'Impact' crater

Tonight I attended the twitter-inspired 'Blue skies ahead?' debate in which science minister Lord Paul Drayson gamely engaged a youthful panel (and audience) of scientists on 'the prospects for UK science'.

The first half of the debate was dominated by one word: 'impact'. It's an unfortunate word choice, really: it's vague, loaded and unidirectional, suggesting science impacts society but not the other way around. There was lively disagreement regarding the extent to which science funding should hinge on retrospective and/or predicted impact.

As evidenced by my flush of tweets during and after the event, I have a lot to say about 'impact', but in this post I'm going to set aside my opinions and instead tell a personal story of how 'impact' impacted me.

I wouldn't have thought to tell this story (it happened a while ago and as it has a happy ending I don't give it too much thought anymore), but after two respected tweeps, Ed Yong and Evidence Matters, specifically asked for it, I thought it might merit daylight.

In 2002, shiny new PhD in hand, I was looking for a job in the UK. I was casting a wide net, applying and interviewing for not only postdoctoral research positions but also assistant editorships at peer-reviewed journals and various jobs involving popular science communication. During my PhD years, I had enjoyed writing and communicating science to both expert and non-expert audiences, and moreover I think it is a scientist's civic duty to engage the broader public, to improve general science literacy but also to pave the way for future science funding.

One of the postdoc fellowships for which I interviewed seemed perfect; the project addressed some fascinating evolutionary developmental-genetic questions using a range of new and old techniques, the lab seemed like it was thriving, and the lab head had written books and popular science articles which I not only admired but which also suggested that he might be a good mentor for that element of my training.

My interview seemed to go very well: my CV was strong, I was happy with my presentation, I had good discussions with the lab head and the other members of the lab during which I asked questions, made suggestions and I even proposed an experiment that it turned out they hadn't thought of yet.

At one point during my interview, I mentioned how keen I was to stay active in public outreach, through writing and perhaps other forms of engagement, and that I admired his own accomplishments in that area.

And that's where it all went wrong. In a sudden change of tone, the lab head started asking me probing questions about my commitment to the project, suggesting that I might not be up to seeing it through. He said I might be more suited to a career as a journal editor or science communicator. I reiterated my commitment to the research project, and said that I thought that shouldn't preclude engagement with the wider public; indeed, his own success in both research and popular science writing showed that it was possible to do both, and to do them well.

But it was too late. He had made up his mind. He wanted the people in his lab to have their noses to the research grindstone; he saw public outreach as icing on the cake, something you did only once you'd achieved success in your research career and were running your own lab.

Sure enough, a few weeks later he emailed me to say he'd decided to give the job to someone else. He cited his concern about my 'level of interest and commitment to the project', repeating a phrase he had used the day of the interview after I'd divulged my sordid secret interest in improving public understanding of science.

For a while I had some regret, but then I came to realize that it was better this way. I'm glad I didn't go to his lab only to find out too late that my 'extra-curricular' interests wouldn't be looked upon favorably.

Ultimately I found a job at an institution with a genuine commitment to both scientific research and public engagement with science. There will always be a natural tension between the two - after all, there are only so many hours in the day and science is a demanding career - but I'm glad to be in a place where public outreach isn't considered a character flaw.

Coming back to the 'Blue skies ahead' debate, I hope my story illustrates what every research scientist already knows: career progression depends primarily on one's (peer-reviewed) publication record and, to a lesser extent, one's history of winning research grants. Anything that takes time away from these two activities is therefore by definition a drag on one's career. Many of us do it anyways, because we enjoy it and think it's important. But there will not be any significant increase in the number of scientists engaging in public outreach until recognition of these activities is incorporated into research career progression criteria.

I love the NHS but not their Ramadan health FAQs

The health care debate taking place in my homeland right now is immensely important. The outcome will affect all 300 million Americans, especially the 46 million that are uninsured, and if reform doesn't pass now, we probably won't get another shot at it for another decade or two.

It's also important to me, personally, as I do hope to repatriate one day. I am absolutely pro-reform and I find two aspects of the debate particularly infuriating:

1. the spread of outright lies about the proposed reforms by the small but very screechy anti-reform camp (debunked here), including the slinging of vast quantities of mud across the Atlantic at the UK's National Health Service
2. the sheer number of Americans--64%--who 'don't want to pay more taxes to expand health coverage to the uninsured'

As an American living in the UK, I feel it is my particular duty to counter the misinformation about the NHS that is circulating in the States right now. I've been counter-circulating as much information and testimonials by email and facebook as I can, and even have an 'I [heart] NHS' twibbon on my twitter avatar as a sign of my support.

I do, by the way. [Heart] the NHS, that is. It is difficult to overemphasize the peace of mind it gives me that those I love and I will never be unexpectedly refused coverage as a result of some policy small print about, for example, pre-existing conditions, nor financially ruined by a health problem. What a relief it is to be able to go to the doctor without having to fill out any forms or make any co-payments. Oh, and prescriptions are either free or £6.95 depending on whether you are capable of paying. I could go on but that's not what this post is about, and others have said it much better than me.

This post is about something the NHS did that has me pretty irked. I know, I know, given all of the above, maybe now isn't the best time to point out flaws in the NHS, but to that I say: a) this flaw has nothing to do with the general premise of the NHS or the health care they provide and b) I think it's right to be honest even when it's not politically expedient. Ahem.

So. The NHS has this website called 'Healthy Ramadan' which offers advice on staying healthy if you happen to have chosen to observe the daylight fasting that is part of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Of course, the word 'chosen' is tricky because it's difficult to quantify the extent to which religious indoctrination limits one's perceived if not real choices, but I digress.

The site seems like a pretty good idea: there are pages containing general advice on healthy fasting, suggestions on what to eat and what not to eat, and even a suggested meal plan. There's also an important section that lists the health risks that can be associated with fasting, and the site urges people to use Ramadan as an opportunity to quit smoking.

But then we get to the page, 'Ramadan health FAQs'. This page got my hackles up immediately with its introductory note that explains that 'the answers have been put together by medical experts and Islamic scholars and researchers'. I can see why Islamic scholars and researchers might help with devising the questions - after all, they are the experts on what the likely FAQs are going to be. But why should they be involved with putting together the answers? This is supposed to be health advice. It should come from the medical experts alone.

