TV Ontario's Best Lecturers

 
It's that time of year again. TV Ontario (TVO) has chosen its ten finalists for best university lecturer. you can see the list on the Best Lecturer website.

Some of you might recall that Michael Persinger of the magic motorcycle helmet was one of the finalists last year and he went on to win the $10,000 prize [TV Ontario's Best Lecturers]. I was a bit peeved at this. I wrote,

This is a popularity contest. The last one was very disappointing because some of the most important aspects of being a good university lecturer were ignored.

I'm talking about accuracy and rigour. It's not good enough to just please the students. What you are saying has to be pitched at the right level and it has to be correct. Too many of the lectures were superficial, first-year introductions that offered no challenge to the students. (One, for example, was an overview of Greek and Roman architecture by an engineering Professor.) The students loved it, of course, and so did the TV producers because they could understand the material. Lecturer's in upper level courses need not apply.

Some of last year's lectures were inaccurate. The material was either misleading or false, and the concepts being taught were flawed. Neither students nor TV audiences were in any position to evaluate the material so accuracy was not a criterion in selecting the best lecturer of 2006.

I wrote to the producers about this, suggesting that the lecturers be pre-screened by experts in the discipline. TV Ontario promised to do a better job this year. I'm looking forward to seeing if they keep their promise.

Are you wondering how they did? They chose Michael Persinger, a "fringe" scientist, to put it politely.

How are they doing this year? Here's the list of judges.

Zanana L. Akande (born 1937 in Toronto, Ontario) is a former Canadian politician. She was the first black woman elected to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and the first black woman to serve as a cabinet minister in Canada.

Barry Callaghan has done work in journalism, television, and filmmaking in addition to his own writing. He began his career as a part-time reporter for Canadian Broadcasting Corp (CBC) television news and gave weekly book reviews on the CBC radio program Audio.

Tony Nardi is an actor/ writer/producer. His acting experience has been diverse and prolific, in live theater, television and film. As an actor he received his training in Montreal at the Actor's Studio, The Banff School of Fine Arts, The Stratford Festival, and Italy.

Isn't that interesting. The best people to judge whether a university Professor is delivering a good lecture are a politician, a writer, and an actor.

Silly me. I thought that Professors might be on the panel of judges. I guess they're all too busy serving on juries that evaluate politicians, writers, and actors.

The top three criteria for evaluating university lectures are: (1) accuracy, (2) accuracy, and (3) accuracy. The only people who can judge whether those criteria are being met are other academics in the same discipline. If the lectures aren't accurate then nothing else matters. If the lecture material is accurate then you can start looking at other things, such as style.

---

Who Put the Cephalopod in SEED Magazine?

 
SEED magazine is usually a pretty good magazine in spite of the fact that they get a few things wrong and in spite of the fact that they sponsor ScienceBlogs^TM.

But enough is enough. Imagine my surprise when I opened the current issue (January/February 2008) to page 21 and saw this ugly, squishy, creature. As a (fairly) loyal reader, I've been tolerant of their graphics and images even though most of them don't make much sense. But this is way over the top. Did the editors forget that this magazine is displayed on news stands where young children might see it?

Who is responsible for this? And what can we do about it?

---

[Hint: The disgusting image seems to be associated with an article titled Eyeing the Evolutionary Past by Paul Z. Mierz.]

Nobel Laureate: François Jacob

 

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1965.

"for their discoveries concerning genetic control of enzyme and virus synthesis"

François Jacob (1920 - ) received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on gene expression. He shared the prize with André Lwoff and Jacques Monod. The three men worked together at the Institut Pasteur in Paris, France, at a time when it was one of the leading centers of research in this field.

Jacob made major contributions to the discovery of messenger RNA and the regulation of transcription when these processes were just beginning to be understood. His name, and Monod's, are mostly associated with the lac operon in E. coli but the prize was also given for work with bacteriophage. The concepts of operons, operators, and repressors all come from the work of Jacob and Monod.

THEME:

Nobel Laureates
The presentation speech was given by Professor Sven Gard, member of the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine of the Royal Caroline Institute. As you read it, note how much they knew in 1965 after only a few years of intense work in deciphering the genetic code and working out how genes are transcribed. This is only 12 years after Watson & Crick's paper on the structure of DNA. That's the same amount of time that has elapsed between 1996, when Dolly the sheep was cloned, and today.

Your Majesties, Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen.

The 1965 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is shared by Professors Jacob, Lwoff and Monod for «discoveries concerning the genetic regulation of enzyme and virus synthesis».

This particular sphere of research is by no means easy. I heard one of the prize winners, Professor Jacob, forewarn an audience of specialists more or less as follows: «In describing genetic mechanisms, there is a choice between being inexact and incomprehensible». In making this presentation, I shall try to be as inexact as conscience permits.

It has become progressively more apparent that the answer to what has hitherto been romantically termed the secret of life must be sought in the mechanism of action and in the structure of the hereditary material, the genes. This central field of research has naturally been approached from the periphery and in stages. Only in recent years has it been possible to make a serious attack on these fundamental problems.

Several previous Nobel Prize holders: Beadle, Tatum, Crick, Watson, Wilkins, Kornberg and Ochoa have worked in this sphere of research and have formulated certain basic proposals which have enabled the French scholars to continue their efforts. It has been established that one of the principal functions of genes must be to determine the nature and number of enzymes within the cell, the chemical apparatus which controls all the reactions by which the cellular material is formed and the energy necessary for various life processes is released. There is thus a particular gene for each specific enzyme.

In addition, some light has been thrown on the chemical structure of genes. In principle, they have the form of a long double chain consisting of four different components, which can be designated by the letters a, c, g, and t, and with the property of forming pairs with each other. An «a» in one of the chains has to be matched by a «t» in the other, a «g» only by a «c». However, they can be linked along the length of the chain in any order whatsoever, so that the number of possible combinations is virtually unlimited. A chain of genes contains from several hundreds to many thousands of units; such structures can easily carry the specific patterns for the million or more genes which it is estimated that a cell may have.

This model of the genes represents a coded message containing two types of information. If the double chain of a gene is split lengthwise and each half acquires a new partner, then the final result is two double chains identical to the original gene. The model thus contains information relative to the actual structure of the gene, which permits multiplication, in its turn a condition of heredity. When a cell divides, each daughter cell receives an exact copy of the parent gene. The structure of the double chain ensures the stability and permanence required by hereditary material.

But the model can also be read in another way. Along the length of the chain, the letters are grouped in threes in coded words. An alphabet of four letters allows the formation of more than 30 different words and the sequence in the gene of such words provides the structural information for an enzyme or some other protein. Proteins are also chain molecules built up from twenty or so different types of building blocks. To each of these building blocks there corresponds a chemical code word of three letters. The gene thus contains information on the number, nature, and order of the building blocks in a particular protein.

Thus it was already clear that the hereditary blueprint contained the collective structural information for all substances necessary for the functions of the living cell. It was not known how the genetic information was put into effect or transformed into chemical activity. As to the function of the genes, it was thought that they participated in a sort of procreative act when the new cell came into being, producing new substances necessary for the life of the cell, but subsequently lying dormant until the next cell division. It was presumed that the structure and formation of the chemical apparatus determined in this way defined all the regulatory mechanisms necessary for the cell's ability to adapt to changes in the environment and to respond in an adequate manner to stimuli of different types.

