Nobel Laureate: Earl W. Sutherland, Jr.

 

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1971.

"for his discoveries concerning the mechanisms of the action of hormones"

Earl W. Sutherland, Jr. (1915-1974) received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on the mechanism of action of hormones, particularly epinephrine. Sutherland was very much influenced by Carl Cori [Nobel Laureates: Carl Ferdinand Cori and Gerty Theresa Cori] who worked on the pathways of glycogen breakdown and glucose synthesis in mammalian liver cells. Sutherland is responsible for discovering how the hormone epinephrine regulates glycogen synthesis [Regulating Glycogen Metabolism]. Along the way, Sutherland discovered the second messenger cyclic AMP (cAMP), which was Monday's Molecule #39.

The presentation speech was delivered by Peter Reichard of the Karolinska Medico-Chirurgical Institute. Note the opening line that refers to Monod's famous quote"What is true of E. coli is also true of the elephant." It was 1971 and Chance and Necessity had just come out. For years scientists had thought that the action of hormones demonstrated that so-called "higher" organisms used higher-level processes to regulate metabolism. Hormones needed whole tissues and organs to show an effect. What Sutherland proved was that hormones work at the cellular and molecular level just like the molecules that regulated activity in bacteria.

Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen,

What applies to bacteria also applies to elephants. This free quotation after the French Nobel prize winner, Jacques Monod, illustrates with some exaggeration one important principle of biology: that of the identity of the fundamental life processes.

Yet one need not be a Nobel prize winner to know the difference between bacteria and an elephant. The latter is not only much larger. The decisive difference lies in the fact that bacteria are unicellular organisms and that all the functions of life are contained in a single cell. In higher organisms on the other hand, there occurs a division of labor between different types of highly specialized cells. Nevertheless, the elephant must function as an integrated unity. The cells in the different organs must be coordinated in such a way that they rapidly adapt to the changing requirements of the environment.

The hormones form part of such a coordinating system. Among other things, the difference between a bacterium and an elephant lies in the fact that the latter - as well as all of us here - for the sustainment of his life is completely dependent of the proper function of hormones, while bacteria can do without them.

What then is the function of hormones? Ever since the first hormone was discovered about 70 years ago this has been a central theme of research for many scientists. This question is also of considerable medical importance. Many diseases are hormone diseases, amongst them diabetes. In spite of this the mechanism of hormone action remained a complete mystery until recently. The answer did not come until Earl Sutherland started his investigations on the function of the hormone epinephrine.

This hormone is produced in the adrenal glands and is transported to different organs of the body by the blood. It is formed in increased amounts during stress and adapts the individual to new situations. One of its important functions lies in the liberation of glucose inside the cells for the production of energy. Epinephrine serves as a chemical signal, as a messenger, which is sent out from the adrenals to activate different organs essential for the defense of the individual.

Sutherland investigated the effect of epinephrine on the formation of glucose in liver and muscle cells. He discovered a new chemical substance which serves as an intermediate during the function of the hormone. This substance is called cyclic AMP. It transmits the signal from epinephrine to the machinery of the cell, and Sutherland therefore called it a "second messenger". Furthermore, Sutherland made the important discovery that cyclic AMP is formed in the cell membrane. This means that epinephrine never enters the cell. We may visualize the hormone as a messenger which arrives at the door of the house and there rings the bell. The messenger is not allowed to enter the house. Instead the message is given to a servant, cyclic AMP, which then carries it to the interior of the house.

Sutherland suggested already around 1960 that cyclic AMP participates as a second messenger in many hormone mediated reactions, and that its effect thus is not limited to the action of epinephrine. First this generalization was not willingly accepted by the scientific community, since it was difficult to visualize how a single chemical substance could give rise to all the diverse effects mediated by various hormones. By now Sutherland and many other scientists have provided convincing evidence, however, that many hormones exert their effects by giving rise to the formation of cyclic AMP in the cell membrane. Sutherland had discovered a new biological principle, a general mechanism for the action of many hormones.

How can one then explain the specificity of different hormones? A good part of the explanation lies in the fact that different cells in their membranes possess specific receptors for various hormones. The different messengers thus must find their way to the right door in order to deliver their messages.

Cyclic AMP was discovered in connection with investigations concerning the function of hormones. It came therefore as a big surprise when Sutherland in 1965 reported that cyclic AMP also occurred in bacteria which apparently had no use for hormones. It was soon found that cyclic AMP was produced by other unicellular organisms, too. In all these cases cyclic AMP was shown to have important regulatory functions which aid the cells in their adaptation to the environment. Maybe we can look upon cyclic AMP as the first primitive hormone, regulating the behaviour of unicellular organisms. We then may look upon the true hormones of higher organisms as components of an overriding principle which was added during the course of evolution. Thus the difference between uni- and multicellular organisms does not, after all, appear to be so great, and with respect to cyclic AMP we can turn around Monod's dictum and say that what applies to elephants also applies to bacteria.

Dr. Sutherland,

Hormones were known in biology and medicine for a long time. The mechanism for hormone action remained a mystery, however, until you discovered cyclic AMP and its function as a second messenger. In recent years it has become apparent that cyclic AMP also serves as an important regulatory signal in microorganisms, and that its action thus is not limited to the function of hormones. When you discovered cyclic AMP you discovered one of the fundamental principles involved in the regulation of essentially all life processes. For this you have been awarded this year's Nobel prize in physiology or medicine. On behalf of the Karolinska Institute I wish to convey to you our warmest congratulations, and I now ask you to receive the prize from the hands of his Majesty the King.

Google Sky

 
If you haven't updated your copy of Google Earth then you should do so right now. A new feature called "Sky" has been added [Celestial add-on points Google Earth at the stars.

The image on the right shows us what the sky will look like tomorrow night when Mercury, Saturn, and Venus are close together in Leo. Saturn is going to be very close to Regulus. Unfortunately, the program won't tell me if I can see this from where I live. I don't know if this feature is missing or if I just can't find it.

You can click on the galaxy icons to get more information and you can click on each star to find out it's name, distance, spectral type etc.

Pretty cool. I wonder if Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy will comment? I'd like to know what he thinks of the program.

Identity of the Product of Mendel's Green Cotyledon Gene

 
This posting has been replaced by Identity of the Product of Mendel's Green Cotyledon Gene (Update).


Another of Mendel's seven genes has been identified. This one is described in his 1865 paper Experiments in Plant Hybridization [MendelWeb] as character number 2.

2. To the difference in the color of the seed albumen (endosperm). The albumen of the ripe seeds is either pale yellow, bright yellow and orange colored, or it possesses a more or less intense green tint. This difference of color is easily seen in the seeds as their coats are transparent.

Mendel's reference to the color of albumin, or endosperm, is inaccurate. He was actually observing the color of the cotyledons—the "seed leaves" that surround the embryo in the pea seed. These tiny leaves are covered by a seed coat that is partially transparent.

In wild-type peas the seeds turn yellow as they mature (i) but certain mutants exhibit a "stay-green" phenotype where the peas retain their green color (I). The figure shows seeds from a plant with the II genotype (top) and the ii genotype (bottom). The seed coat has been removed from the lower pair of each group of four peas.

