The science of Confusapedia

Ok, so the science entries on Conservapedia are easy targets – finding mistakes is like shooting fish in a barrel. And quite a few of my fellow science bloggers have engaged in target practice lately. But not all the entries are grossly biased. Some probably sound quite plausible to the layperson. Like this one:

Mutations are changes in the genetic code caused by copying errors, or by external factors such as solar radiation or exposure to mutagenic chemicals. Mutations are sometimes the cause of disease, such as cancer or Down’s Syndrome (which is the result of an extreme mutation which causes an extra chromosome to be present). Evolutionists claim that heritable mutations produce genetic variety, upon which natural selection acts. However, mutations can only decrease information, never increase it.

source: Conservapedia: Mutations

(Accessed Feb 26, 2007 – nothing over there is stable, it kinda. . . mutates).

In my opinion, it’s entries like these that are most insidious, because there are no obvious red flags. They seem unbiased, simple, factual. And increasingly, students accept whatever they find on the internet as fact. (I don’t care if it’s Wikipedia or Conservapedia: it’s not ok to cite a site, especially those that change as often as wikis do!) Few of my college biology students would have picked up on the problems in this entry. I’m going to walk through it; this information will be nothing new for those readers who are biologists, but I think it’s an eye-opening exercise to see how easily the misinformation slips through and how hard it is to explain why it’s grossly oversimplified, if not wrong.
Continue reading

Posted in Biology, Education, Science | 4 Comments

Jesse Peper

102.jpg
(title unknown)
Jesse Peper

Jesse Peper’s surreal paintings mix totemic animals like fish, birds, and snakes with religious iconography and the dark bloom of decay. He’s also the featured artist at Juxtapoz this week.

Posted in Artists & Art | 2 Comments

Flowcharts of science

Flowchart2.jpg

Adventures in Ethics and Science: Scientific and unscientific conclusions

Janet Stemwedel at AES has collected a LOT of perspectives on the scientific process and interpreted them as flowcharts. Not only are they geek-chic, they give me nostalgic fuzzies of teaching 100-level Introduction to Science (before I switched over to powerpoint).

Janet’s post centers on whether “belief” should be in this flowchart, or not. Is a scientist obligated to “believe” the results of the scientific process? Or is “belief” nonessential to good science? I tend to believe (ahem) that belief can be left out entirely, but if you disagree, there’s a flowchart for you, too.

Posted in Education, Science | Comments Off

Poem of the Week: WH Auden

In honor of Auden’s centenary, York cabbies will be reciting his verse to their passengers. I expect most of the passengers will at least know who Auden is; if New York cabbies did the same, maybe not!

Take this quiz to see how much you know about Auden.

Continue reading

Posted in Frivolity, Poetry, Science | Comments Off

But isn’t your truck impressive enough already?

Ok, I thought I lived in hicksville, but I have never seen artificial testicles on a truck before. Yet according to this WaPo article, they’re so pervasive, legislation has been proposed to regulate them.

The example below the fold is/are the patriotic “yellow ribbon camo nutz” from YourNutz.com.

Continue reading

Posted in Frivolity | 2 Comments

When disease is inevitable

As every American knows, our health care system is exasperating. I recently left a job; fortunately, I’m healthy and relatively young, so obtaining temporary insurance was not a problem. But for those who have been seriously ill – either physically or mentally – it can be difficult or impossible to find affordable insurance. Genetic information is becoming yet another reason to fear rejection, even if you’re healthy.

A recent study led by researchers at Johns Hopkins found that individuals with a history of genetic conditions (including sickle cell disease or cystic fibrosis) were twice as likely as individuals with other chronic illnesses (such as diabetes or AIDS) to report being denied insurance. Although asymptomatic individuals carrying disease-causing alleles cannot legally be singled out by insurers (according to HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), individuals diagnosed with the disease itself have no such protection. The subjects of the Johns Hopkins study had already been diagnosed, which is likely the case for most people with known genetic diseases; there is rarely reason to test for particular gene aberrations in the absence of symptoms, unless a close family member is affected. So insurers were not breaking the law by denying the subjects coverage. Still, it is provocative that the subjects with genetic diseases were treated more poorly than those with non-genetic, but quite serious, conditions.

