Survival of the Fittest

Greenpeace and the legacy of Ludd

2011-07-20T21:46:00.006+10:00

Last Thursday morning, as reported widely in the Australian media, and some overseas news services, a mother opposed to genetic engineering took matters into her own hands, and mowed down a trial crop of experimental wheat being grown by the CSIRO at Ginninderra, near Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory.

Backed by environmental group Greenpeace, the team entered a restricted area and removed plant material before flowering, they say to prevent contamination of surrounding areas by the modified crops, which they have stated were "potentially unstable" and claimed they "had no choice but to take action to bring an end to this experiment".

It should be noted that any new plant variety is "potentially unstable", it's a simple matter of genetic recombination, especially with open pollinated plants such as the grains we rely on for much of our staple diet. It's also a source of useful mutation, as William Farrer found over a hundred years ago when developing wheat varieties more resistant to disease and local conditions in Australia. Farrer did much of his selection by careful cross breeding, an old fashioned form of genetic manipulation, and close observation of trial crops.

The idea of this action being the last straw in the opposition of Genetic Modification of potential food crops, that there was "no choice" but to destroy valid, taxpayer funded research in order to protect our children, is pure hyperbole.

The best protection from any possible contamination from this crop would have been to leave it alone. Setting up experiments is a complicated business. As with the operations of any government department, risk assessments of all possible hazards to people and property must be undertaken before approval is given for an activity. This is likely to be the case here, scientists usually set up their work meticulously to avoid interference that could destroy valuable data.

Possible interference from outside factors are also accounted for, and when growing test crops, blocks are laid out in such a way as to remove potentially skewed results from protection or exposure of parts of the crop to conditions such as excess wind, shade, drainage, or sun, for example. Once an experiment is set up, appropriate signage is placed around a site, or individual plots, to indicate exactly what is planted, and usually who to contact for information. This is especially true in large test grounds where multiple experiments are ongoing concurrently.

Anyone working on a CSIRO site would be inducted to the particular procedures of such operations, and appropriate protocols. The entire area is most likely prominently declared as CSIRO research property, and unauthorised persons are likely warned to keep out. Pretty standard procedure for any research operation. This is not because there are hazardous materials, necessarily, though there may be. It is because experiments work best when the people running them know what is happening at all times. Unexpected actions, even apparently benign interference like watering, could disrupt months or years of work, depending on what the experiment is designed to discover.

Greenpeace have stated that they are aware that contamination from GM crops result more often from human dispersal of GM material, for example when people remove material from one site and take it inadvertently to another. Would these activists have increased the risk of such contamination by entering the experimental site? Almost certainly. They multiplied the very risk they were opposed to.

As for instability of the plant material, there is a possibility that the genetic modification could have been unstable, and reverted. This is exactly why such an experiment was necessary, to check for unforeseen changes in the modification in field grown plants. In this case, there was no addition of genes in the wheat plants, there was a change in the plants expression of certain genes related to starch production. In other words, if the changes were unstable, the wheat would revert to "normal". It is difficult to comprehend the risk to anything outside the researchers' careers for such an instability occurring.

There is some question as to the funding of these experiments, some large agricultural and chemical companies contribute to the funding and research bodies who commissioned the trials. This is not unusual in modern science. Government budgets only stretch so far, and external finance is obtained from industry to fund R&D in most, if not all scientific endeavour. If there are irregularities in the funding process, they should certainly be investigated, and conflicts of interest identified and eradicated. But to call for a halt to private money funding public research would cause science in Australia to all but grind to a standstill.

There are risks to developing genetically modified crop plants, that is certain. But to identify those risks, and test them, we need to conduct rigorous scientific study. Unless this is done, such risks are hypothetical, literally. To rely on a corporation's own research for their own product raises questions, not to mention eyebrows. So relatively impartial organisations are called upon to test new products, either directly or indirectly, in order to remove the conflict.

This experiment will be undertaken again, in all likelihood. Possibly with higher security, certainly with the benefit of hindsight. Perhaps in future, CSIRO will keep their experiments a secret, which in itself is a step backwards. Time has been lost, which cannot be regained, and it's at least conceivable that experienced contributors will be unavailable by the time the eventual harvest takes place. Scientists are retiring and leaving the country for the proverbial greener pastures all the time, and certainly postgraduate students have only a limited time in which to complete their projects.

The name of Ned Ludd is often bandied about when people blindly oppose new developments. This is a little unfair, as the Luddites were concerned with their replacement by machines in the early Industrial Revolution in England. They did destroy machines, but because their livelihood was threatened directly by their appearance, or so they believed. In this case, there may be a risk to humans if they consume this potential new food crop, but without proper investigation, we will not know for sure. There is a risk of contamination, but any wheat variety will contaminate a neighbouring variety if they differ, possibly in both direction, farmers already know this, and manage their timing and crops appropriately, or we would have long since lost every separate variety of wheat we currently grow.

This variety is being developed to possibly counter digestion problems with wheat in some people. There may be other ways to deal with that issue, such as not consuming wheat, but ultimately that is a marketing issue, and if wheat producing nations, like Australia, wish to increase sales, selling to people who can't usually eat wheat is one way to do it. That is a business decision. But to destroy well designed, valid scientific research, at the same time as increasing the supposed risks that research poses, is indefensible behaviour.

The resulting grain from the harvest was to be collected, and further analysed. Testing of the nutritional value of the grain, checking for any obvious toxic by-products or anomalies would have been the first of a series of experiments beyond the field trial. Next would have likely been testing the grain as a food source for animals, who would have been tested for adverse and possible positive reactions to the new food. If all this went okay, and after approval by an ethics committee, a human trial would have likely been set up: Volunteers giving informed consent to the experiment, under controlled conditions, and the results analysed. This may have been several years away, assuming there was even enough grain to make it this far from one crop.

It's a far cry from all farmers being forced to grow one strain of wheat, and every food producer being left with no option but to use it. With better food labelling laws, it would not even be a problem, as people could choose to avoid the GM sources of grain, and let the market decide. Greenpeace may have snatched a headline, they have also probably turned a few people against their cause. They claim that "GM has never been proven safe to eat" and they apparently don't want anyone to test that statement.

Fire in Australian forests: The Phoenix from the ashes

2009-02-10T20:44:00.004+11:00

The bushfires of the last week on the east coast, particularly those in Victoria, have been tragic and devastating. Loss of human life and property, as well as death and injury among the fauna of the burnt areas are tragic and immediately confronting.The landscape itself seems completely dead in much of the area affected by the fires.

But the native vegetation we have come to love in this country not only responds well to fires, but in the case of many plant species, relies on fire for survival. Although the trees look black and dead now, and the understorey is completely gone in some places, it will not take long before signs of life begin to emerge.

Underneath the bark of many large trees, Eucalypts in particular, but other species also, are dormant buds. These epicormic buds are not actively growing for most of the life of a tree, but in times of stress, for example, when the tree is defoliated by animals or fire, the epicormic buds spring to life, and grow leaves and small branches to provide energy to the roots of the tree. This is very important, as when tree roots die, they cannot support the canopy. This epicormic growth will allow for the surviving branches to re-grow all their foliage and re-establish themselves much faster than new seedlings are able.

Some trees, especially among the Eucalypts, also have lignotubers below the ground, the soil providing even further protection from heat of passing fires. These trees will sprout new major limbs and trunks from ground level, and multi-stemmed trees in the forest are often the result of such a fire response.

Of course not all trees will survive, but even the dead stags provide shelter for animals, from wood feeding insects, to larger creatures such as birds and mammals, who may also feed on the insects. These animals take some time to return to burnt out areas, and their numbers will be slow at first to increase, but neighbouring populations and survivors will eventually recolonise the fire stricken areas.

At the soil level, the ash bed after a fire provides a fertile nursery for seed germination, of understorey shrubs, herbs and grasses, as well as new trees. The so called "soil seed bank" is an accumulation of seeds dropped every year by most plants, which have not been given the appropriate conditions for germination. Warmth and moisture in just the right quantities will germinate most seeds, and the clearing of the overshadowing plant canopy enhances this. This includes thousands of Eucalypt species which will eventually fill in the gaps in the canopy left by the trees that do not survive.

But even more reliant on fire, are the Wattles. Most Acacia species have a very hard seed coat. While occasionally passing through an animals gut will break it down enough to allow it to germinate, more effective is the application of heat. A bushfire will weaken or crack the dormant wattle seeds in the soil, and allow them to begin growing. The importance of wattles as a "pioneer species" can not be underestimated. The roots of all wattles are covered in nodules, which provide habitat for Rhizobium bacteria. These bacteria suck nitrogen out of the air and fix it in a form that plants can use for their nutrition. After a fire, nitrogen levels may be significantly depleted, and the wattles help restore levels to a productive state. They also provide shelter from sun and evaporation that allow smaller species to re-establish beneath them, before dying in a relatively short period of usually 20-30 years.

