Headline Muse, 8/30

Some may say I am lax in my morals
Though I’m not one to advertise quarrels
I’m a bad, selfish man,
And because of my tan
We’re both mining and killing the corals

Headline: Coral could hold key to sunscreen pill

Ok, I can’t wrap my head around two stories recently in the news. First…. Human effluent (sewage, or shit, to you and me), pumped into the ocean, is killing corals. That’s about a week old. Literally, we are shitting on the ocean and killing it.

And now this week. The beeb tells us that “Scientists hope to harness coral’s natural defence…” against what? really, it doesn’t matter why, but in this case it is to make sunscreens. Fucking sunscreens. “By studying a few samples of the endangered Acropora coral…” Oh, it’s ok, “they will copy the genetic code the coral uses to make the compounds and put it into bacteria in the lab that can rapidly replicate to produce large quantities of it.”

“Dr Long said: ‘We couldn’t and wouldn’t want to use the coral itself as it is an endangered species.'”

So they’ll strip the information from the coral genes, then test it on scraps of skin left over from tummy tucks… seriously, check the link, I am not making this up. A product designed to enhance future vanity, tested on the byproducts of current vanity.

We are sooooooo fucked.

38 Percent

Some say God used evolution
As His “how it’s done” solution,
As a way that they can reconcile the two opposing views
But that reconciliation
Lives in pure imagination
It’s a compromise that’s simply not available to choose
Middle ground, which they’re demanding
Shows a lack of understanding
Intervention means the process wasn’t natural at all
Darwin’s process of selection
Doesn’t need a god’s inspection
Saying “both” is just redundant; clearly, one of them must fall.

I saw a link to this story (about Rep. candidates’ creationist views). In it, the Gallup poll I showed my ignorance of yesterday is brought up:

In its most recent polling on the topic, Gallup found that 40 percent of Americans believe God created humans just as they are today. Another 38 percent said they believe God guided the evolution process. And 16 percent believe human evolution involved pure science

I have somehow lost the link I saw, but it implied that the 38% who believe in a god-guided evolution are as scientific as the 16% who believe in an unguided evolution, with the differences between them philosophical and not scientific. I’m not certain if that is possible in theory, but in practice it is dead wrong. In practice (and by “practice” here, I am simply looking at the comments to the Fox News story linked above), the people (in this admittedly biased sample of convenience) who claim that god guided evolution are just plain wrong about natural selection. It is not that they understand natural selection and thing god guides it, rather it is that they think god took a long time rather than a short time to create things supernaturally.

If god played a role, it was not natural selection. If it was natural selection, god’s role has shrunk to nothingness. Philosophically, it may be true that evolution does not require the absence of a god. It does not eliminate god, it simply renders god superfluous for this particular purpose. Practically, though, I suspect that taking the “god guided it” position may simply identify the people who believe in evolution but do not understand it.

Frankly, it is good that they believe in it. It would be far better, though, if they understood it.

When God Intervenes

In the spirit of the Plantinga comments from earlier today, one from the old digs (With sincere apologies to Bob Dylan):

So I was watching a video interview of Dr. Francis Collins, and found it thoroughly depressing. Reporter Dan Harris does a good job, but Dr. Collins is utterly frustrating. We get the “God gave us two books” bit, where both the bible and the actual evidence of the universe around us are given equal footing (even though he doesn’t entirely understand the former). “How could that possibly be a conflict of truths?”, we are asked. Apparently, when the bible and the universe appear to disagree, that must be a case of Collins not quite understanding the bible.

The conflict between Genesis and science leads to “it was not a textbook of science!“–so, when the two collide, it looks like the bible is the one that gives. But…”Once you’ve accepted the idea of a God who is the creator of all the laws of nature, the idea that God might at unique moments in history, decide to invade the natural world and suspend those laws, doesn’t become really a logical problem.” So at least with regard to the story of Jesus, looks like science has to give. And sure, once you have gone all the way to believing in an interventionist god, any subset of that belief is, in comparison, small change.

But… can Collins assure us that his own work on the Genome Project (for instance) is not one of those unique moments in history? Perhaps everything that he has found is not the way things really are, but only the way things are while god suspends the laws; once we have accepted the idea of intervention, and the notion that we are as mortals inadequate to determine which are the laws and which are the exceptions, any scientific conclusion we come to must necessarily, explicitly, include some version of “if that’s ok with God, that is.” Or is Dr. Collins claiming to be able to know for certain that god is not mucking about with his data?

