 Although my website is called ratio scientiae, which is knowledge of the physical world, in today’s post we are going to indulge in some crossover with ratio sapientiae, which is knowledge of the divinity. And what better place to start something that deals with the divinity than with the universe. As I have written in a previous essay, the universe is insanely big. The furthest object that humanity has launched into space is the voyager-1 probe, which has taken 45 years travelling at 35,000 miles per hour to be 22 light hours away from Earth. By comparison the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, is 4.24 light years away from Earth. Our galaxy, The Milky Way, is 105,000 light years wide. The nearest galaxy to ours, the Andromeda Galaxy, is 2.5 million light years away. Andromeda, our galaxy, and others are part of a group of galaxies called the Virgo supercluster which is 110 million light years wide. The Virgo supercluster is part of an even larger structure of superclusters of galaxies called the Pisces-Cetus Supercluster Complex which stretches 1 billion light years across space, and is one of tens of thousands of such structures in the universe. The visible universe extends more than 13 billion light years away from Earth in all directions, and it contains more than 7 trillion galaxies, 30 billion trillion stars, and as many planets. So my question is: Biblically speaking, what is the point of this immense humongously ginormous vastness? The Bible doesn’t say much about the universe beyond the understanding of people living one of two thousand years ago. Stars in the Bible were nothing more than points of light (nowhere is it mentioned they are suns), and their purpose, along with that of the sun and the moon, is to give light upon the Earth and separate the day/light from night/darkness, and for signs and for seasons, and for days and years (Genesis 1:14-18). But this Earth-centric view of the cosmos can only apply to the universe visible with the unaided eye, which comprises about 10,000 distinct stars, so it begs the question as to the purpose of the rest of the universe which was invisible to the ancients. Additionally, considering that just in our galaxy there are at least millions of Earth-like planets orbiting sun-like stars, another issue about which the Bible doesn’t say much is whether there are intelligent beings other than us in the universe. Of course, because we are speculating about the motivations of the divinity, there can be many answers to this question. For example, you can argue that indeed is only us in the universe and that God created all that immensity that we have uncovered with telescopes to make us feel humble, and there is no way to refute this argument short of being contacted by extraterrestrials. However, as far as I’m concerned, all those billions upon billions of galaxies, and even more stars and planets seem to me like a waste of creation effort if the sole purpose of creation is us. It also seems to me statistically unlikely that we are alone in the universe. You would expect that now that humanity has attained advanced knowledge about the universe, God would provide us with an update more attuned to our level of understanding of the cosmos. However, according to Roman Catholic and most protestant faiths, all of God’s revelation is contained in the Bible and no new revelation will be forthcoming. This is not to say that all Christians accept this premise. A notable example is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or LDS Church (The Mormons), which states that revelation is still occurring. Whereas the Bible says nothing about the new world (the Americas), the Mormons believe that people from Jerusalem came to the Americas and that Jesus visited them after he rose from the grave and taught them the Christian Gospel. Then this information was revealed to their prophet, Joseph Smith, who wrote it into what was to become the Book of Mormon in 1830. A remarkable revelation within the Mormon canon is the doctrine of eternal progression where humans have the potential to become gods and engage in acts of creation giving rise to new populated worlds. And these acts of creation are ongoing. Some of these created worlds have passed away, others such as ours are still extant, while many others are in the process of being birthed. Thus the LDS Church seems to offer an explanation for the size of the universe and whether there are other intelligent beings out there, although other Christians disagree. Additionally, the Mormon cosmology is not completely compatible with current scientific ideas about the universe. Nevertheless, the Mormon claims seem to me at least a step in the right direction towards providing that much needed update, because the Bible, in view of our present knowledge of the universe, comes across as a highly parochial account of the cosmos, which has not even begun to play catch up with other accounts such as that of the Mormon faith. But I think that this will change. Now I will proceed to make my prediction/prophesy for the ages. Unless humanity is destroyed say by a collision of Earth with a large asteroid or some other calamity (in which case doctrinarian Christians will be vindicated), humanity will sooner or later begin its trek towards the stars. At first it will be baby steps such as bases and then settlements on the Moon and Mars and perhaps even some of the moons of Jupiter or other planets such as Saturn. Then, if we can develop the technology to cover the vast distances of space, even if it is with generational ships or some form of suspended animation of the crews of these ships, we may actually begin travelling to the nearest stars. So, lo and behold! As what I have outlined above unfolds, I predict that in the future within the mainstream Christian religions someone will claim that they have received new revelation from God, a gospel for the space age if you will, which may even include an apparition by Jesus himself. And in this new revelation the questions I have raised in this essay will be answered and a new plan will be revealed for humanity to be fruitful, multiply, and expand into the cosmos where they will meet other intelligent beings. This claim will be attacked by mainstream Christian churches, but it will spread like wildfire and become the leading Christian religion of the space age. When will this happen? I don’t know. It may be in 10, 100, 1000 or more years, but if it happens, let future generations know that people in this century read about it here first! Image by R. Halfpaap from flickr is used here under an Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0) license and has not been modified from the original.
0 Comments
3/3/2023 DNA in Basic and Applied Science: From the Building Blocks of Life to Heredity and Catching Bad GuysRead Now DNA I have been watching true crime documentaries involving cold cases. Cold cases are crimes that went “cold” due to lack of progress in the investigation. What is remarkable about some of these cold cases is that many of them were solved decades after the crime thanks to DNA evidence. DNA technology along with national databases of DNA profiles of convicted offenders and arrestees, as well as coordination among law enforcement agencies, has brought about a revolution in crimefighting and greatly increased the odds of catching the criminals. But how did this come about? The answer: is curiosity. Scientists reasoned that biological entities must be made of basic parts or building blocks that are put together to create the whole. Thus the original research into living things was a quest to find, describe, and understand the nature of these building blocks, how they fit together, and how they work.
