Friday, June 15, 2012
Launching Enlightenment
I have launched my first Kickstarter project! Please help me bring the illuminated tree of life to life :)
Friday, June 8, 2012
Thursday, June 7, 2012
The Town of McCloud Says ‘No’ to Nestle Water Plant Proposals
Special Guest Post by Lucy Faraday
With a population of just 1400 people, the small town of McCloud in
Siskyou County, Northern California was a peaceful place. Located in the shadow
of Mt Shasta, residents and visitors can enjoy trout fishing, mountain climbing
and skiing in and around the area. But in the last ten years an altogether more
industrial issue has affected the area, leaving residents furious.
Nestle Water North America (NWNA) is a strand within the multinational
corporation of Nestle – the world’s largest food and beverage producing
company. Unsurprisingly, NWNA specialise in the production of bottled mineral
waters and in 2003 they set their sights on the water rights of the Mccloud
River, along with plans to create a proposed 1 million square foot bottling
plant near to the town. Being experts in the spring water field, the NWNA could
appreciate that the McCloud River is uniquely pure; most of the water comes
from springs and underground lava aquifers which act as superb natural water
filters and would therefore be a lucrative source for their bottled water.
Collaborative Genes
By Kristopher Hite
The trait I admire most in a fellow thinker is the ability to entertain an idea without necessarily swallowing it whole. With that in mind, I eagerly listened to E.O. Wilson's On the Shoulders of Giants address at the World Science Festival in New York City last week.
I recently wrote about Wilson and his controversial rethink of altruism. Long story short, Wilson has created a ruckus by abandoning his long-held belief that cooperative and altruistic behavior among organisms can be simply explained as a veiled selfishness. When an organism appears to behave altruistically by sacrificing themselves or putting themselves in danger it is actually just the individual genes jockeying to survive by keeping identical copies of themselves alive in their relatives. This theory is known as inclusive fitness.
In place of inclusive fitness E.O. Wilson now seems to embrace the controversial concept of “group selection.” This is the idea that genes for altruism persist by benefiting the entire group. The altruistic trait persists by helping groups themselves multiply; grow into larger and larger networks with more and more biomass. In group selection theory this all happens despite the fact that the altruistic trait is detrimental to the individual. Altruistic genes that band together and cooperate out compete groups of genes that act selfishly.
To me, both models seem like they could apply to different genes.
After the address, I had the rare opportunity to ask Wilson directly about his recent change of heart. I asked,
The question struck a chord. Wilson replied that he had been anticipating it, in fact, and quickly acknowledged that that his recent move away from the theory of inclusive fitness had rankled many people, including the famed evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins who has popularized the selfish-gene view of evolution and has been a vocal critic of group selection. But Wilson stuck to his guns, saying,
Wilson flashed a smile, and for a moment I was starstruck, caught up in the glow of Wilson's legendary charm. The spell broke when I began to really chew on his answer. I was still extremely confused about how the concept of "phenotype as target" was supposed to justify group-selection theory. As I rode the elevator downstairs, I felt a pang of guilt for not pressing harder. I imagined a tiny Richard Dawkins sitting on my shoulder, eyebrows in a scowl, chiding me, "Kristopher, don't you remember how beautifully I explained all this to you in my book, The Selfish Gene?? How could you turn on me? Hamilton had it right, the gene is the one ring to rule them all everything else is myth!"
On the other shoulder (the "giant shoulder," one might say), I pictured a miniature E.O. Wilson, still charming in his diminutive tweed blazer, reassuring me, "Kristopher, everything is going to be alright as long as we work together in this big happy peer-reviewing group of ours."
I was, and still am, torn. As I stepped out of the elevator, I serendipitously met Nobel Laureate Harold Varmus, former head of the NIH, and I took the opportunity to ask him what he thought E.O. Wilson meant when he said "phenotype is the target of selection." Dr. Varmus clarified—somewhat. Phenotype, he explained, is the vehicle genes ride inside the physical manifestation of the genes. Selective environmental pressure, like changing atmospheric oxygen levels, or changing local climates are not capable of acting directly on any single isolated gene.
After I directed Dr. Varmus and his wife to the Christopher Street subway station, I continued to replay his answer in my head. If natural selection happens at the level of the physical manifestation of the genes – the phenotype, and there is no organism in existence with only one gene inside, then all genes must be collaborative in a sense.
And this is where I am in my thought process. If you have any corrections or criticisms I welcome them. They will only add to my understanding.
The trait I admire most in a fellow thinker is the ability to entertain an idea without necessarily swallowing it whole. With that in mind, I eagerly listened to E.O. Wilson's On the Shoulders of Giants address at the World Science Festival in New York City last week.
I recently wrote about Wilson and his controversial rethink of altruism. Long story short, Wilson has created a ruckus by abandoning his long-held belief that cooperative and altruistic behavior among organisms can be simply explained as a veiled selfishness. When an organism appears to behave altruistically by sacrificing themselves or putting themselves in danger it is actually just the individual genes jockeying to survive by keeping identical copies of themselves alive in their relatives. This theory is known as inclusive fitness.
In place of inclusive fitness E.O. Wilson now seems to embrace the controversial concept of “group selection.” This is the idea that genes for altruism persist by benefiting the entire group. The altruistic trait persists by helping groups themselves multiply; grow into larger and larger networks with more and more biomass. In group selection theory this all happens despite the fact that the altruistic trait is detrimental to the individual. Altruistic genes that band together and cooperate out compete groups of genes that act selfishly.
To me, both models seem like they could apply to different genes.
After the address, I had the rare opportunity to ask Wilson directly about his recent change of heart. I asked,
"If the gene is the basic unit of selection—the physical thing that makes it though the sieve of natural selection—then why do we need a 'group selection' model? And if a gene is not the basic unit of selection, then what is?"
