Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Super Bugs and Weeds

A new scientific study by the National Research Council says that for many farmers the use of genetically modified crops had helped to cut the use of pesticides and herbicides, reduced the need for tilling which leads to soil erosion, and improved yields. The two biggest uses for genetic modification are "Roundup Ready" crops which are resistant to Roundup and its chemical knock-offs which allow farmers to spray the weed killer around the crops without risk of damage to the crops, and "BT" seeds which contain bacterial genes allowing the plants to produce an insecticide.

What is interesting to me, though, is that Roundup ready seeds have been in use for only ten years and already the weeds are adapting:
Overuse of this seductively simple approach to weed control is starting to backfire. Use of Roundup, or its generic equivalent, glyphosate, has skyrocketed to the point that weeds are rapidly becoming resistant to the chemical. That is rendering the technology less useful, requiring farmers to start using additional herbicides, some of them more toxic than glyphosate.
You can bet Monsanto, maker of Roundup, and its competitors are working on new formulations. But it sounds just like the stories of over-use of antibiotics and how rapidly bacteria have morphed into antibiotic-resistant super bugs.

Weeds and bacteria and probably real flying bugs are just as "smart" as we are in their own way. They want to survive and multiply too and it is pretty amazing how quickly they are able to adapt and thrive as tougher-to-kill species. Somehow I doubt that this is a battle that we will win in the end. Some super bug will come back to bite us big time eventually.

While I am not opposed in principle to the use of genetically engineered seeds it would be far better if we could find a way to farm and live without going there. The more we grow our own food and the more we support local and organic farming the lighter our environmental footprint. I don't know if we need genetically modified crops to feed the world. I know that I don't need them and neither do you. We have a choice about what we grow and eat.

Friday, February 27, 2009

Organ Donation Myths

A friend and member of Liberalchurch found out quite recently that he must go to organ transplant training at the Mayo Clinic. He has disease that is causing his kidneys to fail and at some point, he will need to begin dialysis and get onto the transplant list. I have another friend since preschool days who is a successful kidney transplant recipient. The donor of his new kidney was someone he knew and was found during a local organ donation drive. As you may or may not know, some organs can be donated while you are still living, while others are "harvested" after you are dead. Either way, donating an organ sustains the life of another.

I'm looking into what is required to accomplish an organ donation drive through publicity efforts by LiberalChurch. While doing this research, I came upon this informative article from The Mayo Clinic which busts 10 Common Myths of making an organ donation. In the case of making a kidney donation, please pay particular attention to Myth #8!

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Friday, February 06, 2009

The Science of Kissing

Via Scienceblogs:
Given up to ten percent of humanity doesn't even touch lips, should we accept it's actually a cultural phenomenon? I'm not convinced. You see, kissing undoubtedly allows us to find out all sorts of information about our partner. We're exchanging pheromones. In fact, when we're engaged, our bodies release a cocktail of chemicals related to social bonding, stress level, motivation, and sexual stimulation. We become, in effect, 'under the influence.' It's powerful. The right kiss boosts feelings of euphoria stimulating pleasure centers in the brain leading me to suspect there's something to kissing that goes beyond social mores. While it may have evolved from primates feeding their babies mouth-to-mouth (I know, how terribly unromantic!), other scientists suggest it's crucial to the evolutionary process of mate selection.
I just thought the xray picture was cool.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

The Face of Jesus

I received an email inquiry asking me what Jesus looked like. I remembered that several years ago a magazine had done an article about this and posted a picture. I couldn't remember off-hand what magazine it was, but a Google search took me to Popular Mechanics, of all places, and there it was. The article is here.

Where is the blond hair and blue eyes?

Saturday, November 22, 2008

How do Cells Crawl?

From Scienceblogs:
There are so many great stories waiting to be discovered when you approach biology from the view point of the cell. Remember a cell is the smallest unit of life. You cannot divide it further and obtain an entity capable of reproduction and self-renewal. The cell is when chemistry meets biology. Look at every major research institution and there are loads of people working on problems involving cells, in fact there are probably more people studying cells then there are people studying physics and chemistry combined. And the problems addressed by cell biology are the very essence of basic research.

How do cells talk to each other? How do they divide, how do they KNOW when to divide? How do cells commit suicide? How do cells monitor their size, levels of energy, amount of metabolites? What do all of these processes have to do with cancer?

Perhaps one of the most fascinating stories that would be excellent fodder for an article aimed at the lay reader would be how do cells crawl. There is something primal about motion, this process is central to life and it is incredible that a bag of molecules can manage to crawl around towards and away from cues found in the environment that surrounds them. Think of it, a cell is nothing but a bag, densely packed with all sorts of bizarre machines and filaments that act together in concert to propel a cell forward. The writer countered that such an article would describe how protein A binds to protein B that then adds a phosphate to protein C ... and reading the primary literature you would think hat that is all there is. But I have to say that this type of analysis is comparable to describing how a car operates by analyzing every nut and bolt. Biology after all is the study of minutia, and there are so many details that the only way to study cell biological processes is to dissect it down. Very rarely do you have one paper describing a novel finding in cell biology that encapsulates the whole process. You need to immerse yourself in the literature, talk to people doing the work, and all of a sudden a larger picture develops. At that point you realize that there is a better way of describing a motile cell, just like there is a better way of describing how a car works by using broader concepts.