To begin with, the group of French workers were able to demonstrate how the structural information of the genes was used chemically. During a process resembling gene multiplication an exact copy of the genetic code is produced, termed a messenger. The latter is then incorporated into the chemical «workshop» of the cell and wound like magnetic tape onto a spool. For each word arriving on the spool, a constructional unit is attracted, which carries a complement to this word and attaches itself there just like a piece of jigsaw puzzle. The building blocks of a protein are selected in this way one by one, aligned, and joined together to form a protein with the appropriate structure.

The messenger substance is, however, short-lived. The tape lasts only for a few recordings. The enzymes are also used up in a similar way. For the cell to maintain its activity, it is thus necessary to have an uninterrupted production of the messenger material, that is to say continuous activity of the corresponding gene.

However, cells can adapt themselves to different external conditions. Thus there must exist some mechanisms controlling the activity of the genes. The research into the nature of these mechanisms is a remarkable achievement which has opened the way for the possible explanation of a series of hitherto mysterious biological phenomena. The discovery of a previously unknown class, the operator genes, which control the structural genes, marks a major breakthrough.

There are two types of operator genes. One type releases chemical signals, which are perceived by a second, receptor, type. The latter controls in its turn one or more structural genes. As long as the signals are being received the receptor remains blocked and the structural genes are inactive. Certain substances coming from outside or formed within the cell can, however, influence the chemical signals in a specific manner, changing their character so that they can no longer influence the receptor. The latter is unblocked and activates the structural genes; messenger material is produced and the synthesis of enzymes or another protein commences.

Control of gene activity is thus of a negative nature; the structural genes are only active if the repressor signals do not arrive. One can speak here of chemical control circuits similar in many ways to electrical circuits, for example in a television set. In the same way, they can be interconnected or arranged in a series to form complicated systems.

With the aid of such control circuits, the free living monocellular organism can produce enzymes when required, or interrupt chemical reactions if they are likely to cause damage; an excitatory stimulus can provoke movement, flight or attack, depending on the nature of the excitation. With such mechanisms it is possible to direct the development of cells into more complicated structures. It is particularly interesting to note that the activity of viruses is controlled, in principle, in the same manner.

Bacteriophages contain a genetic control circuit complete with emitter, receptor, and structural genes. While chemical signals are being sent and received, the virus remains inactive. When incorporated into a cell, it behaves like a normal component of the cell, and can confer on it new properties which may improve its chances of survival in the struggle for existence. However, if the signals are interrupted, the virus is activated, starts to grow rapidly and soon kills the host cell. There is considerable evidence for the view that certain types of tumor virus are incorporated into a normal cell in the same way, thus transforming it into a tumour cell.

We are easily inclined to hold an exaggerated opinion of ourselves in this era of advanced technology. Thus, we are justified in having a great admiration for the achievements in electronics, where, for example, the attempts at miniaturization to reduce component size, to lower the weight, and reduce the volume of apparatus have enabled a rapid development of space science. However, we should bear in mind that, millions of years ago, nature perfected systems far surpassing all that the inventive genius of man has been able to conceive hitherto. A single living cell, measuring several thousandths of a millimetre, contains hundreds of thousands of chemical control circuits, exactly harmonized and functioning infallibly. It is hardly possible to improve on miniaturization further; we are dealing here with a level where the components are single molecules. The group of French workers has opened up a field of research which in the truest sense of the word can be described as molecular biology.

Lwoff represents microbiology, Monod biochemistry, and Jacob cellular genetics. Their decisive discovery would not have been possible without competence and technical knowledge in all these fields, nor without intimate cooperation between the three researchers. But the mystery of life is not resolved simply with knowledge and technical skill. One must also have a gift for observation, a logical intellect, a faculty for the synthesis of ideas, a degree of imagination, and scientific intuition, qualities with which the three workers are liberally endowed.

Research in this field has not yet yielded results that can be used in practice. However, the discoveries have given a strong impetus to research in all domains of biology with far-reaching effects spreading out like ripples in the water. Now that we know the nature of such mechanisms, we have the possibility of learning to master them, with all the consequences which that will surely entail for practical medicine.

François Jacob, André Lwoff, Jacques Monod. Thanks to your technically unimpeachable experiments and your ingenious and logical deductions, you have gained a more intimate familiarity with the nature of vital functions than anyone before you has done. Action, coordination, adaptation, variation - these are the most striking manifestations of living matter. By placing more emphasis on dynamic activity and mechanisms than on structure, you have laid the foundations for the science of molecular biology in the true sense of the term. In the name of the Caroline Institute, I ask you to accept our admiration and our most sincere congratulations. Finally, I invite you to come down from the platform to receive the prize from His Majesty the King.

---

Gods Behaving Badly

 
Gods Behaving Badly is a new book by Marie Phillips. It was just reviewed in the New York Times [The House of Myth]. Here's a teaser,

Americans have long delighted in movies like ''It's a Wonderful Life,'' ''Heaven Can Wait'' (both the 1943 and 1978 versions) and ''Bruce Almighty'' -- ''divine comedies,'' to borrow the marketing shtick of the day, in which a benevolent male Judeo-Christian God and sometimes his demonic counterpart are represented by stock imagery like billowing clouds, bolts of lightning, bumbling plainclothes angels and horned creatures thumping pitchforks. The humor may be irreverent, but it's always delivered with a basic attitude of respect.

Such deference, a holdover perhaps from the days of the Hays Code, is entirely lacking in Marie Phillips's first novel, ''Gods Behaving Badly,'' in which the 12 major deities of ancient Greece uneasily cohabit in a dilapidated town house in 21st-century London, dwelling just above the city's ''greasy tide'' of human flesh. It's like Hesiod's ''Theogony'' meets MTV's ''Real World.''

In the author's affectionate telling, Zeus, the fading patriarch, is squirreled away on the top floor; Apollo is a horny and malcontented television psychic; and Aphrodite is a phone-sex worker whose buttocks, when she mounts a staircase, resemble ''two hard-boiled eggs dancing a tango'' -- maybe the most original description of the female posterior since Jerry approvingly deemed Sugar Kane's ''Jell-O on springs'' in ''Some Like It Hot.'' Apollo's virginal, pragmatic twin sister, Artemis, walks dogs for a living and jogs compulsively in her spare time. Dionysus owns a nightclub called Bacchanalia and is constantly plugged in to a music player. Meanwhile, Athena has been cast as an efficient boardroom type who distributes handouts to her bored family as she subjects them to streams of corporate gobbledygook.

This sounds like a terrific book. I don't normally read fiction—other than creationist books—but this will be an exception. Has anyone read it?

---

What Happened to the "Peers" on this Paper?

 

Quite a few science bloggers were shocked at a paper that appeared recently in the journal Proteomics—a respectable journal up 'till now.

PZ Myers had the stomach to blog about this train wreck of a paper. Read his article at A baffling failure of peer review.

---

[Photo Credit: Train Wreck at Gare Montparnasse, Paris, France, 1895 from Answers.com]

Joshua Lederberg

 

Joshua Lederberg died last Saturday (Feb. 2, 2008). In his honor, John Dennehy has selected one of Lederberg's famous papers as This Week's Citation Classic: Joshua Lederberg.

I think it's too bad that our current generation of students is growing up without being sufficiently aware of the fundamental principles of biochemistry and molecular biology that were worked out in bacteria and bacteriophage.

