Rufina Kim has re-started the discussion group we had last year. Join us for an evening of interesting conversation in room 5243 on the 5th floor of the Medical Sciences Building at the University of Toronto (Toronto, Canada). Bring your own food and beverage. The date is Wednesday, January 29, 2014 and the time is 6pm.
Everyone is welcome. You don't have to be a student or a faculty member to attend. Add your name to the list on Facebook at The Biology of Faith and Religion.
Is there a God? Why is the majority of the global population religious (and why are some not)? Why does religious faith lead to resistance in the face of scientific evidence? Why are research findings in evolutionary biology and cosmology still contentious among the public, while those in chemistry and physiology are not? What are the implications of religious belief in scientific progress?
These are some of the questions we will delve into at our next Thoughts on Science (TOS) meeting. Individuals of all worldviews are encouraged to attend to enlighten and be enlightened.
I live in Canada. It's winter. It gets cold. During the night it's about -20°C1.
It seems like everyone in the city of Toronto is yacking about the "extreme" cold weather we're having.
People in Saskatoon and Edmonton are laughing at us. So are people in Ottawa and Montreal. It's embarrassing.
1. That's -4°F if you live in Belize or the United States of America.
John Wilkins linked to essay by someone named William Reville on "Philosophers must oppose arrogance of scientism." Reville is not a philosopher—he's a retired biochemist and Public Awareness of Science Officer from the University College Cork in Ireland.
He writes a regular column for The Irish Times on the relationship between science and religion. He's a Roman Catholic.
I'm interested in the conflict between science and religion and I usually pay attention to anything that John Wilkins recommends so I looked at this article. I think it might be fun to examine it to see how some theists think about the issue. Let's see how he starts out ...
There's a little kerfluffle in the blogosphere because an anonymous blogger has been outed. Michael Eisen posted an interesting comment of the episode and I want to add my 2 cents to something he says at: On anonymity in science and on Twitter. Here's the part I want to address ...
A lot of people who I interact with on Twitter, and whose blogs I read, have chosen to tweet and write under pseudonyms. This puzzled me at first, but I have come to realize that there are a LOT of good reasons for people to mask their real identities online.
Anonymity allows people to express their opinions and relate their experiences without everything they say becoming part of their personal permanent record. It affords people who are marginalized or in tenuous positions a way to exist online without fear of retribution. Pseudonyms help create a world where ideas matter more than credentials. And they provide some kind of buffer between people – especially women – and the nastier sides of the internet.
The myriad and diverse pseudonymous voices out there make the internet a richer and more interesting place. Maybe it’s weird, but I consider many of these people whom I’ve never met and whose real identities I don’t know to be my friends.
Here's the problem. I agree with everything that Michael says but there's still something about hiding behind a pseudonym that makes me uneasy. I much prefer dealing with people who use their real names. I grew up believing that it was admirable to stand up and be accountable for your beliefs and opinions no matter what the consequences.
Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that it's a lot easier for a tenured professor to say this than for someone who is in a much more vulnerable position. Michael Eisen also knows this—read his post. That's part of the problem. We understand that the "consequences" of speaking out against authority can be quite severe and we both understand that there's value in hearing from certain anonymous voices.
I guess where I differ from Michael Eisen is that right now I don't think I follow any blogger whose identity isn't known to me. It may be true in theory that ideas matter more than identity but, in reality, there just aren't very many examples. On the other hand, there are lots of examples where people use anonymity to say things they would never say in public even if their identity was concealed.
Does the upside of anonymity make up for the downside? That's the real question. I don't know the answer but I'm leaning toward "no."
I'd like to live in a society where you could never be punished for anything you say or believe. It makes me uneasy to live in a society that accepts the idea that you will be punished for your opinion and sets up ways of permitting people to say whatever they want without having to face any consequences. It seems like that's a way of giving up on the fight for freedom of expression and legitimizing the idea of systemic intolerance.
I try to get my students to speak up during class and express their views and opinions. I think it's an essential component of learning how to think critically. I try and get them to write essays where they defend a controversial idea, even if it's unpopular. I don't think it's a good idea if it becomes the accepted norm that you can only do this if you can be assured that nobody will find out who you are.