It involves broader concepts such as the flow of actin filaments, the power of myosin motors, and the cellular clutch which involves these huge structures called focal adhesions that mediate interactions between the actin and the solids that are found on the exterior of the cell. To really describe the interior of a cell, we need to temporarily ditch the car metaphor and switch to something much more dynamic the activity inside of a motile cell is comparable to a ocean tide of actin meshwork. Actin filaments are assembled right underneath the leading edge of the motile membrane and are swept back to the rear of the cell by myosin motors. This tidal wave pushes everything including the nucleus towards the back of the cell. The actin meshork then collapses and is contracted together into long filaments called stress fibers. To generate traction the actin is hooked upto these large focal adhesions that line the sides of the membrane and help the cell cling to solids from the outside. The attachment transforms the rearward motion of actin into a forward push on the leading edge. Yes I've just described a clutch - and with that w move back to the car analogy.

At this point you can end the piece. But there is much more. It turns out that this actin flow and the molecular machine that generates it can be found in almost any cell that is responding to some extracellular stimulus The core components of this biological process are used by almost every single eukaryotic cell that wants to change its shape, whether it be a crawling amoeba, a migrating neuron, a budding yeast or even a plasmodium invading a red blood cell. In fact these components accomplish a much more basic task than allowing for cell to move or simply to change shape, this ancient machinery allows cells to reorganize their inner structure in response to a cue coming from one discrete point on its periphery. This process is called cell polarization.
I didn't know that cells crawl. It is really humbling - and scary sometimes - to realize how little I know.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Our Vast Universe

For eight years astronomer Dan Long and his colleagues have been mapping the universe in the most comprehensive effort of its kind to date. The Sloan survey, as it is called, has brought order to the universe in terms of understanding what is out there and where it is. The numbers boggle the mind:
In its five terabytes of data are 217 million individual objects, including 800,000 galaxies (which themselves contain billions of stars and planets) and 100,000 quasars, objects once so rare and strange that they weren't detected until 1962.
What have they learned about the universe that they didn't already know? Apparently not much:

Despite all the Sloan discoveries, none has challenged the prevailing theories about how the universe got started and how it operates today, he said. Could it be that humankind actually understands the structure of the universe? Or could all the labor and thought behind Sloan still be too primitive to pierce the real mysteries of the cosmos?

The questions haunt him. "We discovered lots of things, but I don't think we found much that we didn't expect," he said. "I'm not sure what that says."

Somehow I doubt that we understand very much yet.

(Photo: X-ray (left) and Optical (right) Images of Veiled Black Hole. The left hand panel shows the Chandra X-ray Observatory image of a powerful point-like source of X rays. The Hubble Space Telescope image (right panel) shows the spiral galaxy with which the X-ray source is associated. The X-ray source is located at the center of the galaxy, and has a deficit of low energy X rays, consistent with absorption by a thick cloud of gas. The combination of powerful X-ray emission, absorption of low energy X-rays, and the relatively normal optical appearance of the galaxy suggests that the source is a rare type of black hole called a Type 2 quasar.)

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

100 Years From Now

Yesterday I speculated about what 100 years of advances in evolutionary science would bring us. Today I see this book review of Physics of the Impossible by Michio Kaku:

In this highly readable and exciting work, Kaku builds a case for achieving Arthur C. Clarke’s 3rd law: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Kaku shows how the terrain of the impossible, typically found only in science-fiction, is being systematically conquered by science. Force-fields, teleportation, robots, time-travel, and starships are dealt with seriously and on a time continuum: how long until we achieve these. By classifying these various “fantastical” ideas into three different ranges of time, Kaku argues for when we’ll see them.

Class 1 Impossibilities: technology that is not possible today but within the realm of physics. These are possible within a century or two. In this class, Kaku lists force-fields, invisibility, phasers and death-stars, teleportation, telepathy, psychokinesis, robots, ETs and UFOs, starships, antimatter and anti-universes.

Class 2 Impossibilities: Technology that lies on the cusp of our knowledge of physics. These are possible perhaps within millennia or millions of years. In this class, we find faster than light travel, time-travel, and parallel universes.

Class 3 Impossibilities: Technology that violates known physical laws. Here we find perpetual-motion machines and precognition. That’s it, only two.

Are you thinking what I am thinking?

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

The End of Evolution?

Albert Mohler wonders if we aren't at the "end of evolution." Mohler is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is a widely quoted voice within the Christian right. In a recent post he takes off on a tangent ride over a news report about the British geneticist Steven Jones who made international headlines by wondering out loud if human evolution hasn't been stalled. You can read more about Jones and his views over at Scienceblogs here.

Mohler sandwiches this report between a commentary on evolution including these two paragraphs:
The evolutionist is locked into an intellectual box from which there is no rescue. Evolutionary theory is naturalistic by necessity -- everything must be explained in purely naturalistic terms. Only nature can explain nature, and there is no other source of meaning or truth. Thus, in the end the theory of evolution -- and the theory of evolution alone -- must explain everything about humanity.

Evolutionary theory cannot possibly explain the totality of human experience, much less the reality of human origins. Evolutionists -- if consistent -- believe that every human experience, every emotion, every physical attribute, every hope, and every fear is simply a feature developed by means of natural selection.
I think it is worth pointing out first that the science of evolution is not unique among the sciences in looking to nature, and nature alone, to explain nature. Every science does this. In fact this is the whole point - to understand and explain the workings of nature by studying nature. As opposed to looking to the heavens or scriptures or holy men or tea leaves for the answers. I suspect Mohler takes full advantage of the benefits of this practice in his daily life: he checks the weather forecast before going out or traveling, he takes his kids to the doctor if they are sick, he drives a car and flies in a plane. The benefits brought to us by scientists studying nature are many.