UPDATE: [Loss of a giant: Joshua Lederberg]

---

Tangled Bank #98

 
The latest issue of Tangled Bank is #98. It's hosted by Steve Matheson at Quintessence of Dust [Tangled Bank #98].

Hey! Welcome to Tangled Bank #98, and thanks for stopping by. If you've never been to Quintessence of Dust, the lobby is below and to the right. I hope you'll poke around a little.

PZ didn't give me a budget for refreshments, but if you come to the house I'll make sure we at least have plenty of guacamole. Chips are here, and beer is over there. Our city was once used by Anne Lamott as a metaphor for plainness, but it's much cooler than most people think. You can get to our house on a nice bus system, and after the carnival we can pick one of two Ethiopian restaurants. My day job is at Calvin College, but right now I'm on sabbatical in the lab of a friend and collaborator at the Van Andel Institute in downtown Grand Rapids.

---

If you want to submit an article to Tangled Bank send an email message to host@tangledbank.net. Be sure to include the words "Tangled Bank" in the subject line. Remember that this carnival only accepts one submission per week from each blogger. For some of you that's going to be a serious problem. You have to pick your best article on biology.

Evolution as Tinkering

François Jacob won the Nobel Prize in 1965 for his work on the lac operon. He is also known for his thoughts on evolution, especially the concept of a tinkerer. The idea deserves to be better known so I present a long quotation from his little book The possible and the Actual published in 1994. The book contains a lecture that was based on an article he published in Science back in 1977 (Jacob, 1977).

I'm a big fan of this view of evolution [Evolution by Accident].

The action of natural selection has often been compared to that of an engineer. This comparison, however, does not seem suitable. First, in contrast to what occurs during evolution, the engineer works according to a preconceived plan. Second, an engineer who prepares a new structure does not necessarily work from older ones. he electric bulb does not derive from the candle, nor does the jet engine descend from the internal combustion engine. To produce something new, the engineer has at his disposal original blueprints drawn for that particular occasion, materials and machines specially prepared for that task. Finally, the objects thus produced de novo by the engineer, at least by a good engineer, reach the level of perfection made possible by the technology of the time.

In contrast, evolution is far from perfection, as was repeatedly stressed by Darwin, who had to fight against the argument from perfect creation. In the Origin of Species, Darwin emphasizes over and over again the structural and functional imperfections in the world. He always points out the oddities, the strange solutions that a reasonable God would never have used.

In contrast to the engineer, evolution does not produce innovations from scratch. It works on what already exists, either transforming a system to give it a new function or combining several systems to produce a more complex one. Natural selection has no analogy with any aspect of human behavior. If one wanted to use a comparison, however, one would have to say that this process resembles not engineering but tinkering, bricolage we say in French.

While the engineer's work relies on his having the raw materials and the tools that exactly fit his project, the tinkerer manages with odds and ends. Often without even knowing what he is going to produce, he uses whatever he finds around him, old cardboards, pieces of string, fragments of wood or metal, to make some kind of workable object. As pointed out by Claude Levi-Strauss, none of the materials at the tinkerer's disposal has a precise and definite function. Each can be used in several different ways. What the tinkerer ultimately produces is often related to no special project. It merely results from a series of contingent events, from all the opportunities he has to enrich his stock with leftovers. In contrast with the engineer's tools, those of the tinkerer cannot be defined by a a project. What can be said about an of these objects is that "it could be of some use." For what? That depends on the circumstances.

In some respects, the evolutionary derivation of living organisms resembles this mode of operation. In many instances, and without any well-defined long-term project, the tinkerer picks up an object which happens to be in his stock and gives it an unexpected function. Out of an old car wheel, he will make a fan; from a broken table, a parasol. This process is not very different from what evolution performs when it turns a leg into a wing, or a part of a jaw into pieces of ear.

...

When different engineers tackle the same problem, they are likely to end up with very nearly the same solution: all cars look alike, as do all cameras and all fountain pens. In contrast, different tinkerers interested in the same problem will reach different solutions, depending on the opportunities available to each of them. This variety of solutions also applies to the products of evolution, as is shown, for instance, by the diversity of eyes found throughout the living world. The possession of light receptors confers a great advantage under a variety of conditions. During evolution, many types of eyes appeared, based on at least three different principles: the lens, the pinhole, and multiple holes. The most sophisticated ones, like ours, are lens-based eyes, which provide information not only on the intensity of incoming light but also on the objects that light comes from, on their shape, color, position, motion, speed, distance, and so forth. Such sophisticated structures are necessarily complex.

One might suppose, therefore, that there is just one way of producing such a structure. But this is not the case. Eyes with lenses have appeared in molluscs and in vertebrates. Nothing looks so much like our eye as the octopus eye. Yet it did not evolve the same way. In vertebrates, the photoreceptor cells of the retina point away from the light while in molluscs they point toward the light. Among the many solutions found to the problem of photoreceptors, these two are similar but not identical. In each case, natural selection did what it could with the materials at its disposal.

For a more up-to-date view of the evolution of eyes see PZ Myers' article in the current (January/February 2008) issue of SEED magazine.

---

Jacob, F. (1977) Evolution and Tinkering. Science 196:1161-1166. ]JSTOR]

Jacob, F. (1994) from The Possible and the Actual, reprinted in Evolution Extended, Connie Barlow ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (USA) 1994.

The Streisand effect

 
This is a new term to me. It was used over on simra.net in reference to the attempt by students at Wilfred Laurier University to dictate to the Laurier Freethought Alliance [Follow-up on the WLU controversy]. I had to look up the term on Wikipedia.

Just in case there are any other old people out there, here's the definition.

The "Streisand effect" is a term used to describe a phenomenon on the Internet where an attempt to censor or remove (in particular, by the means of cease-and-desist letters) a certain piece of information (for example, a photograph, a file, or even a whole website) backfires. Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity, often being widely mirrored across the Internet, or distributed on file-sharing networks in a short period of time.[1][2] Mike Masnick said he jokingly coined the term in January 2005, “to describe [this] increasingly common phenomenon.”[3] The effect is related to John Gilmore's observation that, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

The term Streisand effect originally referred to a 2003 incident in which Barbra Streisand sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for US$50 million in an attempt to have the aerial photo of her house removed from the publicly available collection of twelve thousand California coastline photographs, citing privacy concerns.[4][5][1] Adelman claims he was photographing beachfront property to document coastal erosion as part of the California Coastal Records Project.[6] Paul Rogers of the San Jose Mercury News later noted that the picture of Streisand’s house was popular on the Internet.

---

The Quacks Fight Back

 
Last week David Colquhuon gave a talk sponsored by the Centre for Inquiry and the University of Toronto Secular Alliance [Quackery in Academia] [Science in an Age of Endarkenment].

During his visit to Toronto he was interviewed by Michael Enright of the CBC Radio show The Sunday Edition. The interview was broadcast on Sunday, January 27th. As you might imagine, there were lots of comments and emails and a second show was required in order to restore some "balance." The second show was broadcast on Sunday, February 3rd [The Sunday Edition].

A stirred-up hornet's nest is a mild disturbance compared to the firestorm we unleashed last week over my conversation with Dr. David Colquhoun. Dr. Colquhuon is a gangly, pipe-puffing British pharmacologist who thinks all alternative medicine, all of it, is a fraud perpetrated by quacks. But he went further, somehow suggesting that those who believe in it probably supported Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and the Ayatollah Khomeini. He pooh-poohed acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, even vitamins.