In a paper just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) a group in Japan has identified the "stay green" gene that Mendel worked with (Sato et al., 2007). It turns out that the gene, called SGR (stay-green), encodes an enzyme that is localized to chloroplasts and plays a role in the degradation of chlorophyll during senescence and maturation of seeds. When the enzyme is defective chlorophyll isn't broken down and the tissue stays green.

This brings to three the number of Mendel's genes that have a known function. The wrinkled pea phenotype is caused by a defect in the gene for starch branching enzyme (Bhattacharya et al., 1990) [Biochemist Gregor Mendel Studied Starch Synthesis]. The tall/short phenotypes are caused by defects in the gene for gibberellin 3β-hydroxylase (Martin et al., 1997). Gibberellins are plant growth hormones.

---

[Photo Credit: The photograph of mutant and wild-type pea seeds is taken from Figure 1 of Sato et al. (2007)]

Bhattacharyya, M. K., Smith, A. M., Ellis, T. H., Hedley, C., and Martin, C. (1990) The wrinkled-seed character of a pea described by Mendel is caused by a transposon-like insertion in a gene encoding starch-branching enzyme. Cell 60:115-122.

Martin D.N., Proebsting W.M., Hedden P. (1997) Mendel's dwarfing gene: cDNAs from the Le alleles and function of the expressed proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 94:8907–8911.

Sato Y., Morita R., Nishimura M., Yamaguchi H., and Kusaba M. (2007) Mendel’s green cotyledon gene encodes a positive regulator of the chlorophyll-degrading pathway. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) (early publication, [August 20, 2007]).

Monday's Molecule #39

 
Today's molecule is complex but it has a very simple common name. The common name is not sufficient—you must supply the formal IUPAC name to win the prize. There's a direct connection between this Monday's Molecule and Wednesday's Nobel Laureate.

The reward (free lunch) goes to the person who correctly identifies the molecule and the Nobel Laureate(s). Previous free lunch winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first collected the prize. There's only one (Marc) ineligible candidate for this Wednesday's reward since many recent winners haven't collected their prize. The prize is a free lunch at the Faculty Club.

In preparation for the beginning of classes in three weeks I'm going to start requesting email responses. 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 the Nobel Laureate. All responses will be posted tomorrow along with the time that their message was received on my server. This way I may select multiple winners if several people get it right.

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

Like a Broken Record ...

 
Matt Nisbet is at it again. His particular spin frame on the rationalism vs. superstition debate is that the rationalists are making too much noise. According to Nisbet, we atheists are hurting the "cause" (what cause?) by speaking out loudly against superstition in the form of religion. Apparently it would be better to tone down the rhetoric in order to avoid offending those who believe in superstition. This is the strategy that has been followed by Americans for the last 100 years or so. No matter how stupid the religious extremists are, whether from the pulpit or on talk radio, we mustn't say that they are stupid because that would hurt their feelings. Or rather, it would hurt the feelings of the moderate believers who tolerate and support the religious extremists.

Of course Matt doesn't recognize that this is just his personal opinion. Oh no, that wouldn't be right, would it? If you are going to attack Dawkins, Hitchins, and Harris then you'd better frame it make it sound like an attack based on solid scientific reasoning. Here's what Matt Nisbet says in his latest posting [Why the New Atheist Noise Machine Fails].

Everything we know from social science research on attitude formation and beliefs predicts that the communication strategy of the New Atheist noise machine will only further alienate moderately religious Americans, the very same publics who might otherwise agree with secularists on many social issues.

Everything we know from history predicts that social change is often stimulated and led by vocal "extremists" who dare to speak out even if it offends those who prefer the status quo. This was true of the women's movement, the civil rights movement, and the gay rights movement. In those cases it was the moderate male chauvinists, the moderate racists, and the moderate homophobes who were initially offended. They didn't like being told that their long-held beliefs were wrong. In all those cases I suspect there were Matt Nisbets who tried to silence the outspoken leaders because they were offending the average moderate citizen.

If social science "research" says that the cause of outspoken individuals always fails then that says a lot more about the so-called "research" of social scientists than it does about reality.

The Dawkins/Hitchens PR campaign provides emotional sustenance and talking points for many atheists, but when it comes to selling the public on either non-belief or science, the campaign is likely to boomerang in disastrous ways.

The experiment is under way. Up until 2005, atheism was pretty much hidden under a bushel and religious superstition was rarely confronted in public. The result is that America is the most religious country in the industrialized world and evolution isn't taught in schools. Let's see if there's any change in the status quo over the next decade as the Dawkins/Hitchens framing PR campaign continues. According the Nisbet, the country will become even more religious because of the backlash. I'm betting that religion will become less important to Americans when they realize that there are other options.

There are times when I wonder which side Nisbet is on. It sounds to me like he's perfectly happy with the way things have been for the past several decades.

Don't Mess with Canadians

 
I recently returned from spending a week in a foreign country. I did not behave like the Canadian in this video although there were times ...



[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic]

The Cause of Variation in a Population

John Dennehy of The Evilutionary Biologist has posted a wonderful article on This Week's Citation Classic. The classics are two back-to-back papers on genetic variation in fruit flies (Hubby and Lewontin (1966), Lewontin and Hubby (1966)). That's Lewontin on the left.

Please get on over to The Evilutionary Biologist and read what John has to say. These were very important and groundbreaking papers when they came out and everyone needs to know why.

Here's some background.

In the olden days there were two competing theories to explain variation (heterozygosity) in a population. The classical theory said that mutations are constantly being removed from the population by positive natural selection or purifying selection. Variation is a transient phenomenon that would disappear entirely if it weren’t for new mutations that arise at a significant rate.

The balance theory maintains that variation in a population is often due to balancing selection. The best known example of balancing selection is the allele for sickle cell disease. In the heterozygous state it confers resistance to malaria but in the homozygous state it is often lethal. Both the sickle cell allele and the wild type allele are maintained in the human population by balancing selection.

Hubby and Lewontin (1966) discovered that there was a huge amount of genetic variation in fruit flies. Their data suggested that 50% of all loci had multiple alleles. This is difficult to reconcile with the balance theory and it was also a big surprise to those who supported the classic theory. It seemed unlikely that at any given point in the evolutionary history of a species that so many genes could be undergoing selection. Further work confirmed that other species contained a huge amount of variation.

The solution to this surprising observation was the recognition that most of the alleles were neutral. The variation is explained by fact that fixation by random genetic drift is much slower than fixation by natural selection. Thus, while the variation is transient in the sense that it is a snapshot of an ongoing process, the process is not selection but drift.

The results of Hubby and Lewontin (1966) led directly to Neutral Theory.

The neutral theory also asserts that most intraspecific variability at the molecular level (including DNA and protein polymorphisms) is selectively neutral, and is maintained in the species by the balance between mutational input and random extinction. In other words, the neutral theory regards protein and DNA polymorphisms as a transient phase of molecular evolution and rejects the notion that the majority of such polymorphisms are adaptive and actively maintained in the species by some form of balancing selection.
                M. Kimura

This explanation is also known as the Neoclassical Theory. Balancing selection is now thought to play only a minor and insignificant role in the cause of variation in a population.