In 1869 the Swiss physician Friedrich Miescher was working in the city of Tübingen in Germany with the cells present in the pus that he painstakingly isolated from surgical bandages. While preparing a solution from these cells he noticed a material that precipitated out of the solution when he acidified it. Miescher would go on to demonstrate that this material, which was not made of proteins or lipids, was present in the nucleus of the cells and he called it nuclein (which we now know to be DNA). Miescher later worked in obtaining purer extracts of nuclein and analyzing its composition, and he also discovered that sperm were a particularly good source of nuclein. His work with sperm led him to become interested in heredity, but he never considered that nuclein could be solely responsible for it. Scientists kept on gaining a more profound understanding of the makeup of nuclein and its properties. For example, in 1881 the German biochemist Albrecht Kossel found that nuclein contained four nitrogen containing bases, adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T). In that same time period, it was becoming evident that the nucleus of cells played an important role in cell division and multiplication and perhaps heredity. Based on multiple lines of evidence, in 1882 the German biologist Walther Flemming suggested that the chromosomes, which are structures that can be found inside the nucleus, contained nuclein, and in 1902 Theodor Boveri and Walter Sutton independently postulated that chromosomes were involved in heredity. The early 20th century saw the rise of the field of genetics and triggered the search for the physical nature of the unit of inheritance: the gene. Thomas Morgan proposed in 1911 that genes were present in chromosomes. Although some scientists began to entertain the notion that nuclein, now renamed “nucleic acid” could be responsible for heredity, many still favored proteins as they did not understand how the chemical makeup of nucleic acid could be responsible for it. This issue was finally solved when Oswald Avery, Colin MacLeod, and Maclyn McCarty working with bacteria in 1944, and Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase working with viruses in 1952 demonstrated that the molecule responsible for heredity was the nucleic acid which is now formally called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). A series of discoveries then followed not only regarding the nature of DNA but how to work with it. James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953 proposed their famous “double helix” model for the structure of DNA and suggested a mechanism by which it could carry the genetic information. In 1956 Arthur Kornberg discovered the enzyme that replicates DNA (DNA polymerase). From 1961 to 1966 the genetic code was cracked by several scientists including Robert Holley, Gobind Khorana, Heinrich Matthaei, and Marshall Nirenberg. In 1977 Frederick Sanger, Allan Maxam, and Walter Gilbert developed methods to sequence DNA, which were vastly improved when Kary Mullis in 1985 developed the process of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which allowed the production of large number of copies of DNA from small samples. As the mechanisms of heredity at the molecular level became clearer, scientists began asking other questions such as the role of genes in disease and in other important biological processes which ushered a revolution in medicine and the biological sciences that is still ongoing. But at the same time, other groups of scientists begun asking different types of questions. They wondered if DNA could be used to develop practical applications. In 1984 the British scientist, Alec Jeffreys, succeeded in creating the first genetic fingerprint of a human being, and he began applying his genetic fingerprinting techniques to settle paternity disputes and immigration cases. He also began adapting his techniques for use in criminal cases; something which he called genetic profiling for forensic use. In 1986 the police contacted him to solve the case of two women who had been raped and murdered. Using DNA evidence, Jeffreys not only proved that a man arrested for the crime was innocent, but he also succeeded in finding the criminal from samples of individuals that the police had obtained from the area. From there on, the use of DNA profiling greatly increased in the forensics field and was improved to the point that today even a small droplet or stain from a biological fluid or a single hair with a follicle left at the scene of a crime can be used to produce enough DNA to aid in establishing the innocence or culpability of a subject. And the future may hold even more amazing forensic applications of the process. Today’s DNA profiling methods are effective if a match can be found in a database or in a sample from a suspect. However, even in the absence of a match, DNA profiling has the potential to reveal key aspects about the originator of the sample being profiled such as eye, hair, and skin color, and probable physical appearance. And all this started because some scientists were curious about what living things are made of. DNA image by Виталий Смолыгин is in the public domain. A while ago while on Twitter, I saw people were tweeting about individuals who hunted giraffes and posted pictures of themselves posing next to their kills. Because I thought the whole discussion was one-sided, I responded by posting a link to the explanation that a woman hunter, Tess Halley, provided as to why and how she hunted a giraffe so everyone would be aware of the other side of the argument. I followed that by posting a link to an interview with her.  The effect this had was like spraying gasoline on a fire. My followers on Twitter called Halley: vile, sad, disgusting, despicable, heartless, a coward, a monster, scum, a sociopath, immoral, and a POS. Her killing of the giraffe was labelled egregious, sickening, outrageous, and appalling. She was branded a person without a moral compass who destroys the balance of the Earth and nature, and who deserves to burn in hell. A few people criticized hunters in general while the majority just criticized trophy hunting in particular. Others only chastised Halley for posting the picture or at least considered it an aggravating factor. I know several hunters personally, and they are all decent individuals, so I took exception to the comments my Twitter followers made. In this post I’m going to recap some of my arguments while analyzing the apparent reasons everyone was so outraged over Halley killing a giraffe and my thoughts about it. Was it because she killed a sentient animal? A sentient animal is one which has the ability to perceive or feel things. So this clearly goes beyond giraffes, and covers, for example, farm animals such as cows, pigs, and chickens. In the United States more than 8 billion chickens, 100 million pigs, and 30 million cattle are slaughtered each year, and the slaughter of these animals is a traumatic process which stresses the animals before they die. I suspect that the majority of the people who displayed indignation at Halley killing the giraffe also eat meat, so I have to point out that by buying meat, you are financing those who kill sentient animals (cows, pigs, and chickens) to feed you. By this reasoning, in terms of killing a sentient animal, people who eat meat are no worse than her. Indeed, a vegetarian wrote that whereas trophy hunters kill 70,000 wild animals each year worldwide, meat eaters finance the killing of 70 billion farm animals. He also argued that whereas wild animals enjoy several years of freedom before they are killed, farm animals lead short, restricted, miserable lives before they are slaughtered, and those who eat meat support all this. Was it because she did not have to kill the animal for food? Was it because she did it for sport? People could argue that killing or paying others to kill animals specifically raised for food is justified (although vegetarians would disagree), but Halley killed a wild animal for sport, and that’s not acceptable. This is a value judgement. However, I have to point out that Halley was not a poacher. She obtained the permission of the authorities of the preserve where this giraffe lived. The giraffe belonged to a managed herd, and in these herds animals have to be killed (culled) occasionally for the overall good of the herd. Giraffe populations, while still low, are increasing. The giraffe was also not left out in the field to rot, all of its body was used. Although Halley claims that she is foremost a hunter, she views her kill as fitting within the framework of a conservation effort. There are groups