Most Christians are long past the point of arguing about whether they ought to be taking their kids to the doctor when they are ill - as opposed to just praying for their healing. But many are still fighting a rear-guard action when it comes to the sciences that seem to challenge the biblical teachings regarding the beginnings of life on earth and humanity's place on the earth. Evolution is one of those lightning-rod sciences. Some see the story of human evolution on the planet over several hundred thousand years as a threat to their literal reading of human beginnings according to the Bible. Others worry that evolution with its "selfish genes" leaves no room for spirituality or beauty or meaning in life.

Mohler likely takes issue with evolution on both those grounds, but he accuses it in this piece of being unable to fully explain the "totality of human experience." I have a couple of thoughts about this.

One is that Christian reflection on the human experience has been going on for roughly 2000 years. That reflection, ancient as it is, was built on the scaffolding of earlier work by Jewish and pagan writers whose work goes back several millennium before the time of Jesus. It is fair to say Christianity has had a huge head start over evolutionary science in thinking about and explaining the workings and meaning of the human experience.

It is also fair to say that some of that ancient scaffolding is looking pretty weak today. At least since 1608 when Galileo trained his telescope on the night sky and saw that the night lights were not fixed to the firmament nor heavenly spirits but stars like our sun and planets like our earth, the biblical scaffolding that explained the workings of our universe has been crumbling. And the church has been resisting or rethinking every doctrine and article of faith built on that scaffolding ever since. Virtually every new discovery in science weakens or breaks some piece of the ancient scaffolding and forces a decision. Do we resist or re-think?

Among the sciences, evolutionary theory is only in its infancy. Darwin published his writings in the mid-1800's. Most early work in evolutionary theory was based on the kind of careful observations that Darwin did with his finches, and the piecing together of the fossil record via archeological discoveries. But it is only in recent decades that advances in a whole range of fields from genetics to brain science to radio-carbon dating and earth sciences has made possible significant strides in closing the "missing links" in evolutionary theory. Our knowledge of evolution is expanding exponentially. Imagine what another 100 years of scientific research and reflection is going to bring us. Imagine what evolutionary theory is going to look like in 2000 years. Does anyone seriously believe that evolutionary theory won't be able to explain "human experience, every emotion, every physical attribute, every hope, and every fear" as a product of evolution?

I think it is naive in the extreme to think that science is going to quit doing what science does best: understand and explain the world in terms of nature. I think it is also naive to believe that "evolutionists" won't eventually succeed in giving us an incredibly rich and complete picture of the evolutionary makeup of our universe including us. There will be no "need" to look outside of nature to understand how we got here and why we do the things we do.

Evolutionary theory and its related disciplines will almost certainly be able to explain why it is that our "selfish genes" evolved in such a way that we care about beauty and spirituality and each other. But it won't - apart from some kind of genetic engineering - make us be able to care about beauty and spirituality and each other.

This is where our scriptures with their ancient reflections on meaning and morality play their part. They are of no use to us as scientific manuals. But they do have something to say about beauty and spirituality and morality. They are hardly perfect in this area. They got some things wrong here too. Or it would be better to say that you can see within them an ongoing reflection around these issues and an evolution in thinking about them. For Christians this evolution is captured succinctly in Jesus' sayings "You have heard that it was said, but I say to you..."

As Christians we should welcome the findings of evolution and earth sciences and cosmology. There can be absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to know everything about us that can be known. Learning sits at the very center of deep spirituality. We once learned it "this way" (you have heard that it was said), but now we know differently (but I say to you). This is not to say that there aren't uses and misuses of scientific knowledge that shouldn't be challenged.

I think we should also recognize the likely reality that more and more people are going to be looking for a spirituality - a Christianity - that is completely at home in the natural world. Supernatural, other-worldly understandings of God and Jesus aren't going to cut it. Christians like Mohler will be fighting a rear-guard action for a long time. Christians and Muslims in many parts of the world are still living very much within a pre-scientific frame of mind. It is going to take time.

But going forward I believe progressive Christian communities and fellow-travelers within other faith traditions need to concentrate our efforts on what it means to have and create abundant life here on this planet. It begins with alleviating suffering and taking much better care of the planet. It includes creating more just and peaceful families and communities and countries. It also involves a flourishing of the kind of life that evolution has made it possible for us to see as valuable: music, arts, dance, poetry, etc.

Meaning and beauty and the moral life can all be found here in all their fullness. This is not a threatening piece of knowledge. It is a challenging piece of knowledge for us to make happen.

Sunday, July 06, 2008

Prozac Works, But We Are Just Now Beginning to Learn How

There is a fascinating article in yesterday's Boston Globe about depression and what causes it. Recent thinking linked depression to a chemical imbalance, and drugs like Prozac revolutionized the treatment of depression by correcting the chemical imbalance. Or so the thinking went. But now...:

In recent years, scientists have developed a novel theory of what falters in the depressed brain. Instead of seeing the disease as the result of a chemical imbalance, these researchers argue that the brain's cells are shrinking and dying. This theory has gained momentum in the past few months, with the publication of several high profile scientific papers. The effectiveness of Prozac, these scientists say, has little to do with the amount of serotonin in the brain. Rather, the drug works because it helps heal our neurons, allowing them to grow and thrive again.