... the neoclassical theory is not refuted by occasional observations of overdominance for fitness, because the theory does not deny that cases exist but only that they are common and explain a significant proportion of natural variation. So it is no use trotting out that tired old Bucephalus, sickle-cell anemia, as a proof that single-locus heterosis can exist. Anyone who has taught genetics for a number of years is tired of sickle-cell anemia and embarrassed by the fact that it is the only authenticated case of overdominace available. “If balancing selection is so common," the neoclassicists say, "why do you always end up talking about sickle-cell anemia?"
                R. Lewontin

---

[Photo credit: The photograph of Richard Lewontin is from (Photographs of Participants in the Molecular Evolution Workshop)]

Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design Creationism?

 
Denyse O'Leary has friend named David Warren. Warren writes articles for newspapers and he and Denyse are friends because they both worship at the church of anti-Darwinism. Over on Post-Darwinist Denyse brags about the latest article written by her friend [ Another Toronto journalist takes swat at Darwinists (or Darwinoids)]. Note the title of the blog article. It's more of the same old, same old, "Darwinist" baiting. Turns out that 99.9% of the IDiot movement is about attacking evolution (their version) and 0.1% is about presenting evidence for intelligent design. (And even that tiny amount of evidence has been refuted or shown to be irrelevant.)

So what about David Warren? Is he any different—don't hold your breath. Here's the article that he wrote for some Canadian newspapers [Panspermianism]. The main point of the article is supposed to be that panspermia is ruled out because scientists have shown that DNA won't survive in outer space (*yawn*). But the real purpose of the article is to whine about the evil atheist materialists and how they are suppressing the IDiots.

Much of the “star chamber” atmosphere, that has accompanied the public invigilation of microbiologists such as Michael J. Behe, and other very qualified scientists working on questions of design in organisms and natural systems, can only be explained in this way. The establishment wants such research to be stopped, because it challenges the received religious order, of atheist materialism. Any attempt, or suspected attempt, to acknowledge God in scientific proceedings, must be exposed and punished to the limit of the law; or by other ruthless means where the law does not suffice.

There's more, but you get the idea. The IDiot movement is scientifically bankrupt. They have no scientific evidence to back them up so the only thing they can do is lash out at their opponents. When is the last time you've seen an article from an IDiot that explains any evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer? That's right, hardly ever. Is there a reason why they don't support their case with real data? Yep, you bet there is. And that's exactly why they have to stoop to attacking "Darwinism" at every chance they get. They don't have any other option. Pathetic, isn't it?

[Image credit: The photograph is from one of my students, Zarna. That's her in the picture. She took it last December in India (Oh My God)]

Should Cloning Humans Be Legal?

 
In the July 21 issue of New Scientist, Hugh McLachlan thinks that we should legalize cloning of humans [Let's legalise cloning].

But why are we so against the idea of cloned human babies? As a bioethicist specialising in reproductive issues, I believe it has more to do with an irrational fear of cloning than any logical reason. All the arguments in favour of a ban describe risks that we accept quite easily and naturally in other areas of reproduction.

One argument against human cloning is the idea that it is morally wrong or undesirable to create replicas of people. But although a clone has the same gene set as the adult from which it was cloned, environmental factors will ensure that the resulting individual is not an identical copy, either psychologically or physically. What's more, we accept genetically identical people in the form of twins. If anything, clones would be less alike than twins because they would be different ages and be brought up in different contexts. Objecting to cloning on these grounds makes no sense.

I agree with McLachlan. Aside from the safety issue, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to forbid the cloning of humans.

This is a topic that's frequently discussed in "ethics" classes. I've never really understood what "ethics" actually means—but I'm working on it. The cloning of humans isn't an ethical issue for me personally because there isn't a conflict between two versions of what I think I ought to do. However, maybe it's an ethical issue for society as a whole because there are some people who think that it is unethical to clone people. Is that right? What's unethical about it?

Do we define "ethical" issues in terms of conflict between different groups? If so, is there a way of distinguishing between issues where the two sides are almost equally represented and those where one side has an overwhelming majority? For example, is the cloning of humans still an ethical issue in a society where 99% of the population is opposed? Does it cease to be an ethical issue if 99% are persuaded to accept human cloning?

Amazing Grace

 
Last night we saw a screening of the film Amazing Grace in a small cozy theater. At the end of the movie there was a fascinating talk by one of the producers Ken Wales. We learned a lot about how the film was made.

The film follows the efforts of William Wilberforce to abolish slavery in the British Empire at the end of the eighteenth century. Wilberforce and his close friend William Pitt the Younger, who became Prime Minister in 1783, finally succeeded in eliminating slavery by 1807.

There's mention of the fact that Wilberforce was a Christian and some of his allies were preachers but this isn't an important theme. The movie makes it clear that Pitt, who was a prime mover in social change, did not share Wilberforce's beliefs. During the discussion afterward it was clear that the religious motivation was important to some people.

The title of the movie comes from the song Amazing Grace whose words were composed by John Newton, an ex-slave trader who converted to Christianity. Newton, who has a significant part in the movie, influenced Wilberforce and served as his mentor.

One interesting scene depicts a debate in the House of Commons in 1778. The newly elected Wilberforce is advocating the withdrawal of British forces from America, thus abandoning the attempt to put down the rebellion. Wilberforce is attacked and challenged to distinguish between appeasement and surrender. "It's merely a question of timing," he says.

This scene, and many others, reveal that Great Britain was a functioning democracy at the time of the American Revolution. It contrasts markedly with the general impression of Americans who tend to think that this sort of representative democracy was invented by them in 1776.

William Wilberforce's third son was Samuel Wilberforce ("Soapy Sam") who became the Bishop of Oxford and debated evolution with Thomas Huxley in 1860.

Tangled Bank #86

 

The 86th issue of the Tangled Bank has been posted on Fish Feet [Tangled Bank #86].

Peter Lawrence on What's Wrong with Science

 
Peter Lawrence is a Professor at the University of Cambridge in Cambridge, UK. He has worked on various aspects of fruit fly development for almost 40 years. Readers may know him as one of the authors of Wolpert's Principles of Development or as the author of The Making of a Fly.

Peter is a very smart guy. He thinks a lot about the "big picture" and not just the minutiae of day-to-day work in a competitive environment. That's why his article in this month's issue of Current Biology is worth reading. Lawrence writes about what's wrong with modern science [The Mismeasure of Science].

For most scientists, there won't be any revelations in the article but it's put together well and covers all the bases. The main point is that today's scientists have to worry far too much about "productivity" in order to get funded. The system is geared towards artificial measurements of research success that may, or may not, reward creativity and innovation.

Modern science, particularly biomedicine, is being damaged by attempts to measure the quantity and quality of research. Scientists are ranked according to these measures, a ranking that impacts on funding of grants, competition for posts and promotion. The measures seemed, at first rather harmless, but, like cuckoos in a nest, they have grown into monsters that threaten science itself. Already, they have produced an “audit society” [2] in which scientists aim, and indeed are forced, to put meeting the measures above trying to understand nature and disease.