of hunters that have spearheaded efforts to protect wildlife and their habitat through organizations such as Ducks Unlimited. It must also be mentioned that in the United States today there is no need to kill wildlife for food in order to survive. Therefore, most hunting is hunting for sport. From this vantage point, the killing of that giraffe by Halley was no different from the killing of deer, elk, moose, boars, etc. There are 15 million hunting licenses issued in the United States each year, and it is estimated that close to 5% of the population of the United States engages in hunting. If you include people that fish at least once a year (yes, fishing is a form of hunting that kills a sentient animal), that covers 55 million Americans. Should all these people in the United States receive the moral condemnation that Halley received? There are multiple reasons for hunting, but the hunters I know hunt for the experience, the challenge, the bonding (if they are hunting with others), and the proximity to nature. Many hunters will tell you that killing your own food beats buying it at the supermarket. And the vast majority of hunters are mindful of the need for conservation. They buy their hunting or fishing permits and follow the laws. Was it because she posted a picture of herself smiling next to the giraffe? This struck a nerve with many people who argued that if you are going to kill the giraffe, so be it, but at least don’t post a picture of yourself smiling next to it on social media. This is another value judgement, but it must be pointed out that the activity of hunting is as old as humanity, and so is the pride hunters take in their kill and their desire to document it. In humanity’s past this took place in the form of stories, paintings, and trophies (tusks, horns, etc.), and with technological advances this has also included photographs and videos. The most visible example of this practice is photos of fishermen posing with the fish that they have caught. Thus social media is the next logical extension of this activity. So why was it? I suspect the real reason why people were so outraged is the same reason why they would be outraged if someone killed a cute puppy, but wouldn’t bat an eye if someone killed a rat, even though both are sentient animals. Some animals have just gained a cultural foothold in the empathic human consciousness. Large majestic animals such as giraffes, elephants, or lions have an iconic appeal to the contemporary human psyche that other animals just don’t have, and their killing triggers strong emotional reactions even if it is carried out within a legal conservation-oriented framework. Last Words I am not a vegetarian, and I am not a hunter, although I have caught and eaten fish, and I use small animals for research. I rationalize our use of animals in terms of humans being the dominant predator of the planet. Although I like the outdoors and often go on short hikes, my regular life is far removed from nature. From this vantage point I believe that conservation-minded hunters are closer to nature than me or anyone with my lifestyle. Finally, I also think that viewing nature through the prism of human morals is going against the very essence of what nature is, and I have written posts about this in my blog. But in the end, societies decide what is acceptable or not. People can always lobby their elected representatives to ban the importation of hunting trophies of the animals they care about, or people can pressure social media companies to ban the posting of photos of hunted animals as part of their terms of service. I think that these two initiatives would be more effective than short-lived outbursts of social media outrage. So those are my thoughts on this issue. What do you think? I do not own the rights to the photograph of Tess Halley posing with the giraffe she killed in South Africa. This photo has been widely circulated in social media and is used here under the doctrine of Fair Use.  Antivaxxers are people who deny the need for or the efficacy of vaccines and their role in controlling some of the most dreadful diseases in the history of humanity. Not only this, but antivaxxers also claim that vaccines have huge side effects that actually harm more people than they benefit, and they have been particularly vocal about the COVID-19 vaccines. All this is, of course, not true. The COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives by decreasing the proportion of hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated to a much greater extent compared to the unvaccinated. Antivaxxers have also spread misinformation and lies about the COVID-19 vaccines that have been repeatedly debunked over and over and over. Nevertheless, they ignore this while expressing outrage at pro-vaccine people, at best calling them “sheep” (sheeple), or at worst claiming that they are being manipulated by or are part of an immoral and unethical alliance of the government, pharmaceutical companies, and other organizations bent on profit and societal control. So what should be my approach to dealing with antivaxxers? I see two alternatives: the inflammatory approach and the conciliatory approach. INFLAMMATORY APPROACH
Considering the high effectiveness of the COVID vaccines at decreasing the hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19, considering that antivaxxers have been waging an aggressive campaign of spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines on social media, and considering that online misinformation is linked to COVID vaccination hesitancy and refusal, it is not surprising that many people were harmed or killed by the misinformation spread by antivaxxers. During the peak of the Delta variant the daily consequences of spreading misinformation have been estimated at 300 deaths, 1,200 hospitalizations, and 20,000 COVID-19 cases with a cost of 50 to 300 million dollars. I am appalled and outraged at how many lives antivaxxers have damaged. So my question is: should antivaxxers pay for their crimes? This is not a far-fetched concept. Alex Jones, the talking head from Infowars, spread misinformation and disinformation about the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School where 20 children and 6 adults were killed. He said that the shooting was a false flag operation carried out by anti-gun groups, that no one died, and that the children were actors. As a result of this, the families of the murdered children experienced years of harassment by the followers of Alex Jones. Thankfully, he was brought to court and tried and found guilty, and now he has to pay the Sandy Hook families millions of dollars. Alex Jones tried several defenses including his right to free speech, but the judges didn’t buy it. He spread falsehoods and this hurt people. That was the bottom line. So, if anything, the case against antivaxxers should be even more clear cut, because many people who followed their ideas were harmed or died. Although in the case of Alex Jones the Sandy Hook families sued him for slander, a person or the family of a person harmed by antivaxxers could sue them for fraud. They would have to prove that the antivaxxer spread the misinformation while knowing that it was false. They would have to prove that the person who was harmed relied on the antivaxxer in their decision to forgo vaccination. And they would have to prove that there was economic loss (hospital bills, lost wages, funeral expenses, etc.). There are, of course, additional subtleties that have to be taken into account depending on the specific antivaxxer entity or person being sued, but this is a possible approach. Following this rationale, I think that at the very least, any antivaxxer that fulfils the conditions outlined above should be sued for the medical and funeral expenses incurred by the people (or their relatives) who followed their advice in good faith and were harmed or died. The above is the inflammatory approach. It’s the sort of thing you say/write to scandalize and infuriate people and increase their engagement, drive traffic to your blog, website, or podcast, and grow your brand. This approach makes tempers flare and generates a lot of heat and ill will as invectives fly back and forth and hatred is spewed everywhere. But there is another way to do this. It’s probably not as successful for getting engagement, but it may be more useful to society, civil discourse, and the psychological well-being of the public. CONCILIATORY APPROACH Every time two groups of people have strong disagreements on some things, the recommended course of action is to find areas of agreement. Antivaxxers are concerned about the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. The