Scientific Communication

“Knowledge is that which, next to virtue, truly raises one person above another.”

— Joseph Addison.

Knowledge has long aided the human race. Whether that be for advancements in medicine, modern conveniences or understanding the universe around us, it is difficult to argue the world would be enriched without science. It is for this reason, among many others, that it is important for scientists to communicate their ideas – so that the very same knowledge can be refined, contextualised and elaborated upon.

The preferred route in academia for scientists to communicate their ideas to other scientists is journal articles. Peer-review procedures are followed before work is considered suitable for publication, whereby the author’s work is submitted to other field professionals and its merits are scrutinised.

An obvious advantage peer-review gives journal articles over other methods of communication is the comparatively higher quality of work, as it is subject to scrutiny and would be expected to have had any obvious errors ‘ironed out’. Moreover, blind review, or anonymous peer-review, has been introduced to combat bias. Blind review ensures that those reviewing the work do not know the identity of the author, and vice versa.

However, peer-review does have its shortcomings. Despite peer-review being introduced to regulate the quality of academic writing, many articles are still retracted for being inaccurate, and the world of academia is still rife with plagiarism. It has also been criticised for being time-consuming, and, subsequently, for delaying the publication of vital information. Many scientists are also skeptical about the ability of peer-review to moderate work from more radical fields due to their unfamiliarity to those reviewing.

Many different methods exist which allow scientists to communicate with non-scientists. The most obvious method for this is the utilisation of the mass media. This ranges from documentary television shows to newspaper articles to popular science literature, which resonates today more than ever. We live in a decade where Brian Cox and Richard Dawkins (for better or worse) are household names.

The obvious advantage of these methods is the awareness they bring (Brian Cox boasts over 750,000 twitter followers!), and indeed Richard Dawkins has sold millions of books. The popularity of scientific television outlets, such as the Discovery Channel and the National Geographic Channel continues to bolster the popularity of science also.

These methods are not without drawbacks, however. The publication of books remains largely unregulated (if it will sell, it will be published, regardless of merit). For the less educated of us, this can lead to pseudoscience being mistaken for ‘hard’ fact – something which people like Deepak Chopra have built an empire out of, by preying on the sick and vulnerable and disguising the meritless nature of his work behind a long-since discarded medical degree. It can, therefore, be difficult for scientists communicate in this manner, as it can be difficult for the general public to distinguish where real science ends and pseudoscience begins.

Moreover, newspaper articles and documentary shows run the risk of being ‘sexed up’ and giving priority to entertainment over scientific fact. Even more genuinely educational programming runs the risk of being sandwiched in-between episodes of the quasi-factual ‘Ancient Aliens’ (or something equally atrocious). Again, this can cause facts to become misconstrued and makes it ever more difficult for scientists to communicate to the general public.

Whatever the cost of efficiently communicating to the public, I can think of no cause more worthy of scientists’ time. We have come astonishingly far in our quest for enlightenment, but still have a monumental way to go.

Save the Earth?

It is (or I certainly hope it is) evident to the masses that the Earth is vital for humanity. We walk on it, we inhabit it, we drink its water and we eat its vegetation.

In spite of this, anti-environmentalist groups, like this one, still exist. They argue that environmentalists peddle ‘junk philosophy’ which puts the needs of the Earth over and above the needs and comfort of human beings (something which, evidently, they believe to be undesirable).

The general argument many anti-environmentalists have is that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, which demonstrates how hardy the Earth is, and its ability to withstand billions of years of abuse and defilement. Therefore, instead of pointing to the Earth’s depleting resources as cause for concern, they point to the environmentalists themselves as the issue. The particularly paranoid video below from a group called Free Market America (their contribution to Earth Day) insinuates that the true agenda of environmentalists is to hinder the progression of America, and any attempt to conserve the environment, rather than being helpful, is actually damaging to the economy.

Those of us with our faculties intact will, hopefully, recognise this instantly for the Republican propaganda hokum that it is. Sadly, they may indeed have a point…

Whilst it is not my intention to play devil’s advocate, I can’t help but argue that if your reasons for wanting to save the Earth are solely for the continued survival of mankind, these guys may be right.

Humanity, save for water and a habitat, gains nothing from being eco-friendly. It’s time consuming, often expensive and we grow our food in laboratories now anyway.

In addition, there are so many threats to the existence of humanity that extend beyond the Earth, such as bioterrorism and nuclear warfare, that one could argue omnicide poses a far more imminent threat than global warming. Therefore, if we are simply going to kill ourselves, why not guzzle oil, drive 4x4s and leave the light on until then?

The truth is that there are so many more worthy reasons to save the Earth other than humanity.
The Earth consists of an estimated 10-30 million species – only 1.4 million of which we are aware of, and only one of which is the Homo sapien. It would be difficult to argue in favour of saving the Earth without explaining a bit more about its incredible inhabitants. Some of my personal favourites include:

1. The axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum). This salamander is known for the amazing ability of being able to regenerate its limbs, which has lead to it becoming a species of great interest in scientific research. In rare cases, they have even been known to not only repair a damaged appendage, but also regenerate an extra one, much like the mythological Lernaean Hydra. Pollution and urbanisation have lead to the axolotl becoming Critically Endangered in the wild.