The journals are evaluated according to impact factors, and scientists and departments assessed according to the impact factors of the journals they publish in. Consequently, over the last twenty years a scientist's primary aim has been downgraded from doing science to producing papers and contriving to get them into the “best” journals they can [3]. Now there is a new trend: the idea is to rank scientists by the numbers of citations their papers receive. Consequently, I predict that citation-fishing and citation-bartering will become major pursuits.

You need to read the full article to get all the details.

So, what can we do about it? It's an old complaint, one that's been openly discussed even since I first met Peter Lawrence back in the mid-1970's. If a bunch of (relatively) smart scientists can't figure out how to fix the problem then maybe it's unfixable.

Here's where I think Lawrence drops the ball. He proposes the same tired old "remedies" that we've never adopted in the past in spite of the fact that we all pay lip service to their benefits. He wants us all to pay attention to "quality" and "originality" over quantity. He wants us to be more careful about putting authors names on a paper. He wants a code of ethics for scientists. He wants to reform the peer review process in the leading journals. None of this is going to happen as long as money is tight and the granting agencies have to come up with defensible policies for turning down 75% of grant applications.

The short term solution is to put more money into the grant system and to stop hiring more scientists. The long term solution is to look for better ways of funding. I like the idea of giving large block grants to departments and letting the researchers divide it up as they see fit. This would have worked well in any department I've been in but I hear horror stories about other departments.

---

[Photo Credit: The photograph of Peter Lawrence is from his website at the University of Cambridge (Peter A. Lawrence]

Lawrence, P.A. (2007) The mismeasurement of science. Current Biology 17:R583-R585.

Half-Truths in Sicko?

 
Jim Giles reviewed Michael Moore's Sicko in the July 14th issue of New Scientist [Review: Sicko, directed by Michael Moore]. Like many reviews, this one conceded that Moore has a point about the shape of health care in the USA but was reluctant to admit that other countries are doing better. One paragraph mentioned "half-truths."

For the most part, Moore makes his case by absenting himself from the screen and allowing those who have been let down by the system to do the talking. Then he travels to the UK and France and finds that what conservatives in the US damn as "socialised medicine" actually works well. He does the same in Cuba, ferrying ill Americans to the island where they receive excellent healthcare at almost no cost. The result is a moving, funny and shocking film. It is a powerful call for change, despite its half-truths.

In last week's issue of New Scientist, a letter writer challenged Giles to produce his "half-truths," pointing out that the Sicko website documents every claim in the movie.

Here's how Jim Giles responded ...

The most obvious half-truths were the slanted depictions of the healthcare systems in the UK, France, and Cuba. The British NHS can be great, but waiting lists are often long and access to certain drugs can depend on where a patient lives. France's system is indeed highly rated, but Moore did not mention the very high taxes there. Cuba's public health is far above what would be expected for a country with limited resources and suffering the consequences of the US trade embargo, but it also restricts access to certain drugs and technologies.

Some of these sound very much like half-truths to me. Yes, waiting lists for non-lifethreatening procedures are often longer in countries with socialized medicine. That is, they are longer than the wait for similar procedures in a fully private system where people can afford to pay for it. On the other hand, the waiting time in the UK is a lot shorter than it is for Americans who can't afford decent health insurance, isn't it?

Access to certain drugs is restricted in all socialized medicine systems. For example, the system won't pay for drugs that don't work and haven't been approved. This is bad news for quacks who generally do much better under a private system. Socialized medicine often won't pay for expensive drugs if a cheaper alternative is available. Is this what Giles meant?

It's true that taxes are higher in countries that provide universal access to medical treatments. This isn't a half-truth in Sicko. As I recall, it's one of the main points. The US system is more expensive in spite of the fact that it's run by the private sector.

Gene Genie #13

 




Gene Genie #13 has been posted on The Genetic Geneologist [Gene Genie #13: Into the Future].

The Hominid Bush

 
Brian Switek of Laelaps has posted a wonderful essay on Homo sapiens: The Evolution of What We Think About Who We Are. Read it.

In a just world, the IDiots like Jonathan Wells would read what Brian, and others, have to say and stop spreading lies about what scientists think.

[Photo Credit: The photograph of Hamlet is from The Young Shakespeare Workshop]

Jim Watson on the Discovery of the Double Helix

 
THEME

---

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
This is a nice addition to my earlier postings on the story of DNA [The Story of DNA (Part 1)][The Story of DNA (Part 2)]. This story (below) is straight from the horse's mouth.



[Hat Tip:Shalini].

University of Toronto Professor in Space

 
That's astronaut Dave Williams on the right. He's a University of Toronto adjunct professor of surgery. According the the University of Toronto press release,Williams was a Professor here in emergency medicine until he was selected for the astronaut training program in 1992 [U of T professor to walk in space].

Chautauqua Institution

 
Today we're off to the Chautauqua Institution for an entire week of learning and fun. I'm really looking forward to hearing Judy Collins on Tuesday.

This week's program is Music: Heart, Soul and Dollar. Last year it was Global Climate Change with Al Gore.

Next year we'll be attending the week on Darwin and Linnaeus: Their Impact on Our View of the Natural World. In 2009 it's a full week on Darwin again as we celebrate the 150th anniversary of something important. I'm hoping to offer courses on evolution next year and in 2009 so book now. :-)

Chautauqua is one of my favorite places in the USA. If you've never been there, you are missing some of the best that America has to offer. See the Wikipedia entry [Chautauqua Institution] for a brief description.

This is a great opportunity to mingle with people of various faiths and to attend discussions and debates about the intersection between faith and society. But it's not all about religion—there's a significant percentage of the guests who are non-religious and we don't have to hide it.

Misanthropic Principle

 
In the June 30th issue of New Scientist Paul Davies discussed the anthropic principle [The flexi-laws of physics]. He says,

If the universe came with any old rag-bag of laws, life would almost certainly be ruled out. Indeed, changing the existing laws by even a scintilla could have lethal consequences. For example, if protons were 0.1 per cent heavier than neutrons, rather than the other way about, all the protons coughed out of the big bang would soon have decayed into neutrons. Without protons and their crucial electric charge, atoms could not exist and chemistry would be impossible.

Physicists and cosmologists know many such examples of uncanny bio-friendly "coincidences" and fortuitous fine-tuned properties in the laws of physics. Like Baby Bear's porridge in the story of Goldilocks, our universe seems "just right" for life. It looks, to use astronomer Fred Hoyle's dramatic description, as if "a super-intellect has been monkeying with physics". So what is going on?

As far as we know, life exists on one small planet orbiting an insignificant star in an unremarkable galaxy off in one small corner of the known universe. This reminds me of a famous Mark Twain quotation [Mark Twain and the Eiffel Tower].

I really like the letter from Nathaniel Hellerstein that appeared in the July 21st issue of New Scientist.