Well, his remarks opened the floodgates of listener mail, screaming for Dr. Colquhoun's head on a pike. In a few moments, alternative or complimentary medicine strikes back. With the help of two experts, we will try to give the other side of contentious Colquhounism.

Two quacks were required to restore the rift in the space-time continuum caused by too much rationality: Dugald Seely of the Canadian College of Natrupathic Medicine and Dr. Kien Trinh of the DeGroote School of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton. It's shocking that one of them is from a genuine medical school: he's in a Ph.D. program.

You can listen to the podcast on the CBC website but I can assure you that you won't learn anything new. There's some important issues here. Here's one of the letters that was read on the show ...

Most proponents of alternative medicine do not deny the place of Western medicine. It is too bad that for some the respect is not reciprocal.
                                 Dale Jack

The logic here is that just because some quacks are able to recognize the value of evidence-based medicine then it follows that scientists should extend the same respect to quacks who promote non-evidence-based medicine.

It's a mark of how silly our society has become that such an argument even merits a response. It would be like saying that the most outlandish ideas deserve equal time as long as their proponents are respectful to the proponents of reality.

Here's a similar comment ...

He [Colquhoun] is the very representative of the darkness of the scientific method. He is one of the very ilk that would have driven the new hand-washing surgeons to suicide. As a past-President of the Complementary and Integrative Physicians of B.C., I do hope you will spend the next few weeks in contrition—to re-establish your usually balanced and worthwhile reputation.
                                 Steven Faulkner

Coming from a quack, I guess we shouldn't be surprised at the "logic" exhibited here. The first example is the old saw about truly brilliant innovators who were originally scoffed at. The idea is that because one person took on the scientific establishment and won, it follows logically that all renegades must be right. Conversely, scientists who scoff at quacks must be wrong.

No, this does not compute. As they say, people laughed at Galileo but they also laughed at Bozo the clown.

The second example of silly logic is the concept of "fairness" and "balance" that is used time and time again by quacks and IDiots. Apparently it doesn't matter how stupid your ideas are, society demands that you be given a hearing if you are attacked. Well I've got news for all you quacks out there. You don't get to promote your crazy ideas just because you have them. There's no rule that says you have to be given a platform on public radio just because you've been criticized.

If you want to be heard go the Hyde Park on a Sunday morning. Take a soapbox.

---

SciBarCamp

 
I'm blatantly copying this from the SciBarCamp Website. I'll be there. There are still places available and scientists are especially encouraged to register.

SciBarCamp is a gathering of scientists, artists, and technologists for a weekend of talks and discussions. It will take place at Hart House at the University of Toronto on the weekend of March 15-16, with an opening reception on the evening of March 14. The goal is to create connections between science, entrepreneurs and local businesses, and arts and culture. The themes are:

• The edge of science (eg, synthetic biology, quantum gravity, cognitive science)
• The edge of technology (eg, mobile web, ambient computing, nanotechnology, web 2.0)
• Science 2.0 (open access, changing models of publication and collaboration, scientific software)
• Scientific literacy and public engagement (eg, one laptop per child project, policy and science, technology as legislation, enfranchising the poor, the young, the old)
• The interactions of science, art and culture: Scientists and artists as partners in the continuing evolution of the culture.

In the tradition of BarCamps, otherwise known as "unconferences", (see BarCamp.org for more information), the program is decided by the participants at the beginning of the meeting, in the opening reception. Presentations and discussion topics can be proposed here or on the opening night. SciBarCamp will require active participation; while not everybody will present or lead a discussion, everybody will be expected to contribute substantially - this will help make it a really creative event.

The talks will be informal and interactive; to encourage this, speakers who wish to give PowerPoint presentations will have ten minutes to present, while those without will have twenty minutes. Around half of the time will be dedicated to small group discussions on topics suggested by the participants. The social events and meals will make it easy to meet people from different fields and industries. Our venue, Hart House, is a congenial space with plenty of informal areas to work or talk, and there will be free wireless access throughout.

Our goals are:

• Igniting new projects, collaborations, business opportunities, and further events.
• Intellectual stimulation and good conversation.
• Integrating science into Toronto's cultural, entrepreneurial, and intellectual activities.
• Prototyping a model that can be easily duplicated elsewhere.

Attendance is free, but there is only space for around 100 people, so please register by sending an email to Jen Dodd (dodd.jen@gmail.com) with your name and contact details. Please include a link to your blog or your organization's webpage that we can display with your name on the participants list at www.SciBarCamp.org.

Eva Amsen is one of the organizers. Read what she has to say on easternblot [SciBarCamp].

---

Stuart Kauffman: Reinventing the Sacred

 
The Centre for Inquiry in Toronto is sponsoring a talk by Stuart Kauffman this Friday evening.

REINVENTING THE SACRED:
How the Paradigm of Emergence Offers New Scientific Views on the Origin of Life and Biodiversity, Economics, Ethics, and Spirituality

Stuart Kauffman, Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics, University of Calgary

Thurs, Feb 8, 7:30pm, Centre for Inquiry Ontario, 216 Beverley St, downtown Toronto.

Part of our ongoing Voices of Reason lecture series - Centre for Inquiry.

The event is open to the public.
Cost: $7 general, $4 students, FREE for Friends of the Centre

A catered reception at 6pm at the Centre for Inquiry Ontario will be held with Dr. Kauffman exclusively for Friends of the Centre so join today by contacting us at ontario@centerforinquiry.net!

Check out Kauffman's bio on The Edge [Stuart Kauffman].

Kauffman's ideas are difficult to understand; although, in fairness, I haven't tried very hard. To me they seem fuzzy and ill-defined with more than a hint of spiritualism in spite of the fact that Kauffman is a non-believer.

Here's an example from an interview with the University of Calgary campus newspaper.

It turns out that the behaviour of genetic networks depends critically on the level at which the genes are connected. If they are heavily connected the system is chaotic, and if they are only lightly connected the system is ordered. An attractive hypothesis is that biological systems, like genetic networks, flourish in a “transition zone” between the ordered and chaotic regimes. I call this transitional phase the complex regime. So biocomplexity refers to biological systems that thrive in this balance between order and chaos. Other examples include the immune and neural systems.

The essence of Kauffman's idea, as I understand it, is that life has a built-in tendency for self-organization. He argues that if you replay the tape of life, very similar sorts of organisms will arise because the ones we see are highly constrained by the basic laws of chemistry and physics operating on our planet. In other words, evolving life doesn't have as many choices or options as we imagine.

Daniel Dennett explains it well in Darwin's Dangerous Idea (p. 225).

It is the non-optionality of these "choices" that Kauffman wants to stress, and so he and his colleague Brian Goodwin (e.g., 1986) are particularly eager to discredit the powerful image, first made popular by the great French biologists Jacques Monod and François Jacob, of Mother Nature as a "tinker," engaging in the sort of tinkering the French call bricolage. The term was first made salient by the anthropologist Claude Lévi Struss (1966). A tinker or bricoleur is an opportunistic maker of gadgets, a "satisficer" (Simon 1957) who is always ready to settle for mediocrity if it is cheap enough. A tinker is not a deep thinker. The two elements of classical Darwinism that Monod and Jacob concentrate on are chance on the one hand and, on the other, the utter directionlessness and myopia (or indeed blindness) of the watchmaker. But, says Kauffman, "Evolution is not just 'chance caught on the wing.' It is not just a tinkering of the ad hoc, of bricolage, of contraption. It is emergent order honored and honed by selection." (Kauffman 1993, p. 644).