In this sense, Prozac is simply a bottled version of other activities that have a similar effect, such as physical exercise. They aren't happy pills, but healing pills.

These discoveries are causing scientists to fundamentally reimagine depression. While the mental illness is often defined in terms of its emotional symptoms - this led a generation of researchers to search for the chemicals, like serotonin, that might trigger such distorted moods - researchers are now focusing on more systematic changes in the depressed brain.

"The best way to think about depression is as a mild neurodegenerative disorder," says Ronald Duman, a professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at Yale. "Your brain cells atrophy, just like in other diseases [such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's]. The only difference with depression is that it's reversible. The brain can recover."

What is not clear to me from reading this article is what it is that causes the brain cells to atrophy in depressed people. Alzheimer's and Parkinson's are degenerative diseases that generally take years to develop. Depression often shows up in young people. Why does this happen?

Still, this is a remarkable find. This is one of area of medicine where we have come to far in just a few decades. It wasn't that long ago when it was common for people who battle depression to accept their "melancholy" temperament as part of who they are, and for others to dismiss depression as laziness or the mark of someone who is a "problem." It just doesn't have to be this way anymore. If ever there was a miracle drug it is Prozac. I have seen it, and its medical siblings, change the lives of many people for the better. It works; it helps. And yet there is so much more to learn about how it works and how the brain works. What we learn in the years ahead can only bode well for those struggling with this life-sapping illness.

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Mind-blowing Numbers of Species

Greg Laden reports on a talk by Scott Lanyon, director of the Bell Museum of Natural History, at the Evolution 2008 conference at the University of Minnesota. Lanyon was giving an update on what has changed in evolutionary biology in the recent years. One area of change is our knowledge of how many species exist on the planet:

With respect to 'speciation' ... the diversification of forms, the diversity of life, the disparity produced by evolutionary process ... again, the same theme. Scott pointed out that we know of approximately 1.7 million species, but estimates suggest there may exist somewhere between 10 and 100 million species. Go back twenty years or so and you would have seen field biologists starting to confront this reality, especially in certain habitats, almost with a sense of disbelief. I remember hearing from a colleague just back from visiting an Amazonian research site ... a fogging sample was taken from a large area of rainforest canopy in a previously uninvestigated area to see what percentage of the insect species (which would fall out of the canopy because of the "fog" ....) would be new species. Five or ten percent would be really cool.

So they fogged the canopy, about a thousand species were represented in what came out of the canopy, and the researchers did not recognize any of them. Probably a few had been described before, but if so, not many. Totally blew their minds. And I'm not exaggerating by more than one order of magnitude (hey, it was a long time ago).

Pretty amazing.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete?

The John Templeton Foundation is well-known for its efforts to encourage and fund a civil dialogue between religion and science. For these efforts it is often panned by hard-core atheists who think this dialogue is keeping us from seeing the obvious "truth" about the triumph of science and reason and the vacuity of all religious claims. See, for example Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion.

To their credit the folks at the Templeton Foundation are not afraid to give the religious haters a voice. They have a new series available online and in print entitled Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete? The series is edited by Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic Magazine. It includes responses from fellow skeptics Stephen Pinker and Christopher Hitchens as well as church leaders like Keith Ward, an ordained priest in the Church of England.

I haven't read all the responses yet. I took a quick look at Hitchens' piece and found him once again being dogmatic about holding onto a narrow definition of belief that he can then easily dismiss:
Religion, remember, is theism not deism. Faith cannot rest itself on the argument that there might or might not be a prime mover. Faith must believe in answered prayers, divinely ordained morality, heavenly warrant for circumcision, the occurrence of miracles or what you will.
Must it now? Hitchens just can't have religious thought that has evolved along with scientific thought. That wouldn't sell very many books.

One interesting response came from Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy, the chairman of the department of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, Pakistan, and author of Islam and Science: Religious Orthodoxy and the Battle for Rationality. He turns the "god of the gaps" argument on its head. It is usually argued that as scientific knowledge has increased there is less and less room for God to be used as an answer for what we don't understand. He suggests that while one understanding of God might be dying, the door is being opened to another:
Let's face it: the day of the Sky God is long gone. In the Age of Science, religion has been downsized, and the medieval God of classical religions has lost repute and territory. Today people pay lip service to trusting that God but they still swallow antibiotics when sick. Muslim-run airlines start a plane journey with prayers but ask passengers to buckle-up anyway, and most suspect that people who appear to rise miraculously from the dead were probably not quite dead to begin with. These days if you hear a voice telling you to sacrifice your only son, you would probably report it to the authorities instead of taking the poor lad up a mountain. The old trust is disappearing.

Nevertheless, there remains the tantalizing prospect of a divine power somewhere "out there" who runs a mysterious, but scrupulously miracle-free, universe. In this universe, God may choose to act in ingenious ways that seem miraculous. Yet these "miracles" need not violate physical laws. Extraordinary, but legitimate, interventions in the physical world permit quantum tunneling through cosmic worm holes or certain symmetries to snap spontaneously. It would be perfectly fair for a science-savvy God to use nonlinear dynamics so that tiny fluctuations quickly build up to earthshaking results—the famous "butterfly effect" of deterministic chaos theory.

