Slashdot Mirror

They publish some VERY highly regarded journals. No, not Nature or Science, but still important.

Indeed. I stand corrected, not that I put much stock in CNN's science reporters, who seem mostly interested in citing other CNN stories- I followed the links in that story two deep and couldn't get to the primary reserach.

This looks like the real deal, though, and this woman's work is pretty interesting, as well.

The starting point for this has to be the classic Boehringer Mannheim "Biochemical Pathways" charts which you can access on the Web here and here. Just click on one of the squares and it will present you with a blow-up of that section of the chart. These are also available as HUGE wallcharts on paper you can order from here. Amazing, ain't it? How the proteins produced by DNA manage to work together as catalysts to create the chemicals needed to form an organism is almost totally unknown, yet by definition it is a cellular automaton problem! To read up on all of this stuff, start with this, then for more details go here and here. After you've skimmed all of the above, pick a site from here or here or here and keep going. It never stops.

American Society for MicroBiology
The ASM believes that labeling on the basis of process is not scientifically warranted. Genetic modification has long been used to enhance the production of plants and animals for food. Indeed it is doubtful that there exists any agriculturally important product that can be labeled as not genetically modified by traditional breeding procedures or otherwise. Biotechnology as practiced in agriculture today is part of a continuum of ever more refined attempts to breed better plants and animals for food or show.

American Society for Cell Biology
Many individuals and groups have raised concerns about the safety of transgenic BT crops despite the fact that the bacteria that naturally produce BT have been applied directly to crops as a form of organic pest control for over 40 years. Transgenic BT crops have passed rigorous testing in the US, Canada, and Japan, and they have been found to pose no threat to other insects, animals, or humans. The primary alternative to BT is large-scale spraying of pesticides which kills both beneficial and harmful insects and has other negative environmental consequences.

National Academy of Sciences
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309069300/html/

Since the National Academy of Sciences is the nations premier scientific organization, they best represent the current scientific consensus in the field, so I will quote from their report, first stated in a 1987 white paper and reitterated April 2000:

• There is no evidence that unique hazards exist either in the use of rDNA techniques or in the movement of genes between unrelated organisms.
• The risks associated with the introduction of rDNA-engineered organisms are the same in kind as those associated with the introduction of unmodified organisms and organisms modified by other methods.
• Assesment of the risks of introducing rDNA-engineered organisms into the environment should be based on the nature of the organism and the environment into which it is introduced, not on the method by which it was produced.

The nanobacteria subject is fascinating but it's another example of a story that is sometimes associated with extra-terrestrial life - probably to gain publicity.

Hmmmm... interesting take, but I don't follow the logic. Robert Folk ruined his reputation with the original "nannobacteria" proposals, and has only recently been supported somewhat by McKay et al. with the "martian fossils", Kajander and his collegues with nanobacteria as a cause for kidney stones, Miller-Hjelle and her collegues with nanobacteria as a cause for polycystic kidney disease, Uwi ns and her findings on nanobes growing on Triassic and Jurassic sandstones collected from petroleum exploration boreholes offshore Western Australia. The American Society for Microbiology has paid serious attention to the controversy, as might be expected. All in all, it's only been recently that "nanobacteria" findings have provided any good publicity at all; mostly, it's been the ruin of the discoverer (in fact, Folk has been described as "coming out of the closet" with his first papers, some 20 years ago -- strong prejudice exists!).

But now things are changing: there are more findings, and more support for the concept. This might even be a scientific paradigm change... and this was my earlier point, that "common sense" arguments are inherently flawed, because the universe is stranger than we imagine.

When was the tectonic plate theory accepted? They must have been interesting times. Certainly my father thinks it's a lot of nonsense...