If Paul Davies says that the universe is bio-friendly, then I say he hasn't taken a good look at it (30 June, p 30). The universe is bio-tolerant, maybe, or better yet bio-indifferent. Looking at the night sky, I do not see a cosmos optimised for producing life. It appears to be optimised for producing vacuum.

Even if the universe somehow "needs" life, it evidently doesn't need very much of it. Perhaps, from the cosmic point of view, life is a necessary evil, to be tolerated and limited.

I call this the misanthropic principle - it certainly fits the facts better than the anthropic principle does.

Cody on the Sandwalk

 


Here's a picture of Cody from 90% True on the Sandwalk.

Ethidium Bromide Is a Dangerous Chemical

 
Friday's Urban Legend: PROBABLY FALSE

Monday's Molecule #35 from last month was ethidium. The salt, ethidium bromide, is used as a dye to stain DNA [Ethidium Bromide Binds to DNA].

Most of us have heard that ethidium is a potent mutagen so you need to be very careful when using it in the lab. Wear gloves at all times and dispose of any excess ethidium solutions in the proper containers.

According to Rosie Redfield, a microbiologist at the University of British Columbia (Canada), this may have been an overreaction to the presumed dangers of ethidium bromide [Heresy about Ethidium Bromide].

THEME

---

Deoxyrobonucleic Acid (DNA)Apparently ethidium is regularly used as a drug to treat African Sleeping Sickness and it shows no significant ill effects when used at doses that are 1000 times what we use in a typical laboratory.

Creationist Delusions about Transitional Fossils and Information

 
As expected, the IDiots are gloating over the widespread media misrepresentation of human evolution based on a recent Nature paper [The Ileret Skulls: My Two Cents] [Man Bites Dog].

Over on Uncommon Descent, one of our favorite IDiots has jumped on the bandwagon [Paleoanthropologists bungle again…]. The sycophants that are allowed to post comments on that blog have raised the old issue about the presumed lack of transitional fossils. As usual, they demonstrate their lack of understanding of evolution although, in this case, they have lots of company in the media and even among some scientists.

One person has posted this video of Richard Dawkins being interviewed by Creationists. The sycophants are delighted because it supposedly shows Dawkins being stumped by the demand that he give an example of the increase in genetic information in the genome. They ignore the second part of the video where he explains why we don't see the kinds of transitional fossils that the Creationists demand.



Look at the first part of the video. This is a very famous incident and Dawkins has written about it several times, most notably in a lengthy article on Australian Skeptics [The Information Challenge]. The article also appears in A Devil's Chaplain. Here's how Dawkins describes the incident.

In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists - a thing I normally don't do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.

My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.

With hindsight - given that I had been suckered into admitting them into my house in the first place - it might have been wiser simply to answer the question. But I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth - I have a horror of blinding people with science - and this was not a question that could be answered in a soundbite. First you first have to explain the technical meaning of "information". Then the relevance to evolution, too, is complicated - not really difficult but it takes time. Rather than engage now in further recriminations and disputes about exactly what happened at the time of the interview (for, to be fair, I should say that the Australian producer's memory of events seems to differ from mine), I shall try to redress the matter now in constructive fashion by answering the original question, the "Information Challenge", at adequate length - the sort of length you can achieve in a proper article.

Now that I've provided the link, I'm certain all the IDiots over on Uncommon Descent will read the Dawkins article and learn how new information gets into the genome. That should be the end of this little episode, right?

Dawkins on the Sandwalk

 
Somebody else has walked the walk [90% True]. They took a picture of Dawkins' book but if they have pictures of themselves on the Sandwalk I'd be happy to post them.

T. Ryan Gregory on the Sandwalk

John Wilkins on the Sandwalk

Walk the Sandwalk

[Hat Tip: PZ Myers]

Oklahoma Specialty License Plates

 
You can buy a whole bunch of different specialty license plates in Oklahoma like the one below [Oklahoma Specialty License Plates]. I looked through the list but I didn't find any that said "I Support Abortion" or "Atheist" or "Socialized Medicine" or "Cut and Run" or "Gay Marriage" or "Screw Oklahoma." I wonder why?


[Hat Tip: John Lynch]

Creationism Continuum

In an earlier posting [What Is Creationism?] I took issue with Denyse O'Leary and fellow blogger Mike Dunford who agree that Intelligent Design isn't creationism. My position is that there are various definitions of creationism and I prefer the definition that includes all believers in a Creator God.

The posting prompted considerable discussion about the meaning of the word "creationism." There are many commentators who insist that Creationism means only one thing—a belief in Special Creation as described in the Bible. Jonathan Badger of T. TAXUS (photo on left) expressed his disapproval of my definition by writing,

I am not "choosing" a definition of creationism, Larry -- you are. Or perhaps it would be truer to say that you are trying to *invent* a new definition. Please show a dictionary definition of "creationism" that doesn't mention the bible if you disagree with me. Both Old Earth Creationists and Young Earth Creationists believe that the events of Genesis literally happened -- the only difference between the two is the Old Earth types think their god defines "days" differently than people do, and so 7 "days" could be millions of human years.

I understand what you are trying to do -- most sane people (even mainstream theists) agree that creationists are nut cases, and so redefining "creationist" to mean "theist" is a cute rhetorical trick, much like how some right-wingers want to redefine "socialist" to mean anyone who wants a government providing social services. But such word games are pretty childish on any side.

This deserves a more extensive response than my comments on the earlier thread. There are several different points that I'd like to address so here goes.

Another Definition of Creationism

Jonathan accuse me of "inventing" a new definition of creationism—one that's not found in standard dictionaries. He quoted several dictionary sources that were similar to the one in the American Heritage Dictionary,

Creationism: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
                        ...American Heritage Dictionary

Nobody denies that this is one of the definitions in common usage. That's not the point. The point is rather that it's not the only definition and if you choose this one, as Denyse O'Leary and the some of the IDiots do, then you are obligated to make that clear. Jonathan disagrees because he claims that this is the only legitimate definition. He is wrong.

When I open a page of Darwin I immediately sense that I have been ushered into the presence of a great mind. ... When I read Phillip Johnson, I feel that I have been ushered into the presence of a lawyer.

Richard Dawkins (1996)Phillip Johnson is one of the founders of Intelligent Design Creationism. His position has been very clear from the beginning and it's a legitimate philosophical stance in spite of Dawkin's dislike of lawyers.

Johnson maintains that creationists are anyone who believes in a Creator and he rejects the narrow definition of Duane Gish and the Young Earth Creationists.

I am not interested in any claims that are based on a literal reading of the Bible, nor do I understand the concept of creation as narrowly as Duane Gish does. If an omnipotent Creator exists He might have created things instantaneously in a single week or through gradual evolution over billions of years. He might have employed means wholly inaccessible to science, or mechanisms that are at least in part understandable through scientific investigation.

