Recently in News Roundup Category

Joshua Lederberg passed away on Saturday.

Joshua Lederberg, Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist who shaped the field of bacterial genetics, and served as chair of The Scientist’s advisory board since 1986, died on Saturday (February 2). He was 82.

Lederberg shared a Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine in 1958 for the discovery that certain strains of bacteria reproduce by mating, thereby exchanging their genetic material. This overturned the idea held at the time that bacteria did not warrant genetic study and set the field of bacterial genetics into motion.

Lederberg truly was a visionary, and along with his ex-wife, Esther (who died just over a year ago), really jump-started the field of microbial genetics (and indeed, made it much easier to study genetics, period), winning a Nobel prize for his genetic work when he was only 33. Years later, he teamed up with Carl Sagan to raise awareness about microbes in space, and was an advocate of science communication and sound policy (serving as an advisor for multiple presidents). In recent years, he’s spoken out about antibiotic resistance and bioterrorism, among other topics, and always emphasized the importance of basic research in microbiology. He could also give a helluva interesting talk, judging from the few times I’ve seen him speak. He was truly a living legend, and the void he leaves is palpable.

More info and access to papers at the here at the National Library of Medicine. Image from here.

It’s over in Libya. Nick previously blogged about the Tripoli Six: a Palestinian doctor and five Bulgarian nurses, working in Libya, who were accused of infecting hundreds of children with HIV. The group have been imprisoned since 1999–despite the fact that an analysis of the HIV isolates from the children confirmed that the epidemic began before the medical workers arrived in the country (and continued even after they were jailed). After a long battle, mostly legal and political rather than scientific, they’ve been freed and sent back to Bulgaria. More on the story at the BBC and the New York Times.

I should note that though the science ultimately wasn’t the determining factor in their release, the science blogosphere and Nature (with journalist/blogger Declan Butler leading the charge) were important in keeping this prominent in the scientific community. And while we celebrate their freedom, there are still hundreds of HIV-infected children in Libya, and grieving parents who missed out on justice in this case.

It would come as no surprise to us here at the Thumb that our readers would accept a physician not giving antibiotics for an ailment unless that physician felt that the infection was bacterial, that the therapy was warranted, and that the selection of antibiotics was appropriate for the suspected organism. Doctors restrict their antibiotic use because of evolution: indiscriminate use of antibiotics leads to the evolution of resistance to those antibiotics in those bacteria that survive the infection. I suspect many of our readers also know that antibiotics are given to livestock routinely to help them grow bigger, faster. Our friends at ScienceBlogs are all over this topic and the problems it presents. By way of summary, if you give animals an antibiotic that looks and acts like one you give humans, resistance will also evolve there, just as surely as it will from a doctor who reaches for his prescription pad before he’s taken an adequate history or completed an adequate exam.

This morning’s Washington Post has a disturbing article on the approval of cefquinome for use in cattle. It’s disturbing for a number of reasons, and we’ll discuss them on the flipside.

The Science Blogging Conference has been growing quickly. It is now looking for its 100^th registrant. Will you be him or her?

Remember, if you come to the conference, Prof. Steve Steve will be on hand to drink you under the table like he drank down Chris Mooney.

While you’re at it, go vote of us again for the Best Science Blog of 2006. You can vote once every twenty-four hours. Right now we are in a race with In the Pipeline for third place. Please don’t let us lose to a the blog of a big-oil executive who wants to open-pit mine the Arctic Wildlife Refuge (or whatever In the Pipeline is really about).

Some bloggers in North Carolina have organized a Science Blogging Conference. It is going to be held all day, Saturday January 20^th on the UNC Chapel Hill Campus. The conference is free to attend. So go and register if you can make it. I promise that Prof. Steve Steve will be on hand if you want to share a beer with him.

Our conference will address a variety of issues and perspectives on science communication, including science literacy, the popularization of science, science in classrooms and in homes, debunking pseudoscience, using blogs as tools for presenting scientific research, writing about science, and health and medicine.

The conference is sponsored by ibibilo and UNC Medical Journalism program. (It is looking for additional sponsors as well.)

Go Visit the Homepage!

According to Red State Rabble, Father Coyne is undergoing chemotherapy for colon cancer. This would seem to shed light on the reasons for his recent resignation.

Kansas State Board of Education member Connie Morris was one of the anti-science gang of six who railroaded changes to the state standards past the normal processes of curriculum development. In “Reasoning Behind Evolution Vote” (full copy available on the flip side), she attempts to justify that decision. Her article was published in the Hays, KS newspaper, and we here at the Thumb were just cracking our knuckles to respond to it.

Alas, one of the stalwart science defenders in Kansas has beaten us to the punch, but we didn’t mope too long because the response was brilliant. Cheryl Shephard-Adams’s “ID Promoters’ Perpetual Folly” is highly recommended and you can find it at the Garden City Telegram Online.

Of note, Ms. Morris is up for re-election this year. She will be opposed by both a Republican, Sally Cauble of Liberal, and a Democrat, Tim Cruz of Garden City.

If you click through to the flip side, you’ll see the Google Cache version of Morris’ original screed and, in case the same fate befalls Shepard-Adams’ brilliant reply, a full copy of it as well.