The umbrella of “genetic diseases” usually includes disorders caused by single aberrant genes, such as cystic fibrosis, PKU, hemophilia, and Huntingtons disease. But genetics also predispose people to diseases like breast cancer or colon cancer – conditions for which certain forms of genes are associated with significantly elevated (though not certain) risk. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations account for only about 5% of breast cancer cases – but a woman with one of these mutations is 3 to 7 times more likely to develop breast cancer than a woman without a BRCA mutation (reference). Still other genes, such as PALB2, are likely responsible for some non-BRCA breast cancers. It’s unclear how many cases of breast cancer are genetically triggered, because the genes responsible are still being identified. Recent studies have also found genetic risk factors for conditions as diverse as autism, schizophrenia, and Parkinson’s disease; although we know next to nothing about how aberrant genes contribute to these neurological conditions, we can say that individuals with certain alleles have elevated risk. Increasingly, these conditions are also considered “genetic.”

Continue reading

Posted in Biology, Science | 6 Comments

Awww! Euww!

Genpets01.jpgShoe_Image4.jpg

Two works by artist Adam Brandejs: Genpets (www.genpets.com) and Flesh Shoe.

Only one is adorable; both are creepy.

Genpets are currently starring in the exhibit “It’s Alive! A Laboratory of Biotech Art” at the Montserrat College of Art Gallery in Beverly, MA.

Posted in Artists & Art, Biology, Science | 5 Comments

Every axiom hums under a toy

Now there’s a proverb for the ages. . . or a random sentence generated with the procrastinatory Random Sentence Generator, which also suggests random words of various types (nouns, verbs, common, obscure, etc.) Be warned: if you choose “obscure” words, you’ll get results like “voetsek” and “whillikers.”

Tim at Sciencesque is using the Generator to supply topics for his random crawl of OMIM, the human gene database. You can read his efforts (thus far) at the new carnival “Gene Genie”; the inaugural issue is up at ScienceRoll.

Unlike Tim, I’m using it for utterly frivolous reasons: as a loquacious Magic 8 Ball! Plus, there are profound cognitive implications: if I hit “new sentence” a zillion times, will I ever get “colorless green ideas sleep furiously?” Let’s ask!

It says:

The conservative rectangle fails.

Hey! This isn’t a political blog.

It replies:

When will the rectangular collective choose?

Darn if this thing couldn’t pass a Turing test!

My custard bays before an under convict.

Ok – cancel that Turing test. But it’s still some fine frivolity.

Posted in Biology, Frivolity, Words | 1 Comment

Medieval Tech Support

A monk who doesn’t want to upgrade.

Via Lawgeek.

Update: At this point, the YouTube link isn’t working; the content may have been pulled. Sorry.

Posted in Books, Frivolity | Comments Off

The most beautifully obscure library in the world?

realgabinete.jpg

Just looking at this photostream makes me feel like I’m in an Umberto Eco novel!

realgabinete1.jpg

This is the Real Gabinete Portugues de Leitura (Royal Portuguese Reading Room) in Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Founded in 1837 with books sent over from Portugal, it remains a functional public library today. And yet I’d never heard of it. It’s not even listed in the Wikipedia (en) article on landmark libraries. Scandal!

More beautiful library eye-candy:

The Most Beautiful Libraries in the World by Guillaume de Laubier, Jacques Bosser, and James Billington.

Libraries by Candida Hofer and (gasp!) Umberto Eco.

(And if you haven’t read The Name of the Rose, do that too).

Posted in Books, Museum Lust | 3 Comments