Banksias also rely on the heat from fires to crack open their seed cases, famously characterised by May Gibbs as Banksia Men. The seeds are held tightly in woody follicles and only released when heat is applied, most naturally by fires. The flowers of these trees provide a nectar source for birds and insects, and even some tiny marsupials. Allocasuarina species, sometimes called native pines, retain their seeds cases, or cones, on the tree, often until fire events cause them to fall, where they open and deposit seeds on the ground for germination. These trees also fix nitrogen in the soil, and are another important pioneer species after fires.

While it may look at present like a desolate and barren landscape, invisible to our eyes, processes are already underway to restore the bush to its familiar beauty. A beauty that actually relies on this periodic ordeal. Rather than point fingers at forest management practices as scapegoats for these occurrences, it would be far more useful to spend time and energy minimising their impact on the people who live with the dangers of the Australian forest environment, and protecting human life from these essential, and inevitable fires.

Just the facts #4

2009-02-03T21:13:00.004+11:00

Recently I was asked

Why are trees tall?

The simple answer to the question is

Because other trees are tall

but I think this deserves some qualification.

Most people are familiar with the theory of evolution by natural selection, in which the individuals most suited to their environment successfully produce more offspring than less suited individuals. The concept is most commonly reduced to a truism "Survival of the fittest", and is just as commonly misunderstood.

Many people have the idea that fitness means the strongest, fastest or largest individuals will be favoured in selection. This is obviously not the case, as there are far more species smaller than a tennis ball than larger. In fact, there are vastly more species of life on earth smaller than the eye can register than those we humans can view. So clearly bigger is not necessarily better when it comes to natural selection. Except when it is.

The fiercest competition for survival is not between species, for example the rabbit and the fox, or the antelope and the lion, but within species. Because each individual of a particular species is competing directly with every other member of their population for all resources: food, shelter, territory, mating partners, etc; the competition is far more direct and consequential than the occasional dodging of a potential predator.

This brings us back to the tall trees. In certain forest systems, trees tend to be taller, and with fewer low branches than where trees are spaced further apart by natural means (for example water availability) . The trees which germinate and grow tall the fastest are favoured, and contribute to the failure of their immediate competitors by blocking essential sunlight to slower growing trees of the same species.

This fast growth is influenced by environmental factors, such as rainfall, and physiological factors, such as the natural etiolation (or elongation, a process separate to actual growth) of stems in shade. But it is fundamentally coded for in the genes of the tree species. So, even when grown outside the forest, forest trees retain some of the height of their counterparts in natural environments. The genetic information of the species is known as the genotype,, and this, in combination with environmental factors, goes on to produce the final shape of the individual, referred to as the phenotype.

Growing species outside their natural environment does not always result in similar looking specimens, however. A famous example is the Lesser Flamingo (Phoenicopterus minor), the common, pink wading bird from the Rift Valley in Africa. In its natural environment, the bird feeds on a kind of algae or cyanobacteria which are metabolised by the birds, and give them their distinctive colour. removal of the natural food source of the bird results in their feathers fading to white over time. The genotype of the bird allows for their pink plumage, but the phenotype is influenced directly by environmental factors.

A century of destruction: the death of the Murray Darling basin

2008-06-18T19:38:00.004+10:00

In the 1870s, Victoria's second largest Port was not where most would place it today if asked to pinpoint it on a map. It was not Geelong, or Portland, nor was it in the sheltered Westernport Bay, or Port Welshpool on the Gippsland coast. It was 96 metres above sea level, and over 200 kilometres to the nearest sea at Port Phillip Bay. It was Echuca, on the Murray River, where a fleet of over a hundred paddle steamers navigated the river on a daily basis transporting wool and other agricultural produce, as well as manufactured goods between inland towns along the Murray and Darling rivers, and many of their tributaries.

By the dawn of the 20th century, much of this transport load had moved on to the railways, and though it had begun in the 1880s, irrigation with water drawn from both these rivers began in earnest. This opened up huge areas of the inland to farming, particularly for water hungry crops, orchards, and vineyards. And the flow of the largest river system in the country was gradually, but consistently reduced to a trickle. The once navigable river has all but dried up, and in most summers would be difficult to travel along in more than a kayak.

The effect of this drastically reduced water flow on the natural environment has obviously been immeasurable. And now, it seems that concerned scientists have given the river less than six months to live, before it becomes little more than a drain, carrying the run-off effluent from the farms that have profited from it for over a century.

It seems almost incomprehensible that such a dramatic tragedy could take place before the eyes of a population so supposedly concerned with the environment. But there it is. For once, the government is faced with a decision which is as straight forward as it has always been, though in this case probably much more obvious: economy vs environment.

In this particular case, at this time, the choice is either/or. The time for compromise has clearly passed, and if the river is to be saved, then massive amounts of water need to be released from facilities upstream. This water will cost money, and in no way do I expect the farmers who rely on it will wish to go without compensation.

But the clock is audibly ticking, and a lack of decision will ultimately be the final nail in the coffin for this once mighty river system.

Just the facts #3

2008-06-17T12:12:00.002+10:00

Today's questions:

What is the line between artificial and natural?

and, in relation to tomato sauce:

At what point does a tomato cease to be a fruit?

In response to the first question, i would contend that "artificial" means that it has been constructed or manufactured by human beings, while natural means it may be found already existing in nature without human interference. What this means in actual fact is really a question of context. For example, a food product may claim it contains "no artificial colours or flavours", but obviously, it may be coloured or flavoured with "natural" agents. The same goes for artificial sweeteners, preservatives, and so on.

In this context, it usually means the difference between a naturally occurring chemical, which is extracted directly from a plant or animal, and a synthetic chemical, which is obtained by chemical reaction in a laboratory or factory. There is no guarantee that a naturally occurring chemical is any safer than a synthetic one, and some of the most toxic substances known to science come directly from natural sources. In fact, in certain cases, synthetic versions of chemicals may be safer than their "natural" alternatives, having potentially toxic, carcinogenic or mutagenic compounds removed or converted into harmless forms.

As for the second question, this requires a brief foray into botanical terminology. In botanical terms, a fruit is the seed of a plant, together with the ripened ovary. So, a grain of wheat is a fruit, as is a coconut, and at least part of what we call a Tomato. The tomato is formed when the ovules in a tomato flower are fertilised by pollen. The ovules are contained within an ovary, which swells after fertilisation to become the flesh of the tomato fruit. However, tomato sauce is usually made with only the fleshy parts of a tomato, known as the carpel, excluding the seeds. So in my opinion, a tomato ceases to be a fruit when it is de-seeded, as the seed is the defining characteristic of a fruit.

However, while this is a botanical explanation of when a tomato ceases to be a fruit, legally, in the United States at least, it ceased to be a fruit in 1893, as a result of a court ruling on tariffs covering fruit and vegetables. According to the US supreme court, the tomato is a vegetable.

Cerebrity of the Week #1: Andrew Merchant

2008-06-13T09:17:00.006+10:00

These days it seems that much of the media is saturated with "celebrity news". Reports of births, deaths, marriages, affairs, and general gossip about people who, were they not so spotlighted by the media, would be otherwise relatively unimportant to the world at large. Actors, musicians, models, and people who are just obscenely rich may have no actual influence on the lives of anyone but for media reports flooding our senses on a daily basis. That politicians and increasingly other actual professions are now compelled by necessity to "market" themselves, their ideas, or their organisations in order to "compete" for attention is somewhat disturbing.

So, in my own small way, I have decided to award a weekly prize to the person who I feel has the most to offer the world on account of who they are, what they think, and what they have achieved. It is the reverse of celebrity in a way, as these faces may not be known to the masses, but in their own way, they have contributed more to the world than all the hotel heiresses, former game show hosts, reformed child actors, celebrity brothel keepers and other miscellaneous media spakfilla combined.

This week, in order to highlight the cumbersome-but-descriptively named (the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry don't like acronyms, because it makes them look daffy) Science and Innovation Awards for Young People in Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry entries for which close on July 14th, I wanted to name one of last years winners as cerebrity of the week. Please, put your virtual hands together for Andrew Merchant!

Andrew's project involved trying to figure out what cellular processes allow Australian tree species greater tolerance of their harsh environmental conditions. He hopes to use this information in order to breed tougher trees, more capable of withstanding future climatic extremes, and current marginal environments.

Congratulations, Andrew, for being the Survival of the Fittest Cerebrity of the Week, Number 1.

The benefits of climate change?

2008-06-10T09:42:00.006+10:00

I was reading the other day on Science Daily about the positive effect of climate change on the range and population of a species of butterfly in Great Britain, the Brown Argus (left). The article stated that the butterfly had increased it's range over the last thirty years much further north than it had been previously known, all the way into Scotland.

The article then went on to explain how this extension of range had allowed the caterpillars of the butterfly to escape their usual parasites, which were not present in the more northerly habitat. Now obviously for the Brown Argus butterfly, this is largely a beneficial outcome, and as the geographic shift was allowed by warmer temperatures, at least in part due to climate change then surely this is a "benefit of climate change"?

I can't say I agree with the assessment of Science Daily that "some species benefit". If all species are affected by climate change, the likelihood of predicting the ecological impact of the changes is minimal. In this case, for example, removal of the natural predators of the butterfly also removes the selection pressure on the butterfly to resist them. This means that if interbreeding occurs between individuals from the new range and those from the old, those in the old range have an increased risk of being less fit for their environment. This kind of genetic pollution is at least possible, and at worst could result in the species becoming endangered, or even extinct in it's original range.

