It’s Cthulhu Day today! There’s a list of activities you should do today, but I’ve got my own ideas, and prefer not to tell you what they are, instead leaving you with a sense of inchoate unfolding dread.
A recent court decision went against the Bush administration, and also reveals some of the contemptible influence peddling that went on in that gathering of scoundrels. The subject was birth control, in particular Plan B and other forms of emergency contraception, and as many of you know, the Bushite regime dragged its feet with ridiculous deliberation in allowing the FDA to approve these forms of contraception, and effectively blocked them from public access. By hook and crook, by cheating and deception, and by lying to the people, as this court decision affirms. This is why we fight the inclusion of religion in government: it poisons everything.
This decision is remarkable in its detailed accounting of the corruption that religious viewpoints can wreak upon public policy. That the right-to-life community was able to derail the availability of emergency contraception so easily is a testament to how bad things truly were in the Bush Administration. It should be unnecessary to say this, but I will: Science, health, and healing should be the focus of the FDA. The pattern of conduct the district court decision reveals is lawless, not only with respect to FDA procedures, but also with respect to the constitutional right to obtain contraception established by the Supreme Court Griswold v. Connecticut. This is not the state’s role. Indeed, the imposition by the Bush FDA of the religious beliefs of some upon others who do not believe is antithetical to our system. The core of the Establishment Clause is intended to prevent this sort of substitution of religious reasoning for sound public policy decisionmaking.
But that era is over, right? Don’t start cheering yet.
President Bush seems not to have been able to make public decisions without reference to right-wing religious beliefs. That inclination was probably reinforced by his practice of having a weekly conference call with conservative Christian clergy.
It is troubling to learn that President Obama appears to have instituted the same practice of scheduled weekly consultation with clergy. While Presidents from the start have looked to their faith to give them courage and solace, and many have had a religious counselor for one-on-one discussions, the weekly call with a committee of clergy is quite different. It would be very hard to believe that the discussion does not veer away from spiritual counseling, and into public policy. And what other political interest groups get this kind of access to the President? Reading Judge Korman’s well-reasoned and well-supported decision in Tummino, one is reminded that one cannot assume that religious advising is always, or even usually, politically-neutral. Moreover, it is never accountable to the people, by constitutional design. The President, however, is.
Also, don’t forget that these so-called “spiritual leaders” use the credibility conferred by these weekly meetings to reinforce their political authority and push a political agenda on their flocks. It’s a tool that is abused and gives political leverage to people who are often the enemies of secularism.
Does anyone know who Obama’s consulting clergy are? These are people to be watched; I’d also like to see that we urge Obama to also listen to dissenting voices. Where’s the weekly consultation with atheists, I might ask? Or with scientists and engineers? Why is he wasting time with those pious con artists, anyway?
Another blog entry tops the 1K mark: I’m closing the God, abortionist thread and opening this one up for any spillover. Clearly, we need faster, more powerful servers to keep up with the chatter going on here.
Again, I’ve lost track of whatever the subject was, so I guess you can talk about anything.
The history of venoms is a wonderful example of an evolutionary process. We’re all familiar with the idea of venomous snakes, but the cool thing is that when we examine exactly what it is they’re injecting into their prey, it’s a collection of proteins that show a nested hierarchy of descent. Ancient reptiles had a small and nasty set of poisons they would use, and to improve their efficacy, more and more have been added to the cocktail; so some lizards produce venomous proteins, while the really dangerous members of the Serpentes produce those same proteins, plus a large array of others.
So something like CRISP (Cystein RIch Secretory Protein) is common to all, but only the most refined predators add PLA2 (Phosopholipase A2) to the mix.
Now lethally poisonous snakes are nice and cute and all, but we all know where the interesting action really is: cephalopods. Let’s leave the vertebrates altogether and look at a venomous protostome clade to see what they do.