The essential point of creation has nothing to do with the timing or the mechanism the Creator chose to employ, but with the element of design or purpose. In the broadest sense, a "creationist" is simply a person who believes that the world (and especially mankind) was designed and exists for a purpose. With the issue defined that way, the question becomes: Is mainstream science opposed to the possibility that the natural world was designed by a Creator for a purpose? Is so, on what basis?
                        Phillip Johnson (1993)

Johnson is attempting to draw a line between religion and science and between creationism and naturalism, where naturalism is defined as the belief that supernatural beings play no role in creating or maintaining the universe. In addition, Johnson maintains that evolution, properly understood, is entirely naturalistic and therefore inconsistent with a Creator. Thus, according to Johnson there is a shape line between creationism and evolutionism. If you believe in a Creator, as all Christians do, then you cannot believe in evolution.

Ironically, Johnson's position is similar to that of many atheists a fact that has been gleefully pointed out by Theistic Evolutionists who want to distance themselves from both the philosophical naturalist position and the Young Earth Creationist position. In an earlier essay, I've tried to explain why this "middle ground" is an illusion ["Theistic Evolution: The Fallacy of the Middle Ground"].

The broad definition of creationism is shared by many religious scholars who are unhappy with the narrow definition that's confined to a literal belief in the Bible. The position of the Roman Catholic Church, for example, is strongly in favor of a creationist viewpoint [Creation]. This is a view that's shared by many religious scientists as well. For example, Howard J. Van Till, a Professor of Physics and Astronomy (and an evolutionist) writes,

All Christians are authentic "creationists" in the full theological sense of that term. We are all committed to the biblically-informed and historic Christian doctrine of creation that affirms that everything that is not God is part of a creation that has being only because God has given it being and continues to sustain it. As a creation, the universe is neither a divine being nor a self-existent entity that has its being independent of divine creative action. This theological core of the doctrine of creation sets Judeo-Christian theism in bold distinction from both pantheism (all is God) and naturalism (all is nature).
                        Howard J. Van Till (1998)

Now, as it turns out, most of these theologians and scientists are perfectly aware of conflicting definitions of "creationism," which is why they take pains to define their terms. They don't want to cede to the religious right a perfectly good word that describes their belief in a Creator God. That's why Theodosius Dobzhansky says the following in his famous article Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution (1973).

I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way.

In some cases, the stigma of Young Earth Creationism is too much to bear and scientists go out of their way to avoid the creationist label. This is explained by Francis Collins in his book The Language of God.

Few religious of scientific views can be neatly summed up in a single word. The application of misleading labels for particular perspectives has regularly muddied the debate between science and faith throughout the modern era. Nowhere is this more true than in the case of the "creationist" label, which has featured so prominently in the science-and-faith debates over the past century. Taken at face value, the term "creationist" would seem to imply the general perspective of one who argues for the existence of a God who was directly involved in the creation of the universe, In that broad sense. many deists and nearly all theists, including me, would need to count themselves as creationists.

Over the past century, however, the term "Creationist" has been hijacked (and capitalized) to apply to a very specific subset of such believers, specifically those who insist on a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 to describe the creation of the universe and the formation of life on earth.
                        Francis Collins (2006)

I still maintain that there are at least two definitions of creationism. The narrow definition, often referred to as Creationism with a capital "C" or Special Creationism, is widely accepted in American society. A recent survey reveals that 53% of Americans had heard of the term and, of those, 59% believed the narrow definition [Evolution and Creationism in Public Education].

The second definition is the broad definition that is frequently used in serious discussions about science and religion. I did not make it up. Whenever one attempts to comment on creationism it is incumbent upon the user to disclose the definition being used. In my case, I try to distinguish between the various forms of creationism by referring to Young Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design Creationism, etc. in order to avoid confusion.

Denyse O'Leary and some of her friends (but not Phillip Johnson) say there's a difference between Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design Creationism. I see the distinction, but I don't think it's as clear cut as she imagines.

One reason that it is appropriate for a Professor of Law to comment upon the philosophy of biology is that so many of the philosophers and biologists want to be litigators.
Phillip Johnson (1996)Finally, it's worth noting that the definition of "creationism" is tied up with legal issues in the United states of America. In Edward v. Aguillard (1987) the plaintiffs were successful in overturning Lousiana's "Creationism Act" on the grounds that it promoted religion. In this case, the judge declared that, "The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind."

In Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. Judge Jones listened to evidence presented by the plaintiffs that Intelligent Design was just another name for creationism. Since the teaching of creationism had already been declared religious, and illegal, it was important to define creationism in such as way as to include Intelligent Design.

The plaintiffs were successful. In his final ruling, Judge Jones said, "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism." The legal definitions of creationism are interesting but they seem to have had little effect on the general public, many of whom continue to believe that the only legitimate definition of creationism is the one requiring a belief in the Biblical Genesis story.

Are Old Earth Creationists and Young Earth Creationists the only Kind of Creationists?

That's what some people are saying. In his criticism of me Jonathan Badger strongly implies that the only legitimate creationists are the Young Earth Creationists (YEC's) and the Old Earth Creationists (OEC's) who still follow the sequence of events in Genesis. He would agree with Denyse O'Leary that Intelligent Design proponents (IDiots) are not creationists because they don't necessarily adopt a belief in the truth of Genesis.

Many would disagree and that's why you often hear people refer to Intelligent Design as Intelligent Design Creationism. There seems to be little doubt that the intelligent design movement grew out of the (capital C) Creationist movement in the 1980's. This has been well-documented by Barbara Forrest (left), most prominently at the Dover trial in 2005 and in a lengthy article in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics (Forrest, 2001). In that article she examines the strategy of the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC) and concludes that it is stealth creationism in spite of what its proponents might claim. The goal of Intelligent Design Creationists is make creationism more acceptable by introducing it on university campuses. This is part of the wedge strategy.

The accomplishment of these goals is especially important to the CRSC's strategy to advance theri brand of creationism; indeed, it is critical because they are the only creationists who stand a chance of pulling it off. The old-style creationism represented by Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and others is unlikely to be tolerated on mainstream campuses, even religious ones like Baylor. The CRSC creationists have taken the time and trouble to acquire legitimate degrees, providing them a degree of cover both while they are students and after they join the university faculties.

Whether you agree with the very broad definition of creationism or not, you are being incredibly naive if you think that Intelligent Design isn't creationism. There's more to creationism than just YEC's and OEC's.

Robert T. Pennock, a philosopher at Michigan State University and a leading opponent of Intelligent Design Creationism testified at the Dover trial that intelligent design was just warmed-over creationism—using a broad definition of creationism that equates it to religion. For Pennock, one of the defining tenets of creationism is the rejection of evolution, or at least some forms of evolution. He also tends to agree with Johnson that any belief in a Creator is a form of creationism. (He does not agree that evolution is incompatible with creationism.)

No attempt to discuss creationism would be complete without looking at the work done by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Eugenie Scott, the Executive Director of NCSE, has published several articles on the subject and has recently put out a book called Evolution vs. Creationism. Let's look at the Creation/Evolution Continuum published by NCSE and see how it conforms to various definitions of creationism.

Before starting, let me say that the distinction between "creationism" on the one hand and "evolution" on the other seems strained to me. It has led to much confusion—I have contributed to some of it. It would be far better to make the extremes "creationism" and "naturalism" since what we are usually looking at it is a continuum representing the strength of belief in God.