The first several Q&As about diabetes, migraines and blood pressure were okay, I suppose, though I was a little uncomfortable with how the questions were worded: each one was based around the question, 'should I fast?' when they really should have asked, 'is it alright to fast?' because then the answer would be less likely to be interpreted as prescriptive rather than permissive. But then I got to this one:

Is fasting harmful when a woman is expecting a baby? Must pregnant women fast?

There's medical evidence to show that fasting in pregnancy is not a good idea. If a pregnant woman feels strong and healthy enough to fast, especially during the early part of the pregnancy, she may do so. If she doesn't feel well enough to fast, Islamic law gives her clear permission not to fast, and to make up the missed fasts later. If she is unable to do this, she must perform fidyah (a method of compensation for a missed act of worship).

Let's just start with the question, shall we? 'Must' should never appear in front of or inside the phrase 'pregnant women fast', and certainly not on a national health service website. In fact the only time those two phrases should ever go together on any kind of government literature is if 'not' is inserted directly after 'must'.

The answer to the question starts out a bit better--using 'may' instead of 'must'--but then it all goes downhill. 'Islamic law gives her permission not to fast...' is useful information, as it may give uncertain women the religious argument they are looking for to give themselves permission not to fast (though of course that opens up a whole can of worms that I'm not going to go into today). But that last sentence is abhorrent. It's missing a big fat 'Islamic law says' before 'she must'. The way it is now, it looks like the NHS is the one telling her that she must perform fidyah!

I suppose one could argue that 'Islamic law' is mentioned in the penultimate sentence and therefore it is meant to indicate that Islamic law, and not the medical establishment, is the authority in both of the final two sentences. And I suppose that if this were the only problem with the website then I might have given them the benefit of the doubt. But two questions later it gets worse, and this time there's no qualifying 'Islamic law says' anywhere to be found:

From what age can children fast safely?

Children are required to fast from the age of puberty. It isn't harmful. Fasting before this age is tolerated differently depending on the child’s general health, nutrition and attitude. Fasting under the age of seven or eight isn't advisable. It is a good idea to make children aware of the practice of fasting and to practise fasting for a few hours at a time.

Look at that first sentence and tell me the NHS--the NHS!--didn't just say that children are required to fast during Ramadan!

The next few Q&As are okay, I suppose. They're about asthma, swimming and blood transfusions and there are occasional qualifiers like 'Muslim experts say...' and 'in their view...'. But I don't like how the answer to the asthma question contains an implication that it's somehow incumbent on Muslims to 'achieve good control' of their asthma ...as if it's some kind of personal failing if your asthma isn't under control. And I don't like that the answer to the transfusion question mandates fidyah with no qualifiers in sight. But I'm passing over these so that I can address this final doozie:

Does a breastfeeding woman have to fast?

No. Islamic law says a breastfeeding mother does not have to fast. Missed fasts must be compensated for by fasting or fidyah once breastfeeding has stopped.

As with the Q&A about pregnancy, the question itself contains an implication that the answer is mandataory rather than permissive. And again, missed fasts 'must' be compensated, no qualifiers, unless you count the one in the first sentence, but at this stage I'm not exactly inclined to give them a pass.

So, all you NHS web content editors out there, would you please do us all a favor and go in there with a red pen and change 'must' and 'should' to 'can' and 'could'? And while you're at it, add a liberal sprinkling of 'Muslim scholars say...' and 'Islamic law says...' before each sentence in which fasting is 'permitted' or fidyah 'suggested'? Oh, and could you please pay particular attention to those Q&As regarding women and children? Because I've noticed that those were most prescriptive and least qualified of all.

I'd do it myself, but I'm hungry.

Why Darwinius is not our ancestor

I have been blogging and tweeting the dead horse primate that is Ida Darwinius masillae for several days now, culminating in last night's twitter-fest during the BBC documentary Revealing Our Earliest Ancestor: The Link. During our lively little twitter event, which made the Times Online today, I was, apparently, pretty worked up: Andrew Maynard even wrote 'Warming my toes from the heat of your ire...'.

Of course, it's not only us twitterers bemoaning the Darwinius hype machine; there's going to be a special Darwinius blog carnival on Monday, and I'm pleased to see a growing number of mainstream outlets casting a critical eye over the story, or at least giving space to external critics. For example, today I found an excellent opinion piece by Chris Beard the NewScientist called Why Ida is not the missing link. In it, Beard dresses down not just the hype - "unbridled hoopla" as he called it - but also the science itself. His final paragraphs are particularly good:

'So, Ida is not a "missing link" – at least not between anthropoids and more primitive primates. Further study may reveal her to be a missing link between other species of Eocene adapiforms, but this hardly solidifies her status as the "eighth wonder of the world".

Instead, Ida is a remarkably complete specimen that promises to teach us a great deal about the biology of some of the earliest and least human-like of all known primates, the Eocene adapiforms. For this, we can all celebrate her discovery as a real advance for science.'

Great stuff. Great enough to make me shout "Yes!" out loud while alone in my flat. What Beard is saying here is that Darwinius is not the 'missing link' between anthropoid side of the primate family tree (including humans) and the lemur side because the authors of the paper in which Darwinius is described have not convincingly demonstrated that she belongs with the former and not the latter. Beard contends that the balance of evidence keeps Darwinius - and all the rest of the adapiforms by extention - anchored firmly on the lemur line. To explain this, he provides this useful diagram of primate evolutionary history:

Evolutionary tree diagram reproduced from NewScientist.

The diagram shows the two competing hypotheses: the red dot in the diagram indicates where Chris Beard contends Darwinius belongs, on an early branch in the lemur (brown) lineage. The paler spot with the "?" indicates where the paper's authors claim Darwnius belongs, as an early member of the (blue) anthropoid lineage and, specifically, as they have contended in interviews and on their website if not in their paper, ON the line. In other words, they claim she is our direct ancestor.

