illuminating science

Today’s post is from guest blogger Jenny Riesz, PhD researcher in biophyisics, working on determining the structure of the skin pigment melanin.

I went to a fascinating talk today by Ben Hankamer, a researcher at the UQ Institute of Molecular Bioscience. He leads a group that has been looking at renewable technologies and global warming.

The statistics are absolutely terrifying. His basic message was that EVEN IF we act RIGHT NOW to the maximum of our ability, all indications suggest that we are looking at massive global changes - extinction of something like 25% of all the plant and animal species on earth, huge sea level rises, and frightening climate change. And if we don’t act now then god help us. There are indications that we are now at a turning point where carbon dioxide levels are having a positive feedback effect - rising global temperatures and droughts mean that plants are dying and actually contributing more carbon dioxide than they can absorb.

Add to this the fact that fossil fuels are running out. Many statistics say that coal will last for a few hundred years but this figure is based on current usage. And our energy needs are rising every year; India and China, particularly, have massively increasing energy consumption. Put this together, and our fossil fuels, ALL our fossil fuels, are set to run out in about 100yrs. So we are looking at massive changes WITHIN OUR LIFETIME.

All of this was presented in a calm and completely scientific manner that chilled me to the bone.

As a result of their studies they have decided that solar energy has to be the answer to our energy crisis, and that biomass is the most feasible way to harness the energy of the sun. They are developing a technology that uses algae to produce hydrogen from sunlight. In photosynthesis plants split water (H2O) into oxygen and hydrogen. They hydrogen (protons) is usually then used by the plant to make food (through a long chain of events). This group has made a mutant type of cell that doesn’t process the hydrogen in the same way, but instead releases it as a gas. The cell then dies (because it has no food), but in the process it has released all the energy in it that originally came from the sun. So one could imagine a system where you grow algal cells in a tank in the sun, let them absorb lots of energy, then extract that energy as hydrogen.

As an added bonus, they’re using bacteria that grow in salt water (which is far more abundant than fresh water), which means that this process could actually become a method for desalination of water (when you recombine the oxygen and hydrogen to make fresh water!). It’s a beautifully elegant idea that looks like it really has a chance.

And I really do hope it DOES have a chance. Global warming and the energy crisis scares the hell out of me. We are going to see MASSIVE changes within our lifetime. It’s our choice whether we make the best of it early, or wait until we have no choices left.

For some ideas on how you can make less of an energy impact on the world, see:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/

To read more about Ben Hankamer’s research:
http://www.imb.uq.edu.au/?page=11700

It’s also worth mentioning the issues of discrimination that go along with this type of thing. We discriminate insurance on the basis of age, you have to be a certain level of fitness to join the army (though why would you want to?), etc. So if all genes could be identified, and we could map a person’s genetic code in a reasonable amount of time (a possible side-benefit to this research) then might firms start discriminating on how likely you are to get cancer, or to have a heart attack, or any other illness? Could your health insurance go up simply because you have a predisposition to heart disease? If so, is that fair or not? Health insurance, if you’re really blunt, already works by healthy people paying for the treatment of the sick. People hope they never need to use it, but if they do, they want to know they’re covered. So might it not be fair for the people more likely to use it to contribute more? I don’t think that’s fair, but it’s also hard to find a flaw in the argument - it kind of depends what side of the fence you’re on… IBM has already said it won’t have any genetic testing or discrimination. But it’s also easy to imagine a Gattaca type scenario, particularly with the push for national ID cards, etc.

Let’s hope that common sense prevails, hey?

An international partnership of 200 scientists are compiling a map of the genetic variations in our DNA. The Human Genome Project has already sequenced a huge amount of our DNA, and shown that any two people are 99.9% identical - i.e., only one gene in a thousand differs between you and I (unless you’re female, which probably skews things slightly, with the whole XY chromosome thing!)

The newInternational HapMap Project (or see Wikipedia) is designed to examine that remaining .1% difference, and to understand the role of the genes that make us different. Ultimately, this may lead us to the genetic influence on diseases such as cancer, heart disease, asthma, etc., and perhaps bring us one step closer to a cure, or at least better treatment.