---

[Photo Credit: University of Calgary: OnCampus Weekly]

Things Get Complicated at Wilfred Laurier University

 
Some of you will recall the issue. The Laurier Freethought Alliance applied for club status at Wilfred Laurier University but they were turned down by the Campus Clubs Office [Bigots at Wilfrid Laurier University]. In case you've forgotten the reason, here's what the Campus Clubs Office said in rejecting the application.

While the Campus Clubs department understands the goals and visions of your organization, they are not compatible with the guidelines of what may be approved and incorporated into our department. While the promotion of reason, science and freedom of inquiry are perfectly legitimate goals, what is most in question in regards to your club's vision is the promotion of "a fulfilling life without religion and superstition". While this university is indeed technically a secular institution, secular does not denote taking an active stance in opposition to the principles and status of religious beliefs and practices. To be clear, this is not meant to say that the promotion of science and reason are illegitimate goals. But due to the need to respect and tolerate the views of others, the Campus Clubs department is unable to approve a club of this nature at this time. If you wish to adjust and rethink your club's application and vision, you may resubmit a revised proposal at any time.

This is political correctness taken to absurd lengths. I very much doubt that the same criteria are applied to religious clubs at Wilfred University.

Can you imagine a Christian club being denied status because they promote, "a fulfilling life by following the teachings of Jesus Christ"? The Laurier Freethought Alliance is promoting the idea that you have have a fulfulling life without Jesus of any other God. What's wrong with that?

Anyway, the response of the atheist community took the Campus Clubs Office by surprise and they are now stuggling to cover their asses rear ends. You can read the response on Anatoly Venovcev's blog [Eye of the Hurricane].

Anatoly wants everyone to calm down and stop pointing out the obvious to the powers that be at Wilfred Laurier. The Laurier Freethought Alliance wants to negotiate a way out of this problem and the publicity isn't helping right now.

That's a bit naive. The cat is out of the bag. Now is the time for the Laurier Freethought Alliance to stand firm and not bow to pressure from the Campus Clubs to change their true mission.

---

[Hat Tip: The Frame Problem]

Monday's Molecule #61

 
Today's molecule is three molecules. You have to identify the purple molecule on the left and the blue one near the top. You also have to identify the multicolored double-stranded helically thing that's holding them all together. (Hint: it's DNA.) The electron micrographs at the top serve as additional hints.

You have to give me the common names of these molecules and explain what's going on in the figure. You'll be pleased to know that I don't need the systematic IUPAC name for this one. This should be as easy as falling off a log for every biochemistry and molecular biology student but I fear that it may fall into the category of things that have been forgotten in modern courses.

There's an indirect connection between this molecule and Wednesday's Nobel Laureate(s). Your task is to figure out the significance of today's molecule and identify the Nobel Laureate(s) who worked with it. Here's an additional hint for this week only; I'm looking for a single name and if you can't decide between two or more possibilities, choose the earliest winner. (Be sure to check previous Laureates.)

The reward goes to the person who correctly identifies the molecule and the Nobel Laureate(s). Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first collected the prize. There are three ineligible candidates for this week's reward. The prize is a free lunch at the Faculty Club.

THEME:

Nobel Laureates
Send your guess to Sandwalk (sandwalk(at)bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca) and I'll pick the first email message that correctly identifies the molecule and the Nobel Laureate(s). Note that I'm not going to repeat Nobel Laureates so you might want to check the list of previous Sandwalk postings.

Correct responses will be posted tomorrow along with the time that the message was received on my server. I may select multiple winners if several people get it right.

Comments will be blocked for 24 hours. Comments are no open.

UPDATE: No winner this week. There were (only) three people who got the molecule correct. Only one of them was close to getting the Nobel Laureate (singular). That person named him correctly (François Jacob) but he threw in a second Nobel Laureate who had already been featured on Sandwalk.

The molecule is lac repressor bound to two sites on DNA forming a loop. The loop contains the binding site for cyclic AMP regulatory (receptor) protein or CRP, also known as catabolite activator protein (CAP). That's the other protein in the figure. The figure is from Lac Repressor and Operator.

---

Protest for Improving Science Education

 
John Pieret makes a very good point on his blog Thoughts in a Haystack. He points out that many American high school teachers avoid teaching evolution in their classes because it's too controversial. They'll skip that section of the curriculum even if it's required by the school board. "Who needs the hassle from parents," they say.

This fact needs to be widely known. It means the IDiots are winning in spite of the court cases that go against them. (John will probably disagree with this point.) If evolution is being removed from classrooms—and all the evidence suggests that it is—then we're fooling ourselves if we think the good guys are winning.

Stand up and protest if you think this is happening in your school district [Sounds of Silence]. Even better, encourage our students to take to the streets. You'd be surprised at how many of them want a decent education.

---

[Photo Credit: "Joining nationwide demonstrations, high-school students in Valparaíso [Chile] take to the streets on May 30 [2006] to protest [for] proposed changes in Chile's public education system." Eliseo Fernandez—Reuters /Landov (Encyclopedia Britanica Online)]

Ann Coulter Praises Canada for Sending Toops to Vietnam

 
That's right. You read the title correctly. Watch the video where she's challenged about her lack of truthiness. It's hilarious.

---

[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic]

How to Think About Science

 
One of my colleagues send me a link to a CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) radio series about How to Think About Science. You can download podcasts of all 10 episodes.

If science is neither cookery, nor angelic virtuosity, then what is it?

Modern societies have tended to take science for granted as a way of knowing, ordering and controlling the world. Everything was subject to science, but science itself largely escaped scrutiny. This situation has changed dramatically in recent years. Historians, sociologists, philosophers and sometimes scientists themselves have begun to ask fundamental questions about how the institution of science is structured and how it knows what it knows. David Cayley talks to some of the leading lights of this new field of study.

A "new field of study"? I didn't know that.

I recognize the names of some of the people who were interviewed and I'm more than a little skeptical. What do you think? Are these the leading lights of a new way of looking at epistemology? Or, is this just a subtle version of new-age psychobabble?

Episode 1 - November 14 - Simon Schaffer
Episode 2 - November 21 - Lorraine Daston
Episode 3 - November 28 - Margaret Lock
Episode 4 - December 5 - Ian Hacking and Andrew Pickering
Episode 5 - December 12 - Ulrich Beck and Bruno Latour
Episode 6 - January 2 - James Lovelock
Episode 7 - January 9 - Arthur Zajonc
Episode 8 - January 16 - Wendell Berry
Episode 9 - January 23 - Rupert Sheldrake
Episode 10 - January 30 - Brian Wynne

---

Bowls: Super and Otherwise

 
PZ Myers makes a silly comment ...

I have heard a rumor that tomorrow there will be some strange game called the "superbowl" going on … I don't know who is playing, I won't be watching, and I really don't care who wins, so I think I'll just root for the Toronto Maple Leafs, if that's all right.

Silly PZ. The Toronto Maple Leafs aren't playing today (Thank God). Bowls is an individual sport not one that's played by teams. Furthermore, it has to be played outside in warm weather. That's why the Bowls Championship game is in Mexico, or Arizona, or wherever it is.

---

Blogroll: How Popular Is Your Blog?

 
According to Coturnix, and others, this weekend is the annual Blogroll Amnesty Day. The idea is to update your blogroll by adding blogs that have less traffic than your own blog.