I don't have any professional background in primate anatomy but I find Beard's argument - especially in combination with Laelaps' analysis - pretty compelling, certainly compelling enough to remain very skeptical of the authors' conclusions. We will have to wait for further analyses of the Darwinius specimen, however, before this controversy can be more soundly resolved.

But here's the thing: even if upon further analysis Beard is shown to be mistaken and the authors are right about Darwinius and her fellow adapids being on the anthropoid lineage, she will still not necessarily be the 'missing link', nor - perhaps more importantly because it actually means something - 'our ancestor'. To explain my point, I re-drew Beard's diagram:

My re-drawing of Chris Beard's diagram in which I shift his representation of the paper's conclusion about Darwinius' systematic position from ON the anthropoid line to a BRANCH off the anthropoid line.

I re-drew it this way for the simple reason that, considering the abundance of species upon the Earth at any one time, it would be very unusual for us to find a fossil on our direct ancestral line, rather than on a branch off of that line. As John Wilkins put it, "There is no missing link. Rather, there are an indefinite number of missing branches. [snip] We might have a species that is an ancestor of some other species, and yet not know enough to say that they are indeed the ancestor in question."

Additionally, as Richard Carter notes, Ida herself can't be our direct ancestor because she died as a juvenile. But as I've just explained, even her whole species is very unlikely to include our ancestor.

Interestingly, as I mentioned in passing above, the hype machine (including the paper's authors themselves when interviewed) puts Darwinius directly on the line to us, while in Supplementary Figure 7 in the PLoS ONE paper, the authors put Darwinius on a early branch off the line. In other words, what they're saying in public isn't just hyped up, it's fundamentally different from what they're saying in the paper itself.

To summarize, if Darwinius is found, as the authors contend, to belong on 'our' side of the primate family tree (and even that conclusion is shaky) she is not a 'missing link' (because there's no such thing), and she is very unlikley to be our ancestor.

Darwinius has left the building

So there I was earlier today, minding my own business at home (I attached a day of annual leave to the bank holiday weekend in order to take care of a few pressing things like, apparently, writing this blog post), and all the while, over at my workplace, the over-hyped but nevertheless stunningly complete and aesthetically beautiful fossil Darwinius messilae was on display for a few hours on its way from New York to Oslo.

The brief display was occasion for a press conference (or is it the other way around?), but there was also a short time during which staff were invited to view Ida* the fossil. I found out at about 3pm when I stumbled across a BBC News story which led me to an NHM press release:

Visitors to the Natural History Museum in London will be able to see Ida, the fossil of the ancient lemur-like creature, when a cast goes on display from tomorrow.

[snip]

The Ida cast was donated to the Natural History Museum today by the University of Oslo Natural History Museum. Sir David Attenborough will be there to see the cast and is also narrating Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor: The Link, a one-off documentary about Ida on BBC One at 21.00 tonight.

[snip]

Scientists at the Natural History Museum, London, will get a glimpse of the real specimen when it is brought to the Museum for just a few hours.

The lucky scientists will see the most complete fossil primate ever found. It is so well-preserved that the remains of its last meal are still in its stomach and you can see an outline of where the fur once was.

Upon realizing that "the lucky scientists" might in fact include me, I leapt towards the telephone to call a colleague in the NHM press office to find out how long it would be on display today. Annual leave or no, if there was a chance to see it, I was going to get onto my bicycle and get myself over there pronto!

You can imagine how I felt when my colleague told me that the staff viewing time had ended at 2pm and that the fossil was no longer in the building. Actually, you don't have to imagine how I felt because my disappointment is documented for posterity on twitter (thanks to Rowan and Mun-Keat for the consolatory tweets).

The wave of disappointment that washed over me, though, was quickly followed by introspection. Why was I so disappointed? Had I actually succumbed to the hype? I could tell you (and more importantly, myself) that I was just disappointed not to get to see a beautiful, complete 47-million-year-old primate fossil, but if I'm honest, I have to admit that I also wanted to see the the source of all the commotion and get to feel like an insider. So I did succumb, but more in the way gawkers slow down to look at traffic accidents than in an "OMG THE MISSING LINK" way. Following this analysis, I felt a little less disappointed. Hooray for analysis!

Of course, this doesn't mean that tomorrow morning on my way up to my newish digs in Phase II of the NHM's Darwin Centre I won't stop off and have a look at the cast of Darwinius, which, though not the real thing is still one of maybe only two casts in the world (the other at the AMNH in New York).

But seeing the cast won't quite make up for not seeing the real thing (Rowan Hooper tweets that the cast doesn't quite do the original justice), and I still will have missed the press conference, which would have been interesting because, judging by the BBC video coverage, Jørn Hurum (the most hyperbolic of the scientific authors) and David Attenborough seem to be toning down the hype a little:



Attenborough even says - tellingly - that Darwin "would have been absolutely riveted by it - I have no doubt about that, and he would - I am sure - have sat and looked at it and thought about it - probably for a decade - before he said anything about it. Maybe that's quite a wise thing to do." Might this final sentence signal that David Attenborough feels a twinge of regret about the way the project was handled?

Similarly, Rowan Hooper's blog and video coverage of the event shows Hurum apparently backpedaling a bit in the face of recent criticism that the paper was weak on evolutionary analysis - I can only imagine he's referring to Brian Switek's excellent critques of the scientific paper - by claiming that this only ever meant to be a descriptive paper and that a more rigorous phylogenetic analysis was still in the pipeline.

But there's a problem: as Rowan Hooper writes, "Phylogeny [evolutionary history], he says, is not the most important part of the paper, and is only mentioned in the discussion. But, of course, it is the phylogeny of Ida - and the claims that it is an ancient human ancestor - that have made it such a big news story."

*Like pretty much everyone else, I have been using the nickname "Ida" for Darwinius massilae, but I'm stopping today for three reasons: 1) the ICZN have - at short notice - worked their proverbial tails off to guarantee the nomenclature of this specimen, and calling it "Ida" seems to me to diminish their efforts specifically and the importance of nomenclature generally, 2) I feel a little queasy about how one of the paper's authors, Jørn Hurum, has been fanning the hype, saying things like "this is the first link to all humans" (whatever that means), and he's the one who named the fossil "Ida" so using it feels like an approbation 3) "Darwinius" has a nice ring to it.