The scientist told me
He said it so well:
The secret to life, son,
It’s all in the cell—
The key to our essence
It’s there in our genes
Except when it isn’t… cos god intervenes.

Within every cell, son,
The scientists proved,
Sub-cellular structures
And things that they moved
Molecular transport
Like little machines
Except when it isn’t… cos god intervenes.

We know, even Darwin
Said it all looks designed
But natural selection
Is all that we find
With blind evolution
Directing the scenes
Except when it doesn’t… cos god intervenes

He’d worked on The Project
From when it began
The one that’s decoding
The genome of Man
And Collins knows science,
And he really knows genes
Except when he doesn’t… cos god intervenes

In the journals of science
The write-ups will change
There’ll be an addition
A little bit strange
Cos in the conclusions
The asterisk means
“Except when it doesn’t… cos god intervenes.”

A cure for depression
Might seem to work well
In a medical journal
The researchers tell
“It stops oxidation
Of monoamines*
*Except when it doesn’t… cos god intervenes”

The worst of disasters
We call “acts of god”
The faithful believers
Must think that it’s odd
With whole coastal regions
In smashed smithereens
Is that what it look likes … when god intervenes?

We study the genome
We study the prayer;
About intervention,
We find nothing there.
We find antibiotics
And look for vaccines
Cos no one can count on… when god intervenes

The methods of science
Have practical worth
We don’t look to heaven
But merely to earth
There’s one or the other
There’s no in betweens
It cannot be science… when god intervenes.

Turns Out, Rick Perry Loves Science After All

Governor Perry’s reliance on science
Seems counter-intuitive, don’t you agree?
He’s oftener known for denying, or lying,
To hold the positions his base wants to see
His stances on, say, evolution, pollution,
Or greenhouse effects of traditional fuels,
He quickly, as soon as he spies them, denies them,
So “science is wrong” appears one of his rules

But now he has “eggheads” controlling his polling
And visits to rallies that might make the news
His skeptical take on campaigning is gaining
Advantages over traditional views
With randomized campaign conditions, their mission’s
To optimize use of his money and time
It’s science that gives the most power per hour
It’s science that gives the most impact per dime.

From the New York Times’ “The Caucus” blog, a preview of an upcoming book: The Victory Lab. Turns out Rick Perry loves science–experimental social psychology, though, not evolutionary biology or climate science. The “soft” sciences are where he can see the power of the scientific method, and his opponents need to pay attention now.

The good news (from my perspective): Obama has been on board with scientific approaches to campaigning for some time now. His advisors include behavioral economists, including some big names from within experimental social psychology (Robert Cialdini’s book, “Influence“, is a classic in the psychology of attitude change and persuasion, for instance).

The bad news (again, my perspective): Perry’s team appears to be the only one actually applying experimental control to his on-the-ground campaign events. It is one thing to know that the literature predicts X, Y, and Z, and to make campaign recommendations based on that literature; it is quite another to test your own campaign (through random assignment and control of variables) to be certain that the literature (often experiments on undergrads) applies to your own populations (less likely to be undergrads).

So, yeah, Rick Perry loves science. He knows it works. He has seen its power, and has put it to his own uses. And he is applying it directly, not abstractly, which makes a very real difference–I can’t emphasize enough, general findings may not apply to any given subset of the population. It is important to test the actual operations on actual populations. Rick Perry (or his people) know this, and the rest of us ignore it at our peril.

Ring Around The Coffee

In science labs and coffee shops
It can’t be helped; some liquid drops
On floor or table.
And as these spills evaporate
On table, napkin, floor or plate
The stuff’s unstable
When coffee dries, it forms a ring
Around its edge—but here’s the thing
We didn’t know—
See, other liquids just dry flat,
Without a ring. But why is that?
And off we go.
The scientists at U. of Penn
Perhaps were drinking coffee, when
They first surmised,
A detail that, before, escaped—
It’s how the particles were shaped
As well as sized.
And coffee’s little, tiny spheres
Flow edge-ward, while a rod adheres
And keeps to center
The little rods deform the drop
And should they try to move, it’s “stop!”
And “do not enter!”

So, anyway, it’s cool. They think
It might be used in paint or ink
For better printing.
With smoother drying, now each letter
Holds its shape and color better—
No more squinting!
The other thing is, through these studies
The particles are seen as buddies,
Fun little critters
We play each morning, our little game
I drink them down; they get the blame
For morning jitters.

