glow in dark kitties science silliniess

Glow-in-the-Dark Kitties: Science, Silliniess, or Just Plain Scary?

Through genetic manipulation, South Korean geneticists have been able

to not only "turn-on" the fluorescence protein in cat embryos, but

have also successfully cloned the animal.

A team of scientists led by Kong Il-keun, a cloning expert at

Gyeongsang National University, produced three cats possessing

altered fluorescence protein (RFP) genes, the Ministry of Science

and Technology said.

Source: South Koreans Clone Cats that Glow in the Dark

While the ability to glow-in-the-dark in and of itself isn't a

significant medical advancement, the ability to clone genetically

altered animals is. This is big news in the fledgling field of genetic

medicine, as it is now possible to create the ultimate control group

for testing: exact copies of animals afflicted with diseases that

humans suffer from (cats and humans share more than 200 of the same

afflictions).

Other applications of the technology:

* genetically engineering livestock that emit less methane

* cloning endangered species, slightly reconfigured to adapt to

altered or new habitats

* designer pets and flourescent foodstuffs

Some would argue that all of these possibilities raise important

ethical questions, but I would counter that the overall question of

whether or not genetic engineering is ethical has been settled since

humanity first started to selectively breed livestock, pets, and

produce; the rest is just details.

Consider what happened when transgenic artist Eduardo Kac commissioned

the engineered breeding of Alba, a glow-in-the-dark rabbit from French

geneticists. A firestorm of protest by animal rights activists who

dubbed the process "abusive" caused the French team to renege and keep

the animal rather than turn the rabbit over to Kac.

Whether or not living out her life in seclusion (Alba is not

accessible to the general public and whether or not the animal is

still alive is unknown) as a lab specimen has given Alba a better

quality of life than she would have had otherwise is a very poignant -

and, to date - unanswered question. Because Alba isn't accessible to

the public, whether or not she suffered any ill side effects from the

genetic manipulation that made her glow in the dark is also unknown.

Given that Kac intended the animal to be the family pet and to

showcase his family's relationship with the animal as a form of

artistic expression, my personal opinion is a resounding "no." While

it may well be true that the science used to create Alba could have

been better applied elsewhere, the effort expended to protest her

"abuse" would have been better spent protesting Kentucky Fried

Chicken, veal producers, or some other enterprise that engages in the

halloween posts

Halloween posts

It's been eons, but yes, I'm still alive -- just busy! Sorry for not

blogging for, well, three months, and thanks to those who emailed me

asking me to come back. I didn't even realize I had fans!

Over at Scientific American's 60 Second Science blog, I wrote a

festive Halloween post about the effects of costuming on human

behavior -- i.e., does Halloween make us go a little crazy? Check it

out here.

The site has another great Halloween post about what science says

about the supernatural. And you can probably guess what that is.

she blinded me with science

She blinded me... with science!

Excerpt from recent email from a friend:

... we were on the way back into the big mall complex proper [at

the Flatiron Mall in Denver, CO], passing by various stores in the

outdoor section. We were passing by a spa that I had barely

registered in my brain on the way to lunch--they had a dry erase

board with a listing of their services, such as Botox and facial

waxes. I forgot about it as soon as I passed it.

Well, *this* time, ____ pointed out an item midway down the board,

which said, "DNA STEM CELLS".

I stared at it, racking my brain for any recollection of salon stem

cell use, but came up dry. So I walked in, and asked the three

women of various ages, in lab coats, for more information. The

older of the trio, a middle-aged woman with wavy blonde hair, said,

"You have stem cells in your skin, and as you age, those stem cells

don't work as well. We replenish your stem cells using bovine stem

cells from amniotic fluid to rejuvenate the skin."

"... Bovine?"

"Yes, because they are the most similar, molecularly, to our own."

"Ah. .... and, um, how do you, uh, apply, these stem cells?"

"We massage them into the skin." (Demonstrating, waving her fingers

in circles around her face without quite touching the skin.)

"... So, you're saying that you ... replenish ... the stem cells

... by topical application?"

"Yes."

" ... I see. ... Yes. ... Thank you, have a nice day."