They’ve sampled a group of about 270 people from all around the world, which will apparently give them a sample of the vast majority of genetic variations in the world (wow!). And all the data will be made freely available for anyone to work with and use. There’s still the possibility, however, for researchers who discover a particular use for some of the data (e.g., this gene causes cancer) to apply for a patent on that use, which I have mixed feelings about. On the one hand, this will encourage people (financially!) to develop drugs that act on these discoveries, but on the other hand we end up with medicine which may be expensive, restricted, etc. I think that’s a small point however; the important thing is that researchers all around the world will benefit from this knowledge - anyone, even you or I, can download the database from the web, but I’d wager that I won’t understand what I’m reading

I think this makes it a pretty exciting time for genetic researchers - and who knows where this will lead? Of course, the data is no good if we don’t understand what the effect and function of each variation is - a much more complex task than even getting the data! But a full understanding of our genome will be a major step forward in our understanding of our bodies and life, and we’re well on the way.

Update: More thoughts here.

Last weekend we bought a car! Quite exciting, but also kind of stressful. It reminded me more than a little about finding a house. All these different parameters that have to be weighed up - pros and cons for all these different features, and then the bottom line - how much will all this cost?

First of all, there’s age and kilometres. The older the car, the more wear and tear on its appearance, and just general aging of parts. Likewise, the more kilometres it’s done, the more wear and tear, on the engine in particular. What’s better - a newer car with more kilometres, or an older car with less? Tough call.

Then, there’s the size of the car. Petrol prices are going up and up, so it’s more economical to own a small car that uses less petrol. On the other hand, because petrol prices are going up, no-one wants to buy large cars, so they’re a lot cheaper now than they were this time last year (we’re talking a couple of thousand dollars, it seems). That means you can get a newer large car for the same money as an older small car. While it costs you more in petrol, you’ll also save in repairs.

The question is, what’s the best compromise? In the end, we went with a Holden Commodore. It’s a 1992 model, so not too old, and in good condition (e.g., upholstery, etc) and (apparently) mechanically sound. It’s a big car (it’s really long!) so chews up about 25% more petrol than the smaller Corolla we’d been thinking about, but in much better condition than the ones we’d seen. In the end, we worked out that we would have to drive a really large number of kilometres to use up in petrol to make up the difference between a similar standard small car. (Basically it’s simultaneous equations! Total cost = cost to buy + kilometres * price per kilometre) Furthermore, parts and repairs are (comparitively) cheap for a Commodore, since they’re so common, which makes it, we hope, a good deal. (I guess, really Total cost= price + km*price per km + repairs*(number of years and kilometres you’ve had the car, in some complex function)).

Either way, it’s great to have our own car to go where we want, etc. Public transport is far better for the environment, but it just isn’t cheap here. If you don’t own a car, it’s quite reasonable, but once you’ve made that initial outlay for registration, insurance, etc, then buses etc just aren’t a good deal. (Actually, as a student they’re not bad, but if you were an adult with no discount, they’re terrible. Not to mention that they take twice as long for most trips when compared to going by car…) We still catch public transport into the city, say, since it’s just as quick (direct route!) and parking is a pain.

But there really is something to say about cities like Hong Kong where the norm is not to own a car, and you can (literally!) get anywhere and everywhere you want to go, and in a reasonable time frame. But for that kind of transport system you need a lot of people in a very small area, and Australia really doesn’t lend itsellf to that just yet!

The more I learn, the scarier it gets. It turns out that Australian Minister for Science, Brendon Nelson, believes Intelligent Design should be taught in schools if the parents wish it. I’m not clear whether he means in science class or “religious education” (an opt out, Christian-only education program that most primary schools take) or some high school equivalent. It’s also not clear what happens if parents don’t wish it - are we talking about a democratic vote here? I’m all for Democracy, bu the popular decision isn’t always the right one - take gay marriage, which I am still flabbergasted to learn was banned in Australian parliament last year. But not all unpopular decisions are right (e.g., slavery, racism, etc…) so how do you decide between them? I suppose we could have an opt out system - that people who don’t want to learn Intelligent Design can go and do some real science, but opt-in would be much better (i.e., attend a Christian school). More thoughts only Australia and ID can be found in the transcript of Catalyst from last night (thanks Jon!)