Nietzsche and the theothanatologists were plain wrong—God is neither dead nor about to die. Even as the divine habitat shrinks before the aggressive encroachment of science, the quantum foam of space-time creates spare universes aplenty, offering space both for a science-friendly God as well as for self-described "deeply religious non-believers" like Einstein. Many eminent practitioners of science have successfully persuaded themselves that there is no logical contradiction between faith and belief by finding a suitable God, or by clothing a traditional God appropriately. Unsure of why they happen to exist, humans are likely to scour the heavens forever in search of meaning.
The gap isn't shrinking; it's exploding exponentially. There is plenty of room for God. There is also plenty of room for discussion about what it means to be religious and at home in a world explained by science. Kudos to the Tempelton Foundation for facilitating the discussion.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Why are Some People Gay?

Conservative Star Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten had a blog post yesterday on the science of sexual orientation. It began like this:

Is sexual orientation biologically based? Most gay rights proponents will answer with an emphatic “yes,” and deny there is any legitimate argument to the contrary. Grounding sexual behavior in this way creates some natural advantages for the gay rights argument. If sexual orientation is as immutable as, say, skin color, then it fits more neatly into the framework of traditional anti-discrimination law.

But Gary Greenberg, writing in the left-leaning Mother Jones, is not so sure this conventional wisdom will hold up. Greenberg, a practicing psychotherapist and gay rights advocate, believes that proponents of the biological explanation for sexual orientation are ignoring complexities in our sexual make-up — complexities that may eventually undercut the current foundation of the gay rights movement.


She has several quotes from the Mother Jones article which seem to suggest that the genetic argument about sexual orientation isn't black and white. Particularly among women there is movement back and forth "across customary sexual orientation barriers."

Kersten wonders, then, if gay rights cannot be grounded in clear biological science, on what legs does it stand? She quotes Jon Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, who argues that sexual orientation is an identity issue akin to religious persuasion. Whether we are born with or raised into or choose a religious identity, that identity is protected under the law. Discrimination is not legal. Sexual identity ought to be thought of, and treated in, the same way. Kersten ends her article by asking the question: "Is there a solid foundation for gay rights in a right for people to “believe whatever they want”—something analogous to the right to religious belief?"

It is an interesting post coming from her. And it elicited a very good response from Andy Birkey, who writes for the Minnesota Monitor. He begins by noting that Kersten ignored what the Mother Jones article had to say about recent scientific findings of differences in brain anatomy and gene sequencing between gay and straight men. There are biological correlations that suggest, but don't yet prove, there is biology involved in sexual orientation.

But Birkey goes on:
If a lack of biological evidence undercuts the foundation of the gay rights movement, then that foundation has been undercut for quite some time. There have been no conclusive studies demonstrating a genetic cause for sexual orientation. Kersten says that gay activists respond with an emphatic "yes" to the question of a genetic cause. But that's not quite true. Most gay activists would answer the question, "Are gays born that way?" with a subjective "yes." For us, we feel that we were born gay.

None of us would answer a question about the biological determination of our sexual orientation with, "Of course! It's the genetic marker, Xq28, on the X chromosome, silly!" We don't know the biology of why we are gay or lesbian or bisexual or straight, but we know we are those things. We feel it, and we have felt it all our lives.

The lack of a genetic marker doesn't mean that our desires, relationships and communities are merely a "choice" to be changed by the Lord or by discredited therapists. It does not mean we don't believe that our sexual orientation is a fixed, innate characteristic. We have faith that we are living our lives as we were created to live them. It doesn't matter that we have no conclusive biological proof of the innateness of our gayness; we are on the side of righteousness...

Can we draw an analogy between sexual orientation and religious belief? There is a body of scientific evidence that suggests a biological factor, but mostly, gays and lesbians are asking their fellow Americans to take a leap of faith and trust us when we say we love who we love, that we have found the relationships that mean the most to us, and we have created the families that make sense for us. And, for almost all of us, that's not something we can change.
If, Birkey says, Katherine Kersten is making this kind of analogy, then he has found something on which they can agree. Personally I have my doubts that this is where she is taking this thought process.

I have known some women who have moved back and forth between being straight and lesbian; I have not known any men who have done the same. (I have known many men and women who tried to be straight, got married, had kids, pretended... until it didn't work.) I have wondered if there might be some difference between men and women on the biology of sexual orientation.

But I have known far more gays and lesbians who have personally anguished over their feelings and attractions and who, at moments in their lives because of church or family or school friends wished it were not so. Whatever the science eventually sorts out on the whys of sexual orientation (and I suspect it will be mostly genetic/biological), I celebrate the ability of these folks to come to terms with who God made them to be - gay and lesbian -and support their dreams and their right to be married, raise children, have legal protections, be ordained as clergy, and be recognized with the exact same level of emotion and commotion that those of us who are straight get when we fall in love and find a partner to share our life with.

Invisibility Cloak

Harry Potter has one. And soon, maybe, we can too. From the Washington Post:
...The nascent invisibility cloak now being tested, for example, is made of a material that bends light rays "backward," a weird phenomenon thought to be impossible just a few years ago. Known as transformation optics, the phenomenon compels some wavelengths of light to flow around an object like water around a stone. As a result, things behind the object become visible while the object itself disappears from view.