Live-blogging the Darwn-200 Anniversary Conference in Istanbul

Update Saturday 25 April: The conference is now over, so I've removed the twitter widget below and replaced it with the twitter history of the event, that is, my tweets from the conference in order. In a second update I will thread them with replies and retweets from the twitter community. Thanks to everyone in twitterdom who followed and participated!

Background here. This live-blog session will consist consisted of a twitter feed plus longer live (or at least live-ish) updates to this blog post below the twitter widget and will be followed up with a separate post with my thoughts on the conference that I couldn't manipulate into 140 characters or less (which I'm starting to realize is probably the best way to cover a conference since it's too onerous to sit down and compose paragraphs with the conference still in progress).

Test tweet from Turkey!2:50 PM Apr 23rd from txt

Test text tweet two from Turkey!6:48 AM Apr 24th from txt

Okay everyone, the conference is starting now! Just joining in? Wondering what's goin' on in Istanbul? http://tr.im/jAcp http://tr.im/jAcs7:17 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

First talk of the day: Prof. Vidyanand Nanjundiah [Indian Institute of Sciences, Bangalore] ‘The Evolution of Cooperativity’7:18 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Nanjundiah: "I hope you won't mind if I quote extensively from Darwin" - no, not at all! First quote = the 'problem' of the social insects7:20 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Nanjundiah: Darwin's four solutions to the problem (to his theory) of the social insects. 4th solution: Descent of Man, Chapter V.7:22 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

@milagro88 It's the Darwin200 Anniversary Conference in Istanbul. Tweeting it now!7:24 AM Apr 24th from Nambu in reply to milagro88

Oh ffs. RT @edyong209 WSJ not accepting comments on blogging=opinions piece. Even after arcane registration process. Hmph. http://ow.ly/3yaO7:26 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Yes, exactly, Grace! RT @grace_baynes @rpg7twit @kejames except if you want to bring said 120 ml home again and have hand luggage only :-/7:27 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Nanjundiah: Haldane &'s Wright group selection vs. Williams who said group selection doesn't exist & when it does, it's just individual sel.7:29 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Nanjundiah: Dictyostelium discoideum and D. giganteum as a model for group selection (if it exists, that is)7:32 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Nanjundiah: Why do Dicty stalk cells behave altruistically? He's begging the question "what is an organism" & "what is a group"?7:36 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Nanjundiah: even before the initiation of sociality in Dicty, there are tendencies that hint towards which cells will become sacrificial7:47 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Nanjundiah: phenotypic plasticity (from stochastic gene expression) suggests 'sociology' > important than kinship in cooperative behaviour7:51 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Q for Nanjundiah: this has become widely accepted among those who study social insects, so this talk very welcome; 'farewell kin selection'!7:52 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Darwin200 Istanbul, next up: Prof. Hüseyin Atay [Faculty of Theology, Ankara University] ‘Science, Evolution & the Qu’ran’7:54 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Atay: "I owe my practice to being non-dogmatic to the Qu'ran"7:56 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Atay: 'the desire [for God] originates in infancy & continues to death' (I'd say ''from the point of indoctrination' instead of 'infancy')8:00 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Atay: "from my study of the Qu'ran" & "according to the Qu'ran" but he assumes we think, like he does, that the Qu'ran is a source of truth8:06 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Atay: "listen to every word" but I can't understand HIS every word (he's reading an English translation of his talk in Turkish)8:09 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Atay: "whoever argues for his faith should be tested" ...oooh, it's getting good now (the bit I can understand)8:12 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Atay: "the Qu'ran does not refer to the first creation of other beings" & on origin of man it describes man's origin in developmental terms8:14 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Atay: "the Qu'ran speaks of science but is not a book of science"; it aims to draw man's attention to (not to instruct in) these things8:16 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Atay: "the mind is not subject to the Qu'ran" and "reason does not produce knowledge, it makes use of knowledge produced by mind"8:17 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

From Atay's abstract: "Creationists have misunderstood God."8:21 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Also from Atay's abstract: "Evolutionists attribute awe to evolution; in so doing, they ascribe divine provenance, just as creationists do."8:23 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Atay: "The mind knows the unknown by using inference."8:24 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

If Dawkins, PZ et al are the "new atheists" then I think Atay is a "new moderate" for saying things like this: (...continued in next tweets)8:28 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Atay: Creationists say God created everything; then he also created evolutionists, so to criticize evolutionists is to criticize the creator8:31 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Atay: "Evolutionists say man evolved; since creationists are men, to criticize creationists is to criticize evolution." <--see what I mean?8:33 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

On this last point Atay assumes we are reluctant to criticize evolution. Does he think we adhere still to the great chain of being?8:38 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Q from a self-professed "former religious fanatic" that I couldn't understand a word of. :(8:41 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Atay's talk will be published on the conference website and/or in a newspaper, which is good b/c I only understood every 5th sentence or so.9:18 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Darwin200 Istanbul: Next up: Prof. Francisco Ayala [University of California] ‘The Intelligent Design Movement – a Critique’9:19 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Ayala: "Darwin's discovery of natural selection provided the main process which accounts for the design of organisms by natural processes"9:20 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Ayala: "Intelligent design is not science. Even worse, it is bad religion"9:22 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Ayala: the famous mosaic of images of butterfly wings that make all the letters of the alphabet; doesn't mean they were designed for wri ...9:26 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Ayala: The Copernican revolution is really a commitment to the idea that laws that explain observable phenomena can be discovered & tested.9:27 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Ayala: William Payley expressed idea of intelligent design better than modern talking heads, and with much better biological understanding.9:28 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

For anyone just joining - I'm tweeting live from the Darwin200 Anniversary Conference in Istanbul. Background here: http://tr.im/jAA99:31 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Ayala reading now from The Origin of Species, Chapter IV, Natural Selection, "As more individuals are produced than can possibly survive..."9:32 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

A privilege to hear Ayala explain evolution, natural selection, intelligent design (which he is critiquing, in case that wasn't clear)9:33 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