Brian Fry, who did all that excellent work characterizing and cataloging the
pharmacy of venoms secreted by poisonous snakes, has also turned his hand to the cephalopods. He examined the products of the venom glands of octopus, squid, and cuttlefish, and found a range of proteins, some unique, and others familiar: CAP (a CRISP protein), chitinase, peptidase S1, PLA2 and others. There are a couple of interesting lessons in that list.
First, evolution doesn’t just invent something brand new on the spot to fill a function — what we find instead is that existing proteins are repurposed to do a job. This is how evolution generally operates, taking what already exists and tinkering and reshaping it to better fulfill a useful function. Phospholipase A2, for instance, is a perfectly harmless and extremely useful non-venomous protein in many organisms — we non-toxic humans also make it. We use it as a regulatory signal to control the inflammation response to infection and injury — in moderation, it’s a good thing. What venomous animals can do, though, is inject us with an overdose of this regulator to send our local repair and recovery systems berserk, producing swelling that can incapacitate a tissue. Similarly, a peptidase is a useful enzyme for breaking down proteins in the digestive system…but a poisonous snake or cephalopod biting your hand can squirt it into the tissues, and now it’s being used to digest your muscles and connective tissue. Some effective venoms are simply common proteins used inappropriately (from the perspective of the target).
Another interesting observation is that cephalopods and vertebrates have independently converged in using some of the same venoms. In part, this is a consequence of historical availability — all animals have phospholipases,, since they are important general signalling molecules, so it’s part of the collection of widgets in the metazoan toolbox from which evolution can draw. It’s also part of an inflammation pathway that can be exploited by predators, in the same way that we have shared proteins used in the operation of the nervous system that can be targeted by neurotoxins. So there is independent convergence on a specific use of these proteins as toxins, but one of the things that facilitates the convergence is a shared ancestry.
In fact, some very diverse groups seem to consistently settle on the same likely suspects in their venoms.
But finally, there must also be physical and chemical proteins of these particular proteins that must also predispose them to use as toxins. After all, animals aren’t coopting just any protein for venoms — they aren’t injecting large quantities of tubulin or heat shock proteins into their prey. There must be something about each of the standard suspects in venoms that make them particularly dangerous. What the comparative evolutionary approach allows us to do is identify the common molecular properties that make for a good venom. As Fry explains it,
Typically the proteins chosen are from
widely dispersed multigene secretory protein families with
extensive cysteine cross-linking. These proteins are collectively much more numerous than globular enzymes,
transmembrane proteins, or intracellular protein. Although
the relative abundance of these protein types in animal
venoms may reflect stochastic recruitment processes, there
has not been a single reported case of a signal peptide
added onto a transmembrane or intracellular protein or a
hybrid protein expressed in a venom gland. A strong bias is
also evident for all of the protein-scaffold types, whether
from peptides or enzymes. Although the protein scaffolds
present in venoms represent functionally and structurally
versatile kinds, they share an underlying biochemistry that
would produce toxic effects when delivered as an “overdose”. Toxic effects include taking
advantage of a universally present substrate to cause
physical damage or causing changes in physiological
chemistry though agonistic or antagonistic targeting. This allows the new venom gland protein to have an
immediate effect based on overexpression of the original
bioactivity. Furthermore, the features of widely dispersed
body proteins, particularly the presence of a molecular
scaffold amenable to functional diversification, are features
that make a protein suitable for accelerated gene duplication and diversification in the venom gland.
To simplify, killing something with a secreted poison typically involves reusing an extant protein, but not just any protein — only a subset of the proteins in an animal’s proteome has just the right properties to make for a good venom. Therefore, we see the same small set of proteins get independently coopted into the venom glands of various creatures.
Fry BG, Roelants K, Norman JA (2009) Tentacles of venom: toxic protein convergence in the Kingdom Animalia. J Mol Evol Mar 18. [Epub ahead of print].
A retraction: I’ve talked with Lanny Boswell, and he is most definitely NOT a creationist. I’ve edited the post below.
Candidates are busy running for election to the Lincoln school board in Nebraska right now, and guess what’s been found? Creationists! Running for election! A newspaper story neatly summarizes the positions of many of the candidates, and here is a set you Nebraskans should not vote for.