Either way, I’m feeling mighty frustrated at the moment - like nothing I do is going to make a difference. I’ll just have to trust that the scientists of Australia are going to fight the good fight. It also makes me wonder how we can have a Minister for Science who isn’t a scientist (yes, he’s studied medicine, but that’s not quite the same…) - you really would hope that someone who makes national policy decisions on science knew a little bit about what it was like to be a scientist (*). I have noticed, however, that Brendan Nelson has a webpage, complete with feedback form. Although I suspect that these don’t really reach him, I’m quite tempted to add my two cents.

Anyway, that’s me for the week. Going to try and do some last minute work, then head home for a little peace and quiet!

Update: Instead of doing work, I found a good rebuttal from Australian scientist Mike Archer. It also mentions that an open letter protesting intelligent design being taught in schools and signed by 70,000 scientists and teachers appeared in the paper today. Good stuff! (Also changed the title to something less stupid, though more mundane)

(*) I’m reminded of a quote from Firefly:

Bounty hunter: You ever been shot?
Doctor (goodguy!): No.
Bounty hunter: You oughta be shot. Or stabbed, lose a leg. To be a surgeon, you know? Know what kind of pain you’re dealing with. They make psychiatrists get psychoanalyzed before they can get certified, but they don’t make a surgeon get cut on. That seem right to you?

Things are very exciting here in the physics building at the moment - after a couple of hours of rain, our solid, impermeable roof has suddenly forgotten the definition of “impermeable”, and started dripping (or pouring, depending on what room or cupboard you look at) into our offices! I can only imagine that a pipe somewhere has burst/broken/otherwise given up the fight, and is now directing the not inconsiderable amount of water caught on the not inconsiderable surface area of our roof into the comparatively small space above our offices.

So far, my office has been unaffected, but all the same I think I’ll put my laptop somewhere safe (read: waterproof) before I go for lunch.

That’s my excitement for the day, anyway. This afternoon, the Honours students from physics are going to be giving their end of year talks on their work, so that should be interesting (depending on how much I understand!) I’m particularly interested in a talk a fellow swing dancer (and physicist!) is giving on quantum gravity, and the best way of describing time, but there’s lots of interesting projects from some excellent students, so they should all be good.

Just following up on my last post, if you happen to have a subscription to New Scientist (or your University does, etc) there’s quite a good opinion piece which sums up my feelings regarding the necessary separation of science and religious fundamentalism.

In a court case which I hope is being watched by every self-respecting scientist, one of the main proponents of intelligent design has conceded that if his definition of a “scientific theory” is accepted, then astrology would have to be considered a valid theory too.

Intelligent design (ID) says the evolution was not a random process of natural selection, but in fact a guided process by some sort of “higher being”. It’s considered to be a “compromise” betweeen creationism (the world was created by a “higher being”) and Darwinian evolution (random genetic mutations that give the creature an advantage are more likely to be passed on to the next generation, and hence preserved).

Although in its strictest form it doesn’t state who the “higher being” actually is, it’s almost always considered to be the Christian God, and is being pushed strongly by Christian fundamentalists who realise that Creationism is a lost cause, but still want God in the picture. Many (mots?) people, however, acknowledge that ID really isn’t anything more than creationism in disguise (at least when the “7 days” is interpreted more liberally…) In fact, it was revealed that a recent and very popular pro-Intelligen Design book “Of Pandas and People” was in a previous draft actually advocating creationism, and when this fell out of favour, the word “creationism” was simply replaced by “intelligent design” in the text!

This latest court battle is a result of a school in the U.S. agreeing to teach ID (intelligent design) in addition to evolution in high school biology: effectively putting ID on the same scientific footing. A group of parents took them to court, saying it was just a sly attempt to teach religion, and indeed creationism, in the name of science (U.S. law says that no religion may be taught at public schools.) and hence this landmark case - is ID a valid “scientific theory” that should be taught in schools? The outcome of this case will have far reaching reprecussions, which may reach beyond just schools.

What follows is my two cents - some of it will be a little controversial, as any discussion of religion and science tends to be, so take it all with a grain of salt. Basically, I think teaching intelligent design in schools is horrifying. In some ways it’s worse than creationism, since any sensible person can refute that, whereas it’s subtler to see why ID is at best unnecessary (evolution works - we don’t need a guiding power to explain life) and at worst just plain wrong (can’t really prove that!). In some ways, if you want to believe that there was a guiding force, well, that’s fine - I don’t think it’s necessary, and it kind of goes against evolution, but each to their own. Even if you want to include that in some sort of course on spirituality, which describes the beliefs and opinions of various religions, that’s okay too - as long as it’s presented in the right way, it’s educational.