More disturbing a prospect, though, is the effect of the caterpillars in their new environments. With no predation, caterpillar numbers could reach much larger numbers than in their old feeding grounds, and could have adverse effects on natural vegetation, or even agricultural crops. The caterpillars may out-compete the local species of larvae, which could lead to their predators being reduced in number. This in turn could lead to serious implications in boom and bust cycles of caterpillars, and their effects on local vegetation.

There is simply no way anyone can claim that an increase in population of any single species is a benefit, no matter what it's cause. All change may be either good or bad, but without appropriate analysis, there is no way to predict which.

Just the facts #2

2008-06-06T10:34:00.003+10:00

Okay, so, in response to elaine's question from two days ago, when she asked

"can you please tell me if there are cells that do not contain DNA? If yes, please give me some examples. Also if yes, what is the difference between DNA-less cells and cells with DNA as it what do they do differently and why do some have it and some don't (if it is known)."

The short answer is yes... and no.

In mammals, the red blood cells contain no nucleus or organelles, so contain no DNA. Red Blood cells are primarily for carrying oxygen throughout the body, and removing carbon dioxide from tissues, and are specialised for this function by having little in the way of cellular "baggage" in order to optimise their efficiency for the task. This also ensures the cell itself uses none of the oxygen it carries. This means they are incapable of self repair or cell division. Red blood cells are constructed in specialised regions of an animal body, for example, in the bone marrow, or in the liver in embryos. They may be stored to some extent in the spleen for periods when rapid physical activity requires larger volumes of oxygen to be delivered rapidly to muscle tissues.

Human Red Blood Cells

In plant tissues, the xylem cells, those carrying water and nutrients from the roots to other tissues, completely lack a protoplast at maturity. They also contain no DNA, but are effectively non-living tissues, and comprise the woody parts of plants. Again, this is to increase the efficiency of their primary function, that of conducting water through the plant. They are also incapable of self repair or cell division as a result.

Bacteria contain DNA, but unlike the linear chromosomes of multi-cellular organisms, it is arranged in a ring like structure. Certain organelles of plants, such as chloroplasts; and animals, such as mitochondria; contain their own DNA. Because such organelles are usually inherited directly form the female parent, and because their rate of mutation is very low, this allows certain genetic testing to gauge the rate of evolution between different species.

Bacteria

Viruses are complex organic entities, and though not classified as living, may also contain DNA, or in some cases RNA. They differ from living organisms in that they lack the ability to reproduce on their own, and require a host in order to multiply. Viral infections cause the most trouble to other organisms when they reduce the rate of cellular processes by hijacking the machinery and energy of a cell to make copies of the virus.

An "artificial" bacteriophage virus (electron micrograph)

Just the facts #1

2008-06-04T12:28:00.005+10:00

I suppose this will be an ongoing series, but it was precipitated by a query from a friend via Facebook the other day, his question was as follows:

Is DNA a physical thing? For example, those double-helix pictures you see, is DNA a physical thing that actually looks like that, or is that just a representation of DNA?

If DNA is a physical, tangible object, where does it exist? Does it exist IN cells? Around cells? Between cells?

It surprised me that such basic understanding of the foundation of biology was lacking in a relatively well educated adult, but I answered, nonetheless. And as an attempt to make people sound more informed in public debate (that is, debate in public bars of hotels) on topics such as "Genetic Engineering" and such topics, I will repeat and expand my answer here.

First of all, yes, DNA is a physical structure. It denotes the molecule Deoxyribo-Nucleic Acid, a very scientific sounding name which describes its

a) chemical components and structure: deoxyribo = deoxygenated ribose (a type of sugar)

b) location: nucleic = from the nucleus

c) chemical properties: acid = pH below 7.0

The molecule itself consists of a phosphate/sugar "backbone" with a series of bases attached, of which there are four: Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Guanine (G) and Cytosine (C). Due to difference in electrical charge between the bases, they pair up, A with T, and G with C. This pairing means the molecule rarely exists as a single strand, but is bound in a double helix a spiral shape, a section of which is shown at the top of this post. The backbone forms the sides of the ladder, while the basepairs form the rungs.

DNA is not visible to the naked eye, though if unravelled and laid in a straight line, a single stand of human DNA would be around three metres long. That's a lot of information to fit into every single cell of your body, so it is wound and twisted into an extremely compact form, known as a chromosome, so it can do so. This is how every cell is able to contain all the information required to replicate an entire organism, and is what makes cloning possible, not to mention basic ongoing maintenance that keeps the organism functioning.

Any questions?

It's the brain drain all over again

2008-06-03T10:31:00.003+10:00

Submissions to the latest Australian Biosecurity and Quarantine review have lamented the continuing decline in qualified technical staff in important posts win the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS), and Biosecurity Australia (BA). The Australian Plant Pathology Society submission claims that both organisations have been guilty of appointing "customer service" oriented managers rather than candidates with technical know-how, and this may be impacting on effective decision and policy making in scientific matters.

This reflects a wider trend to customer focus in many local science, education and research organisations, that ultimately changes their direction, either subtly or drastically. An understanding of the science behind policy decisions is absolutely crucial in maintaining efficient Quarantine measures, and biosecurity protocols. But it is also necessary in fields such as education and general scientific research capacities. The people who can best interpret the guidelines for policy decisions are those who fully understand the science which sets their parameters, and the changes in scientific knowledge, or environmental conditions which may predict required alterations in those policies.

In the case of science, it may be that the customer is best served by someone qualified in the area of technical service, rather than just being possessed of people skills. This is compounded by the lack of young people training for these positions. CSIRO estimates 50% of Australia's diagnostic expertise will be lost in the next twenty years, due to the advancing age of current scientists in the workforce. The lack of trained pathologists and taxonomists in itself is actually dangerous, as an unidentified or mis-identified threat could spread to non-eradicable levels very rapidly, especially in the case of micro-organisms and invertebrates. At present, protection is often in the hands of unpaid, volunteer retirees called in for their expert advice.

Obviously this is tied in to the promotion of technical science as an educational pathway for young students, which should obviously be a priority for both State and Federal governments to pursue, and budget for. The cost of funding university places or creating scholarships and other incentives to attract and keep young scientists in technical positions in this country is a drop in the ocean compared to the potential loss of entire export industries due to a lack of local expertise.

Building the greenhouse: are we paving the way to climate change?

2008-05-29T18:41:00.003+10:00

Even if we somehow magically minimised to zero our carbon emissions from industry, transport and domestic sources, the excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may not be reduced a great deal, and may even continue to increase. Why? Because we are making too many shadows.

Every built structure, be it a road, a house, or even a wooden fence, interacts with incoming solar energy, which arrives mostly as light. In the natural world, light falls on natural surfaces: rocks, water, sand, but most importantly, vegetation. More specifically, the leaves of plants.

Photosynthesis is the most efficient mechanism for absorbing light energy, and converting it to chemical potential energy, that we are aware of. While photovoltaic cells may be capable of utilising more of the visible light spectrum, (plants only use the red and blue wavelengths), and may actually be more efficient at absorbing the light and converting it to a storable form, (electricity), plants still have an advantage: They remove carbon dioxide from the air as they function.

The chemical result of photosynthesis are sugars, an important component of which is carbon. Plants take carbon from the atmosphere, and combine it with hydrogen from water, releasing oxygen in the process. The efficiency of this reaction is, assuming adequate water supplies are available, limited mainly by how much light energy is available. The more light, the higher the rate of photosynthesis, and consequently, the higher the rate at which carbon may be drawn from the air.

Shade from buildings, fences and other human structures prevents light from landing on the photosynthetic surface of plants. Further, paved areas, such as roads and pathways, reduce the available area for plant growth which clearly reduces potential carbon absorption. The other effect they have is to absorb and reflect energy form the sun. Absorbed energy is converted into low level heat, which on a local scale can affaect weather patterns, and change climatic conditions. On a larger scale, the effect is probably less obvious, but reflected energy is trapped by the natural (and enhanced) greenhouse effect, contributing to climate change.

More awareness of these issues in the design and construction of human shelter, communication and transportation necessities is required if a serious and lasting solution to climate change is to be achieved.

Drawing on his inner vision

2008-05-27T12:41:00.002+10:00

The other day I happened by the library where I work, and stumbled upon a huge pile of old New Scientist magazines they were discarding. So, naturally, I picked up the stack and put them in my office, and have been progressively, if randomly, getting through them as I journey to and from the campus each day. Okay, they are a little out of date, but there's always something in every issue to hold my attention, and as most articles are short, it's perfect for the stop/start of public transport.

One story, from January 2005, caught my eye, and my imagination, as the very topic itself had come up in a lively informal discussion of philosophy only recently (at the pub). We were wondering if someone who was born blind could have any concept of colour, space, perspective, and pretty much all the things we sighted people take for granted. It turns out that, yes, they can.