Kevin Keller “wished creationism was taught in place of evolution, but should at least be taught alongside evolution”…although now that he has been exposed, he is frantically backtracking.
“Kirby Young, a candidate for the District 1 seat, and Andrew Ringsmuth, a candidate for the District 7 seat, said creationism should be taught as a theory alongside evolution.”
“Gregory Wiltshire, a candidate for the District 1 seat, said he doesn’t believe creationism should be taught in science classes, but schools should give students the chance to explore their interest in creationism.”
“Norman Dority, seeking the District 5 seat, said schools should present theories of creationism and evolution but should not dictate how they are taught.”
“Andrew Ringsmuth: candidate for District 7 seat: Ringsmuth said, at the high school level, evolution should be taught as a theory that many, but not all, scientists support. He said teachers should be allowed to give students a chance to explore creationism, intelligent design and evolution and decide for themselves which theory they support.”
Keller is a particularly interesting case: he was endorsed by the Lincoln Education Association’s PAC. They’re trying to rationalize it away now, but I think they should send a clearer message and remove their endorsement. I’m sorry, but people as ignorant as the ones listed above have no place in managing a school system.
All is not lost — there are a few candidates with sensible positions. These are the ones you should vote for, Nebraska.
“Kathy Danek: candidate for re-election to her District 1 seat: She doesn’t support incorporating creationism, which she considers a religious belief, in science curriculum. She said she could see creationism being used as a topic in a student debate class or activity.”
“Barb Baier: candidate for District 3 seat: Baier said creationism should not be taught in science classes. She said she considers it a philosophy, not a form of science, but could see it being taught in a philosophy or literature course.”
“Don Mayhew: candidate for re-election to his district 7 seat: Mayhew said neither creationism nor intelligent design is based on the scientific method and that he doesn’t support teaching either concept in science classes.”
“Lanny Boswell, a candidate for the District 5 seat, said creationism shouldn’t be taught in science classes, but those classes should teach students to be critical thinkers and consider divergent viewpoints.”
Three Four people gave good answers, and four seats are open. It sounds like at least one useless dingleberry is going to get a voice in Nebraska education.
Hey, in addition to voting for pro-science candidates, maybe a few more of you scientifically minded Nebraskans need to start running for these positions. The kooks always seem anxious to rise up and poison education, but the sensible people always assume it’s going to be fine and that they don’t need to exert themselves.
The Science of Watchmen thread has bloated up abominably, and the topics have wandered far afield. It is now closed, but you can talk about whatever right here, instead.
I may have to think about retiring in 15 years or so, and I may just have to move to New Zealand. The trends are all going in the right direction.
There has been a sharp rise in the number of New Zealanders with no religious affiliation, new research shows.
In a study by the University, 40 per cent of respondents say they have no religious affiliation compared to 29 per cent 17 years ago.
Just over a third of New Zealanders describe themselves as religious.
Sounds so lovely. Of course, it’s not perfect yet:
Fifty-three per cent say they believe in God (although half of those say they have doubts), 20 per cent believe in some form of higher power and about third say they don’t believe or don’t know.
However, 60 per cent say they would prefer children to have religious education in state primary schools with strongest support for teaching about all faiths.
Get to it, Kiwis — you’ve got about a decade to improve those numbers. I’m sure you can do it.
I just have to say that if you’re worshipping a scrap of skin from an 800-year-old corpse, there is something wrong with you. Something sick, perverse, and warped.
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued a stern warning (definitely including fingerwagging, with possibility of ruler rapping) against the heathen practice of Reiki.
To use Reiki is to operate “in the realm of superstition, the no-man’s-land that is neither faith nor science,” the bishops warned, urging Catholic healthcare institutions, retreats and chaplains to ditch the therapy, which originated in Japan in the 1800s.
No, stop! I’m twitching so badly, I think I’ve damaged something.
Maybe I need some healing at Lourdes…
Now this is effective birth control.
Abstinence suddenly looks much more appealing.
