New Year New Developments

I start this latest entry with an apology for the break in posts that has come over the last few weeks. Along with many people in the UK, I have been ill with flu. Not the greatest time of the year to be ill what with all the festive gatherings of family and friends, however I was determined to squeeze one more nano-sized blog post out before seeing in the New Year.

In recent posts I have discussed current news that concerns science and concerns science. This time I thought I would update my blog with an entry suitable for the time of year; religion, science and looking forward.

Science and religion have never bumped along well. (Think dark ages to name the best example of conflict.) One could consider them as two opposite sides of the same coin. I am of the opinion though that for both science and mankind to continue to progress and develop then religion (or should that be religious decision makers) have a role to play. The best example of this has been in the legal wrangling in America over the use of stem cells in research. Through the George Bush administration years of progress were arguably lost due to fundamental religious belief. The denial of this research is to deny many of the potential for cure from numerous diseases. This is not something I can condone. It was with the inauguration of Barack Obama that science, in this case stem cell research, can begin once again to progress and look forward.

2011 could herald a huge step forward. 12 people are due to undergo injection of retinal cells derived from human embryonic stem cells to cure a progressive cause of blindness. That’s right curing blindness. And if that wasn’t enough, 10 people are due to have spinal injections of stem cell derived cells in an attempt to cure their paralysis. Making blind people see and those paralysed able to walk – this sounds a fantastic development in science to me – verging on miraculous on a biblical scale for the religious among you.

This blog update could never possibly go into all the arguments between science and religion much as I would never want to. This update merely aims to voice my opinion on how for new technologies to progress for the benefit of the human race, there need to be concessions. Maybe on both sides. Having said that, many in one group will almost certainly find more scientific progress and more evidence harder and harder to swallow.

And finally...

Thank you all for reading my blog over the last couple of months, I’ve been successfully gaining views from over 12 countries. America, South Korea, France, Spain, India, Russia, Serbia, Germany and more. Wherever you are I wish you all the best for the coming year 2011... if of course you follow the Gregorian calendar.

Alien life? Or alien environment?

Last week saw a group of scientists based in California publish research in Science¹ about a bacterium that is able to assimilate arsenic from its arsenic rich environment and incorporate it into its DNA as a substitute for phosphorous. This finding was met with astonishment by many, and throwing the ‘known’ elements required to sustain life, oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, sulphur, and phosphorous, into dispute. Truly astonishing findings; alien life on earth. Or is it?

Bacteria are some of the most adaptable life forms on the planet. They will literally live anywhere. From inside the human body, to inside a nuclear reactor. They are able to tolerate extremes of pH and even environments that are toxic to almost all other life forms such as the arsenic rich lakes in California. There is a key word in that last sentence, tolerate. Or as one famous Jurassic Park phrase goes ‘Life adapts. Life finds a way...’

The bacterium, known as GFAJ-1 of the halomonadaceae strain, resides in a highly arsenic rich environment. The findings of the study showed that arsenic had become incorporated into the bacterium and it was able to grow in arsenic conditions providing that phosphorous was present. But what many news sources missed out on was what this meant in real terms. Simply this bacteria has adapted to its environment, tolerating higher levels of arsenic than other bacteria – evolution. What the research also documents is how the bacteria show changes, a bloated vacuole, that suggest exposure to high levels of toxic substances such as arsenic. It seems the media didn’t read or understand the facts. Or maybe they weren’t communicated correctly.

To make matters worse the research team who published the data is now refusing to enter scientific discussion following questions into the research claims by a number of scientists. Almost like burying their heads in the sand. Even if this research has been taken the wrong way in thinking there is alien life present on earth, what it certainly does show is a significant adaptation by an organism, evolving to survive.

I believe this story shows how communication in science is key. A well rounded scientific argument, showing all the data, with all possible conclusions, whilst remaining open to discussion is the foundation to progress of scientific knowledge. Something that this research has failed to do well.

This story has gone from ‘alien life in our environment’ to ‘life in an alien environment.’ It shows the worlds within worlds that surround us and how life can adapt to meet new requirements. Maybe the media got the wrong idea about this story, or perhaps scientific communication needs improvement...

