I have been planning a series of posts on the latest developments in Biophysics (and perhaps other science fields), but before I got to that, I wanted to pass along the commencement address of Nobel Laureate Roger Kornberg to the Stanford School of Medicine this year. I’ve heard Roger Kornberg speak on numerous occasions and have to say that this is my favorite speech/talk/presentation I’ve heard from him. Short and concise and worth the read in full.  Read more 

Let’s all hope this pans out. Science is so cool.

This is pretty cool. Scary, mind you. But it gives some academic cover to things We Pretty Much Knew All Along. From today’s Chicago Tribune, with some rearrangement of paragraphs for condensation purposes:

How people deal with existential concerns could help explain a broad spectrum of behavior, they believe, from political and religious leanings to altruism and the pursuit of riches to patriotism and terrorism.

Already, experiments have shown that when people are reminded of their own deaths, they become more patriotic, more conservative, more family-oriented, more security-minded.

The developing field, called experimental existential psychology, or XXP, explores how people find meaning and purpose in their lives.

Okay, enough with the la-ti-dah psychobabble. What does this have to do with the price of ice cubes in Alaska?

In the United States, the threat of terrorism has made citizens feel more anxious for security. A study Greenberg and his colleagues conducted before the 2004 presidential election found that college students were slightly in favor of Democrat John Kerry. But when the students were reminded of their mortality, a fear that terrorism provokes, the majority favored his Republican opponent, George Bush.

Bet these are three scientists who are having no trouble at all getting their grant requests approved. And without even having to cite abstinence, creationism, or Jeebus! Although god-bothering does manage to creep in to their study, they are clear to cite it as an effect rather than a cause:  Read more 

Very nice Flowchart Which Explains It All For You.

(Better to just put a link and boost Wellingtongrey.net’s hits than try to reproduce it here since, even if I had RTFM and knew how to do this it would probably be too small to read and everybody would click on the original anyway.)

Consider this your Sunday Science Thread. Comments leaving links to cool Hubble pix, chicken tractors, historical food, historical (VERY historical) globe maps, sustainable energy or other scientifical-related subjects will receive e-lollipops.  Read more 

So I must be an elf. Of the Lost tribes of Ossiriand, and my ancestors escaped the Ruin of Beleriand and faded back to the East. See these points on my ears? I’m good with runes…

Dammit, why didn’t you people tell me hobbits were real? You know I barely have time to keep up on my science reading.  Read more 

Boo has a question. If parents could select the sexual orientation of their children, should they? We’re closer to that option than you may think. My question to Boo and everyone who reads this story: if parents could select the race of their children, should they? To me it’s the same thing. For the record: I’m 100% in favor of the progress of science. Because I think suppressing science is ultimately futile; if the research isn’t done here, out in the open and reviewed by peers, it’ll just be done elsewhere. We’re going to have to get some politicians who both understand science and aren’t afraid to takle the tougher issues it generates, and soon. I have no doubt that in time, technology like this will be availble to humans, and some groups and governments will offer it/enforce its use in their populations. You know wingers here will clamor for it.

From USA Today, the newspaper in front of the door at every hotel in America, the mainstream view:

Religion’s only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.

It’s happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo’s challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.

This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother’s hormones or the child’s brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.

So, why are so many church leaders (not to mention Orthodox Jewish and Muslim leaders) persisting in their view that homosexuality is wrong despite a growing stream of scientific evidence that is likely to become a torrent in the coming years? The answer is found in Leviticus 18. “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

As a former “the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here’s the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all.  Read more 

Ok, perhaps that title is a little strong. But still, I have real worry about court cases like these.
I’ve been out of science research for a long time, but I still have fond memories of working in a lab with really bright people. So I don’t worry so much about mad scientists taking people’s cell samples and doing big evil with them. I do worry about big corporations, more and more often the backers of university research, deciding to make millions off of some gene or aspect of an individual, and preventing that person from having any control how her genetic material is used.  Read more 

I’ve got a lot to do today, forgive the grab bagging. Pensions: do you have one? I honestly can’t tell if this bill is a good thing or not, but since Bush signed it, I’m inclined to think it will make things worse.  Read more 

Titter. Liz is obviously having a good time with this one. I don’t know about you, but I like the idea that a “healthy” life includes 17 beers, 7 cups of coffee, and all the pizza I can eat- daily.  Read more 

Great story in the LA Times today. A grad student does a routine job of research, gets a tiny little mention in a major science publication. But—shock! Awe!—his results make the Big Wood industry look bad, so they try to suppress even that little bitty article. Bright fucking move guys—the story is now all over the place:

after his research appeared in the online version of the journal Science in January, the Oregon State University graduate student began to feel like a lightning rod. A federal agency briefly yanked funding for his project, irate politicians and timber interests e-mailed Donato’s dean to complain, congressmen grilled him, and professors at his own university tried unsuccessfully to keep the paper from being published in the print edition of Science.

Why, fer chrissakes? What could this paper have shown that they were so desperate to suppress? And why right now? Yeah, you guessed it…

His principal finding — that post-fire logging hindered forest regrowth — was hardly revolutionary. But the study, with Donato as lead author, was published just as Congress was considering legislation to make it easier for timber companies to undertake salvage logging of dead trees after fires on federal land. That bill, backed by the Bush administration and recently passed by the House, is based on an underlying assumption that burned forests recover more quickly if they are logged and then replanted.  Read more