But given that in this case, and in many others, the school board is made up of evangelical Christians with an agenda to push, this seems like nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to push religion in schools. I’m a strong believer that religion has no place in schools unless it’s giving students the necessary information to make an informed decision. Personally, I’m spiritual but not religious. Some of the teachings of Buddhism are quite appealing (go the Dalai Lama!) and I like the ideals of the Celestine Prophecy - a good guide to life, even if not true in the literal sense. I just don’t feel the need for the dogma and structure of religion in my day to day life. I’m a (reasonably) moral sort of guy as it is, and I refuse to take things for granted without good evidence. I’m just too argumentative. Note I don’t have anything against Christians - the religion doesn’t appeal to me personally, but that’s an individual choice.

Anyway, the bottom line is that science needs to be free from religious influence (just think of Galileo!). It doesn’t preclude scientists being religious, or visa versa. But as scientists, we need to be free make statements that might go against popular opinion or belief. And, we need to produce students who are free from prejudices and appreciate the scientific method that serves us so well.

My friend Les passed on a great site with images from the International Space Station of different features on Earth. I particularly liked the almost fractal (repeating on smaller and smaller scales) picture of the Nasser River, in Egypt.

A map of the world on the image site allows you to look for photos in a region of interest. It’s not as complete (or as close up) as Comments (0)

It seems that the banning of CFCs has indeed halted the destruction of the ozone layer, with the hole over Antarctica shrinking since its peak size in 2003. (Recall that the ozone layer is responsible for filtering harmful UV radiation…)

Even so, it’s scary - the hole is about 27 million square kilometres, and there are no guarantees how quickly it will recover - after all, CFCs were banned 20 years ago, and we’re only now seeing a real difference (though I imagine the rate of increase has been slowing since then? The harmful gases, chlorine and bromine, in CFCs take quite a while to diffuse through the atmosphere.)

Sorry for no posts - things have just been nuts trying to get myself organised again! I can’t believe what two weeks away does…So this is just a quick post to recommend in the strongest terms possible going to see Serenity, a truly awesome movie. It’s a follow on from the TV series “Firefly”, by Joss Whedon (yes, the creator of Buffy - but there’s no correlation!) and is a really excellent sci-fi movie. Even if you’re not a sci-fi kind of person, I think it’s still got a lot to offer - the characters and script are wonderful, and the plot is very clever. You don’t need to have seen the series before, either - obviously, there is a lot of backstory you get, but the movie is standalone.

Best of all, the physics is pretty good! In particular, there’s no sound in space (sorry Star Wars fans!) (although they get around the audience’s expectations thereof by having the first scene with their ship entering the atmosphere of a planet There’s a couple of minor questions about the teraforming of moons, and why all planets are the same temperature no matter how far from the sun they are, but you migth argue that if they can produce artificial gravity, then this is a small issue? I won’t push that line of enquiry too far.

So yes, I highly recommend it, and now I’m going to try and do a last bit of work for the day.

Thanks to friend Les, here’s some fantastic photos that blur the bourndar between science and art: the Visions of Science awards. There’s some fantastic images here - some are breathtaking, and some are just strange. Les really likes the paperclip, and I have to say I really dig the first one of the peppercorn.

And yes, I am freshly back from my sojourn to the Torres Strait Islands, and have just finished going through my 140+ emails that have accumulated! Some details will follow soon (as will a long-overdue description of my research!)

I noticed that Hank Lee, one of the magic dealers in the U.S. regularly has sales on. A few weeks ago it was 25% off the whole order. This week, it was “Buy one, get one half price” - “It is our biggest sale ever”. But just stop and think about this for a second - at 25% off, I save $25 out of a $100 no matter what. But at the buy one get one half price, at best if I buy two $50 items, I get…$25 off. If I buy a $60 and a $40 item, I only save $20 - it’s the cheapest one for the discount! So in fact, it’s not their biggest sale ever, and you’d do well to wait for a 25% off sale instead, unless you know you’re not going to do any better.

In a similar vein, they followed their 3-day 25% off sale with a %20 sale for another few days - clever tactic for anyone who might have been debating or forgot, still gets hooked by a good deal without saving quite so much money. So they’re good at marketing if nothing else!