Via NPR, a story on the physical properties of coffee rings. This is one of the things I love about scientists. I must have looked at coffee rings thousands of times, and perhaps even noticed that the stain concentrates at the edges of drops. In fact, I am certain I have noticed this, because I thought it looked like an exaggerated Mach Band–the visual perception effect that accentuates edges, as a result of the lateral inhibition of retinal cells. (Maybe I’ll write about that some other time.)

But anyway, these people looked at the stain, and instead of reaching for a sponge, uttered those wonderful scientific words “huh. that’s strange. I wonder….” or words to that effect. And now, we have an answer.

Of course, for me, just as much fun as the physical science of the particles, is the human science of the commenters at the NPR story page. We can predict (and find) the comment we find on every science study: “our tax dollars pay for this?”, others decry the triviality of the topic. But, this being NPR, we get others who (and I would never have made this connection, so kudos to the commenters) draw a connection between this and perhaps the early formation of cells, with some particles migrating to edges (eventually, cell walls) through purely physical processes.

Lastly, something completely orthogonal to practical use–whether worthless or priceless or something between… turns out the process is beautiful, when you look at it just right (viddy link–or look below).

The Brain Observatory

edit–they are at it again!

As I write (so if you hurry, you can see it), the Brain Observatory is sectioning a brain. Last time I watched them, it was when they were sectioning HM’s Brain. This time, it’s a dolphin brain.

Aaaand, it looks like they are closing up for the evening, or getting ready to. Their schedule:

The dolphin brain is pretty cool–far more gyri and sulci than I would have imagined!

****
Below is the verse I wrote for HM, on the occasion of his brain sectioning. It has the distinction of being the only one of however many hundreds of poems or verses I have written, to be unrhymed. I’ve said before, it’s not what I usually do.

For H. M.

My day goes by in bits and pieces,
The crossword puzzle, conversations,
Doctors asking, running tests;
They seem to know me; I don’t know how.
And who is that old man in the mirror?

My day goes by as days do, I suppose,
I watch TV, play bingo, read…
Today the crossword is very easy!
I don’t remember when I moved here—
And who is that old man in the mirror?

My day – I don’t recall yesterday—
A pleasant day, with pleasant friends,
I know my way through this house,
But I do not remember moving here,
And who is that old man in the mirror?

My day goes by in one-act plays
Old plots forgotten with the new,
I never know the actors’ names—
Each one is nice enough, it seems;
But who is that old man in the mirror?

Today, I’m feeling very tired;
I don’t know why—I’m much too young
To stiffly walk, to ache to move—
I must have worked hard yesterday.
I feel like that old man in the mirror.

Henry Molaison, known to biology and psychology students everywhere as “H. M.”, is perhaps the single most famous patient in history. Perhaps. He was studied for over half a century, from when he underwent psychosurgery in 1953 to alleviate epileptic convulsions, until his death last year. Henry had an extreme case of anterograde amnesia–the inability to form new episodic memories. He could learn new tasks, but would not know that he had learned them (his performance surprised himself!). He taught us, or allowed us to learn, more about how remembering works than we had ever suspected before. Abilities we thought as single were exposed as many parallel abilities, and not always the neat splits our introspective accounts may have predicted. (that may not be expressed well. It is late.)

The Dangers Of GM Products

Genetically, of course, a spork
Is half a spoon, and half a fork
A laboratory in New York
Created them, then popped the cork.

Please, gentle reader, do not swoon,
But there was also, once, a foon
(That’s half a fork, and half a spoon)
Created, sadly, all too soon.

In cutlery, one tempts the Fates
When artificially, one mates
Utensils from across the plates
Regardless of recessive traits.

A careless thought: “let’s cross F-1
Again with forks, and have some fun.”
The simple plan was soon begun,
Then all too soon: “What have we done?”

With thirst for blood and killing drives
Such meddling ends in loss of lives
I only hope someone survives
To tell—the sporks have found the knives!

From xkcd, of course. And from the old blog, of course of course.

Headline Muse, 8/12

If pollutants are sending you reeling
In the waters with which you are dealing
And you’re looking to shed
Heavy metals, like lead,
You might find bananas appealing

Headline: Slippery Banana Peels Could Be A Savior For Polluted Water

Ok, so it’s not really a headline, it’s from NPR’s health blog, “Shots”. But it’s cool. Eliza Barclay reports on a study which used minced banana peel as a natural matrix for concentrating heavy metals (copper and lead) for extraction from river water. Metals were 20 times more concentrated in the pulp, and after extraction the pulp could be re-used, up to 11 times without reduced effectiveness.