2. The mosquito (the Culicidae family). I find these guys particularly fascinating, not for any morphological reason, but because of the massive amount of devastation they have caused. Despite its diminutive stature, the mosquito boasts the title of the deadliest animal in the world. Mosquitoes are known to carry parasites and viruses to animals. The most famous of these – Plasmodium (malaria) was responsible for the deaths of approximately 1.24 million people in 2010 alone.

3. The Venus Flytrap (Dionaea muscipula). This carnivorous plant traps its prey when its trichomes are stimulated. After this, the Venus Flytrap releases enzymes which begin to digest its prey. Although popular as cultivated plants, I was surprised to learn that the Venus Flytrap is listed as vulnerable.

4. The aye-aye (Daubentonia madagascariensis). This lemur is exceptionally interesting in the field of evolutionary biology due to it being the only member of the Daubentonia genus and Daubentoniidae family. It is, perhaps, most known for its bizarre extended middle finger which it uses for foraging. The aye-aye’s unusual appearance has lead to it becoming a prime target for superstition in its native Madagascar, where a sighting is thought of as a premonition of death. Subsequently, many aye-ayes are killed on sight, resulting in it having a Near Threatened status – something certainly not helped by increasing deforestation.

5. The little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus). I’ll let Sir David Attenborough do the talking about these extremely deviant critters:

It is not only the large variety of species that make the world such an interesting place. It is a place of grandiose natural phenomena. The Seven Natural Wonders of the World are a testament to that, all of which have formed without the aid of man.

So, if we can’t save the Earth for our own sake, it is important to consider what remains of the world without us. The Earth is full of diversity and unsolved mystery, and if that’s not reason enough to save the planet, I’m not sure what is.

Discoveries of the Last Decade – Human Genome Project

Looking back at the last decade, I believe one of the most fascinating scientific discoveries has been the Human Genome Project, not only due to what it can tell us about ourselves, but also because of the implications the results carry.

Although the Human Genome Project (HGP) began in 1990, it was not until 2003 that Craig Venter’s goal of mapping the human genome in its entirety was completed. Not only did the HGP identify the locus of genes, it also succeeded in identifying the function of these genes.

The HGP revealed that humans have approximately 23,000 genes. Moreover, it also revealed more than 1,800 genes that code for disease, allowing for genetic testing to be carried out for such diseases.

Implications of the Human Genome Project are vast and varied. Having someone’s human genome mapped could prove to be a preventative treatment for diseases as it shows us when a person is predisposed to getting these illnesses.

Moreover, the HGP can tell us about gene expression, which has the possibility to one day reduce the emergence of undesirable characteristics.

Having spent a large chunk of both the second and third topics (which, incidentally, is titled ‘The Voice of the Genome’) of AS Level Biology studying genetics, it is without hesitation that I say the Human Genome Project has had (and will continue to have) a large impact on my education.

We take for granted what we now know about the human genome. Just 59 years ago Watson and Crick discovered that DNA has a double helix structure – a now-iconic image that is now embedded in not only science, but popular culture as well.

Jumping ahead 50 years to 2003, thanks to the HGP we now know how many genes the human genome consists of, the function of these genes, and more information about the expression of these genes.

It seems bizarre to think that ten years ago, we would not have known that the human genome consisted of 23,000 genes (initially estimates of the HGP thought that we would have an excess of 50,000 genes!). Furthermore, with all of the additional information the HGP has provided us about gene expression and genes that code for disease, it does make me ponder how different my last year of study would have been before the completion of the HGP. It seems strange to talk about building or repairing a car whilst only having a vague idea of what the parts consist of (although most mechanics seem to manage!).

The Human Genome Project has not been without its detractors, however, and has received its share of (unwarranted, in my opinion) criticism from fundamentalist Christians. This passionate zealot already credits the HGP with being responsible for the ‘inevitable’ mass discarding of blastocysts after genetic screening despite pre-implantation genetic diagnosis not yet being performed on a mass scale to non-IVF or ‘at risk’ patients (?!).

The more intelligent (and, thankfully, more present) population with ethical concerns do have some valid points, however. If we can successfully identify which genes are responsible for which characteristics, or have a thorough understanding of gene expression, there is scope for ‘picking and choosing’ which genes are present or expressed, leading to cries of ‘designer babies’ from some cynics.

To me, however, the benefits of the Human Genome Project far outweigh the potential risks. Knowledge should be boundless, but what we do with that knowledge is our responsibility.

References

• National Human Genome Research Institute. (2004). Human Genome Project. Available: http://www.genome.gov. Last accessed 5th July 2012.
• Dr. Hani. (2010). Human Genome Project. Available: http://www.experiment-resources.com/human-genome-project.html. Last accessed 5th July 2012.
• Human Life International. (2012). Facts of Life: Chapter 2: Abortifacients: How the Definition of “Conception” has Evolved, and Why This Is Important. Available: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0HkbaKsZNkoJ:www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/245%3Ftask%3Dview+pro+life+human+genome+project&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a. Last accessed 5th July 2012.