Esref Armagan is an artist, whose paintings show an understanding of colour, perspective, light and shadow that belie the fact he is clinically blind, and his brain receives absolutely no information from his eyes about the lit world around him. Scientists scanning his brain revealed that even though his eyes have literally no function (he was effectively born blind) his visual cortex is active when he draws. This is similar to the activity of a braille readers visual cortex when they feel a page of text.

Some researchers feel this shows our understanding of what sight, and indeed all our senses, actually are needs some revision. A lot of revision. It is certainly clear that our "basic" senses are not the only source of understanding of the world around us, which seems to be more to do with how our brains process information than the form in which it is delivered to them. Below is a video, showing Aramagan composing a new drawing.

Why do people go to church?

2007-12-04T10:57:00.000+11:00

It is often claimed by proponents of organised religion that belief in a benevolent, creative god gives meaning to the lives of ordinary people. Questions of philosophy, the purpose of our lives on this planet, are difficult, and it is easier, perhaps, for people to accept that we were put here for some higher purpose. It is also used as a rhetorical battering ram against secular humanism, that the lack of reason for existing is the cause of moral decay, social dysfunction, and the general decline of civilisation as we know it. But is philosophy the real reason people continue to re-interpret ancient religions?

It is not necessary, for example, to believe in Father Christmas to enjoy the celebration of Yuletide, so perhaps there is another more human and tangible reason for many people to maintain their connection to the Church. I think perhaps the true attraction in churches is the congregation. The ritual of belief, rather than its philosophical implications, is what has made societies prosper, and possibly, it is the ritual that is lacking, rather than the belief in dogmatic church law, that has brought about changes in human collective behaviour.

Having been brought up under a Christian tradition, I feel marginally better qualified to comment on the rituals of the followers of Jesus, though my religious instruction was far from traditionally pious. The very act of going to church on a Sunday is in itself an act of community. Communities meet for many reasons. To celebrate the conjoining of young couples, to herald the arrival of new people to our fold, and to mourn the loss of valued members of our community who pass away. We meet to learn, and we meet to fight. But not usually, in secular society, just to join together for the sake of being with each other.

In a “classic” church service, there are many components, and they have meaning beyond the praise of an invisible deity. On a weekly basis, members of a community come together in a way which creates an equality that is not found in day to day business. People of every profession, of every age, come together in one place and sit together. So what sets a church service apart from a train carriage or busload of people going about their daily business? For a start, they are there to hear people talk. Not just their friends, and family, acquaintances and business associates, but someone with a message for them.

A preacher will usually open the service, (a reference to the servility of church congregations, admittedly), with a hymn. What is a hymn? In traditional religious services, a hymn is a song of praise to god for allowing us to experience life. A lot of them may focus on salvation, or damnation, but the real purpose of the hymn is to make the gathered people into one group. Everybody sings. Whether they are good, bad, or mediocre, and the joining of voices somehow averages out the difference, and the song becomes a thing of beauty, the individuals become one. Does it matter if there is a god listening? Not really. I am sure part of the reason missionaries often carry hymn books, and lead groups in song is because they are an affirmation of life itself. A cry of positive energy in the dark wilderness of the universe. “Here we are! We are people, we are alive, and we are together”. Singing, I think, is a natural instinct.

The blessings may follow, depending on the denomination, and possibly there will be announcements of births, deaths and marriages that have occurred in the past week, or that may be approaching. Then there are readings, often (usually) from the bible, but in more “progressive” churches, from any number of religious or secular texts. These readings are usually words of hope, or of warning, or mere reminders to be thankful for the simple fact of being alive to hear them. The readings may be chosen by the preacher, or they may be chosen for special meanings by people of the congregation, who feel the need to reiterate some particular point that has current importance to them, and in their revelation of that connection to pass the importance of the words they recite to others.

The preacher will then usually deliver a sermon. A preacher of any church spends time each week reading. They read their holy book of choice, no doubt, but they read also the news of the day, and seek appropriately corresponding words from their book which they hope will make sense of recent events. They wish to bring peace, hope, direction and solace to the congregation by allowing them to see that, somehow, what happens today has come before, and will in all likelihood come again. To help them understand that, no matter how bad things may seem, all things pass, and while still alive, everyone has the opportunity to act in the world around them, and change it for the better. To help them see that they should not be worried about things they cannot control, because energy is better spent in doing things that will make some impact.

Further hymns will be interspersed throughout the service, in order to reinforce some point, usually. And the conclusion of the mass will often end in a blessing. The blessing allows people to walk out of the church with a feeling that at least somebody cares what happens to them.

I have tried to think of equivalents in secular life where these rituals have a parallel. The massed voices may be sometimes found in sporting events, or live music performances (or in drunken mobs of any description, to be honest). Reading of prose and poetry are much more difficult to find, and are probably limited to formal classes or informal literary groups. Interpretation of current events is left solely to pundits, journalists, and I suppose, bloggers, possibly even therapists or counsellors, though all of these have their own agenda, and are, to an extent, unaccountable to their audience in the way a preacher is. There seems to be no formal mechanism for supporting our friends, family and community on an emotional level, though, certainly on any regular basis. No equivalent of prayer or reflection as can be found in religious observance, either.

All of these are clearly human needs. They help people make sense of their world, and build community in ways for which no substitute has been discovered. Perhaps if a way to incorporate such ritual into our lives, without the fearful aspects, the judgmental concepts of certain churches, was developed, then secular society would possibly be a stronger, more moral place to live.

Water, Water, everywhere... at school, anyway

2007-07-18T18:01:00.000+10:00

So, the drought has broken, after ten long years of below average rainfall, and unfortunately, the winter has brought a cold snap which has people cracking inevitable one liners about global "warming" being some kind of a joke. I guess the move toward calling the effects of human colonisation on the world environment "climate change" was a little slow off the mark.

But still, our own John Howard, more than a little slow out of the gate on the issue, has finally put on his racing silks and saddled up. But I still can't be sure he understands the problem, as demonstrated by his "climate change" response package, which is dribbling forth in the lead up to the next election, in fits and starts. One part of his plan seems to be getting some nuclear power stations built. Though 12.5 million would barely be enough for a scale model of one, let alone any plutonium to power it. This is a completely different issue, and one that is solely related to economics, not the environment. It's about putting the economy first, and making sure it can continue to expand, and reducing the environmental impact of industry as an afterthought. It does not acknowledge that industry is the single biggest cause of emissions, pollution, waste, not to mention the driving force behind population growth, and resulting urban expansion.

Another old growth plank in the platform was the granting of schools $50,000 vouchers in order to purchase water tanks and solar hot water services. While I commend the idea, it really has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. The emissions produced by schools heating water is negligible, as very little is required on a daily basis. The catching of water from roof tops is a great idea, but is a measure against an effect of climate change, prolonged drought, and not in any way a defence against the lack of rainfall in future. I think schools would be better off covering their roof area with photo-voltaic solar panels in order to generate electricity. The Prime Minister has obviously caught on to the importance to "kids" of computers, judging by his ill advised venture on to YouTube, and they need electricity more than anyone needs hot water at school.

While the water tanks are an interesting idea, they should have been part of an existing environment policy, not simply tacked on to the "climate change" agenda to boost the apparent spending of the government. There is no reason schools should not aim to be completely self sufficient for power and water in the future, but this is just good education, not heroic policy. Next it will be suggested that schools have gardens planted in their grounds, possibly even growing food for the students. Indeed, Stephanie Alexander, celebrity chef, has already started a program promoting exactly that, along, of course, with her latest book on cooking with kids. But I think that deserves a post of it's own.

Basically, the Howard plan to reduce the impacts of climate change is a cobbled together policy where every "environmental" dollar the government proposes to spend is thrown in under their "climate change" response. It is on the surface, incoherent, and fails to recognise the source of the problem, industry and affluence, while the same government is taking credit for encouraging the very conditions that are most likely causing the environmental shift. They claim they can guarantee an unsustainable lifestyle, and save the environment as well. Unfortunately, we can't take the risk of them getting it wrong in this case. We can recover from recession, and as much of a struggle as it is, probably even from economic depression, as we have seen historically.

But in this instance, there can be no mistakes, as the consequences will be immeasurably disasterous if we get it wrong, and that's something I'm not willing to gamble on.

Let's clone God

2007-03-29T23:05:00.000+10:00

In order to end all speculation on his existence, the purpose of life, humanity's suffering and where I left my car keys, I propose we use the finding of Jesus' tomb to clone God, and ask him directly all the questions that have plagued his followers since the Bible was first published in weekly installments available from the local news stand.

Apparently they are collecting DNA from the sarcophagi in the tomb, and intend to use it to establish the identity of the deceased. Why this doesn't count as grave robbery, I have no idea, quite frankly. Assuming they are able to find nuclear DNA of the former inhabitants of the coffins, and not just residual mitochondrial DNA, this opens up exciting possibilities for in vitro cloning technology.

Taking Mary's DNA and matching it against that of her son, Jesus, we should be able to remove all his mother's chromosomes and crossed over fragments, and have a pure God chromosome.

Obviously, it would be the "Y" chromosome, as this only occurs in males, and Jesus was the son of god. God, not having a mother, as he just always existed apparently, would have no "X" chromosome, so logically, He must have had two Ys. Duplicating Jesus' Y chromosome and inserting it into a viable egg should allow the production of a God embryo. This bypasses the ethical dilemmas of the human cloning debate, as God is at least as different from us as we are from Chimpanzees.

