Archive for November, 2006
Times Online: Genetic jot that makes us unique
Nature: Global variation in copy number in the human genome
Another interesting Nature paper out recently - I’m beginning to kick myself for not subscribing while I could have gotten the faculty rate! Fortunately this one’s free access for the moment. The take-home message is that in addition to the sequence of the human genome, we now have information about repetition within the genome - specific sequences, including genes, that display variable copy number across individuals, and perhaps ethnic groups.
Although this study could not directly link any of the variable regions to disease phenotypes (because the DNA donors involved were not assayed for diseases), some of the identified regions have previously been implicated in genetic disorders.
A few points about the study - first, it is not a shock that our DNA includes duplicated areas, nor that those areas could vary from individual to individual. But it is exciting that the number and extent of these variable copies is being systematically investigated. We haven’t had a good handle on what regions vary, nor what the implications of the extra copies are. They could affect the phenotype of the carrier in subtle or overt ways; the paper includes some educated guesses.
Second, I’ve heard some comments that this study “proves” we are not as similar to chimps as we thought. I disagree. The “99% DNA identity between humans and chimps” idea is based on incredibly strong conservation of the sequences of comparable genes between humans and chimps. It’s more like 96% identity when you take into account deletions and other differences, including the 50 or so human genes (out of around 25,000!) that are not intact in chimps. Just because we have additional variation in copy number - a type of variation found between human individuals, as well as between humans and chimps - does not weaken the evolutionary connection between humans and chimps.
November 29th, 2006
How evil are you?
I probably wouldn’t have scored quite so extremely evil, if I wasn’t watching My Best Friend’s Wedding while taking the quiz. I don’t like weddings. They’re not evil enough.
November 26th, 2006
Bishop Berkeley’s Cherry
Watercolor, 2006
Cherries have quite a few interesting literary associations. Bishop George Berkeley (1685-1753) chose the fruit to illustrate his philosophical conviction that objects can only be known through our direct perception of their sensory attributes:
I see this cherry, I feel it, I taste it : and I am sure nothing cannot be seen, or felt, or tasted : it is therefore real. Take away the sensations of softness, moisture, redness, tartness, and you take away the cherry.
Thus, inanimate things only exist while they are being perceived - in the mind of the observer. This idea has obvious implications for both art, in which the senses of the observer are manipulated to create a perception of something which is not there; and science, which necessarily proceeds through empirical observation, but recognizes that the subjectivity of the observer is limiting.
November 26th, 2006
The Inner Life of a Cell
My friend at Harvard sent me the link to this stunning animation. It portrays a number of biological processes, from translation, to diapedesis, to microtubule depolymerization, to (my favorite) vesicular transport along the cytoskeleton. It’s fun just trying to name all the molecules appearing in the panorama before they’re gone.
The video was created by John Libler and his team at XVIVO. It’s been around since last summer, but I somehow missed it! Amazing work.
November 25th, 2006
And in honor of the occasion, here’s an interview with director Darren Aronofsky in the latest Seed Magazine:
Seed: Transcending Death
November 23rd, 2006
Rachel Berwick
Living Fossil: Latimeria chalumnae (2001)
Cryptozoology: Out of Time Place Scale
If you’re near Kansas City before December 20, this exhibition (at the Kansas City Art Institute, Kansas City, MO) should be worth a visit. Featured artists include Rosamond Purcell, Rachel Berwick, and another of my favorites, Walmor Correa (more about him later). According to the organizers, cryptozoology, perched ambiguously between science and pseudoscience,
is a fascinating zone of inquiry for contemporary artists interested in the fertile margins of the history of science and museums, taxonomy, myth, creativity, and discovery.The theme out of time place scale provides an opportunity to challenge the taxonomic limitations of hierarchy, linearity, chronology, and/or context that museums and art history manipulate to control presentation and reception. Staking out a position, or non-site, that blurs the boundaries between time place scale and choosing not to deconstruct predominant museum ideologies, this project constructs an alternative mode of address that favors a return to the organized mayhem, wonder, delight, and spiritual and intellectual adventurism of pre-Enlightenment curio cabinets.
Whew! That’s quite a mouthful. I mean, an eyeful.
November 21st, 2006
Discover Magazine: The 25 Greatest Science Books of All Time
The list is worth a look, especially since they’ve reproduced the covers/frontispieces from each book. The graphics emphasize at a glance how venerable most of the winning books are - we’re talking Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, Hooke, Vesalius. I wonder whether the average person ought to struggle through these older texts, instead of recent, updated popularizations of the fields; I personally found The Elegant Universe (a runner-up) immensely more enjoyable than A Dialogue Concerning Two World Systems. But as far as biology is concerned, no one says what Darwin thought about evolution better than Darwin himself.
Also very amusing are the quotes from eminent scientists that follow each blurb:
“You don’t have to be a Newton junkie like me to really find it gripping. I mean how amazing is it that this guy was able to figure out that the same force that lets a bird poop on your head governs the motions of planets in the heavens? That is towering genius, no?” —psychiatrist Richard A. Friedman, Cornell University
November 20th, 2006
Net Data Space vs. Every Day Life — Aram Bartholl
I was showing my mom a Google Map the other day and we puzzled over it for several minutes before we realized it hadn’t been updated. A recently completed thoroughfare in my town was completely missing, and without it, I was disoriented. I guess I take it for granted that online maps are accurate representations of reality . . except of course for the little destination icons. But with his “Map” Project, Aram Bartholl has changed that, too.