(I know most of the people who comment on Sandwalk but there are some who use pseudonyms. There's a good correlation between people who comment anonymously and those whose ideas don't deserve respect. There's also a powerful correlation between those who use their real names and those ideas are worth listening to even if they disagree with mine.
That's doesn't mean you shouldn't comment using a pseudonym. Just be aware of the company you're keeping.)
Last week's molecule was NADP⊕ or nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate. That was an easy one [Monday's Molecule #228 ]. The winner was Tom Mueller.
This week's molecule (below) is going to be a bit of a challenge because you can't see all of the hydrogen atoms. It's a very common molecule. All you have to do is supply the common name and NOT the IUPAC systematic name that correctly identifies the exact molecule shown in the image. However, if anyone wants to supply the systematic name, feel free to do so.
Email your answer to me at: Monday's Molecule #229. I'll hold off posting your answers for at least 24 hours. The first one with the correct answer wins. I will only post the names of people with mostly correct answers to avoid embarrassment. The winner will be treated to a free lunch.
There could be two winners. If the first correct answer isn't from an undergraduate student then I'll select a second winner from those undergraduates who post the correct answer. You will need to identify yourself as an undergraduate in order to win. (Put "undergraduate" at the bottom of your email message.)
I've been teaching my students about random genetic drift, phylogenetic trees, and the molecular clock. It's hard for undergraduates to understand that trees based on sequences are reflections of the fixation of nearly neutral alleles by random genetic drift. That's because they, like almost everyone else, think of evolution in terms of natural selection and adaptation.
It's even harder to grasp the idea of a molecular clock even though it's been around for fifty years. It was back in the 1960s that scientists like Emanual Margoliash noted that the rate of substitution of amino acids in every lineage was remarkably similar [The Modern Molecular Clock]. We now know that this is because the alleles are fixed by random genetic drift and that the rate of fixation by drift depends only on the mutation rate. It looks like the mutation rate is relatively constant in all lineages (bacteria, protozoa, plants, animals, etc.). This isn't a big shock since the vast majority of mutations are due to errors in DNA replication and the fundamental biochemistry of DNA replication and repair are similar in all species.
There's a big difference between publishing the complete sequence of a genome and having a highly accurate "finished" version that's fully annotated. You may be surprised to learn that there aren't very many high quality genomes of eukaryotes—especially vertebrates.
That's why I was interested in a paper published last April on the zebrafish genome. The authors have produced a high quality reference genome that will serve the scientific community (Howe et al. 2013).
Sequencing and assembly are highly automated and there are several programs that will find genes and other interesting bits of a draft genome. It's a lot more work to finish off the sequence by filling the gaps and it's even more work to annotate and check the sequences. Much of this work is labor intensive and expensive and that's why there are so many unfinished sequences in the literature.
I wasn't surprised to see that the original paper on the annotated zebrafish genome had 171 authors although that did seem a bit excessive. It meant that each author contributed an average of 0.6% to the final result. Some of them must have made a much smaller contribution. I wonder if every author read and approved the paper before publication?
Apparently there weren't enough authors. The January 9, 2014 edition of Nature contains a Corrigendum (correction) to the zebrafish paper. Five other authors were "inadvertantly ommitted" from the list bringing the total to 176 authors. In addition, the names of three other authors were spelled incorrectly in the original publication last April. I don't know why it took eight months before anyone noticed.
That just goes to show you that modern scientists have to deal with problems that us old fogies never encountered. I never had to spent more that a few seconds writing down the names of the authors on any of my papers. Today you need data management software to keep track of your authors.
Howe, K. and 171+5 others (2013 The zebrafish reference genome sequence and its relationship to the human genome. Nature 496:498–503. [doi: 10.1038/nature12111]
Some of us have been trying to educate the IDiots for over twenty years. It can be very, very, frustrating.
The issue of junk DNA is a case in point. We've been trying to explain the facts to people like Casey Luskin. I know he's listening because he comments on Sandwalk from time to time. Surely it can't be that hard? All they have to do is acknowledge that "Darwinians" are opposed to junk DNA because they think that natural selection is very powerful and would have selected against junk DNA. All we're asking is that they refer to "evolutionary biologists" when they talk about junk DNA proponents.