@TEDchris Thanks for the mention!9:35 AM Apr 24th from Nambu in reply to TEDchris

@USelaine Thanks! FYI @nytimeskristof Tonight's public session is on Turkish TV & attended by journalists including, rumor has it, from NYT9:38 AM Apr 24th from Nambu in reply to USelaine

Ayala now using famous melanic moth example. Though correct, I think this story's effectiveness tainted by bad press (wrong but still bad)9:43 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Ayala now hammering it home with a detailed explanation of the step-by-step evolution of molluscan and vertebrate eyes. Yesssss!9:46 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

@rpg7twit Unfortunately it's the size of the container, not the amount of liquid remaining.9:49 AM Apr 24th from Nambu in reply to rpg7twit

Ayala: "the vertebrate eye has an imperfection that the molluscan eye doesn't" namely, the blind spot. Heh. Man IS but a worm!9:50 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Ayala: "I will now criticize the design movement in 2 ways: 1) my own criticisms & 2) those of John Jones (Dover judge)" *sits up straight*9:52 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Ayala: Philip Johnson (ID proponent) claimed "Give us 5-10 years, and you'll see sci breakthroughs biologists hadn't dreamed of before I ...9:54 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Ayala: ...well that was 1998!9:55 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Ayala: "The ID proposal has several probs" (holy understatement, batman!) including "Imperfect Design" e.g. human jaw, human birth canal &c.9:59 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Ayala! Snap! If God intelligently designed organisms then high rate of human miscarriages implies that "God is the greatest abortionist"10:04 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Ayala: "Science is methodologically naturalistic not philosophically materialistic."10:05 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Ayala's final slide: "Evolution: Darwin's gift to religion"10:06 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Q to Ayala: "Sci & religion are 2 different approaches but are they really compatible?" Ayala: "yes, as it is w/ aesthetics, economics, &c."10:10 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Ayala's book (for any tweeps interested) is "Darwin's Gift To Science And Religion" Joseph Henry Press, 200710:11 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Next up: Prof. Aykut Kence [Middle East Technical University, Ankara] ‘Creationism – Historical and Contemporary Perspectives’10:13 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Kence: "evolution is most controversial theory in history of science not b/c of 'drawbacks' but b/c so many non-scientists can't accept it"10:16 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Kence now giving us a history of creationism in USA and Turkey (which are, as a poster reminded me, top 2 countries for evolution denial).10:17 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Kence: "The 'problem' w/ evolution didn't exist at the founding of Republic of Turkey" ergo rejection of Darwinism a recent development.10:26 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Kence: "In 1970s Fethullah Gulen started giving anti-Darwinism conferences. He said sci textbooks should be written by 'our religious men'"10:27 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Kence: US creationist talking points were simply adopted and modified to Islam. Specific examples in textbooks show cut-and-paste approach.10:28 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Now a romp through tragic Turkish textbook quotes e.g. "to give creation to Allah makes things easier/saves scientists from wasting energy"10:35 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Turkish textbook: "contrary to what evo'ists claim, it was demo'd that frog, mouse & snake blood more similar to human blood than monkeys"10:35 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Kence: huge amounts of money in Turkey going to defamation of Darwinism. One tactic is 'vilifying evolutionists as Marxists, communists'10:38 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Kence: younger Turkish teachers less likely to 'believe' in scientific validity of evolution than older Turkish teachers. Awful.10:39 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Quote from Mustafa Ataturk: "My moral legacy to Turkish people is Science and Reason. The only salvation for Turkey (& middle East!) is ...10:41 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

...to embrace that legacy again. Wow. Powerful.10:41 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Turkish creos have branded science as "vulgar philosophy"; It appears the Discovery Institute's Wedge doc has been translated into Turkish.10:43 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Beautifully put! RT @crc2008 faith is personal, all dogma is dogma, science is public acknowledgement of doubt and verification...10:44 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Now for lunch.10:55 AM Apr 24th from Nambu

Just caught the end of 2pm talk ‘The Challenges of Science Education Today’ by Prof. Nidhal Gessoum [American University of Sharjah, UAE]about 22 hours ago from Nambu

Gessoum: More girls pursuing science in university in Middle East than boys; anecdotal evidence that boys want to go into the Army. Scary.about 22 hours ago from Nambu

Gessoum: What we need most: training and workshops for teachers, and more science endowments and patronage (two words: Beagle Project!)about 22 hours ago from Nambu

Up next: Prof. Sema Ergezen [Marmara University] ‘Teaching Evolution in Turkey: Present and Future’about 22 hours ago from Nambu

Good morning America! If you're just joining in, I am live-tweeting the Darwin200 Anniversary Conference in Istanbul http://tr.im/jBepabout 22 hours ago from Nambu

Ergezen exploring causes & consequences of systemic anti-evolutionism in Turkish teaching. Wow, & to think we thought it was bad in the US.about 22 hours ago from Nambu

Ergezen: Turkish teachers complain of not having had specific courses on evolution at University, or that those courses are superficial.about 22 hours ago from Nambu

Ergezen: Turkish teachers say they don't know how to teach evolution; others don't know how to defend evolution (against creat'ist students)about 22 hours ago from Nambu

62% of 1st year biology students in Ergezen's class "don't accept evolution" i.e. they arrive at school biased against evolution.about 22 hours ago from Nambu

Ergezen: we are failing to help teachers think evolutionarily, and to infuse evolution throughout all biologyabout 22 hours ago from Nambu

@imascientist Why thank you! *blushes* (or is that the Turkish coffee?)about 22 hours ago from Nambu in reply to imascientist

@flascience Thanks, we're hearing now about one of your fave topics: evolution education! Pro development for teachers an important theme..about 22 hours ago from Nambu in reply to flascience

Ergezen: we must 1) create collaborations between scientists and teachers, provide pro. development to teachers, promote evolution-thinkingabout 22 hours ago from Nambu

Ergezen: We must take action! We must start now! A passionate call not to be passive! (*cough* Beagle Project *cough*)about 22 hours ago from Nambu

Welcome to Twitter friend, wordsmith, Yorkshireman & Beagle Proj co-founder Peter McGrath! @pietromcg (a.k.a. the Ben Goldacre of the North)about 21 hours ago from web