I left the spa and joined ____ outside, and walked a bit before

practically collapsing with laughter and trying to keep myself from

having an aneurysm. It would have been fun to delve deeper, just to

see (such as: how do you keep these stem cells? Exactly how do the

stem cells cross the epithelial barrier? What molecules, really,

are you talking about?), but I had stuff to do.

My friend, who is a developmental biologist, subsequently sent me a

link to Clinique Reneux's "CryoStem Skin Therapy(TM)" FAQ, which

contains much hilarity.

_________________________________________________________________

UPDATE: On further Googling, it appears that this scam is perpetrated

by "The DNA Health Institute" (warning: odious Flash page), a company

led by erstwhile homeopathic charlatan Noel Aguilar, "Ph.D.". "Dr."

Aguilar has evidently gotten tired of giving talks at Rotary Clubs and

writing "forwards" [sic.] for books on "magnetic healing". I would be

very interested to know where Noel Aguilar got his Ph.D., and in what

field, and what his thesis was. If he actually is a Ph.D., that means

his doctoral thesis is on file in some university library somewhere,

and you should be able to order a copy. [DEL: I suspect it would be

"interesting" reading --- in sociology, or English, or some other

field completely unrelated to cellular biology. :DEL]

Note, also, that the CryoStem literature suggests the treatment has

received FDA approval. However, a search through the FDA's catalog of

approved drugs for "cryostem", "cry", and "stem" reveal no hits ---

even though the claims made for CryoStem definitely meet the (B)

clause of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, section 201(g)(1)'s

standard for drugs: "articles (other than food) intended to affect the

structure or any function of the body of man or other animals". If

promoters of this drug are not simply lying outright, but merely

stretching the truth, then the most they could have done is submit

reports indicating that CryoStem meets the minimal safety requirements

for cosmetics, with no evaluation of efficacy. (Drugs must be both

safe and effective; cosmetics need only be safe, or carry a warning

label).

Incidentally, this all serves as further evidence for my working

hypothesis that only charlatans or the incredibly insecure actually

write "Ph.D." after their name, or call themselves "Dr." (unless they

are licensed, practicing medical doctors). Go to any top ten

university department in any field, and you'll find few people who do

either, except as a joke, or when they need to impress somebody

especially thickheaded (e.g., Congress).

_________________________________________________________________

UPDATE': In comments, Inky notes:

I looked at the Rotary Club link. It says that:

Today there is a Hahnemann Medical College of Homeopathy. Dr.

Aguilar attended, and earned a degree there.

...

Also: apparently the majority of homeopathic .. erm, instituions,

are either named after Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathic

quarkery. Otherwise, they conveniently put in "Homeopathy", like

the Canadian Academy of Homeopathy.

Thus, there is not just *one* Hahnemann Medical College of

Homeopathy. Locations gleaned from the first page of Google

searches include: Pennsylvania, Heikunst, New Delhi, and Bhopal. I

suppose Dr. Aguilar went to PA.

Also, a correspondent helpfully writes, via email:

According to _Dissertation Abstracts_, nobody named Noel Aguilar

has received a Ph.D. from an accredited North American institution

--- and their records go back to some point in the 1800s. In fact

there are only 140 Aguilars in their data base, which includes some

European schools (I don't know since when but at least since the

1990s), and none of them have names which could plausibly be

versions of Noel Aguilar, e.g., "N. Aguilar". So there are three

possibilities: (1) He got his degree abroad. (2) He got his degree

from a non-accredited institution. (3) He just made it up.

Therefore, I conclude that "Dr." Aguilar most likely got his "degree"

from a non-accredited school specializing in homeopathy.

2007_12_01_archive

It Seems I'm a Materialist (surprise, surprise)

What is Your World View?

created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Materialist

Materialism stresses the essence of fundamental particles. Everything

that exists is purely physical matter and there is no special force

that holds life together. You believe that anything can be explained

by breaking it up into its pieces. i.e. the big picture can be

understood by its smaller elements.

Materialist

94%

Modernist

69%

Postmodernist

69%

Fundamentalist

44%

Existentialist

44%

Romanticist

25%

Cultural Creative

good book about creationism and

Good Book about Creationism and Science

I just finished reading Massimo Pigliucci's Denying Evolution:

Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. I highly recommend

this book as one of the best refuations of creationism out there.