evidence we have indicates that the frequency of serious side effects as a result of these vaccines is very low, which makes the vaccines much safer than having the disease. However, even if rare, when hundreds of millions are vaccinated, the number of net cases start to accumulate. And some of these cases are severe enough that exceptionally susceptible people may end up impaired and saddled with huge debts due to their medical bills. Shouldn’t these people be compensated? I would venture that most people, whether pro or anti-vaccine, would agree with this. Unfortunately, this is not what is happening. There is a federal program known as the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) that is available to people who have been injured by the routine vaccines that are administered in the United States. This program in its lifetime has awarded $4.7 billion in compensation for vaccine injuries to cover 36% of the claims it has received. But this program does not cover the COVID-19 vaccines. Compensation for harm from the COVID-19 vaccines is handled by a program called the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). The CICP program was designed to handle compensation for people injured by treatment for rare events such as an Anthrax attack, but this program is now handling compensation claims for a treatment dispensed to hundreds of millions of Americans. The CICP program is underfunded, understaffed, and overwhelmed with claims, which it is resolving at a glacial pace, and so far congress has not done anything about this. So here is the chance for antivaxxers to make a difference and actually achieve something positive. If they stop their attacks on vaccines and pro-vaccine people and focus on lobbying congress to, for example, expand and fund the CICP program or move the COVID-19 claimants to the VICP program, that would be a major achievement that would help people affected by the side effects of vaccines. At the same time many pro-vaccine individuals and organizations that advocate for the rights of patients could join ranks with them to work together towards a common goal and actually benefit people. The alternative, of course, is to keep engaging in the usual cycle of claims, counterclaims, insults, counterinsults, and endless vitriol, which may help increase engagement but which does not accomplish anything meaningful to benefit society. So my question to antivaxxers is, what is it going to be: inflammatory or conciliatory? Image from pixabay by Gerd Altmann is free for commercial use and was modified from the original. The end of the world. How many times have we read books or seen movies about it? From alien invasions, killer asteroids, and problems with the Earth’s magnetic field, to the good old fashioned biblical end of times, the end of the world has been a recurring theme through the existence of humanity. And from what some people have written about it, it will certainly not be a pretty sight. If the end of the world happened in an instant with no warning, that would be one thing, but many visualizations of the end of the world give humanity several weeks or months of awareness of their impending doom before it actually happens. And this is where things get ugly. You would think that a sentient, thinking, civilized species such as our own would spend its last days engaged in spiritual, philosophical, or family-oriented activities. For example, people could await Armageddon praying in their churches and seeking repentance for every bad deed they have done, or meeting with their friends and loved ones to remember good times and eat, drink, sing, dance, and tell stories before oblivion. Alas, this is not what many of those writing about the end of times think will happen. Several authors envision scenes of panic and chaos with rampaging mobs bent on looting and pillaging. Destruction, fires, lynchings, and inebriated individuals seeking payback for actual or imagined transgressions by persons or by society against them. The poor at war with the rich, the minorities at war with the majorities, one race at war with another, etc. Every single point of friction that exists in our society explodes unleashing pent up anger and hatred. Hopefully these writers are wrong and most of humanity will face eternity with grace and composure, but even if their apocalyptic scenario is right, that’s not what really bothers me the most about the end of the world. Let me explain. I don’t know if you remember, but many predicted that the world was going to end back in 2012. Why? Many claimed that the Mayan calendar was ending on that year and this signaled the end of the world. As it turns out, this was not true. The Mayan calendar was ending a cycle, but after that another cycle was scheduled to begin. But the doomsday crowd ignored this and swiftly moved to discuss not IF but HOW the world would end. Many claimed that a rogue planet called Nibiru, claimed to be originally discovered by the Sumerians, or a Planet X, or a large asteroid would collide with Earth, even though no such planets or asteroid were visible anywhere near Earth. Others claimed that an alignment of the planets would destroy the Earth, but not only was such planetary alignment not taking place in 2012, but also these alignments have happened before and they have no effect on our planet. Still others claimed that the Earth would reverse its rotation leading to worldwide e mayhem, and they invoked the fact that the magnetic polarity of the planet has changed throughout its history. This change is the reversal of north and south magnetic points, but not only does this change not cause any harm to life on Earth, but it would certainly not change the direction of the Earth’s rotation. All this nonsense proliferated on many websites, was swiftly spread by social media, and led to the publication of many books, and even one major movie was made based on the premise aptly entitled “2012”. Of course, the date of the apocalypse came and went, and nothing happened. But this was irrelevant to end-of-the-world proponents who started their search for the next big revelation. Prophesying the end of the world is great business.  However, what bothers me is this. What if the doomsdayers had been right? I figure that in the hours or days before the end, they would have huge crowds listening to their every utterance, and they would have the power to command many people to do whatever they wanted. These doomsdayers would be rockstars! But the problem is that such veneration would be totally unwarranted. Human beings have been predicting the end of the world since time immemorial. Every year there are dozens of individuals all over the world who predict when the world is going to end. If eventually the world does end, these people would be right but just because of chance. If you throw ten coins, what is the chance of getting ten heads? It’s unlikely, but if you throw 10 coins enough times, you will eventually get this result. Much in the same way, if people predict the end of the world continuously, they will eventually be right when it does happen. Before accepting they were right, the logical thing to do is to look at their predictive record. How many predictions have they made before? How many of these predictions were right? How detailed was their end-of-the-word prediction? Did they get these details right? I would suggest that to accept that these individuals really got it right because there is something special about them, they would have to clear a pretty high bar. Call me naïve, but I would expect that a simple truth such as “we’re all going to die” should not get in the way of thinking straight. But good luck telling that to an irrational mob of terrorized people. For all I know, scientists like me would be the first to be hanged. But be it as it may dear reader, if that fateful occasion does come along within my lifetime, I hope you check my blog and social media channels because I will be here presenting the evidence and facts, and defending reason against unfounded claims right until the last minute! On the meantime, however, I will settle for debunking the next irrational claim of an impending apocalypse when it comes along. The Grumpy Cat meme was adapted from the internet. The Grumpy Cat image belongs to the company “Grumpy Cat Limited”. The image is used here in good faith in a non-commercial way under the doctrine of fair use in the same way it was used by the millions of people who made Grumpy Cat an internet sensation.  