THIS IS WHAT CENSORSHIP LOOKS LIKE http://pic.im/1Veabout 21 hours ago from Nambu

Up next: FInal Panel Discussion ‘A Better Vision - The Public Understanding of Evolution in Turkey and Beyond’about 21 hours ago from Nambu

Panel Discussion Chair Prof. Aslı Tolun giving us background on Turkish evolution education & outreach situation. To paraphrase: it's bad.about 21 hours ago from Nambu

Hearing inside scoop from Tolun on the (most recent) Darwin censorship incident http://tr.im/jBxs (aside: even Iran teaches evolution!)about 21 hours ago from Nambu

Tolun asks: why is evolution edu important; what are the major problems; what are the challenges; what are the means for effective teaching?about 21 hours ago from Nambu

Panelists' answers to "why is evolution important": 1) b/c scientists need frameworks to link their findings w/ a context...about 21 hours ago from Nambu

2) nothing in bio makes sense w/o it; 3) b/c it helps us take greater meaning fr. your interactions w/ nature (kids shouldn't be afraid ...about 21 hours ago from Nambu

...of insects!); 4) human health and disease prevention all founded on evolution (<--panelists' answers to 'why evolution important')about 21 hours ago from Nambu

I asked panel: is evolution denial demographically linked to climate change denial in Turkey as it is in USA? ...about 21 hours ago from Nambu

... answer is "No, it's a more general problem of apathy & ignorance. Even those who support evolution do so w/o knowing why; it's ideology"about 21 hours ago from Nambu

Good morning West Coast! If you're just joining in, I am live-tweeting the Darwin200 Anniversary Conference in Istanbul http://tr.im/jBepabout 21 hours ago from Nambu

First-year Turkish university students, presented with an 18-million-year-old fossil and asked to guess how old, will answer 50-200yrs.about 21 hours ago from Nambu

@CR_Fauchald Many at this conference would agree w/ you. Others wouldn't. Sadly all this 'haggling' is hurting our science & our society.about 21 hours ago from Nambu in reply to CR_Fauchald

Turkish panelist informs us that though Turkish academy founded to advise government, it doesn't work that way anymore.about 21 hours ago from Nambu

Another panelist says there is no professional community for science education scholarship in Turkey: there's a lack of associations & unityabout 21 hours ago from Nambu

Solution offered to panelists by audience member: need to boost cultural support for evo; to do this, must know history of their alienationabout 21 hours ago from Nambu

The quality of curricula on evolution is a big problem in Turkey, USA, UK, France; they put too much emphasis on particular bio processesabout 21 hours ago from Nambu

Juxtaposition giving me goosebumps: In session on evolution & religion & can hear the mosque next door to the hotel calling to prayerabout 20 hours ago from Nambu

Great comment from audience: consensus at this conference is that religion & evolution are compatible, but society at large it's 'either/or'about 20 hours ago from Nambu

Panelist: "evolution has been used as an ideological battleground; teaching evolution is not about converting people, it's about explaining"about 20 hours ago from Nambu

Comment: getting the mullahs to tell their followers to accept evolution is NOT the point; the point is to inspire critical thinking.about 20 hours ago from Nambu

@crc2008 First of all, I said "evolution and religion are compatible" is the consensus of this conference, not necessarily my own view!about 20 hours ago from Nambu in reply to crc2008

@crc2008 Second of all, I would have like to have said 'acceptance of evolution' not just 'evolution' but such is twitter ;-)about 20 hours ago from Nambu in reply to crc2008

Only when the religious stop meddling w/ sci edu! RT @tuibguy teach the biology let the religious worry about their part. Will it work?about 20 hours ago from Nambu

Commenter: better science education is needed in the seminaries. (Yep, that'd be good, I agree. Good luck though.)about 20 hours ago from Nambu

@mwinther @rdmpage @neuro100 Heh. Unfortunately all of the spokesmen for this view (Dawkins et al.) were specifically *not* invited here.about 20 hours ago from Nambu in reply to mwinther

OMG this is scary. Someone is standing up and saying 'the problem is democracy' because culture is king in democracy.about 20 hours ago from Nambu

Double OMG! He called Dawkins "an extreme vulgar ideologist"! ...then said people need to be persuaded not forced to accept evolution. Hmm.about 20 hours ago from Nambu

Me: In all our talk about the education-ignorance dichotomy & how to argue better, let's not forget about the apathy-inspiration dichotomyabout 20 hours ago from Nambu

Phew! My talk is over and now enjoying a production of Re-design, a dramatization of the Darwin-Gray correspondence.about 17 hours ago from txt

This is the public portion of the symposium w/ 300+ Turkish students in attendance. Next up a televised panel discussionabout 17 hours ago from txt

Still tweeting live from Darwin200 Istanbul though less frequently b/c by text. Televised panel discussion beginning!about 15 hours ago from txt

Audience questions!about 15 hours ago from txt

One questioner practically reading out of Hurun Yahya; he just won't accept the existence of transitional fossilsabout 15 hours ago from txt

Panelist: Science uses hypothesis & experiment to find out truth. Religion uses... uh... something else.about 14 hours ago from txt

@pseudonymTrevor Love that Thoreau is your avatar (*follows*). Glad you found DCP. Darwin-Online is also good resource http://tr.im/jG5Uabout 1 hour ago from Nambu in reply to pseudonymTrevor

Damn, missed my chance. RT @pietromcg Harun Yahya sounds like he's doing a pavement pizza in a shop door after 7 pints & a curry. Tell him.about 1 hour ago from Nambu

Thanks to all who replied to & RT'd my live tweets from Darwin200 Conference in Istanbul. Conf over now, but I'm in Istanbul through Monday.about 1 hour ago from Nambu

Plans to live-blog the Templeton-funded Darwin conference in Istanbul

Do I win the award for most lightning rods in a blog post title yet?

I mean, there's Turkey's ...uh... ...how shall I say... delicate relationship to Darwin and evolution (and atheism, *cough* not that that has anything to do with Darwin and evolution *cough*), there's the general distaste evolution advocates have for the Templeton Foundation and then there's Turkey's recent censorship of Blogger and Wordpress blogging platforms. Thrrreeee lightening rods, Ah Ha Ha!