It stands to reason that what separates God from man, is that us men on earth only have one copy of Y, and are therefore limited to dominating only those directly under our influence. Women, children, animals, plants, and so forth, down the tree of life. It's pretty clear that 2 copies of the Y chromosome grant much greater power, and indeed, would allow total dominion over the universe, and quite conveniently, the ability to create new ones at leisure.

Of course, the cellular mechanisms outside the nucleus must necessarily be inherited from the mother's own cells (though who would volunteer to carry such a special child?), and the resulting infant would not be a true Deity, perhaps a mere demigod. Assuming at least some of the omnipotent omniscience was inherited from the celestial father, though, perhaps some of the most pressing mysteries of life could be revealed in an interview.

Anyone got Andrew Denton's phone number?

What am I thinking now?

2007-03-13T22:44:00.000+11:00

I finally figured out the other day why I can't accept tales of psychic ability. It is because it would require me to abandon all of my education related to the field in which I make my money. I was spurred by my annoyance that the ABC's excellent weekly science magazine program Catalyst was replaced during the summer non-ratings period by a program about Psychic Detectives. Not only was it completely unscientific, presented as a kind of "real life drama" but on checking I discovered that according to Scotland Yard, no case in the history of policing in Britain has been solved using information obtained from psychics. Ever.

So, I began to wonder, aside from the obvious accusations of charlatanism, of preying on the vulnerable families of victims of crime, of wasting police time, why it bothered me so much. Then I realised it was because I am a biologist. I understand the world as consisting of organisms that have evolved by gradual steps with each successive generation, changing by random genetic mutation, shaped by natural selection, according to which individuals produce the most offspring in a population. This is a simple enough concept on the surface, and most thoughtful people accept that this is how life achieved the complexity we see around us on earth.

My problem with psychic ability is that it doesn't appear to have any precursors, and appears not to be genetically inherited, but manifests in truly random pattern and apparently fully functional. This single fact goes against almost everything that the standard theory of evolution suggests. Certainly if such an ability did exist, it would be passed down according to Mendelian laws of inheritance, but does not appear to be present in the general population in any conceivable pattern.

A wing or an eye did not appear fully functional, for example, as we see them today. They served various purposes as useful adaptations on their way to becoming the organs which we recognise in modern species, and not in random individuals, but in entire populations. Echo-location, as used by bats, or sonar as used by whales and dolphins, is possibly a more valid analogue, but again, the ability is present in all members of the respective species, those not in possession of the superior ability would be strongly selected against, in such environments.

Also as a biologist, I can't assume that humans possess a capability apparently completely unknown in the entire animal kingdom, which is present in only a few, seemingly unrelated individuals of our species at any given time. If someone could develop a clear biological model of advantage in the ability, and a phenological or phenomenological series of small mutations (all of which must be advantageous also) that could lead to psychic ability, I would be far more able to accept the likelihood of it's existence. As such, the ability to read other individual's thoughts could be clearly seen as an advantage, however, no prominent or successful individuals claim such ability, where it should surely be concentrated if it existed. It could also be strongly selected against, as rival individuals may quite reasonably attempt to destroy the chances of psychically able individuals to reproduce, or even survive.

But this is purely hypothetical, because as far as I have ever seen, or even personally experienced, there is no solid evidence of the usefulness or reliability of such ability. Until such evidence is presented, I will continue questioning the motives of those who claim such abilities, and seek more mundane explanations for their apparent feats.

The burning bush

2006-12-12T21:36:00.000+11:00

According to Judaeo-christian legend, Moses was once startled by a message delivered by a burning shrub in the desert where he wandered. The burning bush we are presented with on an increasingly regular basis brings quite a different message:

Build your house not upon the the bushland

Or at least, be prepared for the consequences.

When the first human inhabitants of this country arrived some forty odd centuries ago, they found a land so completely unlike the one we have now that we would not recognise it if we saw it. A vast inland sea, massive lush rainforests on all sides, and gigantic animals, the size of which are not seen outside Africa, in modern times. Then, the climate changed.

Whether the people had a lot, or a little, to do with that change remains a subject of much conjecture and debate among ecologists, anthropologists, and many scholars of various persuasions. It's not really a matter of importance to us, though. What is important, is what happened. The continent began to dry out, Leaving behind the salty deserts which now fill much of the interior of this wide brown land.

The rainforests receded, and were replaced for the most part by sclerophyllous forests, the Eucalyptus and Acacia forests so distinctive of modern Australia. These forests, for better or worse, rely on fire in order to survive. The Eucalypts to remove competition from old declinging trees, the Wattles to actually germinate the seed of these generally short lived species. There are hundreds of thousands of plants adapted to this fire cycle, giving our landscape it's distinctive appearance. And the people adapted too. Moving each season into recently burnt territory, enabling them to avoid the of loss of lives to the annual fires.

That we Europeans also love this countryside so dearly we want to live among the trees, as they did, is not surprising. It is a beautiful and unique environment we have also inhabited in the last 200 years. But it is also, not surprisingly, completely at odds with what most of us expect from a place of residence. It is dry, volatile, physically dangerous and generally unpleasant for traditional "European style" settlements. The produce of such forests is also unpalatable, or invisible to the modern settler, aside from the timber which is pretty much all we take out of them.

Indeed, clearing the bush obviously removes many of the problems, but what effect does that have on the overall environment? Aside from the obvious visual impact of removing all trees, it has noticeable effects on water tables, soil fertility, and probably even rainfall, not to mention species diversity, both floral and faunal. Or we can choose to live amongst the trees, and enjoy their gnarled, wizened beauty from our comfortable verandahs, overlooking the surrounding bushland, and all the locals for which they provide habitat.

Whichever choice we make, we can not act surprised when, as they have for thousands of years before Europeans arrived, the forests burn, fiercely, to the ground, taking with them the buildings and infrastructure we have built in their proximity. This is beyond a fire management issue. This is a problem of engineering.

A fire proof house is a possibility. A self protecting farm is not beyond reason. Forward planning can prevent the property loss and damage that these fires are inflicting, and will continue to inflict as long as these forests survive. People lose their lives trying to protect property, which is the only real tragedy of natural events such as these. Perhaps we should heed the message of the burning bush, and move out of the forests, leaving them to renew themselves without our heavy handed management practices. Or, we can learn to live with them, avoiding the cyclic destruction of peoples' lives through poorly designed, alien structures we erect in their territory.

I don't get it.

2006-07-24T23:21:00.000+10:00

Apologies, I've been away doing some teaching out of town.

After a brief moment's puzzlement at the goings on of the Liberal party, and a detached despairing thought about the Mumbai bombing, I was brought back to reality by the goings on in the middle east.

My late grandfather was there almost fifty years ago in a concerted attempt to sort this whole thing out. Obviously it was a fruitless task. I would love to hear his thoughts on the situation, he always had such an interesting perspective.

And I'm asked why I don't bother reading the papers every day.

It's not that I don't care, seriously. It's that I do, and I feel quite impotent already, thanks very much.

Isn't it ironic... Don't you think?

2006-06-14T22:15:00.000+10:00

Federal Education minister Julie Bishop wants the Australian taxpayers to fund chaplains in state run schools. Ms Bishop said parents were "looking for choice in the education and values taught to their children".

Now call me crazy, but I thought parents already had such a choice. There are churches all over the place, you can't walk down a city street without seeing the spire of some house of worship pointing up into the smoggy sky. I assume there are practitioners of religious guidance inside them, despite having never ventured into one recently. Anyone can walk into a place of worship and seek guidance from an official of the religion in question, as far as I know, without fear of being turned away. Indeed, if parents feel strongly enough about spiritual issues, they can choose to send their children to schools specifically designed to indoctrinate them into certain ways of thinking.

But apparently it's up to the Australian taxpayer to foot the bill for individuals' choice of religious persuasion, and schools should have spruikers for selected belief systems installed as a permanent fixture. Not only the taxpayers in general, but parents of children at any state school, who may have no interest in consulting a religiously oriented counsellor, should also help pay for the choices of those who do. The school will have to make up half of the $70, 000 it will take to have a chaplain on campus at all times, and the government will match their comittment.

I don't know of many schools that have a spare $35,000 laying around unused at present. Indeed, my own son's school has it's library open only on selected days because of staff and funding shortfalls. But Ms. Bishop, who has no children of her own in the education system, seems to think that what the kids are really missing out on is someone to impart a value structure to them, rather than access to varied information of their own choosing.

If children are missing out on being taught values, it is not a fault that lies with the school system. The very basis of a secular schooling curriculum is that all children, regardless of personal or family beliefs, will have an equal education in areas essential for their future success in society. If the school system is to provide a moral framework, perhaps study of philosophy in general, and ethics, should be included among the curricula of schools in this country. Across the board, in a national approach, as is proposed with this policy.