I had just graduated with a PhD and had returned to do science in the developing country that I grew up in. I joined a laboratory that performed basic science research but that also had a service for screening of medical conditions called “inborn errors of metabolism”. These conditions occur when a child is born with a genetic defect in one or more enzymes, which are the proteins responsible for carrying out metabolic conversions of one chemical compound into another. When these enzymes malfunction as a result of a genetic defect, the chemical compounds that they act upon cannot be degraded and accumulate in the body at very high concentrations causing toxicity to many organ systems including the brain. Because my degree was in nutrition with a major in biochemistry, I was considered the “expert” in metabolism, and I was supposed to do consulting work for the service. Although I had never worked specifically in the area of inborn errors of metabolism, I was newly graduated and cocky enough to think that my general training in metabolism would be enough to allow me to make a contribution. In developed countries, newborn children are systematically screened for these genetic defects, because early treatment can ameliorate the pathology. However, in developing countries which have scant resources, many people are reluctant to perform these screenings. Inborn errors of metabolism are rare conditions, and you have to screen thousands of children to find one that has a problem. The director of the laboratory where I worked, and founder of the service, faced an uphill battle to try to convince hospital administrators in the country to join the service and send blood samples from newborn children for us to analyze.
One day, one of the hospitals, which our director was trying to convince to join the service, contacted us with the case of a girl who kept having seizures despite being treated with virtually all anti-seizure medications that they had at their disposal. They were at their wit’s end and suspected that the girl could have an inborn error of metabolism. A blood sample from the girl was sent to our service and after analysis yielded the result that some chemical compounds were elevated in her blood. The director of the service contacted me and asked for my “expert” opinion. I armed myself with naiveté, picked up the textbook that I had used in my biochemistry classes, and looked up the compounds which were elevated in the girl’s blood. When I checked the enzymes required for the metabolism of these compounds, I noticed that a few of them required vitamin C as a cofactor. In other words, the enzymes required vitamin-C to function. When an enzyme which requires a cofactor has its activity reduced due to a genetic defect, a very common strategy is to administer large doses of the cofactor to boost any residual activity of the enzyme. The diagnosis and treatment now seemed obvious to me. I thus stated that the girl probably had a genetic defect of one of these enzymes, and that therefore we should give her large doses of vitamin-C to maximize any leftover enzyme activity. My suggestion was relayed to her doctors in the hospital which proceeded to pump vitamin-C into the girl’s body. A few days later the director of the service contacted me regarding my diagnosis and treatment suggestion. The girl had stopped having seizures and recovered! And not only that, the hospital decided to join the service and send blood samples from newborn children for us to analyze! My boss was impressed. My coworkers were impressed. I, the “expert”, had made the right call! Not only did my suggestion heal a girl, but it was instrumental in convincing hospital administrators to devote resources to working with us! Because of what I did, more children would be screened, and more children with genetic defects would be identified for early treatment, which would help them. And all it had required was me checking my book! It had been sooo easy. Veni, vidi, vici (I came; I saw; I conquered). For about a week I was on cloud 9, full of myself, walking on sunshine: and don’t it feel good! And then it all crashed and burned. When the real experts were contacted (people who had actually dealt with impairments of the enzymes that I thought were affected) they told us that the elevations in the concentration of the compounds we detected were not large enough to indicate a genetic impairment in the enzymes. Rather these experts stated that vitaminc-C is part of the body’s defense mechanisms against toxins (oops, I had not considered that). What probably happened was that the girl was malnourished (and therefore vitamin-C deficient) and she had been exposed to a toxin that her body was not able to clear and which caused the seizures. When we gave her the vitamin-C, her body was able to degrade the toxin, and she got better. I was incredibly lucky. I had arrived at the right treatment for the wrong reasons. So I had to eat a very large slice of humble pie. Thankfully, when notified about the matter, the hospital decided not to pull out, and they continued working with the service. However, I learned a harsh lesson. Even though I had a PhD, I had only a “textbook knowledge” of the field with no practical experience. I was not a real expert, and I had failed to understand that fact. If you are familiar with my blog, by now you have probably figured out what I’m getting at. Today there are individuals with no formal general training in science or practical expertise in any specific field, who are reading the scientific literature and interpreting it to support opinions and ideas which they disseminate on social media, blogs, and podcasts to thousands of people. I had been trained in science. I had a PhD. But because I was not an expert in a specific field, I screwed up. Why do these individuals feel they have the qualifications to do what they are doing? And why do others follow their every utterance as if it were gospel while ignoring what the real experts have to say? The experts are called experts for a reason, and it is folly for people without training to try to replace them. Luck may not always be on your side. Four leaf clover image from OpenClipArt by Firkin is in the public domain and has been modified. The founding of the United States as a nation was based on a number of principles. And one of these principles is the avoidance of the tyranny of the majority. This is the fear that a majority of people would impose their will on minorities and put them at a disadvantage. To avoid this, several checks and balances were created as a compromise. For example, the representatives to the House in congress reflect the number of people in a given state, but in the Senate each state has two representatives regardless of its population. This prevents the most populous states from banding together and imposing their will on the least populous states. Another check and balance is the electoral college, which was conceived as a compromise between two extremes, one being that the president is directly elected by the voters, while the other is that the president is elected by the legislatures. Some critics claim that this system has in fact worked so well that, enhanced by other phenomena such as gerrymandering and partisan primaries, it has resulted in a tyranny of the minority. However, many of the issues considered in the national debate depend on the political, social, and religious beliefs of people, and often are a matter of opinion. Consequently, many would argue that these issues should not be resolved in one way or another unless there is a clear political consensus involving a majority of people in both the more and less populated states manifested through their elected representatives. But what about issues that are not a matter of opinion?  What if a majority of people, or even a minority of people empowered by the checks and balances of the political system, embrace a notion that runs contrary to facts and evidence and seeks to impose this notion on others? This would not only be a tyranny of the majority or the minority, it would be a tyranny of fantasy. If individuals are going to be subjected to political, social, and legal norms, don’t they have the right to demand that these norms be based on facts and evidence when applicable? Many would contend that what constitutes facts and evidence is itself a matter of opinion, but this is not true. That is why they are called facts and evidence. They exist regardless of what we want them to be. The interpretation of facts and evidence in a given context can, of course, be subjective, but how well any proposed changes in the laws or norms tally up to facts and evidence should be a prerequisite for their acceptance, no matter how many people vote for them or how many elected representatives support them.
