That's the sort of thing that happened under the previous President.

---

Lies, Damn Lies, etc

 
Thomas Baekdal advises his clients on how to communicate in the 21st Century. He has posted an analysis of current sources of information and his predictions for the future on his blog baekdal.com: Market of Information: Where Is Everybody?.

Here's the graph that everyone's raving about ...


According to Thomas Baekdal, our society is already getting almost 75% of its information from the internet. By 2020 it will be 90%, according to Baekdal.

The surprising thing about this nonsense is the number of people who believe it.¹ The Web 2.0 cult and its various sects have grown into a kind of social movement populated mainly by people under thirty years old, as far as I can tell. These people are predicting that the world will be radically changed in just a few years as newspapers, books, television, and radio die off. They believe that most citizens will be getting all their information from social networks, social news, blogs and websites.

It's reasonable to ask how such predictions are made and, to their credit, some of the people commenting on baekdal.com have asked. Tom Baekdal replies in comment #30.

The graph was based on combination of a lot of things, a number of interviews, general study, general trend movements, my experience etc. I cannot give you a specific source though, because I used none specifically.

The graphs before 1990 are all based on interviews, and a large number of Google searches to learn about the history of Newspaper, TV and Radio - and more specifically, what people uses in the past. The graphs from 1998 and up to today, is based on all the things that have happened in the past 11 years, of which I have probably seen 1000 surveys ( it is what I do for a living). And the graph from 2009 and forward is based on what I, and many other people predict will happen in the years to come.

One very important thing though, this is not a reflection of my opinion. This is the result a careful analysis. There are always variations, and different types of people. But I believe that this graph accurately reflects consumer focus.

That's it folks. This "careful analysis" is what he does for a living and it is NOT just a reflection of his personal opinion.

It sounds to me a lot like the Oprah Winfrey sort of reasoning that we all respect so highly (not!). This is a dangerous trend. What we're seeing here is the abandonment of rational thought in favor of personal experience, wishful thinking, and pseudo-intellectual, scientific-looking analyses.

Nobody doubts that the internet plays an important role in the lives of many people—this is a blog, after all, and it's really, really important.

Nobody doubts that the internet will take up a larger percentage of people's time in the future. But the change will be incremental and supplemental, just as radio, television, email, and cell phones, became part of our lives without transforming them. Newspapers, magazines, and books did not disappear when every home acquired a radio in the 1930s or a television set in the 1960s and they won't disappear when every home has a personal computer.

I tell by students to look at those big boxes hanging from the ceiling in their classroom. They're from 1969 when everyone predicted that television would take over the classroom. My building was even designed with a television studio on the main floor. It's now offices for research administration.

If it's true that in a few short years we will get 90% of our information from the internet then we need to be afraid, very afraid.

The business world will adapt to incremental changes in the way we communicate and gather information. But the proper response is to base business decisions on real scientific analysis of current trends and behaviors and not on the wishful thinking of someone who makes a living by promoting the death of traditional media.

One of the advantages of being an old foggy is that I've lived through several cycles of so-called "futurists" who are convinced they are the prophets of change (e.g. Alvin Toffler, author of Future Shock, 1970; and George Gilder, co-founder of the Discovery Institute). It gets a bit boring after the first fifty years.

---

1. That means you, Bertalan Meskó of ScienceRoll

Happy Towel Day!

 
Yesterday was Towel Day in honor of Douglas Adams.

The photograph is from the streets of Innsbruck, Austria, in 2005. That's where Adams got the idea to write The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
                              Douglas Adams

---