Particularly galling is the prospect of installing chaplains, a patently christian concept, while at the same time removing study of indigenous culture from classrooms in Australia. So it's okay to teach indigenous kids about Western Christian values, but not those of their parents and their ancestors, as that is apparently the job of the family. This smacks of blatant hypocrisy and obvious double standards.

It is also ironic that this present government is crying foul that the youth have no moral guidance. Quite aside from directly insulting the hard working teachers in the State School system, by suggesting they have no morals themselves, the Howard led coalition is probably one of the most corrupt and morally questionable governments this country has seen. Their record on treatment of refugees, their illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, their complete disregard for minority and general public opinion, their constant state of denial about human rights abuses here and overseas, as well as consistently misleading the public over a number of issues (not least the AWB affair) are hardly shining examples of moral fortitude.

This is yet another chip away at the freedom of Australians, particularly our freedom of thought. And it is being carried out in the most insidious way possible, by targeting young, impressionable, often confused, yet always trusting, children. If the split in the government continues the way it is going, the concept will never be passed as a bill through the senate. If it comes down to such a vote, I hope the open-mindedness and freedom of thought that currently exists in our state schools extends into the parliament of our nation.

I'm Kim B... I'm your pusher

2006-05-24T10:38:00.000+10:00

So, the Federal ALP has decided they are not in favour of nuclear power to solve Australia's power consumption woes and alleviate our shocking greenhouse gas emission levels. Obviously, they have considered nuclear power generation too dangerous, not cost effective, and a generally bad idea politically and environmentally.

But, good old Kimbo the White Elephant has given the green light to increase Uranium sales to other countries so they may use it for exactly that purpose. This kind of hypocrisy is usually only found in the seedy underworld of drug culture, and in fact, the parallels of behaviour are quite interesting.

A drug dealer, (let's say for argument's sake a heroin supplier), is usually not addicted to the product he sells. He has decided, for whatever reason, that using the drug he distributes is not a good idea. He is well aware of the risks involved, and the dangers, yet happily sells the substance to other people who are addicted to it, and cannot control their cravings for the substance.

Looking at the supply of uranium for power generation, we see that extremely rarely, if ever, has any country's power demand gone down over time. Global power use continues to rise over time, like a kind of addiction. The more people have, the more they want, in terms of power availability. We have a fuel supply for a system we have deemed too dangerous, but will happily sell it to other countries, while being fully aware of the risks.

A dealer may say he is not doing any harm, it is up to an individual to make their own decisions, and he is just meeting a demand in the marketplace, which would otherwise be filled by someone else. The government may use the exact same justification for the sale of uranium. The only difference being that the dealer doesn't clean up after his customers, while we are offering to be garbage collectors and dumping ground to the customers we would sell to. Shiploads of radioactive waste passing through some of the most populated areas on the planet doesn't seem like the most intelligent solution to any problem.

Do we want our national conscience tested in this way? Would we do the same with substandard produce, or drugs, or other materials? We would not, I hope. And yet this issue is being kicked about like it is just another political football. This has the potential for permanent environmental destruction on a local and regional scale. Where does our responsibility lay? With our balance of payments? Or concern for our fellow inhabitants of the earth?

The web, and how to sling it

2006-05-10T22:12:00.000+10:00

I have had several heated discussions both online and in person with people about the communication with people in an online context, and subsequent meeting in a "close proximity" situation. There seems to be an irrational stigma attached to meeting people online, indeed, something wrong with anyone who would make first contact and arrange face to face meetings by this particular medium.

Personally, I can't see what all the fuss is about. I'm not talking about dating or sexual encounters (necessarily) just meeting likeminded people and finding common ground for entertainment and discussion. I have met more than a few people this way personally, and find only one distinction to set it aside from any other form of communication, that being the potential for initial anonymity.

A good many people have made my acquaintance through discussion boards based around various topics, mostly related to music. Not that I am a musician myself, I can be found at a live band at least once a week, usually more often. So, finding people on certain discussions with whom I had already spent considerable hours, though obviously without any direct communication, meeting them at a consequent show of a band we had discussed online is not that strange, as all parties involved are aware the others will be in the same venue for the same reason. Hell, we were probably going to be there anyway, now there's just someone to look for.

This is only one way such meetings may come about, but it is a good example. Some of these relationships have developed further, to the point where arrangements are made online for the sole purpose of each others' company. Such arrangements are usually on a larger scale, and many a party, barbecue and dinner have I attended on the basis of such proposals. When asked why I would want to spend time with "people I met on the internet", my immediate response was "Why not?"

I wonder with whom it is not weird to spend time with, and how they are met. Workmates? Pretty random way to meet people. Schoolmates? Equally random. Friends? Well, how do we make friends anyway? Surely, this is random. Spending time with one's family has a lot more obligation attached, but even this is a pretty random way to meet people, and you don't really have any choice in that at all.

I also considered whether making an arrangement to meet people by electronic communication was weird. Are interpersonal relationships only acceptably "normal" when made face to face? What about if it is by written correspondence? Or by putting up posters on street posts? Or by billboards? Or telephone? Text message? Smoke signal? Telegraph? Fax? Does it matter? I don't think so, and to all my friends I have met from the online community and stay in contact with by email, discussion board, blog comments, and personal message: I hold you in equal regard to those I have met in other, equally random circumstances.

I wonder if the first cave painters copped this much flak...

Daydream Believer

2006-05-02T21:07:00.000+10:00

Someone told me today I am always quick to shoot down the beliefs of others. I conceded that I probably am among the first to challenge beliefs which I don't share. I expect people to do the same to me, probably as a result of learning my trade as a scientist. But I was also careful to point out that it was nothing personal, I was questioning an idea, not a person who held the idea.

In science, I may draw a set of conclusions from the data set I am presented with through experimentation. When I present these conclusions to other scientists, I fully expect them to challenge my conclusions, question my assumptions, query the data on which I based them. That's science. Only by constant re-evaluation does science move in any direction. I think beliefs should be like that, too.

People make assumptions and draw conclusions based on the experience and environment in which they live. They make decisions about what they think is most appropriate, and reject concepts which they find to be unhelpful, or at odds with their existing belief set. Often they use their conclusions to defend their existing behaviour patterns when criticised.

When people tell me that I am quick to attack peoples opinions or beliefs, I admit that I am. But I am doing it explicitly. I am saying "I don't share your belief, and here are my reasons". People who have beliefs are doing the same thing. But without any transparency. To hold a belief, one makes a choice. To accept one explanation or method, and reject all others. This rejection is implicit, and stealthy. Even though I challenge people, I give them the opportunity to respond to, even attack, my thought processes. But rarely do they afford me the same courtesy.

I find it quite interesting that apparently I am in the wrong for challenging the publically stated beliefs of others, putting my thinking out in the open for discussion, attack, ridicule and analysis. While the believers quietly reject all other explanations, and hold their beliefs close, and their reasoning closer. How can we learn if everyone keeps secret their route to understanding of their chosen beliefs?

It's written in the Stars

2006-04-26T16:29:00.000+10:00

Every now and then I listen to a show on Melbourne's own 3RRR, in which a guest astrologer takes talk back calls from listeners wishing to consult her about their horoscope. Most of the time, this only slightly irritates me, but every now and then she drops a clanger which has me screaming profanities at the radio. I heard her tell one person that, as a result of where the sun rose at the time of her birth, she was looking for "someone to love, or someone to love her". Hey, call me crazy, but as long as the sun rose in the east on the day you were born, that would pretty much describe you to some degree.

Recently a fellow suffering from Multiple Sclerosis rang her, and she asked him a few questions, before giving him advice about his life. Now, quite often, the advice she gives is based more on common sense than any kind of mystical wisdom fromt he relative position of planets in the solar system. But in this case, she began to dispense advice which she was completely unqualified to give, even suggesting that his illness could be influenced by planetary alignments and the like.

This kind of quackery should have gone out along with witch hunts, to be quite honest, and an astrologer should not give medical advice to a possibly terminally ill patient outside of the Kings Chambers in a fairy Tale.

The big problem I have with astrology, is not the lack of evidence to support any relationship between peoples' personalities and behaviour and the time of year they were born. It is not that there is no possible measurable influence a planet could exert over the physical substance of a person millions of miles away, or that there should perhaps be some difference between the signs of the northern hemisphere, where the horoscopes were developed, and the southern hemisphere, where I reside. There are indeed possibilities of forces beyond the understanding of modern science, immeasurable in any way (though if their effects are undetectable, their influence must be called into question).

My major problem with the idea of star signs, is that the dates are wrong. The star sign people are assigned based on their date of birth is supposed to correspond with the position of the sun relative to one of the twelve constellations of the zodiac. Unfortunately, as the earth is constantly moving relative to the rest of the universe, the charts drawn up some thousands of years ago are days, weeks or months out of whack with reality. There is also a thirteenth house in the zodiac, which has no characteristics assigned to it. That of Ophiuchus, the Serpent Holder.

Do people born between November 30th and December 17th have no personality or behaviour? This is the time when the sun rises in the house of Ophiuchus, a lesser known constellation named by the ancients. But what of the Ophiuchans? We don't know. Here's a list of Star Signs and their actual effective dates for the early part of the 21st century. I wonder if it makes a difference to your horoscope readng habits. If you really are a Scorpio, you are in a minority, that star sign in reality only lasts for six days.