Alfre d Wegener proposed the theory in 1912, but it didn't receive much support (in the U.S., at least) until post-WWII. My college geology text has a chapter written in '65, which concludes "Although the subject is now a respectable one in scientific circles of the Northern Hemisphere, the question is still far from settled." (Physical Geology, Leet and Judson, 3rd Edition; Prentice-Hall, NJ, 1965)

Wilson, a Canadian geologist, brought everything together around '65 with his model of seafloor spreading, which happened to explain the Pacific seafloor magnetic anomalies found in '61 by Raff and Mason (these are reversed-magnetic-polarity stripes, which are embedded in the newly-created seafloor by the Earth's magnetic field, which periodically reverses -- creating alternating stripes which aren't explainable except by tectonic plate theory). This all but cinched it, but it took years for general acceptance to happen -- in '67, my geology prof wasn't yet convinced, and spent a lecture period arguing against it (the students, OTOH, tended to see the light right away, based on the evidence presented). In '68, Pinchon worked out the plate positions, and by the mid-70's, plate tectonic theory was accepted as correct by all but a few lingering die-hards. (It's interesting that similar remnant-field reversals have been discovered on Mars, isn't it?)

Yes, they were interesting times. Overthrow of "established scientific fact" is always interesting, yet it happens often... that's how science progresses, after all. Only some of the time do the revolutionaries get burned at the stake; the rest of the time, they are merely ridiculed in print and reviled in person.

I guess it is the weakest point. When weighing up evidence like this I guess we rely on our own experiences and yours are different from mine. Having worked in string theory related stuff for a few years I know what it is like to have a sceptical audience. But I generally tend to make guarded statements like "Assuming string theory is a good model then...". I would never make a statement like the following from the NASA press release:

METEORITE YIELDS EVIDENCE OF PRIMITIVE LIFE ON EARLY MARS
A NASA research team of scientists at the Johnson Space Center and at Stanford University has found evidence that strongly suggests primitive life may have existed on Mars more than 3.6 billion years ago. (My italics)

I guess that's the difference between your opinion and theirs: they figured they had good evidence, and you figure they don't. Dave McKay (of NASA) still sticks pretty much by the findings, and Kathie Thomas-Keprta (Lockheed Martin) very strongly supports them; time will tell who is right. My point is that science never advances without people going out on a limb with their conviction that a new interpretation is correct, rather than the conventional wisdom. This is not the equivalent of perpetrating a hoax! -- even if they are subsequently proven wrong.

Given the doubt over the interpretation of 'nanobacteria' fossils it seems to me that the most reasonable interpretation of part of this 'evidence' is that it is a demonstration that such 'fossils' can be produced by inorganic processes in a sterile environment but of course you don't get big bucks for a finding like this.

On the contrary: some people are getting funding to disprove the "martian fossil" findings. The ASM link quotes some of them. With any discovery, confirmation or refutation of the findings is critical to its acceptance, and the controversy is the process through which the findings on all sides are integrated by the scientific community; Mari on Anderson's lecture is a good summary of this particular controversy, and concludes (correctly, in my opinion) "The main drawback to this story is the media focus on such sensational news. Media hype may increase public awareness of science, but the problem is that the complexities get lost in the glare of the spotlights." Her last couple of sections are well worth reading.

I think the jury's still out, and I think you're prematurely making up your mind. But, hey, it's your mind -- do with it what you will.

---

The nanobacteria subject is fascinating but it's another example of a story that is sometimes associated with extra-terrestrial life - probably to gain publicity.

Hmmmm... interesting take, but I don't follow the logic. Robert Folk ruined his reputation with the original "nannobacteria" proposals, and has only recently been supported somewhat by McKay et al. with the "martian fossils", Kajander and his collegues with nanobacteria as a cause for kidney stones, Miller-Hjelle and her collegues with nanobacteria as a cause for polycystic kidney disease, Uwi ns and her findings on nanobes growing on Triassic and Jurassic sandstones collected from petroleum exploration boreholes offshore Western Australia. The American Society for Microbiology has paid serious attention to the controversy, as might be expected. All in all, it's only been recently that "nanobacteria" findings have provided any good publicity at all; mostly, it's been the ruin of the discoverer (in fact, Folk has been described as "coming out of the closet" with his first papers, some 20 years ago -- strong prejudice exists!).