"Cloaking is just the tip of the iceberg," said Vladimir Shalaev, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Purdue University and an expert in the fledgling field. With transformation optics you can do many other tricks," perhaps including making things appear to be located where they are not and focusing massive amounts of energy on microscopic spots.

Other researchers are testing material that absorbs "99.955 percent of the light that hits it," making it by far the darkest material known. Very cool.

Friday, February 08, 2008

The "Benefits" of Ethanol

A Star Tribune article this morning casts doubts on the environmental benefits of ethanol:

Renewable fuels such as ethanol have long been hailed as a cleaner-burning alternative to fossil fuels and a potent way to reduce the climate-changing gases pumped out of car tailpipes.

The 2007 Energy Act signed by President Bush last December doubles the nation's use of corn-based ethanol. Ethanol production in Minnesota, a pioneer of the technology, is expected to double during the next three years.

But research by Minnesota scientists is challenging the underpinnings of the biofuel rush. Ethanol and similar products may do more harm than good because of the changes they bring to the landscape, some scientists say.

The exploding demand for ethanol, soy diesel and other products is causing farmers to clear forests, grasslands and peat lands on a massive scale, unleashing far more carbon dioxide than is saved by the lower emissions of the biofuels, the study said.

"If we keep moving to get large amounts of energy by growing it on newly cleared land, which is what's happening around the world, we're going to be releasing much more greenhouse gas than the benefits we get from those biofuels," said David Tilman, ecology professor at the University of Minnesota and one of the study's authors.

The study, published Thursday in the online version of the journal Science, was funded by the National Science Foundation and the University of Minnesota. Another study published Thursday in Science, with estimates from economists at Iowa State University, concluded that corn-based ethanol could double greenhouse gas emissions, rather than reducing them, during the next 30 years because of the dramatic changes in land use.

From another more in-depth article:

The land-use issue makes the balance sheet far more problematic: The clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land, said Joseph Fargione, the lead author of the other study and a scientist at the Nature Conservancy. "So for the next 93 years, you're making climate change worse, just at the time when we need to be bringing down carbon emissions."

I am sure that the ethanol industry is a godsend to the many farmers who are growing corn and actually making some money. And I am sure a similar scenario is playing out in other countries where palm and soy bean plants are replacing grasses and forests. But it is difficult to justify from any other environmental or economic perspective.

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

From BC to BZ

That's before Zeus:
Before Zeus hurled his first thunderbolt from Olympus, the pre-Greek people occupying the land presumably paid homage and offered sacrifices to their own gods and goddesses, whose nature and identities are unknown to scholars today.

But archaeologists say they have now found the ashes, bones and other evidence of animal sacrifices to some pre-Zeus deity on the summit of Mount Lykaion, in the region of Greece known as Arcadia. The remains were uncovered last summer at an altar later devoted to Zeus.

Fragments of a coarse, undecorated pottery in the debris indicated that the sacrifices might have been made as early as 3000 B.C., the archaeologists concluded. That was about 900 years before Greek-speaking people arrived, probably from the north in the Balkans, and brought their religion with them.

The excavators were astonished. They were digging in a sanctuary to Zeus, in Greek mythology the father of gods and goddesses. From texts in Linear B, an ancient form of Greek writing, Zeus is attested as a pre-eminent god as early as 1400 B.C. By some accounts, the birthplace of Zeus was on the heights of Lykaion.

After reviewing the findings of pottery experts, geologists and other archaeologists, David Gilman Romano of the University of Pennsylvania concluded that material at the Lykaion altar “suggests that the tradition of devotion to some divinity on that spot is very ancient” and “very likely predates the introduction of Zeus in the Greek world.”

As Dr. Romano remarked, quoting a quip by a friend, “We went from B.C. to B.Z., before Zeus."

Just as Jewish holy sites became Christian holy sites became Muslim holy sites, apparently. And what is with the BC (Before Christ) stuff? It's BCE (Before the Common Era) now.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Red Wine and Cancer Prevention

Red wine is now my "alcholoic beverage of choice"--for health reasons. By now, most of us have read or heard that red wine has high value as a wellness beverage if imbibed in reasonable quantities on a regular basis. But what I have been pondering is whether one variety of red wine has a higher amount of the antioxident and anti-inflammatory properties (a phytoestrogen called resveratrol) than other varieties. In other words when I drink a toast to health with my friends, should we be sipping merlot, cabernet, or pinot noir?

The Prevent Cancer Foundation's spring edition of Cancer Prevention Works reports the answer to my question! A Cornell University study found that pinot noir has more potent levels of resveratrol than cabernet or merlot.

Another study conducted by researchers at the U of Alabama Birmingham and recently published in the journal of Carcinogenesis, has also found that resveratrol is quite powerful particularly in the prevention of the most aggressive type of prostate cancer.

Sante' mon ami!

Isn't Corn Just another Grass?

Well, of course it is. And aren't the stomachs of cattle evolved to eat grass? Yes they are. So what is wrong with feeding corn to cattle? Nothing, according to an anonymous responder to this post. But here is what Michael Pollan, author of An Omnivore's Dilemma, had to say about corn-fed cattle in an interview a few years ago with Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air:

GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Michael Pollan. He's the author of the book "The Botany of Desire: A Plants-Eye View of the World." But his new piece in this past Sunday's New York Times isn't about plants; it's about livestock and how the industrial steak is made in the United States.

Now you say that the livestock, after about six months, aren't fed grass. They're not fed hay. They're fed corn. Why are they fed corn instead of grass?