Aries- 19 April - 13 May
Taurus- 14 May - 19 June
Gemini- 20 June - 21 July
Cancer- 21 July - 19 August
Leo- 10 August - 15 September
Virgo- 16 September - 30 October
Libra- 31 October - 22 November
Scorpio- 23 November - 29 November
Ophiuchus- 30 November - 17 December
Sagittarius- 18 December - 18 January
Capricorn- 19 January - 15 February
Aquarius- 16 February - 11 March
Pisces- 12 March - 18 April

Patriotism?

2006-04-06T00:42:00.000+10:00

In response to a comment (my first ever) in one of my Commonwealth Games rants, I would just like to defend my love of this country. While I don't support the Games for a million and one reasons, it doesn't mean I don't love the slab of rock I call home. I may not get excited when "our Cathy" breaks a world record on the track. I may not spend days in front of the TV watching "our boys in the baggy green" run, bowl and field rings around every other willow smacking country on earth. I may not bat an eyelid when told that Jana Pittman is un-Australian for her behaviour, as I have never heard of the woman, and have no idea what anyone has been talking about for the last month.

But that is why I love this country. Because I don't have to. I don't need to fit some stereotypical model of "what it means to be a good Australian". I am an Australian. My father's family came here and walked for two months to find a place to farm. They stopped by the roadside for a year along the way, and watched as Australians trooped past them to fill up the country with British idealism. My mother's family came in part on a ship, in chains, for crimes long forgotten. And in part as free people looking for a new place to call home, less shackled to the old world Britain so convincingly represents.

I can saddle and ride a horse, drive sheep for days without seeing a town, build a fence, train a dog, tune a motorcycle, drive a tractor, plough a field, clear a paddock, drink a slab on a Friday night, shoot a rabbit, skin and gut it, name a hundred species of native vegetation, and tell you what it can be used for. Is that Australian?

But I am no more or less Australian than someone who flew into Mascot yesterday, and has decided they want to be part of it all. This country is great because the people make it great. The freedom makes it great. The choice makes it great.

So, I don't follow the footy. So I missed every single event of the recent sports carnival. So I question the validity of the government's motivations in dazzling us with circuses. Do I love this country any less than one who zincs up their nose every summer and burns and boozes their way through the cricket season? Who scarves and screams their way through the winter's footy?

I do not, sir, and I resent the inference.

Commonwealth Games II

2006-03-17T16:41:00.002+11:00

I suppose I could carry on posting about this event until it finishes. I may do just that, I am sure I won't be alone if I so choose. I discovered today that Melbourne was the only city to bid for the games, which makes the honour of hosting them somewhat dubious. Interesting also that the ruling monarch, Queen Elizabeth the second chose to leave the country as soon as her formal duties were complete. Equally as interesting is that the representative of the US Royal family, Dr. Condoleeza Rice, is sticking around to watch something in which (gasp) her own country are not even participating!

The exclusion from competition of two thirds of the world's population on the basis that they were not invaded by the same monarchy at some point in their history seems to make the outcome of competition somewhat meaningless in itself. Are they the best athletes in the world? Some of them, but we're not going to be able to judge that from the results of any events here over the next week or so.

Another thing which has been bothering me is the sheer cost of the circus. The opening ceremony alone cost $50 million Australian. If, as I have heard, it is true that homeless people in the city are being housed for the duration of the event at the expense of the taxpayer, this figure could surely have provided permanent accomodation for them in perpetuity.

Best not to think too hard about it. It is a Friday afternoon, and the byproducts of Saccharomyces cerevisiae metabolism are calling me from my local watering hole.

The Commonwealth Games

2006-03-16T22:37:00.000+11:00

Games. Idle amusements we usually reserve for those times after all our necessary work is done.

Commonwealth. A suggestion that all the goodies get shared among all the people.

Both seem to be particularly out of place in describing this expensive circus which has invaded my chosen city for the next ten days.

In all honesty, I have to declare my personal distaste of the idolatry directed toward athletes in this country. Yes, people are born with differing abilities, some of them with particular body shapes and muscle arrangements which make them suitable for particular sporting events. Some of those people may even be born into situations where those particular traits are recognised, and nurtured. Of this lucky group, some may become better at their individual pursuits than those against whom they compete. A few of this ever diminishing group may have the contacts and good fortune to be able to devote a great deal of their time toward being the fastest, strongest, or most able to whack a little ball with a stick into a net.

I am still surprised that people can become so excited by people being good at something they spend their entire life practising for. They are born with the right body, they are given the best training, they spend hours of their day, days of their week, and most weeks of their year honing their ability. And then they compete. Sometimes they win. Sometimes they don't. When they do, should we be surprised? When they don't, should we be surprised? There is always someone with a slightly better build, a slightly more effective metabolism, a slightly more constructive training schedule, or style.

I have no problem with people enjoying sport, "healthy competition". But I don't idolise those people who become so obsessed with what should be a hobby that it consumes their entire lives at the expense of balance.

There is a name for disorders of this nature. We usually refer to it as addiction.

Evolution before life

2006-03-15T23:12:00.001+11:00

I was reading today that life on earth was probably an inevitable consequence of an abundance of organic chemicals, forming either around geothermal vents deep in the ocean, or in shallow pools at the ocean's edge. Either way, it's an interesting prospect. It seems that these chemicals were subject to evolutionary pressure before the first self replicating molecules even came into existence. That the most unstable molecules in this soup were selected against, in favour of the more stable, such as citric acid. This in turn paved the way for other molecules to use the stable molecules as foundations on which to attach themselves, until complex, self replicating molecules such as RNA became possible.

Evidence for this hypothesis is not hard to find. It forms the metabolic backbone of every living cell in existence. Fossils in our very own bodies. Cool, huh?

Low fat? So what!

2006-03-14T21:46:00.000+11:00

Recently an extensive study by the Women's Health Initiative, financed by the National Institutes of Health, which compared randomly assigned, low-fat diets to regular eating habits among 49,000 women in the United States, was completed. Analysis of the results of the eight year study showed that women who ate a reduced fat diet suffered the same rates of colon and breast cancers, as well as similar rates of diabetes. This was a surprise, as conventional wisdom has long been telling people that reducing the amount of fat in their diets will result in better health.

This wisdom is simply not supported by data from this study. While some critics of the study point to the fact that no distinction was made between saturated fats and unsaturated, the study was undertaken based on previous findings suggesting a link with total fats and certain cancers. Also under scrutiny is the level of fats the tested women consumed, some arguing that the 20% total fat intake was still too high, and that more significant figures may be revealed if the total fat intake went down to 10%, however, this conveniently ignores human nature. As only 31% of those studied managed to reduce their fat intake to this level. This suggests a major problem with the idea of reducing fat intake, as the majority of women could not cut that much fat out of their diet, the idea of suggesting people halve that amount again is just unfeasible.

What this study does show, is that much of people's behaviour is based on belief, and that if we hear something enough, we assume it to be good advice. Ask a chemist about the old saying "where there's smoke there's fire" and he will no doubt explain the reality of the situation to you. People's health is as much based on superstition and personal belief as on good testable scientific practice. Much like everything else in life.

Howard gags boffins

2006-03-13T23:54:00.000+11:00

So, it transpires that the Howard government has been preventing Australia's top research organisation, the CSIRO, from revealing findings which indicate that the global climate is changing. This has been going on for about the last ten years, which it seems may have been the most crucial time for definitive findings about atmospheric warming to influence governmental policy.

What is the point in spending tax dollars to do research on a phenomenon which will affect not only Australians, but the whole world's population, if the results of the investigation are kept a secret? To keep something like this quiet because it may affect foreign investment or trade deals appears to be shortsighted, to say the least. Downright irresponsible would be far more appropriate terminology.

Humanism

2006-03-10T14:36:00.000+11:00

We humans often set ourselves apart from animals, for many reasons. Historically, it has been because some scriptural doctrine or another informed us that we were either made from scratch to be their superior, or chosen by some deity for special enlightenment. As an atheist and evolutionary biologist, I can't accept these reasons.

Less doctrinally challenged ideals for human superiority based on our intelligence and character have been more recently used as justification for our behaviour. An objective view of our behaviour reveals a less than intelligent, territorial, jealous, violent, and greedy species. Actually, looking solely at our actions and their outcomes, not their motivation (or worse, after the fact justification of them) , we behave as any other reasonably social creature does. We support our own herd, and fight off all others to secure territory, which protects the resources our herd needs to survive.

There is a fine example of how this kind of behaviour works in the animal kingdom, involving beetles. It is often used in explaining population dynamics in undergraduate science courses. A certain species of beetle requires a particular food source for it's larvae. The food source is the seed of a particular tree, and each larva requires half a seed in order to reach maturity. If two beetles lay an egg on the same seed, both larva have enough food to become beetles. If three beetles lay their egg on the same seed, all three larvae die as a result of the competition for food.

If we were truly more intelligent than animals, we would be able to figure out a way that everybody got all they needed, no matter where they were born in the world. Some continents are heavy with mineral wealth, some have rich arable soil to farm, some have plentiful fresh clean water, some have all of these things in the same place, and their citizens are wealthy and healthy, for the most part. Some land masses have none of these resources, and their citizens are poor, unhealthy, uneducated and die very young.