The question struck a chord. Wilson replied that he had been anticipating it, in fact, and quickly acknowledged that that his recent move away from the theory of inclusive fitness had rankled many people, including the famed evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins who has popularized the selfish-gene view of evolution and has been a vocal critic of group selection. But Wilson stuck to his guns, saying,
"Yes, the gene is the basic unit of selection, but the phenotype is the target. It is as simple as that."
Wilson flashed a smile, and for a moment I was starstruck, caught up in the glow of Wilson's legendary charm. The spell broke when I began to really chew on his answer. I was still extremely confused about how the concept of "phenotype as target" was supposed to justify group-selection theory. As I rode the elevator downstairs, I felt a pang of guilt for not pressing harder. I imagined a tiny Richard Dawkins sitting on my shoulder, eyebrows in a scowl, chiding me, "Kristopher, don't you remember how beautifully I explained all this to you in my book, The Selfish Gene?? How could you turn on me? Hamilton had it right, the gene is the one ring to rule them all everything else is myth!"
On the other shoulder (the "giant shoulder," one might say), I pictured a miniature E.O. Wilson, still charming in his diminutive tweed blazer, reassuring me, "Kristopher, everything is going to be alright as long as we work together in this big happy peer-reviewing group of ours."
I was, and still am, torn. As I stepped out of the elevator, I serendipitously met Nobel Laureate Harold Varmus, former head of the NIH, and I took the opportunity to ask him what he thought E.O. Wilson meant when he said "phenotype is the target of selection." Dr. Varmus clarified—somewhat. Phenotype, he explained, is the vehicle genes ride inside the physical manifestation of the genes. Selective environmental pressure, like changing atmospheric oxygen levels, or changing local climates are not capable of acting directly on any single isolated gene.
After I directed Dr. Varmus and his wife to the Christopher Street subway station, I continued to replay his answer in my head. If natural selection happens at the level of the physical manifestation of the genes – the phenotype, and there is no organism in existence with only one gene inside, then all genes must be collaborative in a sense.
And this is where I am in my thought process. If you have any corrections or criticisms I welcome them. They will only add to my understanding.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Visions of an illuminated tree
The Phylogenetic Christmas Tree;
Lighting the tree of life.
Hi, my name is Kristopher Hite and I am a science educator. Every time I learn something new about the natural world I want to climb the tallest structure I can find and shout it at the top of my lungs!
I did precisely that last week as I live-blogged the World Science Festival. After filling my brain to the brim with new and exciting ideas at the festival, I just kep going! I walked into another deluge of inspiration at the American Museum of Natural History. Inside I witnessed the best special museum exhibit I had ever seen. It was called "creatures of light" and it had as many examples as it could pack into one space of all the plants, mushrooms, and animals that glow in nature.
Several light bulbs went off in my head and in front of my eyes that day.
The most exciting idea I had came when I stood staring at a glowing plastic model of the species Pyrodinium bahamense whirling fire creature of the Bahamas. Mesmerized by the pulsating glow of the floating orb in front of me I could not stop thinking how I wanted this as a Christmas ornament for my mother.
Exiting the exhibit through the gift shop I saw a paucity of gifts available that really captured the excitement of the exhibit, no whirling fire creature ornaments, no glowing oyster mushroom figurines. After thinking about it overnight I had an a-Ha moment this morning.
What if I built a living-room sized model of the phylogenetic tree of life, and then put pulsating, glowing LED lights at each branch where we see a species has evolved bioluminescence? What if I went further and put model mycelium strands between the branches to highlight the possibility of horizontal gene transfer in nature? And what if this item then showed up in households around the world in December? I have chills just thinking about it. A way to turn householdss into science classrooms, turning a cherished holiday into a "teachable moment" in evolutionary biology. This is brilliant! Quite literally.
How can I make this reality? How can I accomplish this? I need tools, materials and a work space but most of all I need you.
I am asking you to be Part of this, own a part of this twist on tradition. Come with me as I decorate the tree of life with lights! Donors can send their photographs to me and I will weave these still images to make you tube videos promoting the phylogenetic Christmas tree. Please visit the kickstarter page for this project and help me launch the Phylogenetic Christmas tree (I'll have it up tonight.
Carl Sagan envisioned science as a "candle in the dark" a candle lighting the shadows in a demon haunted world. My wish is that the phylogenetic Christmas tree becomes a torch for science in homes around the world. Please Kick-Start me.
Link to kickstarter page will appear here tonight after I record the promo using a prop I picked up at the Natural History Museum. Stay tuned.
Monday, June 4, 2012
On Internet Censorship
"When various members of congress become upset with the content they see
on the net and want to suppress it, I feel compelled to remind them
that they would not be sitting where they are sitting were it not for
anonymous tracks published in the 18th century that incited the
Americans to revolt against the British."
~Vinton Cerf - one of the fathers of the Internet
Quote from his appearance at the 2012 World Science Festival in New York City.
Speaks directly to the Origin Story of Tom Paine's Ghost!
~Vinton Cerf - one of the fathers of the Internet
Quote from his appearance at the 2012 World Science Festival in New York City.
Speaks directly to the Origin Story of Tom Paine's Ghost!
Microbial Cloud, our inner ecostystem
Jonathan Eisen is a professor studying phylogenomics at UC Davis. He also happens to be an open access ROCK STAR. Here is a talk from the TEDMED conference in DC last month.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Gecko Footed Robot
Robert J. Full speaks during Radical Innovation; a free panel at the 2012 World Science Festival in New York City. He explains amazing gecko toe technology.
Biomimicy of the lung!
Don Ingber walks us through his synthetic lung. This talk was part of the free event -Radical Innovation- at the 2012 World Science Festival in New York City.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