Some would argue that that’s what the courts are for. If you don’t agree with any law or local norm, you sue and have the courts deal with it. However, the courts do not necessarily deal with what is aligned with facts and evidence. The courts often deal with what is legal. Thus when creationists tried to impose their views regarding the teaching of evolution, they were denied their wish, not because what they wanted to do was at odds with facts and evidence, but because it was unconstitutional. It violated the principle of separation of church and state. Our methods of governance seem to be designed not mostly around facts and evidence, but rather around the law and the will of the people tempered by the checks and balances of the system. A given law or norm may be approved not because it is moored in reality, but because it is legal, a majority of the people want it, and their elected representatives push for it. Thus what are we to do when, for example, millions of people swayed by QAnon beliefs or 2020 election denial beliefs pressure their elected representatives to pass laws that affect others? The QAnon belief system or the notion that the 2020 election was fraudulent are not supported by facts and evidence. This is not an opinion. It can be demonstrated to be true. Is it therefore fair for people swayed by these unfounded beliefs to impose laws or norms upon others based on these beliefs? I want to suggest that our political, social, and legal system is missing the most quintessential check and balance of them all. We should not only be asking whether the majority of people want it or voted for it. We should not only be asking whether it is legal or constitutional. We should be asking whether it is supported by facts and evidence. Now, I do not mean to imply that everything in our society should be viewed through these lens. There are clearly a lot of aspects of the way our society works that depend on local practices and values, which in turn impact the political and legal realms in our communities. But when important changes to our laws are considered which are based on specific notions or assertions about the nature of reality, then whether these notions or assertions are supported by facts and evidence should be a litmus test for their approval. And this test should trump the will of the majority or of that of their elected representatives. I claim that I, as a citizen of this country, should be free from the tyranny of fantasy. I claim that this is one of my fundamental rights, and no majority of people, or minority of people empowered by the system of checks and balances, has any right to impose on me laws that make or are derived from specific claims about the nature of reality which are not supported by facts and evidence. In this so-called “post truth” era, where large numbers of people with political and economic power refuse to yield to reason and accept reality, I consider that this new right is vital to preserve individual freedom. What do you think? The image, which is not related to the topic of this post and is a free download from pixy.org, has been modified and is in the public domain. 9/27/2022 Do’s and Don’ts Regarding How To Assess Scientific Studies in the Age of the Internet and Social MediaRead Now A positive aspect of the advent of the internet is that scientific studies can be made public as soon as they are ready to be published. However, these studies are highly technical publications that are intended for scientists to study and analyze. Thus, one negative effect of greater accessibility to the scientific literature is that individuals without the education and technical knowledge necessary to evaluate the studies can now gain access to them. As a result, these individuals may disseminate in their blogs, podcasts, social media, and other outlets erroneous claims about these studies either because they misunderstood them, or because they may have an agenda directed at favoring certain interpretations of the studies, even if these interpretations are not supported by the data.