Mr. POLLAN: Basically because corn is the cheapest and most portable thing you can feed a cow. You know, we grow vast quantities of corn in this country, about 10 billion bushels a year. And it's very cheap because it's subsidized by the government. It costs the feedlot about $2.25 a bushel, which is over 50 pounds of corn, to buy it. And it would cost the farmer more than that to grow it, if not for subsidies. So you have this feed that is very, very cheap. It's the cheapest source of calories you can give the animal. And also it's very portable compared to hay. If you were feeding an equivalent amount of hay, the sheer bulk of it would overwhelm you.

So corn, you know at this feedlot, at the mill, I saw every single hour another tractor-trailer would pull up and disgorge 25 more tons of corn. You know, without corn, without this--and soybeans, too, to a lesser extent--this incredibly compact and portable feed, you could never have this urbanization of livestock. It is what allows you to gather together up to 100,000 cattle or millions of chickens, and now fish and pigs, in these small animal cities and feed them efficiently. You could not do it on their natural food.

GROSS: What fattens a steer quicker, corn or grass?

Mr. POLLAN: Corn by far. It's simply a richer food. It has more food energy in it. It's full of starch. And that is the other reason we give them corn. You know, it's all about speed. I asked the ranchers that I was working with, the Blairs, and they said, well, they were four generations in the cattle business, and their grandfather would bring beef cows to slaughter at four or five years, and then their fathers at two to three years. And they're doing it at 14 to 16 months. And what allows you to go from 80 pounds calf to 1,250 pounds steer is vast quantities of corn and antibiotics and growth hormones. So the combination of the corn and the pharmaceuticals allows you to speed up this process. Also, to some extent, the genetics. They've improved the genetics. We're gradually creating an animal that can digest corn efficiently.

GROSS: OK. Before we get to the pharmaceuticals, let's talk a little bit about corn some more. How does the corn affect the cow's digestive system, a digestive system that was really made for grass?

Mr. POLLAN: Yeah. You know, this was a bit of a revelation to me because this phrase corn-fed beef has been around so long that we just take it for granted that this is some kind of old-fashioned virtue. But it's neither that old or that virtuous, as it turns out. These animals, in nature or, you know, when grazing, encounter very, very little grain. I mean, grain is essentially the seed of grasses. So when the bluestem that they're eating and the Western wheat grass they're eating flowers and puts on seed, they get a little bit of grain, but very, very little. And now suddenly they're given this incredibly rich diet. As one of the feedlot managers put it to me, it's like feeding them Snickers bars all day long. It's a very rich food, although they don't appear to like it quite as much as Snickers bars. But it wreaks havoc on a digestive system that has evolved to do something quite miraculous, which is digest grass.

You know, that, for me, is the underlying insanity of this system. We have this animal, a ruminant--there's a class of animals; it includes cows, but also sheep and deer and several others--that has this unique ability to digest grass. We can't do it. If you consume grass you will not be able to digest it. So they can take this sort of substandard land that can only grow grass because it's too dry or too hilly or the soil is too thin, and because they have this digestive organ, this rumen, which is essentially a 45-gallon fermentation tank in which a resident population of bacteria goes to work on the grass and turns it into protein, they can make good use of this incredibly common solar-generated food source. So we've taken the solar system--you know, 'cause the grass is fed on sunlight and water. It's this miracle of photosynthesis, which is, when you think about it, the only free lunch in nature. And so they take this free lunch and can make very high-quality food out of it. But rather than use that system, we move to another kind of system, which is feeding them corn.

Now corn, you might argue, well, that's a solar system to because, you know, the corn grows, is a kind of grass, and it grows out in the sun. But, in fact, to get the kind of harvest of corn we get and the surpluses, you have to apply vast quantities of fertilizer, which is a fossil fuel. It's ammonium nitrate. And we began doing this after World War II. It made corn grow incredibly well. We get 130 bushels of corn off an acre where a hundred years ago we got 20. And all of that fertilizer is made from oil. And, in fact, it takes 1.2 gallons of oil to grow a bushel of corn. So I realized I was looking at a different kind of system. We had gone from a solar system to a fossil fuel system. And this strikes me as a kind of crazy thing.

GROSS: Let's get back to the cow's stomach.

Mr. POLLAN: Yeah.

GROSS: So the cow now is eating corn instead of eating grass. Its stomach is made for digesting grass and turning it into protein. How does the cow's digestive system handle corn?

Mr. POLLAN: Well, very poorly. It'll go kablooey if it's not done very gradually. And I talked to people who said that most cows, most beef cattle getting a heavy diet of corn--and again, they can tolerate some of it, but when you crank it up to 70, 80, 90 percent grain, their stomachs go haywire. They suffer from a range of different phenomenon, one of which is bloat.

You know, the rumen, this organ, is always producing copious amounts of gas, and these are expelled during rumination, you know, when the animal kind of chews its cud. It regurgitates this bolus of grass and in the process releases all this greenhouse gas, essentially methane and things because when you're digesting grass much gas is produced. But when they're eating corn, this layer of slime forms over the mass in the rumen, and it doesn't allow the gas to escape. So what happens is the rumen begins to expand like a balloon until it's pressing up against the lungs of the animal. And if nothing is done to release the pressure of that gas, the animal suffocates. It can't breathe anymore. So what do they do? Well, if it gets to that point, they force a hose down the esophagus of the animal, and that releases the gas, and they very quickly put them back on hay for a little while.