Also, he gives a very nuanced view of what science can and can not

elucidate. While it won't change the minds of any die-hard

creationists, it is a good book for those on the fence (or those who

simply want to learn about science and evolution).

One point Massimo makes is that creationists are not stupid-this is

something many angry blue-staters seem to ignore. Rather, they are

biblical literalists and they fully understand the implications of

accepting (and denying) evolution. He concludes with the observation

that "Darwin has made a compelling case for scientists, but not yet

for the general public, that our species is neither the pinnacle of

creation nor the direct handcrafted job of a god....Perhaps in another

century or two, few people will find it strange to be the cousins of

chimpanzees and bonobos. Until then, we need to fight not in defense

of a particular theory, but for the privilege of attempting to

understand the universe."

It's going to be a long fight.

UPDATE: This morning, the Wall Street Journal published a story about

an evolutionary biologist who teaches at a fundamentalist college:

those experiences haven't stopped Prof. Colling -- who received a

Ph.D. in microbiology, chairs the biology department at Olivet

Nazarene and is himself a devout conservative Christian -- from coming

out swinging. In his new book, "Random Designer," he writes: "It pains

me to suggest that my religious brothers are telling falsehoods" when

they say evolutionary theory is "in crisis" and claim that there is

widespread skepticism about it among scientists. "Such statements are

blatantly untrue," he argues; "evolution has stood the test of time

and considerable scrutiny."

His is hardly the standard scientific defense of Darwin, however. His

central claim is that both the origin of life from a primordial goo of

nonliving chemicals, and the evolution of species according to the

processes of random mutation and natural selection, are "fully

compatible with the available scientific evidence and also

contemporary religious beliefs." In addition, as he bluntly told me,

"denying science makes us [Conservative Christians] look stupid."

Prof. Colling is one of a small number of conservative Christian

scholars who are trying to convince biblical literalists that Darwin's

theory of evolution is no more the work of the devil than is Newton's

theory of gravity....But Prof. Colling has another motivation. "People

should not feel they have to deny reality in order to experience their

faith," he says. He therefore offers a rendering of evolution fully

compatible with faith, including his own...

He finds a place for God in evolution by positing a "random designer"

who harnesses the laws of nature he created. "What the designer

designed is the random-design process," or Darwinian evolution, Prof.

Colling says. "God devised these natural laws, and uses evolution to

accomplish his goals." God is not in there with a divine screwdriver

and spare parts every time a new species or a wondrous biological

structure appears.

Unlike those who see evolution as an assault on faith, Prof. Colling

finds it strengthens his own. "A God who can harness the laws of

randomness and chaos, and create beauty and wonder and all of these

marvelous structures, is a lot more creative than fundamentalists give

him credit for," he told me. Creating the laws of physics and

chemistry that, over the eons, coaxed life from nonliving molecules is

something he finds just as awe inspiring as the idea that God

instantly and supernaturally created life from nonlife.

Prof. Colling reserves some of his sharpest barbs for intelligent

design, the idea that the intricate structures and processes in the

living world -- from exquisitely engineered flagella that propel

bacteria to the marvels of the human immune system -- can't be the

work of random chance and natural selection. Intelligent-design

advocates look at these sophisticated components of living things,

can't imagine how evolution could have produced them, and conclude

that only God could have.

That makes Prof. Colling see red. "When Christians insert God into the

gaps that science cannot explain -- in this case how wondrous

structures and forms of life came to be -- they set themselves up for

failure and even ridicule," he told me. "Soon -- and it's already

happening with the flagellum -- science is going to come along and

explain" how a seemingly miraculous bit of biological engineering in

fact could have evolved by Darwinian mechanisms. And that will leave

intelligent design backed into an ever-shrinking corner.

The Mad Biologist: I've never understood why Biblical literalism is

such an issue. Revelation may be divine, but the humans to whom

experienced revelation were not. Literalism posits that man hasn't

learned/discovered/had revealed anything in two millenia. If God had

basic science fix in virology

Basic science fix in virology

Lots of good on line resources compiled here. (Via Life Sciences

2007_09_01_archive

On Greed

Greed is one of the deadly vices in old-time Christianity. Not so much

in some of the newer interpretations seen among the fundamentalists in

the United States. I've read about churches where the sermons are all

about how Jesus will give the faithful more stuff in this life, too.