1.       doi:10.1126/science.1197258

Drug advice? Don't ask a scientist!

The British government has announced plans to scrap the current law that says the ‘Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs’ (ACMD) must contain scientists. The current legal requirement is the board contains at least one doctor, dentist, vet, pharmacist, drugs industry expert and chemical scientist. Soon there may not be one scientist on the whole panel. This proposal is just the latest instalment in an going saga between scientists and policy makers in the UK. Scientific findings over substances such as cannabis and mephedrone (MCAT/miaow miaow) have often been ignored by politicians as they are ‘inconvenient,’ this disparity between parties culminated in the sacking of the council chairman which in turn resulted in a number of high profile scientists resigning from the ACMD panel. This latest proposal from the government will be another step in ensuring that media circus and not hard facts govern serious scientific policy decisions.

What this proposal means in real terms is that drugs will be classified according to how much media interest there is in both the drug, and its consequences. Rather than the true costs of the drug, both on health and the economy. Without knowledgeable, learned scientists this panel will comprise merely of puppets. Puppets agreeing with whoever is pulling the strings.

The governments defence on such a proposal is that it will offer ‘flexibility’ to an ever changing drug scene. I would agree being flexible to a changing environment is in principle a good thing, although sacrificing knowledge for speed of decision making can only lead to mistakes. Mistakes that would lead to a drugs classification system incorrectly labelling the serious harm from drugs to individuals and society.

This proposal by the government is a reaction from facts that don’t appease media or government plans. Facts that will be glossed over to allow ‘flexibility’ on the ‘drugs landscape.’ Will there be an outcry over this? I hope so. Central government control dancing to whatever is the latest media hyped tune will have far reaching consequences for us all. Could this backward step of ignorance of science to policy be the thin end of the wedge when it comes to censorship of facts?  

The real question here is who is the puppet master? Government or media? I know the public are the audience. With only a few able to see the strings.

Time to downsize the family saloon?

This latest blog post focuses on an issue I find fascinating. It stirs debate and controversy through all social circles. Crossing scientific, technological, ethical and social boundaries this issue has been brought back into the news recently following comments from Howard Flight MP about encouraging the welfare state to “breed.” This issue is of course eugenics.

Eugenics, devised by Francis Galton in the mid 19^th century, was a mainstream theory supported and encouraged by numerous scientists for around one hundred years. Eugenics, for many, is now synonymous with Nazism. The Nazi regime turned a serious scientific discipline, into a subject many feel has no place in society or indeed science. So could eugenics ever make a comeback? Should those who utter population caps and selective breeding really be castigated? Or is eugenics in place all around us just as it was originally intended?

The Nazi attempt at eradication of an ‘inferior’ human race was not part of what eugenics was about for Galton. It was originally aimed at the progression and improvement of the human race, where those of high intellects were encouraged to have families with those of equal intellects. Nowhere did Galton advocate eradication of those of lower intellects. Eugenics was supposed to have a positive impact on the development of the human race.

This subject has become unmentionable but I believe the impending global population crises, where there are too few resources for sustainable population levels it will become a serious political debate. Either who is allowed children or, following China’s successful example, a ‘one child’ policy. Although this is just a hypothesis I believe it to be a real possibility. But although eugenics is never mentioned when considering who has children with who I am of the opinion that the original aim of Galton in bettering the human race has always been ongoing. As a huge generalisation, individuals normally start families with those who are of the same social class and often intellects. This sustains Galton’s idea – pairing intellects. Whether it has made any difference in human development is another argument, and one that may be unanswerable through the nature vs nurture debate. A debate I am not going to go into here.

What I believe is Galton’s idea on human development has always been ongoing in the background, even if it is unmentionable by the media or in conversation. And those who are currently castigated for mentioning who should be encouraged to start families could soon be heard in mainstream circles. Potentially even to the point where discouragement of certain groups could be entertained in political debate. Of course, these arguments will have to have a strong scientific, moral and ethical basis. Arguments that will not be without consequence. Could eugenics become a scientific discipline again? Maybe in an evolved form, a new generation – just as it was intended.