So that's one of the things that can go wrong. Well, perhaps the most dramatic. But a whole other range of problems are created because the corn acidifies the rumen. The rumen has basically a neutral pH when it's healthy and getting grass, and that's very significant for a lot of reasons. But you feed it corn and it gets a lot more acidic. And the rumen can't deal with acids, and what happens is the acids gradually eat away at the wall of the rumen, creating little lesions or ulcers through which bacteria can pass. And the bacteria get into the bloodstream and travel down to the liver, which collects all such impurities, and infects the liver. And that is why more than 13 percent of the animals slaughtered in this country are found to have abscessed livers that have to be thrown away and is a sign of disease.

But this low-level sickness, acidosis or even subacute acidosis, as they call it, afflicts many, many--probably the majority--of feedlot calves, and it leaves them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases. Their immune systems are compromised. So they get this, you know, horrifying list of feedlot diseases. You know, we have these diseases of civilization, you know, heart disease and such things. Well, they have their own diseases of civilization: feedlot polio, abscessed livers, rumenitis, all these kinds of things that cows in nature simply don't get.

GROSS: Is this where the antibiotics come in?

Mr. POLLAN: Yeah. The only way you can keep a cow alive getting this much corn would be with antibiotics. And they get large quantities of antibiotics with their feed every day. They get rumensin, which is technically an ionophore. It's a kind of antibiotic that helps with the bloat and the acidosis. And then they get tylosin, which is in the erythromycin family. And that antibiotic cuts down on the incidence of liver disease, and without that, they would all have liver disease probably.

So, you know, when people debate antibiotics in livestock, which is a very, you know, important issue, and it's before the Congress right now, they make this easy distinction between feeding animals antibiotics to promote growth, which is done in the chicken industry and the pig industry, and then feeding them when they're sick, which even the public health advocates against using antibiotics in livestock say, 'Of course it's fine. You must treat sick animals.' But where do you put the beef calf who is clearly getting these antibiotics to cure him? On the other hand, he wouldn't be sick if we weren't feeding him what we feed him? So it kind of confounds the usual distinction. If you took away these antibiotics, everything would have to change.

This isn't "new" news. It has been widely reported in the media for at least a decade.

Evolution in Action

A fascinating article in the Times by evolutionary biologist Olivia Judson about the evolution of the three-spine sticklebacks, a small ocean fish that got stuck in various northern-hemisphere lakes when the last glaciers receded 10-20 thousand years ago. It's a perfectly designed experiment in evolution as the lake fish took on an evolutionary trajectory different than their oceanic counterparts, and yet in the different lakes they evolved in similar but distinct ways:
Marine sticklebacks, for example, boast body armor: from head to tail, they are covered in rows of bony plates. Many freshwater sticklebacks have lost these. In marine sticklebacks, the pelvis is a complicated affair that comes complete with a pair of long spines. In some freshwater populations, individuals have a much reduced, lopsided pelvic structure. In others, they have just a remnant, a small, lopsided bone: the ghost of pelvis past...

What seems to have happened is that when sticklebacks invaded each lake, some of the invaders carried this rare version with them. In the ocean, being without body armor is deadly: it makes you vulnerable to predators. But lakes don’t have the same dangers as the ocean — and armor is heavy and makes you less agile. Thus, in these new environments, being without body armor conferred a significant advantage, and so in lake after lake, the rare variant of the gene swept through the population.

Let’s turn now to the ghostly pelvis. Pelvic loss is much less common than armor loss. But if you find sticklebacks that lack a pelvis, you can bet that they came from large, shallow lakes where the water is soft, there are no large fish that might act as predators, and the vegetation is dense. Soft water has little calcium, and you need calcium to make the pelvic spines. Shallow lakes that are thick with weeds are home to predators like dragonflies, which enjoy having a stickleback for breakfast. And whereas the spines are a defense against being eaten by other fish — trout, say, or pike — and can actually induce the predator to spit out the stickleback instead of trying to swallow it, insect predators catch sticklebacks by grabbing the spines...

I think I will be an evolutionary biologist in my next life. But maybe I'll end up a stickleback.

The Meat We Eat

I bookmarked this article a couple of days ago in the New York Times. Our meat consumption takes a huge toll on the environment, not to mention the animals who are being grown for our tables:

Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation.

To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to-understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.

Grain, meat and even energy are roped together in a way that could have dire results. More meat means a corresponding increase in demand for feed, especially corn and soy, which some experts say will contribute to higher prices.

This will be inconvenient for citizens of wealthier nations, but it could have tragic consequences for those of poorer ones, especially if higher prices for feed divert production away from food crops. The demand for ethanol is already pushing up prices, and explains, in part, the 40 percent rise last year in the food price index calculated by the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization.

Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States.

The environmental impact of growing so much grain for animal feed is profound. Agriculture in the United States — much of which now serves the demand for meat — contributes to nearly three-quarters of all water-quality problems in the nation’s rivers and streams, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Because the stomachs of cattle are meant to digest grass, not grain, cattle raised industrially thrive only in the sense that they gain weight quickly. This diet made it possible to remove cattle from their natural environment and encourage the efficiency of mass confinement and slaughter. But it causes enough health problems that administration of antibiotics is routine, so much so that it can result in antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten the usefulness of medicines that treat people...