But now things are changing: there are more findings, and more support for the concept. This might even be a scientific paradigm change... and this was my earlier point, that "common sense" arguments are inherently flawed, because the universe is stranger than we imagine.

When was the tectonic plate theory accepted? They must have been interesting times. Certainly my father thinks it's a lot of nonsense...

Alfre d Wegener proposed the theory in 1912, but it didn't receive much support (in the U.S., at least) until post-WWII. My college geology text has a chapter written in '65, which concludes "Although the subject is now a respectable one in scientific circles of the Northern Hemisphere, the question is still far from settled." (Physical Geology, Leet and Judson, 3rd Edition; Prentice-Hall, NJ, 1965)

Wilson, a Canadian geologist, brought everything together around '65 with his model of seafloor spreading, which happened to explain the Pacific seafloor magnetic anomalies found in '61 by Raff and Mason (these are reversed-magnetic-polarity stripes, which are embedded in the newly-created seafloor by the Earth's magnetic field, which periodically reverses -- creating alternating stripes which aren't explainable except by tectonic plate theory). This all but cinched it, but it took years for general acceptance to happen -- in '67, my geology prof wasn't yet convinced, and spent a lecture period arguing against it (the students, OTOH, tended to see the light right away, based on the evidence presented). In '68, Pinchon worked out the plate positions, and by the mid-70's, plate tectonic theory was accepted as correct by all but a few lingering die-hards. (It's interesting that similar remnant-field reversals have been discovered on Mars, isn't it?)

Yes, they were interesting times. Overthrow of "established scientific fact" is always interesting, yet it happens often... that's how science progresses, after all. Only some of the time do the revolutionaries get burned at the stake; the rest of the time, they are merely ridiculed in print and reviled in person.

I guess it is the weakest point. When weighing up evidence like this I guess we rely on our own experiences and yours are different from mine. Having worked in string theory related stuff for a few years I know what it is like to have a sceptical audience. But I generally tend to make guarded statements like "Assuming string theory is a good model then...". I would never make a statement like the following from the NASA press release:

METEORITE YIELDS EVIDENCE OF PRIMITIVE LIFE ON EARLY MARS
A NASA research team of scientists at the Johnson Space Center and at Stanford University has found evidence that strongly suggests primitive life may have existed on Mars more than 3.6 billion years ago. (My italics)

I guess that's the difference between your opinion and theirs: they figured they had good evidence, and you figure they don't. Dave McKay (of NASA) still sticks pretty much by the findings, and Kathie Thomas-Keprta (Lockheed Martin) very strongly supports them; time will tell who is right. My point is that science never advances without people going out on a limb with their conviction that a new interpretation is correct, rather than the conventional wisdom. This is not the equivalent of perpetrating a hoax! -- even if they are subsequently proven wrong.

Given the doubt over the interpretation of 'nanobacteria' fossils it seems to me that the most reasonable interpretation of part of this 'evidence' is that it is a demonstration that such 'fossils' can be produced by inorganic processes in a sterile environment but of course you don't get big bucks for a finding like this.

On the contrary: some people are getting funding to disprove the "martian fossil" findings. The ASM link quotes some of them. With any discovery, confirmation or refutation of the findings is critical to its acceptance, and the controversy is the process through which the findings on all sides are integrated by the scientific community; Mari on Anderson's lecture is a good summary of this particular controversy, and concludes (correctly, in my opinion) "The main drawback to this story is the media focus on such sensational news. Media hype may increase public awareness of science, but the problem is that the complexities get lost in the glare of the spotlights." Her last couple of sections are well worth reading.

I think the jury's still out, and I think you're prematurely making up your mind. But, hey, it's your mind -- do with it what you will.

---