But before I explain about the conference, how I will be live-blogging it and what on Darwin's entangled bank I was thinking about when I agreed to accept the Templeton Foundation's support for my participation, let's all just get this out of our systems first shall we?


In case you're wondering, yes I do love the They Might Be Giants cover, but this original* is pretty swingin' and I figured its existence might be news to a certain percentage of my readers.

With that obligatory Obnoxious American^TM preface to all blog posts with 'Istanbul' in the title out of the way, let's get down to business:

Starting at an undisclosed time later this week, from an undisclosed location in Istanbul (undisclosed presumably to keep Oktar's ilk away), I will be participating in the Darwin-200 Anniversary Conference. I've been invited give a short talk about The HMS Beagle Project during the final, public session, which follows a more exclusive two-day scientific symposium on the scientific, historical, cultural and religious implications of evolution including a 'critique' of intelligent design by a famous person (*rubs hands*) and panel discussions on "Evolution and Purpose" and "Public Understanding of Evolution in Turkey and Beyond".

What, my evolution peeps might be wondering, 'possessed' me to accept an invitation to a Templeton conference? Don't I know that "Templeton funds stealth religion, and the good work they support is a façade to conceal their aims", paying "hefty bribes to get scientists to cross that line [between science and religion]"? Why yes, I do, but I figure if I can use up some of that money to get me to Turkey where I can do my fly-in-the-ointment thing, live-blog it and also proselytize a bit for the Beagle Project, a project that will promote science in general, evolution in particular, and a rational approach to solving our most pressing problems, well, then, that's a good appropriation of their money as far as I'm concerned.

Moreover, if Bernard d'Espagnat, who, on winning a Templeton Prize, didn't reject the prize but said:

I feel myself deeply in accordance with the Templeton Foundation's great, guiding idea that science does shed light [on spirituality]. In my view it does so mainly by rendering unbelievable an intellectual construction claiming to yield access to the ultimate ground of things with the sole use of the simple, somewhat trivial notions everybody has.

(via Darwin's Teapot)

...then I figure I'm in pretty good company.

Rationalizations safely behind me now, here are the details my impending coverage of the conference:

I've scheduled a post to go live here at approximately the same time I expect to start tweeting from Istanbul later this week. The post will consist mainly of an embedded twitter feed, but I will also try to update the post itself a few times during the conference with more substantive stuff.

I have to confess that - in a Rebel Girl kind of a way - I'm actually kind of excited to try my hand at tweeting and blogging from a place that has censored both evolution and blogging in the recent past. There are potential hazards. For example, if for some reason Blogger is still banned in Turkey (though Reporters Sans Frontieres says it was restored), this might not go as planned. I would think my tweets should still get through, though (unless Turkey suddenly bans twitter).

To stay in the loop, follow this blog's feed or follow me on twitter.

One last thing before I go, a little test of ye olde twitter widget:


Update Friday: Hmm, well it's working, but only if you have Flash (and not everyone does!) and formatting not great. Think I will use the html widget instead in the live-blog post.

*which itself is so similar to Irving Berlin's Puttin' on the Ritz (here's a classic performance by Fred Astaire), I'm not even sure 'original' is the right word

Down syndrome research pop quiz: fruit flies 94, Sarah Palin zilch

This story has already been covered to death (or at least I hope so) on teh interwebs, but I must have my say. You see, when Palin dissed fruit flies...



...she didn't just diss fruit flies and the general and specific importance of model organism research (for which she is rightly and expertly skewered by Christopher Hitchens, Kevin Berger and others). She also dissed me.

As mentioned previously here and here, I did my PhD research on the fruit fly* Drosophila melanogaster. Specifically, I worked my butt off for six years to understand some of the myriad and complex functions of a fruit fly gene called Ras (the human counterpart of which plays a role in the onset and/or development of almost every kind of cancer) on the ovarian and embryonic development of the fruit fly, and how this has been modulated during fruit fly evolution.

That's right, friends, I am officially (and, it must be said, very proudly) on Sarah Palin's shit list: not only did I do research on fruit flies (booooo!) but I also did research on evolution (hissssss!).

But enough about me.

Almost unbelievably, Palin's sneer came directly on the heels of her own call to help families with special needs kids like her nephew with autism and her son with Down syndrome. See, in Palin's (surprisingly young) universe, it cannot possibly be fathomed that something as obscure as a fruit fly could help special needs kids. But a quick search on PubMed for 'Drosophila and "Down syndrome"' yields 94 peer-reviewed research articles including this one [my emphases]:

Dscam guides embryonic axons by Netrin-dependent and -independent functions.

Andrews GL, Tanglao S, Farmer WT, Morin S, Brotman S, Berberoglu MA, Price H, Fernandez GC, Mastick GS, Charron F, Kidd T.

Development. 2008 Oct 23. [Epub ahead of print]

Developing axons are attracted to the CNS midline by Netrin proteins and other as yet unidentified signals. Netrin signals are transduced in part by Frazzled (Fra)/DCC receptors. Genetic analysis in Drosophila indicates that additional unidentified receptors are needed to mediate the attractive response to Netrin. Analysis of Bolwig's nerve reveals that Netrin mutants have a similar phenotype to Down Syndrome Cell Adhesion Molecule (Dscam) mutants. Netrin and Dscam mutants display dose sensitive interactions, suggesting that Dscam could act as a Netrin receptor. We show using cell overlay assays that Netrin binds to fly and vertebrate Dscam, and that Dscam binds Netrin with the same affinity as DCC. At the CNS midline, we find that Dscam and its paralog Dscam3 act redundantly to promote midline crossing. Simultaneous genetic knockout of the two Dscam genes and the Netrin receptor fra produces a midline crossing defect that is stronger than the removal of Netrin proteins, suggesting that Dscam proteins also function in a pathway parallel to Netrins. Additionally, overexpression of Dscam in axons that do not normally cross the midline is able to induce ectopic midline crossing, consistent with an attractive receptor function. Our results support the model that Dscam proteins function as attractive receptors for Netrin and also act in parallel to Frazzled/DCC. Furthermore, the results suggest that Dscam proteins have the ability to respond to multiple ligands and act as receptors for an unidentified midline attractive cue. These functions in axon guidance have implications for the pathogenesis of Down Syndrome.