I have lost track of the number of times I have seen someone on Twitter making claims about some issue by citing the latest published scientific article. Invariably the purpose of the individuals making these claims is not to discover or debate the truth, but rather to support their political or social agendas. I have tried to explain that truth in science is not established by one or even a few studies, even if they are published in peer-reviewed journals. Scientists have to debate the merits and flaws of each other’s studies, and this is a process that will take time. During this process scientists may make claims that they may later recant when more evidence becomes available, or a study that was heralded as a good study may fall in disfavor if it is realized that certain variables that turn out to be important were not controlled. But when scientists do these normal things that are part of the scientific process, they are accused of flip-flopping or selling out to special interests. The above process is amplified by various types of media which reach millions of people and contribute to create confusion and suspicion when people see narratives change. I saw this happen with hydroxychloroquine. A study would come out indicating hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) had an effect against COVID-19, and all the HCQ proponents would brag about how the issue was settled and HCQ worked. Then another study would come out showing that HCQ did not have an effect, and all the HCQ critics would claim HCQ did not work. In the middle of the storm, certain responsible scientists or organizations would comment about the studies pointing out flaws or strengths, and they would be denounced by the pro or con side. Eventually enough studies accumulated, and they showed not only that HCQ does not work against COVID-19, but also why it does not work. However, by then HCQ had lost its appeal as a political issue. I have seen this happening again with the drug ivermectin. A study came out of Brazil using a population of 88,012 subjects where ivermectin brought about a reduction of 92% in COVID-19 mortality rate. The pro-ivermectin crowd declared victory, bragged about how they had been right all along, and pointed out that the withholding of ivermectin had led to many preventable deaths from COVID-19. The truth, however, was very different. This was an observational study where the allocation of patients to treatments was not randomized, which can lead to serious biases in the data. And while a sample size of 88,012 subjects sounds impressive, the actual comparisons were performed on much smaller subsets. For example, the 92% result came from comparing 283 ivermectin users to 283 non-users. Additional problems involved the exclusion of a large number of subjects and the non-control of ivermectin use. Finally, there is no way that an effect of such a large magnitude (92%) would not have been detected when performing better designed and controlled trials, but that has not been the case. As I have pointed out before, the politization of science creates a caustic environment where the work of scientists is mischaracterized or attacked by unscrupulous individuals, and this makes the process of science much harder than it already is. To avoid all the problems mentioned above, I have put together a list of do’s and don’ts regarding how to assess scientific studies in the age of the internet and social media. 1) Do listen to what scientists have to say about the studies. They are experts in their field, and an expert is called that for a reason. They have studied many years and trained to do what they are doing. Do not assume you know more than the experts. Do not merely quote a study in your blog or social media to defend a position. Rather, do report on the debate among scientists regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the study and identify unanswered questions. 2) Do give scientists the time to evaluate and debate the studies and to reassess the studies as more information becomes available. Do not attack scientists for changing their minds. 3) To make up your mind, do wait for several studies to accumulate and for the majority of scientists to reach a consensus regarding the studies. However, this consensus will not be arrived at based on the total number of studies, but rather on their quality. One study of good quality can be more meaningful than dozens of low-quality studies, and the community of scientists (not a single scientist) is the ultimate arbiter regarding the quality of the studies. 4) Do not judge scientists or the results from their studies by their affiliations to companies or other organizations. The studies have to be judged on their merits. Do not make offhand claims that conflicts of interest have corrupted the science if you don’t have any evidence for it. Hearsay, innuendo, and ignorance are not proof of anything. 5) Success in science is measured by the ability of scientists to convince their peers. Scientists who have been unable to convince their peers and who bypass the normal scientific process to take their case to “the people” are a huge red flag. Do not blindly trust the renegade scientists who claim they are ignored by their peers. These scientists are often ignored because their studies are deficient and their ideas are unconvincing. 6) Do not defend and promote a scientific claim just because a celebrity or politician whom you trust or like has endorsed it. Endorsement by a non-scientist of a scientific claim without any hard evidence is irrelevant to the scientific debate. Science is not politics. If everyone follows these guidelines, we can hopefully restore a measure of rationality to the scientific discourse among the public. Image by Tumisu from pixabay is free for commercial use and was modified.  Dr. Anthony Fauci Dr. Fauci has been getting a bad rap lately. His critics claim that he funded the creation of the COVID-19 virus and profited from it. That he conspired with the pharmaceutical industry to discourage the acceptance of cheap effective drugs such as hydroxychloroquine. That he promoted the COVID-19 vaccines which have harmed and killed people. That he pushed for masks, social distancing, lockdowns, and other ineffective measures which caused unnecessary pain. And that while he did this he lied about his true motivations. His critics also point out that Fauci’s support of certain ideas and treatments and his cozying up to the pharma industry also led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands during the AIDS epidemic. To sum it up, they claim he is an evil man who lies constantly and is responsible for untold deaths and suffering from which he profited, and that he belongs in jail. Considering the rapidly evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and the science (and nonscience) behind it, I consider that Dr. Fauci in general did a good job of informing us about the latest developments and measures to stop the spread of COVID-19. And while I also think he made some mistakes (some of which he has acknowledged), I have often defended him in my blog against all the nonsense that people write about him out of either malice, ignorance, or design, including unfounded conspiracy theories and baseless claims. For example, the COVID-19 vaccines and the mitigation measures against the virus saved millions of lives, and hydroxychloroquine does not work against COVID-19. These are solid facts. Fauci’s support of vaccines and mitigation measures as well as his opposition to hydroxychloroquine were grounded in science, evidence, and reason. But I realize that quite a number of people do not know who Anthony Fauci is. In fact, many think he is an uncaring bureaucrat with no specific accomplishments under his belt. In this post I will endeavor to set the record straight.