Science and Me

Unlike many of my peers, I never really had an aptitude for science and always preferred to think of myself as the ‘creative’ type. I dragged myself to mathematics classes and yawned through resistance lectures. It wasn’t until adulthood that my passion for science began to emerge. Whilst I suppose most people would cite the age-old reason of ‘wanting to help people’ (I’m looking at all prospective doctors here!) or natural fascination with science as their motive for choosing to study it, I’m sad to say my motives are far more selfish, and far more obscure.

What stirred my scientific interest was not Albert Einstein, the Higgs boson particle, or even the Discovery Channel. It was actually serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer.

Between 1978 and 1991, Jeffrey Dahmer murdered 17 young males, some as young as 14 years old. His modus operandi usually involved meeting young men at clubs and inviting them back to his Milwaukee apartment, where he would proceed to drug, sexually assault and kill them. But his crimes did not stop there.

Dahmer was finally apprehended by authorities on July 2nd 1991. In Jeffrey’s house of horrors, police found grisly human remains. Dahmer had attempted to preserve parts of his victims, including constructing a shrine made of skulls, a human heart in his freezer, male genitalia preserved in jars of formaldehyde and corpses in drums filled with acid. He had even injected hydrochloric acid into the brains of his victims in order to turn them into submissive living zombies, and eaten the remains of some of his victims.

Eventually, he was convicted of 15 counts of murder and sentenced to 15 life sentences. He expressed desire for the death penalty (which is not practised in the state of Wisconsin) and maintained that he was ‘sick not evil’. His sentence was cut short in 1994 when he was bludgeoned to death by a fellow inmate.

What makes Jeffrey Dahmer so interesting is he truly is the person you would least suspect. He is softly spoken, passive and eloquent – hardly what you would expect from a violent psychopath. This is evidenced in the lengthy, in-depth interview with Stone Phillips below:

What also sets Dahmer apart from most other serial killers is just how ‘normal’ his childhood was. Despite being a child of divorce, he maintained healthy relationships with his parents, and (by his own admission) suffered no abuse, and describes his childhood as happy.

This contrasts sharply with the childhood of serial killer Henry Lee Lucas, who was raised in poverty in Virginia. His mother Viola, a prostitute, would frequently bring clientele home and have sex with them in front of Lucas, his siblings and his disabled father. Viola’s neglect reached the extent that Henry Lee Lucas, after an accident with his brother, had to have his infected eye removed when she refused to seek medical help for days.

Moreover, prolific killer Ted Bundy suffered horrific abuse at the hands of his anti-Semitic father, and endured the pain of learning that the woman he thought was his sister was actually his mother.

Aileen Wuornos, often thought of as the only female serial killer, also suffered great tragedy. Abandoned by her mother and paedophile father, Aileen was sexually assaulted by her own grandfather and became homeless aged just 15, resorting to prostitution to support herself.

While it is undeniable these hardships must have helped to shape the monsters these people were to become, the question that really got me thinking was: does it excuse them?

And this, really, is what got me interested in science – the nature vs nurture debate. Was Ted Bundy a killer in utero? or did years of abuse trigger his psychopathy? Was Aileen Wuornos doomed to a life of depravity from conception? or was she made a killer by those who should have protected her? If so, then how do we explain how an individual with a comparatively idealistic childhood becomes a cannibalistic murderer?

The nature vs nurture debate has never reached a consensus. Popular theories suggest that it is both nature and nurture that seal our fate. Inactivity of the orbital cortex (which is thought to be the area of our brain which involves ethics, morals and control over impulsivity) is often associated with aggression. Moreover, monoamine oxidase A is amongst the genes synonymous with psychopathy. This study found a 60% link between heritability and traits often found in psychopaths. Antisocial personality disorder (which is similar to psychopathy) is also linked with inadequate levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin. This evidence suggests that killers are born, not made.

However, it is somewhat sad to think of unborn children as violent psychopaths before they have even had a chance in life. Surely the undeniably traumatic childhoods of most serial killers cannot be coincidence? Similarly, how much can we really blame serial killers for their actions is if it was written in their DNA? It is these questions that really got me thinking about human behaviour.

Ever since, I have been fascinated with neurology and genetics – attempting to find out what makes the human mind tick, and what predispositions we have, and not just in terms of psychology, but with illness and other traits as well.

Over the years, this interest has broadened massively to encompass almost all aspects of science, but my heart will always lie with neurology, which is why I chose to study amyotrophic lateral sclerosis for my AS Level coursework in an attempt to get a better understanding not only of motor neurone disease, but for potential treatments and clinical trials also.

Having not studied science from 2006 until september of last year, it was daunting to return to such an academic arena, particularly one I never thrived in, however, (fortunately for me) passion always trumps aptitude! And it is that passion which has made me decide to carry on my studies of biology at an undergraduate level, and hopefully beyond.