We've also pointed out, ad nauseam, that no knowledgeable scientist ever said that all noncoding DNA was junk. We just want the IDiots to admit that there were some smart scientists who knew about functional noncoding DNA—like the genes for ribosomal RNAs, origins of replication, and centromeres.
There's plenty of evidence that most of the DNA in mammalian genomes is junk [Five Things You Should Know if You Want to Participate in the Junk DNA Debate]. There's also plenty of evidence that as much as 10% of these genomes are functional in some way or another. This is a lot more DNA than the amount in coding regions but that shouldn't surprise anyone since we've known about functional noncoding DNA for half a century.
Lot's of genes specify functional RNA molecules. The best known ones are the genes for ribosomal RNAs, tRNAs, the spliceosomal RNAs, and a variety of other catalytic RNAs. A host of small regulatory RNAs have been characterized in bacteria over the past five decades (Waters and Storz, 2009) and in the past few decades a variety of different types of small RNAs have been identified in eukaryotes (see Sharp, 2009). These include miRNAs, siRNAs, piRNAs, and others (Malone and Hannon, 2009; Carthew and Sontheimer, 2009).
I recently described a really bad paper published in Science by Stergachis et al. (2013). The principle investigator is John Stamatoyannopoulos of ENCODE notoriety [see The "duon" delusion and why transcription factors MUST bind non-functionally to exon sequences].
The group mapped millions of transcription factor binding sites in the human genome and discovered that 1.8% of them were in exons (coding regions). They assumed that these were functional—they play a role in regulating gene expression. Thus the nucleotide binding sites are also codons meaning that the sequence specifies two different kinds of information. The workers named these sequences "duons."
Michael Egnor is a proponent of Intelligent Design Creationism. He's a neurosurgeon practicing on Long Island (New York, USA) and a frequent contributor to creationist blogs. He also likes to comment on Sandwalk from time to time even though it makes him look foolish.
Speaking of looking foolish, he recently got upset about the idea that science and religion are in conflict. He decided to explain how science shows us that God exists. Read it on his blog at: God, in Larry Moran's nose.
This is not comedy or satire. He really believes what he writes.
The proof of God's existence is in Larry Moran's nose, and everywhere, in every atom.
The fact that any subatomic particle moves in a predictable fashion-- let alone in a fashion as mathematically elegant as quantum mechanics-- is straightforward evidence for God's existence. It is, in fact, God's handiwork, manifest everywhere and always.
Richard Lenski's long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) has yielded a number of interesting results over the past two decades. Back in 1988, he set up twelve flasks of E. coli B growing in minimal medium. The cultures were diluted 1/100 every day. There were 6.64 generations per day or almost 2,500 per year. By now, the cultures have evolved for 60,000 generations.
All twelve cultures are under strong selection for rapid growth and all twelve cultures have evolved. One, and only one, of the cultures evolved to utilize citrate as a carbon source (normal E. coli cultures cannot use citrate but it's in the medium as a chelating agent). You can read about the mutations that gave rise to this phenotype in: Lenski's long-term evolution experiment: the evolution of bacteria that can use citrate as a carbon source.
Last week's molecule was arachidonate, one of the key intermediates in the synthesis of complex lipids, especially protaglandins in mammals [Monday's Molecule #227 ]. The winner is Bill Gunn.
This week's molecule (left) is an easy one for all of the undergraduates who are just beginning a new term. This is one of those molecules that everyone should recognize. Just be sure you pay attention to all the groups and the part in red. All you have to do is supply the common name and NOT the IUPAC systematic name that correctly identifies the exact molecule shown in the image. However, if anyone wants to supply the systematic name, feel free to do so.
Email your answer to me at: Monday's Molecule #228. I'll hold off posting your answers for at least 24 hours. The first one with the correct answer wins. I will only post the names of people with mostly correct answers to avoid embarrassment. The winner will be treated to a free lunch.
There could be two winners. If the first correct answer isn't from an undergraduate student then I'll select a second winner from those undergraduates who post the correct answer. You will need to identify yourself as an undergraduate in order to win. (Put "undergraduate" at the bottom of your email message.)