I decided it would be a good time to update my blogroll but most of the blogs I added are more popular than Sandwalk. I'm adding them in the hopes that they will notice me and add Sandwalk to their own blogroll on Blogroll Amnesty Day. You can see my complete blogroll in the left-hand sidebar. I've moved it up for a few days.

Many of the blogs listed below should have been on my blogroll a year ago but I was just too lazy to add them. I read all of these blogs every day, that's one of the criteria. The others are that the blog has frequent postings and the articles are worth reading. In some cases the postings are less frequent than normal but the bloggers are friends, colleagues, relatives, or enemies (or some combination).

I'm very curious about the popularity of blogs. Here are the latest numbers for Sandwalk.

I think the standard measure of popularity is the number of Views per day or the number of Views per month. In January Sandwalk had 47,578 visits and 75,511 views. I think this is about average for the blogs on my blogroll but I really don't know. How about posting your numbers in the comments—if you want to reveal them? (Views per day, and total views in January.)

People also talk about the "Authority" ranking on Technorati. Sandwalk's is 273, whatever that means. What is the "Authority" ranking of your blog? Does anyone know if Pharyngula has authority? What about The Panda's Thumb?

Here are the new blogs I just added today. Read them. Now. They are all very interesting. My apologies to those who should have been there a long time ago.

Bayblab
beer with chocolate
Botany Photo of the Day
Canadian Cynic
Catalogue of Organisms
Eye on DNA
Effect Measure
Framing Science
Genetics & Health
Greg Laden's Blog
Helmintholog
Genomicron
Laelaps
Memoirs of a Skepchick
Mike's Weekly Skeptic Rant
Recursiity
Respectful Insolence
Runesmith's Canadian Content"
The Evilutionary Biologist
The Lippard Blog
The Loom
The Frame Problem
The Unexamined Life
Thoughts in a Haystack

---

Our Groundhog Is Better than Your Groundhog!

 

Wiarton Willie didn't see his shadow so Spring is coming.

See the video.

---

How to Describe People Who Reject Evolution

 
The following sentences are taken from performance reviews that were originally published in various places. They have often been brought together in a single email message that attributes all of them to the Canadian Federal government, the American Federal government, a large American corporation, the American military, etc. etc. I'm assuming that the site from the Kellogg School of management has the attributions correct [Sales Humor].

I may have to use some of them, since "IDiot" is losing its effectiveness.

These quotes were taken from real resumes, cover letters and Performance Reviews. Most were printed in the July 21, 1997, issue of Fortune Magazine.

These quotes are taken from actual performance evaluations.

1. "Since my last report, this employee has reached rock bottom and has started to dig."
2. "His men would follow him anywhere, but only out of morbid curiosity."
3. "I would not allow this employee to breed."
4. "This associate is really not so much of a has-been, but more of a definitely won't be."
5. "Works well when under constant supervision and cornered like a rat in a trap."
6. "When she opens her mouth, it seems that this is only to change whichever foot was previously in there."
7. "He would be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle."
8. "This young lady has delusions of adequacy."
9. "He sets low personal standards and then consistently fails to achieve them."
10. "This employee is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot."
11. "This employee should go far-and the sooner he starts, the better."
12. He certainly takes a long time to make his pointless.
13. He doesn't have ulcers, but he's a carrier.
14. He's been working with glue too much.
15. He would argue with a signpost.
16. He brings a lot of joy whenever he leaves the room.
17. When his IQ reaches 50, he should sell.
18. If you see 2 people talking and one looks bored, he's the other one.

These are actual lines from military performance appraisals or OERS(Officer Efficiency Reports).

1. "Not the sharpest knife in the drawer."
2. "Got into the gene pool while the lifeguard wasn't watching."
3. "A room temperature IQ."
4. "Got a full 6-pack, but lacks the plastic thingy to hold it all together."
5. "A gross ignoramus -- 144 times worse than an ordinary ignoramus."
6. "A photographic memory but with the lens cover glued on."
7. "A prime candidate for natural deselection."
8. "Bright as Alaska in December."
9. "One-celled organisms out score him in IQ tests."
10. "Donated his body to science before he was done using it."
11. "Fell out of the family tree."
12. "Gates are down, the lights are flashing, but the train isn't coming."
13. "Has two brains; one is lost and the other is out looking for it."
14. "He's so dense, light bends around him."
15. "If brains were taxed, he'd get a rebate."
16. "If he were any more stupid, he'd have to be watered twice a week."
17. "If you give him a penny for his thoughts, you'd get change."
18. "If you stand close enough to him, you can hear the ocean."
19. "It's hard to believe that he beat out 1,000,000 other sperm."
20. "One neuron short of a synapse."
21. "Some drink from the fountain of knowledge; he only gargled."
22. "Takes him 1 1/2 hours to watch 60 Minutes."
23. "Wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead."

These quotes were taken from actual resumes and cover letters.

1. "I demand a salary commiserate with my extensive experience."
2. "I have lurnt Word Perfect 6.0 computor and spreasheet progroms."
3. "Received a plague for Salesperson of the Year."
4. "Wholly responsible for two (2) failed financial institutions."
5. "Reason for leaving last job: maturity leave."
6. "Failed bar exam with relatively high grades."
7. "It's best for employers that I not work with people."
8. "Let's meet, so you can 'ooh' and 'aah' over my experience."
9. "You will want me to be Head Honcho in no time."
10. "Am a perfectionist and rarely if ever forget details."
11. "I was working for my mom until she decided to move."
12. "Marital status: single. Unmarried. Unengaged. Uninvolved. No commitments."
13. "I have an excellent track record, although I am not a horse."
14 "I am loyal to my employer at all costs.... Please feel free to respond to my resume on my office voice mail."
15. "I have become completely paranoid, trusting completely no one and absolutely nothing."
16. "My goal is to be a meteorologist. But since I possess no training in meteorology, I suppose I should try stock brokerage."
17. "I procrastinate, especially when the task is unpleasant."
18. "Personal interests: donating blood. Fourteen gallons so far."
19. "As indicted, I have over five years of analyzing investments."
20. "Instrumental in ruining entire operation for a Midwest chain store."
21. "Note: Please don't misconstrue my 14 jobs as 'job-hopping'. I have never quit a job."
22. "Marital status: often. Children: various."
23. "Reason for leaving last job: They insisted that all employees get to work by 8:45 am every morning. I couldn't work under those conditions."
24. "The company made me a scapegoat, just like my three previous employers."
25. "Finished eighth in my class of ten."
26. "References: none. I've left a path of destruction behind me."

---

[Hat Tip: CWRB, via email.]

Bigots at Wilfrid Laurier University

 
Here's the complete story from Anatoly Venovcev posted on his blog Cosmopolitan [Campus Freethought Groups - Intolerant?]. The logic employed in rejecting the Laurier Freethought Alliance is juvenile at best and bigoted at worst.
From Wilfrid Laurier University: Mission, Vision and Values.

We believe in the dignity of all individuals, in fair and equitable treatment, and in equal opportunity.

We believe in the spirit of free inquiry, respect for the views of others and the obligation to formulate well grounded and investigative questions.

These values were approved in principle by the Board of Governors on December 6, 1994.