As a researcher, Dr. Fauci developed successful therapies against the fatal diseases polyarteritis nodosa, granulomatosis with polyangiitis (formerly Wegener's granulomatosis), and lymphomatoid granulomatosis. And in the field of AIDS he made seminal contributions to the understanding of how the disease works and the developing of treatments. By 2022 Fauci was the 44th most cited researcher in the world. In the field of immunology, he was ranked 9th out of 3.3 million authors, in the field of research and experimental medicine he was 22nd out of 3.3 million authors, and in the field of general and internal medicine he was ranked 715th out of 1.4 million authors. Dr. Fauci’s work has clearly captured the attention of his peers who often cite his work. In science this is one of the most common measures of success. Dr. Fauci also has won many prestigious awards such as the National Medal of Science, the Lasker Award for Public Service, and the Robert Koch Gold Medal, and he has more than 50 honorary doctoral degrees. Dr. Fauci has been the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984, and he has advised seven presidents beginning with Ronald Reagan on matters of public health including working on the federal response to AIDS, Ebola, the Zika virus, Anthrax, and COVID-19. And while Dr. Fauci’s research contribution are important, some of his greatest contributions have taken place at the managerial level. For example, Dr. Fauci was the chief architect of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) launched in 2003. This program, which provided treatment for people with HIV, prevented new infections, and made possible epidemic control, saved more than 20 million lives. For this accomplishment, President George W. Bush presented Dr. Fauci with the nation’s highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. But the accomplishment that best describes the type of person Dr. Fauci is, is that which involved the notorious firebrand AIDS activist Larry Kramer. Kramer criticized Dr. Fauci for moving too slowly in finding a treatment for AIDS, and said he was evil and represented a callous government. Kramer called Fauci a pill-pushing tool of the medical establishment, an incompetent idiot, a disgrace, and a murderer who should be put in front of a firing squad. Kramer compared him to a Nazi and even insulted Fauci’s wife. So what did Dr. Fauci do? He talked to Kramer and other AIDS activists, he listened to their concerns and ideas, he realized they had a point, and he pushed for changes in the way clinical trials were conducted, thus expanding access to experimental medicines, speeding up the process, making it more flexible, and giving patients a greater voice. He reached out to those who insulted him and worked with them to change medicine for the better and make history. Eventually, Dr. Fauci and Kramer became good friends. Fauci helped Kramer get medical treatment for his health problems, and Kramer made Fauci a character in one of his award winning plays. This is the man Dr. Fauci is. He is not some cold-hearted bureaucrat. He genuinely cares about people and patients, and those who know him can testify to his empathy for others. On top of this, as I’ve mentioned above, Dr, Fauci is among the best scientists in the world in terms of his research. And finally, Dr. Fauci has achieved what the majority of scientists only dream of. His research and managerial skills have had a real-life impact on the world in terms of saving or improving the lives of tens of millions of people. All of the above is why I will not put up with anyone slandering Dr. Fauci. Sure, we can discuss all you want specific mistakes he has made, and what he could have done better, but he must be treated with the respect he deserves. The image of Dr. Fauci by NIAID is used here under an Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) license. The universe is big, but this is the mother of all understatements. There are really no words to describe how mind bogglingly huge the universe is. It is beyond mammoth, cyclopean, gargantuan, colossal, titanic, monumental, and Brobdingnagian all put together. How immensely ginormous and humongously gigantic and vast the universe is may well be beyond the ability of our minds to understand. Consider that unit of measurement, the mile. The moon is 238,900 miles away from Earth, and we regard placing a man on the moon as one of the greatest technological feats in the history of humanity. But astronomers don’t use miles to measure distances in the universe, they use light years. The distance light travels in one year, a light year, is 5.88 trillion miles. So by this token, placing a man on the moon, which is 1.25 light seconds away from the Earth, doesn’t sound very impressive. However, it gets worse (much worse). Pluto, the furthest planet (yes, I maintain it’s a planet!) is 5.5 light hours away from Earth. The NASA New Horizons probe travelling at 36,400 miles per hour took 9.5 years to reach Pluto! Another probe, the Voyager 1 probe, is the furthest object that humanity has sent into space. Voyager 1 was launched 45 years ago in 1977, and is currently travelling at 35,000 miles per hour. The probe has so far covered 14.5 billion miles, which is 21.6 light hours. To put in perspective this “achievement”, just consider that the nearest star to Earth, Alpha Centauri is 4.24 light years away! But it gets worse (much, much, worse). Our sun is one of the stars in a spiral galaxy called the Milky Way. The Milky Way has several arms, and our sun is located in a minor arm of the galaxy about 28,000 light years from the galactic center. Within 12.5 light years of our sun, there are 33 stars. Within 250 light years of our sun, there are 260,000 stars. And within 5,000 light years of our sun, there are 600 million stars. All in all, the Milky Way galaxy contains a total of 200 billion stars and as many planets, and is roughly 100,000 light years across. The Milky Way, in turn, is surrounded by a number of the so call “dwarf galaxies” that orbit around it within a distance of 500,000 light years. Each of these dwarf galaxies contain only a few tens of millions of stars and take billions of years to orbit the Milky Way. Did I mention it gets much worse (much, much, much, worse)? Galaxies associate themselves into groups of galaxies. The Milky Way is part of a group of galaxies called the Local Group which is made up of the Milky Way and two other large galaxies, Andromeda and the Triangulum galaxy, along with their entourage of dwarf galaxies. The Local Group of galaxies spans a distance of 5 million light years and encompasses 80 galaxies and 700 billion stars. But it gets…yes, you got it. Groups of galaxies tend to associate into clusters of galaxies which in turn associate into superclusters of galaxies. The Local Group of galaxies is part of the Virgo Supercluster of galaxies which contains 100 galaxy groups and clusters. The Virgo Supercluster has a diameter of 110 million light years and harbors 200 trillion individual stars. But…you know the drill. The Virgo Supercluster is but a minor lobe of an even greater supercluster of galaxies known as the Laniakea Supercluster which is made up of about 100 superclusters of galaxies containing 250,000 trillion stars and which stretches over 500 million light years. Superclusters of galaxies in turn associate gravitationally with each other to form the largest known structures in the universe which are variously called galaxy filaments, walls, or sheets. These walls, filaments, and sheets are separated from each other by large voids of space with few galaxies which gives the observable universe a honeycomb appearance. The Laniakea Supercluster forms part of a galaxy filament called the Pisces–Cetus Supercluster Complex. This galaxy filament stretches 1 billion light years across space. To get a feeling for its size, just consider that the Virgo Supercluster, which contains the Local Group of galaxies, which includes the Milky Way Galaxy, which is where our sun is, represents only 0.1% of the total mass of the Pisces–Cetus Supercluster Complex! And the Pisces–Cetus Supercluster Complex is but one filament among tens of thousands. Astronomers calculate that the universe visible from Earth is comprised of 10 million superclusters of galaxies, which are made up of 25 billion galaxy groups, which harbor 350 billion large galaxies and 7 trillion dwarf galaxies, which all together contain a total of 30 billion trillion stars! The James Webb Space Telescope has been able to peer further back into the dark abysses of spacetime than any other telescope before it. The photo below covers an area of the universe equivalent to the area occupied by a grain of sand held at an arm’s length. There are galaxies here that are billions of light years away with the furthest one being a staggering 13.5 billion light years away. And even in this photograph there are faint smudges in the background that probably represent galaxies that cannot be resolved by the optics of the telescope!  Galaxies and stars around the galaxy cluster SMACS 0723 There are simply no units of measure or descriptors of size in our language that can help the human mind to comprehend the size of the universe. I think that in order to truly be able to grasp the sheer enormous immensity of the universe, we first have to lose our minds. So I will settle for crazy. The universe is crazy big! The image of galaxy cluster SMACS 0723 is by NASA and the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI), and is in the public domain. |
Categories
All
Archives
March 2023
|
RSS Feed