Nevertheless, you can see from the diagram that Eugenie Scott and NCSE recognize many different degrees of creationism ranging from the most extreme examples, such as Young Earth Creationism, down to far less extreme examples such as Evolutionary Creationism. She does not recognize Theistic Evolutionism as a version of creationsm: instead, she refers to it as "the theological view in which God creates through the laws of nature" (Scott, 2004). To me this is a quibble. I include Theistic Evolution as a form of creationism in the same sense as Theistic Evolutionists Francis Collins and Theodosius Dobzhansky (see above).

Intelligent Design Creationism covers a range of views as indicated on the graph.

The dotted line represents the split between literal belief in the Bible and a more liberal interpretation of scripture. This is the dividing line between (captial C) Creationsm or Special Creationism and other forms of creationism. To many people it is the difference between "creationism" (top) and something that is not creationism (bottom). (What is that something below the line? It appears to represent belief in a Creator God and a partial rejection of the full implications of evolution while studiously avoiding the creationist label. Are they Creator Godists?) I find it hard to justify that particular definition of creationism but as long as its proponents make their preference known it shouldn't be a problem. Naturally, the rest of us don't have to agree.

Is the Broad Definition of Creationist Just a Cute Rhetorical Trick?

I'm accused of using the broad definition as a "rhetorical trick" to tarnish the theists who reject a literal belief in the Bible. This reminds me of a similar accusation from Bill Dembski as reported by Robert Pennock (2000).

Dembski chides me for never using the term "intelligent design" without conjoining it to "creationism." He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in the movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to "rally the troops."

Pennock goes on to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that Dembski is a creationist by the broad definition.

I don't resort to the cheap trick of using the word "creationist" as a pejorative label. I use "IDiots" for that purpose. Whenever I refer to creationists I qualify it with other descriptors such as Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent design Creationism. If I'm trying to make an important point about religion and science then I try and make it clear that I'm using a broad definition of creationism.

Jonathan Badger is not religious. His attack on my use of the word "creationst" falls into the category of accommodationist. (formerly appeaser). He thinks it's insulting to theists to be called creationists. My position is that Theistic Evolutionists are trying to pull the wool over our eyes by distancing themselves from the fringe creationists while allying themselves with the atheist evolutionists. When I say that theists are creationists I mean that in the same sense as many other theists such as Dobzhansky and Van Till (and the Pope). I do it in order to emphasize the fact that they do believe in a Creator God even though they accept most of the scientific evidence for evolution and common descent. It's not a rhetorical trick. I'm being as open and obvious as I know how.

Over on the comments thread of my earlier posting, there are even more interesting statements. Let me close by addressing one more. This one is from Pete Dunkleberg.

Using words like "definition" for one's preference is a bit political. So you want to put down theists by calling them creationists. But those are different words for good reason.

The main characteristic of creationists is that they claim scientific arguments against geology and or biology. Sometimes this has been called (by creationists) scientific creationism, abbreviated SciCre (not by creationists). Lately the term ID has been used for SciCre.

I hope I've demonstrated to your satisfaction that there is a legitimate second definition of "creationism" that's used by people who call themselves creationists. I didn't make it up and it's not political.

I do not put down theists by calling them Young Earth Creationists—the only kind of creationists you seem to recognize. If I'm putting down theists I do it very openly by criticizing their belief in a Creator God in spite of the fact that they accept most of science. I fail to see why Ken Miller would be upset if I "accused" him of believing in a Creator God. He doesn't disguise this fact in his book (Miller, 1999).

As a scientist, I know very well that the earth is billions of years old and that the appearance of living organisms was not sudden, but gradual. As a Christian, I believe that Genesis is a true account of the way in which God's relationship with the world was formed. And as a human being, I find value in both descriptions. In order to reveal Himself to a desert tribe six thousand years ago, a Creator could hardly have lectured them about DNA and RNA, about gene duplication and allopatric speciation, He spoke to them in the direct and lyrical language of Genesis.

Wouldn't it be fun if God came back to visit us in 2007 and gave us a lecture about gene duplication and allopatric speciation? I'd pay to hear that although I'd probably wonder if he(?) wasn't just pulling our legs in the same way he did with the desert tribe 3000 years ago. Was Genesis the ultimate example of framing?

---

[Photo/Image credits: The photograph of Jonathan Badger is taken from the ASM video made when he was here in Toronto for the American Society of Microbiology meeting in May 2007 (see Bloggers in Toronto and Bacteria, Bloggers, and Toronto). Jonathan is in a phone booth on Baldwin St. where we had dinner. The photograph of Barbar Forrest is taken from her website [Dr. Barbara Forrest]. The Creation/Evolution Continuum is from The Creation/Evolution Continuum by Eugenie C. Scott]

Collins, F. (2006) The Language of God. Free Press, New York (USA).

Dawkins, R. (1996) Reply to Phillip Johnson. Biology & Philosophy 11:539-540. reprinted in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics Robert T. Pennock ed. MIT Press, Cambridge MA (USA) (2001).

Johnson, Phillip (1993) Darwin on Trial Regnery Gateway, Washington DC (USA).

Johnson, P. (1996) Response to Pennock. Biology & Philosophy 11:561-563. reprinted in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics Robert T. Pennock ed. MIT Press, Cambridge MA (USA) (2001).

Scott, E. (2004) Evolution vs. Creationism. University of California Press, Berkeley CA (USA).

Van Till, H. J. (1998) The Creation: Intelligently Designed or Optimally Equipped? Theology Today 55:344-364. reprinted in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics Robert T. Pennock ed. MIT Press, Cambridge MA (USA) (2001).

Is Barack Obama Dangerously Naive?

 
Today's National Post had a comment about Barak Obama [Presidential hopeful Obama ‘promotes’ PM to president].

U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama, already under fire from fellow Democratic candidates for his supposed inexperience and unguarded comments on American foreign policy issues, is raising eyebrows again after vowing to telephone the "president of Canada" if elected to the White House to begin renegotiating terms of the NAFTA trade deal.

The titular miscue came Tuesday night during a discussion of trade and labour issues at a Democratic debate in the Illinois senator's home base of Chicago.

"I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada, to try to amend NAFTA, because I think that we can get labour agreements in that agreement right now," Mr. Obama said. "And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street; it should also be good for Main Street."

Most of the fuss is about the fact that Obama doesn't know we have a parliamentary system of government with a Queen, but no President. That's pretty bad for a Senator from a northern state but it's not the only thing that troubles me.

We don't need a lecture from the US President on the proper way to treat workers. If there are any "labor issues" that separate Canada and the USA then it's the way the American Congress kowtows to special interest groups, like farm workers and workers in the softwood lumber industry, in violation of NAFTA. A really sore spot for Canada is the way American ignores the parts of the treaty that it doesn't like whenever it feels like it.

There are many Canadians—I'm not one—who would gladly terminate the treaty if the American government wanted to re-open it. It would mean that Canada would be free to sell its gas and oil to other countries at the full market price. Under "free trade" we are obligated to supply a certain set amount of oil and gas to America every year [Article 605].