In other words, research on fruit flies is helping us to understand Down Syndrome better. The same can be said for almost all human biology, both pathogenic and 'normal' (whatever that means).

And here's where Palin's mocking is even more resonant: the reason fruit fly biology illuminates human biology is because our genomes are so similar and the reason our genomes are so similar is because we inherited them from the last common ancestor of humans and fruit flies [cue Sarah Palin's head popping off and steam shooting out].


*Though not technically correct, 'fruit fly' is the colloquial name for the monumentally important model organism Drosophila melanogaster. True fruit flies belong to the insect family Tephritidae and it was in fact a research project on these Tephritid flies that Palin was so gleefully skewering as wasteful earmark spending. Some have argued that this fact exonerates Palin-- i.e. that she was not mocking D. melanogaster research because she knows how important that is (right, as if Palin knows the difference between true fruit flies and model organism 'fruit flies') but rather she was mocking Tephritid fruit fly research. Problem is that the project she mocked is more applied to human benefit (in this case agricultural productivity) than most D. melanogaster research, not less, so there's that argument out the window.

Hide the children: creationist Ken Ham is coming to Blighty

Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum in Kentucky, will be delivering several talks in the UK over the next month. You know what to do, my freethinking friends:

28-30 March Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales (Firm Foundations Creation Conference, a "residential conference" *shudder*)

31 March Liverpool

1 April Grimsby

2 April Bedford

3 April Leicester

4-5 April London (Creation Conference)

9-10 May Belfast (this is an important one, methinks, because it seems likely to attract proponents of the notorious Giant's Causeway Creation Committee)

I am going to try and attend the London conference. It is a ticketed event and so I have emailed the organisers (yes, using my real name) and will post an update here as soon as I know any more.

Hat tip to Marc.

Update: Tickets to the London event cost £5 for Friday, £10 for Saturday and £15 for both days. So, is it worth a fiver to confront Ken Ham in person? Hmmm.

Here is a part of the PDF I received in response to my ticket enquiry:

"Barcode of plants mapped" identified tested

I just started a draft post (which I fully intend to decorate with ResearchBlogging's recently besmirched icon) on the new paper that my Google alert tells me is coming out on DNA barcoding in plants, my main area of research at the Natural History Museum.

The only thing missing is... well... um... the paper.

The Nature News article reporting the results of the (as yet nonexistent) paper even links to the paper's DOI, which looks promising until you click it and find out it doesn't actually lead anywhere. So, like any good Web 2.0 denizen, I left a comment there: "The DOI for the cited article does not appear to exist, nor can I find anything about this paper on the PNAS website. Any suggestions?" The response I got was, "Please note that PNAS releases the news of its upcoming papers on Mondays at 5pm Eastern time, but the papers themselves may go live at any time during that subsequent week. So this paper will appear eventually... check back on Friday and you should find it."

Well, okay, but then this has a disturbing (if not surprising) implication: none of the 10+ news reports announcing the findings could possibly be the result of a science journalist actually reading and understanding the paper (which is, I note with interest, one of the guidelines for using the ResearchBlogging icon). (The journalists would, in fact, have had a chance to see the paper before they wrote their news items - see koffeekat's very welcome comment below. -KJ 28/7/09)

So, I thought, what better to do while I'm waiting for the paper to be published than to pick apart some bad science writing? Oh, there's the usual assortment of inaccuracy and sensationalism, but my complaints here are going to be more focused on the specific content, that is, DNA barcoding.

Scalpel, please.

Here is my dart-board collage of the offending titles and sentences from a selection of three news pieces reporting the key findings of the mystery DNA barcoding paper. I gave up after three when it became clear they were all just copying and pasting from the same (lame) press release. In bold are the bits that need trouncing, followed immediately by the actual trounce.

"'Barcode' of plants mapped" (title, inthenews.co.uk). Mapped? What, with like a road atlas? I don't need to go into detail on why this is just so wrong, simply because Miss Prism has already done it with verve.

"Scientists have identified a 'barcode' gene that can be used to distinguish between the majority of plant species on Earth." (inthenews.co.uk). Well, actually, according to the news release they tested 1600 species of orchids in the study that is (supposedly) going to be published and yet there are nearly 300,000 recognised plant species. Now, unless you're the US Electoral College, 1600/300,000 does not a majority make.

"As such scientists can use the gene to distinguish between different plants, even closely related species." (inthenews.co.uk). How closely would that be? ...seems like an important question.

"matK Gene Is A "Barcode" DNA For Plants (title, ScientificBlogging)." These guys can't even get the word order right. It's a DNA barcode not a barcode DNA.

"They found that when one plant species was closely related to another, differences were usually detected in the matK DNA. (ScientificBlogging)". Is ScienceBlogging having a secret internal competition on who can be the most vague? "Usually" in this context could mean one of two things for a putative plant DNA barcode: 1) spectacular success, 2) cringe-worthy failure.

The matK gene may not, however, be able to be used to identify every plant species on Earth. In a few groups of species, additional genetic information may be required for species-level identification because hybridization - where species cross-breed and genetic material is rearranged - may confuse the information provided by matK. (ScientificBlogging). Okay, where to begin. First of all, hybridization is not just a minor problem in the plant kingdom, it's more the norm. Second, genetic material is rearranged as a normal result of the normal process of normal sexual reproduction, so hybridization doesn't have anything special going for it there. Third, hybridization does not "confuse the information" but rather the information is inadequate to tell when hybridization has occurred.

The team behind the discovery found that DNA sequences of the gene 'matK' differ among plant species, but are nearly identical in plants of the same species. (Bio-Medicine). Not so much a discovery as a trial of something that had already been proposed and partially tested.

Needless to say I am looking forward to the paper actually getting published so I can blog it using words a little more informative than "usually", "majority", "a few" and "closely related".