If none of us are chosen by an external force as superior, then we are all equal. If we are all equal, then the world's resources belong to all of us, especially those materials that are limited. And not just those living in the present, but the future generations should have a claim in the wealth of the world. If everyone had equal access to all resources, would there be any need for standing armies to defend them?

If we evolved from animal ancestors, as I think it is safe to assume we did, then our future rests firmly on the concept of humanity, in taking the final step in shedding our animal past, and becoming superior to them in the only way we possibly can. By achieving some real intelligence.

Evolutionary blink of an eye

2006-03-09T21:31:00.000+11:00

So, the current rate of species exctinction is almost one hundred thousand times more rapid than the natural rate, according to this article. What does that mean? Probably not a lot. Considering science has only identified a fraction of all organisms on earth, and most of those we can see with the naked eye are ecologically unimportant. We could kill every green plant on the planet, for example, and still have enough oxygen for a hundred years or so.

Does it mean we should be worried? Possibly, but worrying about it is not going to solve the problem.

Does it mean we should do something about it? Probably, but when it comes down to it, we are the only species with any kind of values system, so if we wipe ourselves out, there won't be anyone left to whom it will matter.

And the whole thing will start all over again.

Quite reasonably, the best all around solution.

Before we arrived, there were no problems, because there was no one around to couch a situation in such terms, nor even consider the world around them in such systematic theoretical framework. Things ate other things, they lived, they procreated, they died. The measure of success was the number of viable offspring any individual contributed genes to. If evolution is a kind of never ending experiment, then it may just be that this course of investigation has reached it's ultimate potential.

Time to return to basic principles, perhaps. It has happened before.

Lies by Omission

2006-03-08T14:20:00.000+11:00

It seems to be a common feature in material written by people with "radical" or "unconventional" views that they apparently have reasonable, well thought out arguments to back up their case. They often have well developed websites, which apparently offer unbiased "information" to interested readers, like this one for example.

Such "evidence" is easily checked, and usually is refuted by many conventional and web authors, while supported by single or few "researchers", often with either hidden or obvious agendas. The exclusion of data which does not support an argument is both misleading and dishonest. An explanation should attempt to describe all known phenomena, not just single cited cases fitting a certain a priori argument.

A piece of factual writing is only as reliable as it's sources, and these days, such sources are easily checked. If they canot be verified, one must immediately ask why? What benefit to the author for not including sources, and indeed, what benefit ultimately to not including information which challenges their contention. Such omission may easily have the opposite effect to that which the author intended.

Stardust Memories

2006-03-07T10:01:00.000+11:00

For those not familiar with NASA's Stardust Project, in 1999, a probe was launched to pass through the tail of a passing comet. It returned it's cargo, a canister comtaining dust collected in the comet's tail, to earth in January.

There is evidence of complex "organic" type molecules in the dust, which leads scientists to believe the possibility that comets crashing into a young earth may have planted the seeds of life here. So, are we all aliens? Even if this origin of terrestrial life is true, I don't follow this interpretation. If emigres can be considered citizens in their own lifetime, I suppose that 3.5 billion years of shared evolution should qualify us to call this planet home. Even if we were refugees originally.

Or should we just "go back where we came from"?

The Inaugural Blog Entry

2006-03-07T00:51:00.000+11:00

I guess it was inevitable, in order to curtail my posting elsewhere, I ultimately had to find another outlet for my ranting and general disagreeableness.

Here it is.

What have I got to rant about today?

Hmm, how about a list of things I don't believe, just to get the ball rolling. Here goes.

Abracadabra
Acupuncture
Adam and Eve
Ad Hoc Hypothesis
Alchemy
Alien Abductions
Aliens
Alternative Medicine
Allopathy
Amityville Horror
Amway
Ancient Astronauts
Angels
Anti-Gravity Machine
Antichrist
Apparitions
Anti-Immunisation
Area 51
Aromatherapy
Astrology
Astral Travel
Atlantis
Auras
Automatic Writing
Ayur-Vedic Medicine
Backward Masking
Barcodes (Evil)
Bass Strait Triangle
Bed of Nails
Bee Venom Therapy
Bermuda Triangle
Bible Numerics
Biblical Literalism
Bigfoot
Biofeedback
Biorhythyms
Blasphemy
Bogus Qualifications
Bone Pointing
Bridey Murphy
Bunyips
Cattle Mutilations
Chain Letters
Channeling
Charlatans
Charles Berlitz
Chiropractic
Christian Science
Clairvoyance
Closed-Minded Attitudes
Coincidences
Cold Fusion
Conspiracies
Cosmobiology
Creationism
Cricket Scores (Unlucky)
Crop Circles
Cryonics
Cryptozoology
Crystal Power
Cults
Curses
Debunking
Demons
Dental Amalgam
Devils
Dianetics
Dihydrogen Monoxide
Divining
Dowsing
Dragon's Triangle
Dreams Of The Future
Drum Healing
Earth Rays
Easter Bunny
Eckankar
Ectoplasm
Edgar Cayce
Elves
Elvis Presley (Survival of)
End-Of-The-World-Predictions
Energies Unknown To Science
Entities
Erich Von Daniken
Eugenics
Evangelists (Corrupt)
Evil Eye
Exorcism
Extra Sensory Perception
Extra-Terrestrials
Face On Mars
Facilitated Communication
Fairies
Faith Healing
Fasting

Fatalism
Feng Shui
Firewalking
Flat Earth
Fluoridation (Adverse Effects of)
Flying Saucers
Fortune Telling
Free Energy Machines
Fuel Economizers
Fundamentalism
Gaia
Gargoyles
Geocentricity
Ghosts
Ghouls
Global Warming
Goblins
Gods
Graphology
Gurus
Hanger 18
Heaven
Hell
Hoaxes
Holistic Health
Hollow Earth
Holocaust Denials
Homeopathy
Horoscopes
Human Cloning
Hypnosis
Icons (Weeping, Perspiring, Milk-Slurping etc)
I Ching
I.Q. Tests
Immanuel Velikovsky
Immortality
Incubus
Internet
Iridology
James Lakes
Jehovah's Witnesses
Jeanne Dixon
Jesus
Jim Morrison (Survival of)
Kinesiology
Kirlian Photography
Lake Monsters
Lemuria
Leprechauns
Levitation
Life After Death
Living Forever
Loch Ness Monster
Lottery Schemes
Lucifer
Lucky Charms
Lunar Effects
Lunar Real Estate
Magic
Magnetic Fuel Savers
Magnetic Healing Devices
Mars Effect
Mars Landing Faked
Martian Real Estate
Media
Men In Black
Mermaids And Mermen
Mesmerism
Messiah
Messiah Cults
Miracles
Monuments On Mars
Monuments of the Moon
Moon Landing Faked
Mormonism
Multi Level Marketing
Mysteries
Mythology
Myths
Natural Law Party
Natural Vision
Naturopathy
Nazca Lines
Near Death Experiences
Neurolinguistic Programming
New Age
Noah's Ark
Nostradamus
Numerology
Occult
Omens
Original Sin
Ouija Boards
Out Of Body Experiences
Ozone Therapy

Palmistry
Paranormal
Parapsychology
Past Lives
Pendulum Power
Perpetual Motion Machines
Phantoms
Philadelphia Experiment
Phrenology
Piltdown Man
Poltergeists
Prayer
Predictions
Prophecies
Pseudo-Science
Pseudo-Technology
Psychic Archaeology
Psychic Dentistry
Psychic Detective
Psychic Pets
Psychic Powers
Psychic Surgery
Psychomotor Patterning
Purgatory
Pyramid Powers
Qi Gong
Racism And Racial Theories
Raindance
Radiesthesia
Reincarnation
Reiki
Religions
Remote Viewing
Resurrection of Christ
Reverse Speech
Roswell
Runes
Sasquatch
Satan
Satanic Ritual Abuse
Scams
Science (As Dogma)
Scientology
Sea Monsters
Seances
Secret Organisations
Sects
Seers And Prophets
Shiatsu
Shrines
Shroud Of Turin
Skepticism
Sorcery
Speaking In Tongues
Spiritualism
Spontaneous Human Combustion
Spoon Bending
Star of Bethlehem
Stigmata
Subluxations
Subliminal Tapes
Succubus
Superstition
Tarot Cards
Tasseography
Tea-Leaf Readings
Telekinesis
Telepathy
Theosophy
Therapeutic Touch
Thought Field Therapy
Tooth Fairy
Transcendental Meditation
Transubstantiation
Tutankhamen's Curse
Ufos
UFO Cover Up Conspiricies
Unicorn
Urantia
Urban Legend
Urban Myth
Uri Geller
Urine Therapy
Vampires
Virgin Births
Visions
Vitamin Supplements
Voodoo
Werewolves
Witchcraft
Yetis
Yowies
Zero Point Energy
Zombies

Okay, so some of those are not thing I outright don't believe in, just things about which I am skeptical, lifted from the Australian skeptics website.

But you get the idea.