A couple of months ago, last April, the club that I'm the vice-president of submitted it's application to become an official campus club. Our name - "Laurier Freethought Alliance," our goal, to promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life without the need for superstition or religious belief. Since that is, after all, what a CFI-affiliated group should be about. Yesterday, after not getting through to us for 9 months (a problem in it's own right), the representative from the Campus Clubs department sends us an e-mail: Our application has been denied. Their reasons?

While the Campus Clubs department understands the goals and visions of your organization, they are not compatible with the guidelines of what may be approved and incorporated into our department. While the promotion of reason, science and freedom of inquiry are perfectly legitimate goals, what is most in question in regards to your club's vision is the promotion of "a fulfilling life without religion and superstition". While this university is indeed technically a secular institution, secular does not denote taking an active stance in opposition to the principles and status of religious beliefs and practices. To be clear, this is not meant to say that the promotion of science and reason are illegitimate goals. But due to the need to respect and tolerate the views of others, the Campus Clubs department is unable to approve a club of this nature at this time. If you wish to adjust and rethink your club's application and vision, you may resubmit a revised proposal at any time.

So because we don't base our worldviews on dogma and wish to promote that ideal we are intolerant while the Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, and Christian (including the Campus for Christ group) can? That is quite absurd. The president of the club, who got this e-mail, for the lack of a better term "flipped out," when he got this and wrote a rant in response.

Fortunately I, with his later revisions, wrote a much more diplomatic response, explaining to them what the promotion of "a fulfilling life without religion and superstition" really means and saying how not allowing a freethought group on the Wilfrid Laurier University campus it is they who are in fact being intolerant. We suggested both a revision and a meeting with them. We'll see how this turns out but I wanted to let the freethought blogging community in on it and ask those who had previous experience founding freethought groups if they had any such problems and how they can be resolved.

---

[Hat Tip: Friendly Atheist]

Human Ribosomal RNA Genes

 
Humans 5S RNA genes are about 200 bp in size from the transcription start site to the termination site. The precursor is processed to give the mature 120 bp 5S RNA that is incorporated into ribosomes [Ribosomal RNA Genes in Eukaryotes].

5S RNA genes are arranged as tandem repeats in a large cluster on chromosome 1 (1q42). The number of repeats varies from individual to individual within the range of 35-175 copies (Stults et al. 2008). The length of the repeats also varies but most of the genes are part of a 2200 bp repeat. Since only a small part of this is actually transcribed (200 bp) it looks like much of this locus is non-essential DNA. (The 5S RNA repeat in macaques is 7300 bp and in rats it is 1800 bp.)

The reported human genome sequences do not contain the region of the 5S RNA genes. It is impossible to clone and assemble fragments of repeated DNA sequences.


The other ribosomal RNA genes are located in a single transcription unit that gives rise to an RNA precursor of 13,000 bp. This is known as 45 RNA and the "gene" (operon) is often called the 45S gene. This large transcript is processed to give three mature RNAs: 18S (1874 bp), 5.8S (160 bp), and 28S (4718 bp) [Ribosomal RNA Genes in Eukaryotes].

The transcription units are arranged mostly as head-to-tail tandem repeats of 43 kb. Thus, 30 kB of this repeat unit consists of non-transcribed spacer. The length of this non-transcribed spacer varies from species to species although it tends to be the same within a given species (but see below). The conservation of length and sequence in a region of DNA that is non-essential may seem surprising but it is related to the frequent recombination events that occur at the sites of ribosomal RNA genes. The genes themselves are almost identical in sequence as a result of concerted evolution or gene conversion. The flanking regions (non-transccribed spacers) are "conserved" because they are carried along.

Let's assume that 20 kb of the non-transcribed spacer is non-functional and non-essential (= junk). That means 23 kb (13 kb of 45S transcript and 10 kb of spacer) is essential for proper function of the ribosomal RNA genes.



The ribosomal RNA genes are located at regions called nucleolar organizer regions (NORs) because this is the site where a nucleolus forms within the nucleus. The nucleolus is actually a dense region of the nucleus where massive transcripton of ribosomal RNA genes is occurring.

In humans, there are five clusters of ribosomal RNA genes (NORs) located at 13p12, 14p12, 15p12, 21p12, and 22p12. All of them are found in distinctive regions at the ends of apocentric chromosomes (chromosomes with a centromere region near one end). Cluster lengths (number of repeats) varies from individual to individual. The frequency of recombination events leading to rearrangements is ~10% per generation. This means that almost every individual has a unique fingerprint of ribosomal RNA gene repeats. (Each of us has 10 clusters.)

There are about 600 repeats in the average diploid genome (Stults, 2008). (This means 300 repeats in the haploid genome.) As is the case with the 5S repeats, none of the nucleolar organizer regions has been cloned and sequenced. All five loci are represented by large gaps in the "finished" genome.

The total amount of DNA in the large ribosomal RNA clusters is 12,900 kb (300 × 43 kb). Of this amount 6,000 kb (47 %) is probably junk in the sense that it is dispensible.

Junk in Your Genome

Ribosomal RNA Genes

Total DNA = 13,120 kb (0.41%)

Essential = 7,000 kb (0.22%)

Junk = 6,120 kb (0.19%)

Many of the human 45S genes are pseudogenes and unusual rearrangements are common (Caburet et al., 2005). In mouse, up to half of all the 45S genes are non-functional pseudogenes. Presumably these are due to errors in recombination events and they are likely to be transient.

The minimum number of 45S genes in mammals is not known for certain in humans but in chickens the loss of anything more than half the average number is lethal. It seems reasonable that of the 300 or so human 45S genes only about 150 are absolutely required and the remainder are dispensable. However, concerted evolution of these genes is essential in the long run and the mechanism of concerted evolution and gene conversion requires lots of copies. Thus, all copies are necessary for the species even though only half may be required for any one individual.

Total ribosomal RNA genes in the genome:

5S: 100 copies of 2.2 kb repeats = 220 kb. (estimate 100 kb essential, 120 kb junk)
45S: 300 copies of 43 kb repeats = 12,900 kb. (estimate 7,000 kb essential, 6,120 junk)

UPDATED: May 10, 2011

---

Caburet, S., Conti, C., Schurra, C., Lebofsky, R., Edelstein, S.J. and Bensimon, A. (2005) Human ribosomal RNA gene arrays display a broad range of palindromic structures. Genome Res. 15:1079-85. [PubMed]

Stults, D.M., Killen, M.W., Pierce, H.H. and Pierce, A.J. (2008) Genomic architecture and inheritance of human ribosomal RNA gene clusters. Genome Res. 18:13-18. [PubMed] [Genome Research]

Matches Are Made in Heaven but not on eHarmony

 
John Tierney and his wife both went to the eHarmony matchmaking site and registered as single and divorced (a tiny white lie). They answered all 258 questions then sat back and waited until they were matched by the computer program. (They are very happily married.)

Find out what happened at My eHarmony Experiment: Can This Marriage Be Matched?.

---

Slow Poisoning of America (and Canada)

 
Friday's Urban Legend: FALSE

Monosodium glutamate (MSG) is the salt of glutamate and glutamate is a common amino acid found in all proteins. According to an email message, MSG is killing us by making us all fat.

Here's the American version of the email message with the special Canadian inserts in italics. Stuff that's not in the Canadian version is underlined.

Subject: The effects of MSG
SLOW POISONING OF [AMERICA] [and CANADA]

[MSG The food additive MSG (Mono-Sodium Glutamate) is a slow poison. MSG hides behind 25 or more names, such as "Natural Flavouring."