Does that remind you of the old Janis Joplin song about her asking God

for a Mercedes Benz and a color tv?

When did greed turn into a virtue? Probably quite a long time ago,

because capitalism does require it to be rehabilitated. But it's the

combination of greed and ignorance that has fueled the housing markets

crisis; greed mostly on the side of the sellers of loans and ignorance

mostly on the side of the buyers of loans, though not completely.

What IS greed? I'm sure there are good definitions to be found by the

click of the mouse, but I don't want to know what they are because

then this post would end right here. It's more fun to try to figure a

definition out of the pure air that floats inside my head.

The first aspect of my definition would be that greed doesn't really

apply to, say, a starving person's dreams about fantastically

excessive meals. That person is not being greedy; only starving. In a

similar vein, a poor person wanting to buy a modest house he or she

can't really afford is not greedy. Thus, wanting something very much

is not in itself a sign of greediness. We all have dreams and desires

and needs.

The second aspect then has to do with the inappropriateness of certain

dreams or desires. If you already have enough food and enough shelter

and so on but you still want more then you are probably greedy. Now,

this is not a definition from traditional economics course where a

consumer is always assumed to be on the road to ever higher levels of

consumption and only held back by the inevitable constraints of money

and time. But in reality people do sometimes sit down and say, in a

quiet and zen-like voice: "I have enough material possessions."

Note that the question of what is "enough" is not something easily

determined from the outside. But clearly one can have too many

cheesecakes and even too many Rolls-Royces. The sad part of greed is

that a genuinely greedy person will never be satisfied, by definition.

Perhaps that is what made the early Christians view greed as a vice:

it hurts.

How do greed and ignorance dance together, then? I pointed out those

two as the culprits in the housing market collapse. Ignorance in that

context has to do with three things: First, most mortgage-seekers have

very little understanding of interest rates and defaults and so on.

Those are hard topics to understand without some training. Second,

humans tend not to take the long view in general, and even less so

when times are hard right now, say. If you live in a crisis, you want

to struggle your way through that crisis and then think of the rest of

your life. But if life is nothing but a crisis after crisis, well, you

will live in the short-term by necessity. Focusing on the near future

makes things like balloon loans seem harmless, and an adjustable rate

mortgage something really helpful. But today turns into tomorrow and

so on, and suddenly you can't afford the new higher interest rates and

bankruptcy beckons.

Third, the mortgage lenders also suffer from ignorance. They may be

aware of their greed, at least some of them. But they may be ignorant

of the overall effects of their individual acts. It wouldn't matter if

one lender seduced borrowers into bad loans, but it does matter when

many, many lenders do that at the same time. The outcome is a lot of

people working in the lending industry losing their jobs.

If you watch commercials on television or ads on the net you know that

greed is encouraged every day of our lives. There is always a solution

to something that should bother you, and the solution is achievable by

just paying some money. It was only a few days ago that I learned I

could get a 500,000 dollar mortgage for less than a thousand a month!

Honest. Of course I didn't read the small print on the offer, and by

now the offer has disappeared into the Orwellian Memory Hole.

The short point of all these musings is that we have to decide how to

deal with greed. Is it the engine that drives the society? Or is it a

vice? And whose greed is it that matters here?

|

Posted by: echidne / 9/01/2007 03:51:00 PM

Stolen Hope Blogging And Some Saturday Echidne Musings

From Phila.

Did you ever see the Woody Allen movie called Zelig? It's a

mockumentary about a man named Zelig in the 1920s America who

supposedly had the ability to mirror the people he was with. Thus,

when he was among gypsies he turned into a gypsy. When he was among

psychiatrists, he started talking like one, and when he was next to a

fat man he also became fat. Except that he didn't do any of these very

convincingly.

I think my writing is like Zelig, always trying to bend itself to some

rules but never quite making it. That's why I like this here blog. No

writing rules, heh.