Thanks to NextNature for the link.
November 20th, 2006
globeandmail.com: Stem cells core of more cancers
Grumble, grumble. I can’t access Sunday’s two Nature advance articles, on the role played by stem cells in tumor growth. (Nature and its ilk are way too expensive for our small local college to carry, which made teaching upper-level biology there . . . interesting). This mainstream media summary is pretty good, though.
No one disputes the similarities between cancer cells and stem cells. The broad question is how this similarity arises. Do differentiated tumor cells, through mutation, acquire stem-cell-like properties, or do endogenous adult stem cells become cancerous? If the latter (and the hypothesis does make a lot of sense), stem cells could be hidden ringleaders promoting tumor growth, which could change the methods used to treat cancer substantially.
Although stem cells are mostly known for their “good” potential to repair and replace cells lost to trauma or chronic disease, researchers have always been concerned about the risk of stem cells growing uncontrollably. In some cases, experimental stem cell transplants have resulted in tumors. However, I don’t think most people realized stem cells gone bad could be the root of familiar cancers like colon cancer. When stem cells are good, they are very, very good; but they may be naughtier than we knew.
November 20th, 2006
Alas, National Novel Writing Month is half over, and I once again forgot to start my novel. Do I wait until next year? Do I write a half-novel? Or do I (gasp) ignore the arbitrary deadline imposed by National Novel Writing Month, start writing, and just write until it’s done?
Maybe I’ll think about it some more. Until, say, next November 1.
November 16th, 2006
Ah, the mix cd. Its jacket, bland and functional, begs for artistic redemption. In junior high, we collaged magazine photos and doodled on our mix tapes. In high school, I coaxed the primitive tools of a Mac SE to create a series of (grayscale) covers. Now, of course, we have Photoshop, which makes layering & tweaking almost sinfully easy. But this one was done the old-fashioned way, with ink & collage.
This Sinister Yet Surpisingly Perky mix is for my friend Sylvia. That’s me in the pigtails. Don’t I look sinister?
November 14th, 2006
Squirrel Monkey
Rosamond Purcell
National Geographic Magazine, 2006
From Fins to Wings @ National Geographic Magazine
A very accessible and beautifully illustrated article on my favorite subject in biology: developmental evidence for deep evolutionary homologies. The companion photography is by artist/photographer Rosamond Purcell. In this photo, a squirrel monkey embryo is cleared (rendered transparent), then stained with Alizarin red S to reveal its bone structure. The skeleton appears discontinuous because the ends of the growing bones are still cartilaginous.
With the Modern
Rosamond Purcell
From Bookworm, 2006
Purcell, who collaborated with the late Stephen Jay Gould on several books juxtaposing art and biology, just released a new collection entitled Bookworm. In it, she blurs the boundaries between the documentation of specimens and the creation of art objects, with books themselves as the raw materials. To create the example above, she allowed a termite colony to partially digest scientific texts, then collaged them together, fusing the processes of decay and design.
Bookworm looks excellent; I can’t wait to get my hands on it. In the meantime, you can preview some of the images and sample Purcell’s earlier works in this slideshow-essay from Slate.
November 11th, 2006
But people usually think my accent is Canadian. . .
| What American accent do you have?
Your Result: The Inland North
You may think you speak “Standard English straight out of the dictionary” but when you step away from the Great Lakes you get asked annoying questions like “Are you from Wisconsin?” or “Are you from Chicago?” Chances are you call carbonated drinks “pop.”
|
| The Northeast |
|
| Philadelphia |
|
| The Midland |
|
| North Central |
|
| Boston |
|
| The South |
|
| The West |
|
What American accent do you have?
Take More Quizzes |
November 10th, 2006
One of my favorite experimental artists and designers, Eduardo Recife, just got his commercial portfolio up and running over at eduardorecife.com. You’ve probably seen his work already and not known it, because his work (and work derivative of his) is everywhere these days. He designed the vintage-history-collage promo spot for HBO’s Assume the Position (in keeping with the theme of my previous post, Assume the Position was a comedy special debunking common historical fictions). Eduardo also created some irresistable design fonts - the Bio in my Bioephemera banner is his font Porcelain (thank you, Eduardo!). When you’re done looking at his commercial work, check out his fonts and personal portfolio at misprintedtype.com.
November 10th, 2006
A remarkable video ad for a book claiming that the medieval and classical periods didn’t really happen.
I guess my BA in English (emphasis: medieval literature) is even more useless than I thought!
This little infomercial is repetitive; you should get the gist after 2 minutes or so. I was hoping for more detail myself - like what the author posits was actually happening prior to the Renaissance, if all the stuff we thought was happening wasn’t! I guess if you want to know, you have to buy the book, History: Fiction or Science?
(Amazon). How tempting. I do love the title, though. Last I checked, history was a little bit of fiction and a little bit of science, but mostly, well, history. How naive of me.
November 9th, 2006
Previous Posts