MSG is even in your favourite coffee from Tim Horton's and other brand-name coffee shops.]

I wondered if there could be an actual chemical causing the massive obesity epidemic, so did a friend of mine, John Erb. He was a research assistant at the University of Waterloo, and spent years working for the government.

He made an amazing discovery while going through scientific journals for a book he was writing called The Slow Poisoning of America. In hundreds of studies around the world, scientists were creating obese mice and rats to use in diet or diabetes test studies.

No strain of rat or mice is naturally obese, so the scientists have to create them. They make these morbidly obese creatures by injecting them with MSG when they are first born. The MSG triples the amount of insulin the pancreas creates, causing rats (and humans?) to become obese; they even have a title for the race of fat rodents they create: "MSG-Treated Rats."

I was shocked too. I went to my kitchen, checking the cupboards and the fridge. MSG was in everything! The Campbell's soups, the Hostess Doritos, the Lays flavored potato chips, Top Ramen, Betty Crocker Hamburger Helper, Heinz canned gravy, Swanson frozen prepared meals, Kraft salad dressings, especially the 'healthy low fat' ones. The items that didn't have MSG had something called Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein, which is just another name for Monosodium Glutamate. It was shocking to see just how many of the foods we feed our children everyday are filled with this stuff. They hide MSG under many different names in order to fool those who catch on.

But it didn't stop there. When our family went out to eat, we started asking at the restaurants what menu items had MSG. Many employees, even the managers, swore they didn't use MSG. But when we ask for the ingredient list which they grudgingly provided, sure enough MSG and Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein were everywhere. Burger King, McDonalds, Wendy's, Taco Bell, every restaurant, even the sit down ones like TGIF, Chilis', Applebees and Denny's use MSG in abundance. Kentucky Fried Chicken seemed to be the WORST offender: MSG was in every chicken dish, salad dressing and gravy. No wonder I loved to eat that coating on the skin, their secret spice was MSG!

So why is MSG in so may of the foods we eat? Is it a preservative or a vitamin? Not according to my friend John. In the book he wrote, an expose of the food additive industry called The Slow Poisoning of America,

http://www.spofamerica.com/

he said that MSG is added to food for the addictive effect it has on the human body. Even the propaganda website sponsored by the food manufacturers lobby group supporting MSG at:

http://www.msgfacts.com/facts/msgfact12.html

explains that the reason they add it to food is to make people eat more.

A study of elderly people showed that people eat more of the foods that it is added to. The Glutamate Association lobby group says eating more benefits the elderly, but what does it do to the rest of us?

'Betcha can't eat just one', takes on a whole new meaning where MSG is concerned! And we wonder why the nation is overweight?

The MSG manufacturers themselves admit that it addicts people to their products. It makes people choose their product over others, and makes people eat more of it than they would if MSG wasn't added. Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an addictive substance!

Since its introduction into the American food supply fifty years ago, MSG has been added in larger and larger doses to the prepackaged meals, soups, snacks and fast foods we are tempted to eat everyday.

The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food. They claim it's safe to eat in any amount. How can they claim it is safe when there are hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these?

= = = = =

The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of exercise in obesity. Gobatto CA, Mello MA, Souza CT, Ribeiro IA. Res Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002

= = = = =

Adrenalectomy abolishes the food-induced hypothalamic serotonin release in both normal and monosodium glutamate-obese rats. Guimaraes RB, Telles MM, Coelho VB, Mori RC, Nascimento CM, Ribeiro Brain Res Bull. August 2002

= = = = =

Obesity induced by neonatal monosodium glutamate treatment in spontaneously hypertensive rats: an animal model of multiple risk factors. Yamamoto M, Iino K, Ichikawa K, Shinohara N, Yoshinari Fujishima Hypertens Res. March 1998

= = = = =

Hypothalamic lesion induced by injection of monosodium glutamate in suckling period and subsequent development of obesity. Tanaka K, Shimada M, Nakao K, Kusunoki Exp Neurol. October 1978

= = = = =

Yes, that last study was not a typo, it WAS written in 1978.

Both the medical research community and food "manufacturers" have known MSG's side effects for decades!

Many more studies mentioned in John Erb's book link MSG to Diabetes, Migraines and headaches, Autism, ADHD and even Alzheimer's. But what can we do to stop the food manufactures from dumping fattening and addictive MSG into our food supply and causing the obesity epidemic we now see?

[Even as you read this, George W. Bush and his corporate supporters are pushing a Bill through Congress, and it's called the:

"Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act" also known as the "Cheeseburger Bill". This sweeping law bans anyone from suing food manufacturers, sellers and distributors. Even if it comes out that they purposely added an addictive chemical to their foods.

Read about it for yourself at:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8458081.htm

Last month the House of Representatives passed the "Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act" to protect the food and beverage industry from civil lawsuits. Under the measure, known as the "Cheeseburger Bill,"people who buy food or drinks couldn't sue the companies that made them, the stores that sold them or the restaurants that served them if they got fat from the products, so long as the products met existing laws. The Senate is expected to take up a similar bill later this year."

The Bill has already been rushed through the House of Representatives, and is due for the same rubber stamp at Senate level. It is important that Bush and his corporate supporters get it through before the media lets everyone know about MSG, the intentional Nicotine for food.]

Several months ago, John Erb took his book and his concerns to one of the highest government health officials in Canada. While sitting in the Government office, the official told him "Sure I know how bad MSG is, I wouldn't touch the stuff!" But this top-level government official refused to tell the public what he knew.

The big media doesn't want to tell the public either, fearing legal issues with their advertisers. It seems that the fallout on the fast food industry may hurt their profit margin.

So what do we do?

The food producers and restaurants have been addicting us to their products for years, and now we are paying the price for it.

Our children should not be cursed with obesity caused by an addictive food additive.

But what can I do about it?

I'm just one voice, what can I do to stop the poisoning of our children, while guys like Bush are insuring financial protection for the industry that is poisoning us.

I for one am doing something about it. I am sending this email out to everyone I know in an attempt to show you the truth that the corporate owned politicians and media won't tell you.

The best way you can help save yourself and your children from this drug-induced epidemic, is to forward this email to everyone.

With any luck, it will circle the globe before governments can pass the Bill protecting those who poisoned us.

The food industry learned a lot from the tobacco industry.

Imagine if big tobacco had a bill like this in place before someone blew the whistle on Nicotine? Blow the whistle on MSG.

If you are one of the few who can still believe that MSG is good for us, and you don't believe what John Erb has to say, see for yourself. Go to the National Library of Medicine, at http://www.pubmed.com

Type in the words "MSG Obese", and read a few of the articles for yourself.

We do not want to be rats in one giant experiment, and we do not approve of food that makes us into a nation of obese, lethargic, addicted sheep, waiting for the slaughter.

Put an end to this, and stop the Slow Poisoning of America. Let's save our children.

John Erb

Snopes.com covers the issue of additives in Tim Horton's coffee. There is no MSG in the coffee (and no nicotine either).

---

Uncommon Descent and the Great Debate

 
PZ Myers destroyed Geoffrey Simmons in a recent debate on radio [Was that fun, or what?]. You can hear it for yourself at [MP3].

The IDiots over on Uncommon Descent were following the debate live. It didn't go well so what did they do? They deleted the thread. Fortunately, it was preserved at Antievolution.org.

And you wonder why we call them IDiots?

---

[Hat Tip: Pharyngula]