Here's a list of current disputes (2006-2007, see below) under NAFTA [Canadian NAFTA Secretariat]. They all involve countervailing duties or import restrictions imposed by the US Congress on Canadian goods in spite of "free trade." In most cases, the Canadian goods can be sold cheaper in the USA than similar goods produced in America by American workers. As far as I know there are no disputes involving Canadian restrictions on American goods. Also, I believe that the USA has lost every single case that has come before the dispute resolution panel.

I wonder if Barak Obama knows this?

• Magnesium from Canada (Five-Year Reviews of the Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Orders)
• Softwood Lumber from Canada (Dumping - 2002)
• Softwood Lumber from Canada (Countervailing Duty - 2002)
• Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada (Countervailing Duty)
• Pure and Alloy Magnesium from Canada (Countervailing Duty)
• Softwood Lumber from Canada (Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Certain Company-Specific Reviews - 2005)
• Softwood Lumber from Canada (Determination under Section 129(a)(4) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act - 2005)
• Softwood Lumber from Canada (antidumping duty determination under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act - 2005)
• Softwood Lumber from Canada (Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review - 2006)
• Softwood Lumber from Canada (Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review - 2006)
• Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada (Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review)

Nobel Laureate: Svante August Arrhenius

 
 
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1903.

"in recognition of the extraordinary services he has rendered to the advancement of chemistry by his electrolytic theory of dissociation"


Svante August Arrhenius (1859-1927) won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for working out the theory of dissociation. Monday's Molecule #38 illustrates the fundamental concept. Some compounds like NaCl can dissociate in water to form separate charged ions (Na⁺ and Cl^-.

Today, more than 100 years after the Nobel Prizes were first awarded, there are very few winners who make fundamental contributions to our understanding of chemistry and biology. It was more common back in the olden days—probably because there were more fundamental discoveries to be made. It's difficult to compare the genius of a man like Arrhenius with the 2006 Nobel Laureate Roger Kornberg, for example. Kornberg never had the chance to discover the theory of dissociation or any other fundamental theorem.

The Presentation Speech was given by Dr. H.R. Törnebladh, President of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, on December 10, 1903.

Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen.

During the first year of the last century Volta made the first electric pile. By studying the chemical actions of the electric current thus obtained Davy in Britain and Berzelius and Hisinger in Sweden arrived at the conclusion that the relationship between electrical and chemical phenomena was one of cause and effect. On the basis of this idea Berzelius established his well-known electrochemical theory, which reigned supreme until the middle of the century; however, new discoveries showed that this theory would not stand up to examination, and chemical phenomena ceased to be explained as being due to electricity. It was generally accepted that chemical changes of matter were due to a certain affinity, though the origin of this affinity was absolutely unknown. Then came the heyday of thermochemistry, when it was believed that the explanation of the transformation of chemical energy during chemical reactions lay in the heat phenomena occurring during chemical processes.

Around 1880 Svante Arrhenius - then studying for a doctorate in science - arrived, as a result of his researches into the movement of electric current through solutions, at a new explanation of the causes of chemical phenomena, i.e. he attributed them to electrical charges contained in the constituents of reacting substances. Electricity was thus introduced as a decisive factor into the theory of chemistry, in other words the basic notion of the theory of Berzelius had come back into favour, although in a greatly modified form.

In the time of Berzelius this notion rested on a qualitative basis only, whereas Arrhenius's theory determined it quantitatively, thus allowing it to be treated mathematically. In his doctor's thesis, twenty years ago, Arrhenius had deduced from this principle all known laws governing chemical changes, but despite this the new theory was very little understood. It so conflicted with current ideas as to disprove them. According to this theory, for instance, common salt, sodium chloride, when dissolved in water splits up to a varying extent, in other words it is dissociated into its constituent parts which are diametrically opposed but charged with electricity, i.e. into ions of chlorine and of sodium, the only chemically effective substances in a solution of common salt. The theory also claimed that when an acid and a base react upon one another, water is the primary product and salt the secondary, and not reversely, as was then generally believed. Ideas so contrary to those current at that time could not be accepted immediately. A struggle lasting more than ten years and an enormous number of new experiments were required before the new theory was accepted by everyone. During this long battle over Arrhenius's theory of dissociation tremendous advances were made in chemistry and ever closer links were established between chemistry and physics - to the great benefit of both sciences.

One of the most important consequences of Arrhenius's theory was the completion of the great generalizations for which the first Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded to Van't Hoff. Without the support of Arrhenius's theory that of Van't Hoff would never have gained general recognition. The names of Arrhenius and Van't Hoff will go down in history of chemistry as marking the modern period of this science and it is for this reason that the Academy, despite the fact that the experimental basis of the theory of dissociation belongs to physics, did not hesitate to award the Nobel Prize for Chemistry to Arrhenius.

The Academy of Sciences counts itself fortunate in being able to award the Nobel Prize for Chemistry this year to the compatriot of Berzelius who rehabilitated the fundamental notion of his theory, and its task is made even more pleasant by the fact that its choice is supported by the most outstanding scientific authorities of our day.

Doctor. The world of science already recognizes the importance and value of your theory, but its lustre will continue to increase in the days to come, as you yourself and others use it to advance the science of chemistry. Physical research has contributed to your discovery and this fact throws new light on the relationship - more sensed than proved - between the different natural sciences, the common objective of which is to solve the riddles of life.

Success spurs us on to new endeavours - a fact realized by the generous Maecenas, whose name is now linked with your own. May your future work bear ever more abundant fruit and, when champions of the spirit and of learning advance along the trail that you have blazed, may your name be remembered in the proud words: Ille fecit.

Does anyone know the meaning for the last two words? I think it means something like "it will be done."

A Beautiful Parasite

 


This is Psittacanthus sp. or parrot-flower mistletoe from Botany Photo of the Day [August 08, 2007 : Psittacanthus sp.].

The plant normally grows as a parasite on conifers.

Hype and Reality in an Important Transcription Paper

An important paper has just been published in Nature Structural & Molecular Biology. The work examines the in vivo kinetics and dynamics of transcription in mammalian cells and it confirms some important parameters derived from in vitro studies (Darzacq et al., 2007).

Before looking at the results, let's see what the press release has to say. The experiments were mostly done in Robert Singer's lab at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. The college issued a press release that was relayed on the ScienceDaily site [Scientists Discover The Dynamics Of Transcription In Living Mammalian Cells]. Here's the hype ...
THEME:
Transcription

Transcription — the transfer of DNA’s genetic information through the synthesis of complementary molecules of messenger RNA — forms the basis of all cellular activities. Yet little is known about the dynamics of the process — how efficient it is or how long it takes. Now, researchers at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University have measured the stages of transcription in real time. Their unexpected and surprising findings have fundamentally changed the way transcription is understood.

Actually, a great deal is known about the dynamics of transcription including how efficient it is and how long it takes. There's nothing in the paper that's particularly unexpected or surprising. The results do not fundamentally change the way transcription is understood.