When I was a graduate student, there were several professors in adjacent labs who had a profound impact on me. One of them was brilliant at developing new techniques to answer fundamental questions. Unfortunately, the time and effort required to stay at the top of his field took a toll on his marriage and his wife left him ... with the children.
Another professor made important contributions to his field because he was able to look at things from a different perspective. He taught me to be skeptical of "prevailing dogma." Fifteen years later he committed suicide by jumping off the roof of his lab.
Time and Careercast.com have compiled a list of the ten least stressful jobs in America [The 10 Least Stressful Jobs in America]. The subtitle says, "If your job requires frequent travel and strict deadlines it won't make the cut."
Job site CareerCast published a list of the least stressful jobs yesterday based on measurements of 11 specific factors across 200 occupations. The factors it considered are whether the job requires travel (the more travel, the higher the stress), growth potential (dead-end jobs tend to create more stress), strict deadlines, working in the public eye, competitiveness within the organization, physical demands, environmental conditions, putting your life at risk, hazards encountered, meeting the public, and having someone else’s life in your hands.
University Professor is #4 on the list.
Most of my colleagues are working 60 hours a week and most of them are preparing grants for the next "strict deadline." Their careers could be over if they can't get funding for their lab. If you don't think they are stressed, then I invite you to visit your local university and see for yourself. It's too bad that the people at Careercast.com didn't bother to do the research. It doesn't inspire confidence in their business.
Professors have become adept at finding the cheapest flights to conferences and meetings. Many of them have to balance their time away from home with their responsibilities as parents. But travel is an essential part of a Professor's job.
Some of my colleagues are skipping dinner with their families in order to finish reading the thesis for this week's Ph.D. oral. That's a deadline that can't be avoided and they have a responsibility to the student. We are very used to having the future lives and careers of students depend on us. We're used to it but that doesn't make it any less stressful.
Speaking of stress, I wonder how many people at Time magazine have ever taught a large class of undergraduates? "Working in the public eye" seems to be part of a Professor's job and I can guarantee you that it's stressful—especially after the mid-term grades have been posted. (There are times when it seems like you are "putting your life at risk" but I don't want to compare this with firefighters and police officers who are really putting their lives at risk.) Speaking of strict deadlines ... I have a lecture tomorrow so I shouldn't be wasting time on this blog. It's going to get a lot worse next month when I have a pile of essays to grade and get back to the students in a timely manner.
Oh, I almost forgot. Two of my colleagues are up for tenure this semester. If you don't get tenure, you will be fired and the prospects of getting another job are slim. No stress there, right?
In fairness, Careercast.com specified "University Professor (tenured)" as the job that made the list. Here's what they say ...
The long road to becoming a tenured university professor is certainly challenging, too. For those who achieve tenured status, however, the rewards include job stability—a huge plus in a turbulent economy—and lucrative prospects. The College and University Professional Association for Human Resources reports that in the 2012-13 school year, tenured professors earned on average from $82,363 for Baccalaureate programs to $115,579 annually at research institutions and many professors receive top benefits such as tuition reimbursement for family members.
But the greater reward is sharing knowledge with their students.
Ultimately, a job’s reward trumps all other factors, including stress.
It's true that tenured University Professors have a great deal of job security as long as they continue to perform adequately. It's also true that professors earn higher than average salaries. It goes without saying that for most good paying jobs there are costs and benefits and the benefits must outweigh the costs or else nobody would do the job. (Duh!)
I love my job. So do most tenured professors. That does not mean that the job is one of the least stressful jobs in America. It means that the "job's reward trumps all other factors, including stress." I dare say that most people would not be able to handle the stress experienced by my younger, tenured, colleagues. You don't get to be a professor if you can't handle stress.
I don't want to exaggerate the stress and difficulty of being a University Professor but I do want to attack the common idea that it's a cushy high-paying job that almost anyone could handle if they were lucky enough to get hired.
My granddaughter just turned four so it's time to learn about chemistry. Her first experiment was checking the pH of various household liquids. Here she is paying close attention to her Mom. Later on she got to mix things by herself. Read the full story—incuding where she teaches Mommy how to count—at: And so it begins.....SCIENCE.