BCH

Dr. Lori Marino, a colleague of mine at Emory University, sent out a call for action to end the Japanese drive hunts that annually kill dolphins and small whales. I got it relayed from Dr. Brenda McCowan at UC Davis. The short version is that scientists and zoological park professionals have gotten together to condemn Japan’s small cetacean drive hunts and are looking to collect a million signatures on a petition to try to get it shut down before the next scheduled drive hunts this coming October.

The petition site is ActForDolphins.org. Please visit it soon.

I’ve converted the three MS Word documents that I received as attachments to the safer and more portable Adobe Acrobat PDF format.

Call For Action Press Release Statements from Scientists

I’m proud to say to two of my committee members, Bill Evans and Sam Ridgway, are on the “Statements” page above.

I’ll append the text of the email I got. Please pass on word of this to your friends and acquaintances. Please also note here or on O.Z. in the comments if you sign the petition.

(Continue reading at Online Zoologists)

By James I. Kirkland, Ph. D.

The National Park Service is requesting comments on the development of a regional paleontological repository facility in Vernal, Utah in a partnership with the Vernal Field House of Natural History (Utah State Parks). The facilty is to be constructed adjoining the newly opened Vernal Field House of Natural History in Vernal and jointly managed.

Please strongly support the development of this facility.

The plan can be accessed here.

We need to strongly support the development of the Uintah Research and Curatorial Center in Vernal, Utah versus the alternative of No Action!

This is big.

The world’s leading scientists yesterday urged schools to stop denying the facts of evolution amid controversy over the teaching of creationism.

The national science academies of 67 countries - including the UK’s Royal Society - issued a joint statement warning that scientific evidence about the origins of life was being “concealed, denied, or confused”. It urged parents and teachers to provide children with the facts about the origins and evolution of life on Earth.

This is a nice foil to a recent post on the Discovery Institute’s “Evolution News and Views blog,” noting that their list of “dissenting scientists” has now exceeded 600 individuals, and touting that more international scientists are signing on:

(Continued at Aetiology…)

The BBC is reporting that a Cardiff University study is revising the numbers of pandas left in the wild upward – and it all has to do with panda poo.

“A panda can defecate 40 times a day so there’s loads of poo to find,” said Prof Bruford.

“They also secrete a mural layer which gives an insight into the cells in their guts and we can extract their DNA from it.

“When we found the same profile in a number of different locations at different times, it showed how mobile the pandas are,” he said.

The good news is that there are apparently more pandas left to leave those poo samples behind than was previously known. But who knew that it could be so dangerous to hunt the wild panda poo?

“The mountains are an absolutely wonderful place but it can be cold and difficult in winter.

“Our PhD student nearly fell off a cliff trying to gather samples, he was having to hike up 2,500 metres.”

Oh, those ubiquitous, anonymous, and expendable Ph.D. students! Where would science be without them?

A new edition of Animalcules, the carnival of all things microbial, is up at Aetiology. Lots of good posts, including one on endogenous retroviruses that may be of particular interest to the group here.

A few people had nudged me to mention this on here, but I keep forgetting. I started a new blog carnival a few months back (I know, I know, like we need more of those…) This one is devoted to all things microbial, and the current edition is up today over at Discovering Biology in a Digital World. It’s still puny compared to a monster like Tangled Bank, but a nice one-stop-shop for some interesting microbiology posts.

Everyone has probably heard that the new White House Press Secretary is Tony Snow, formerly a talk show host on Fox News. Those who were paying attention last year may remember that he is also pretty clearly a straight-up creationist, or at least credulously repeats their talking points. See:

Tony Snow (2005). “Why can’t we have a rational debate.” TownHall.com. August 12, 2005

Media Matters (2005). “Tony Snow’s evolutionary falsehoods.” Media Matters for America. August 12, 2005.

Media Matters (2005). “The many falsehoods of Tony Snow.” Media Matters for America. April 19, 2006.

What got Tony Snow writing essays about ID and how hard it was to have a rational debate? I may have had a wee bit to do with that.

The Stanford Daily, Stanford University’s daily student newspaper, has been publishing several Letters to the Editor in the last week regarding evolution and Intelligent Design, apparently in response to a Feb. 17^th editorial (“Intelligent debate of intelligent design”) encouraging the open discussion of evolution, skepticism towards evolution, Intelligent Design, and religiously-influenced science.

On Feb. 21^st, Stanford Sophmore, ID supporter, and History major Tristan Abbey applauded the editorial and additionally attempted to dispel what he considered to be 3 myths about ID (“The myths surrounding intelligent design”). Those myths were: 1) That criticism of “neo-Darwinism” is equivalent to promoting ID 2) That creationism is the same as ID 3) That ID advocates advocate mandating the teaching of ID in high school biology classes

Abbey concludes:

Sadly, neo-Darwinists do argue with that by stereotyping critics of evolutionary theory as religious zealots, by reducing the debate to the simplistic but familiar terms of science vs. faith, and by persecuting researchers like the Smithsonian’s Rick Sternberg for keeping an open mind. Pernicious caricatures notwithstanding, the signatories to the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism now stand at over 500 scientists, including several who earned their doctorates from Stanford. As science advances, why has this number continued to grow?

Abbey’s letter is the 2^nd on the page. Additionally, Casey Luskin blogged Abbey’s letter, making sure to juxtapose the words “Stanford” and “ID” in the title.

On Feb. 22^nd, Biology graduate student Jai Ranganathan wrote a rebuttal to the editorial (“No room for intelligent design”). After concisely critiquing some of ID’s classic examples, he concludes:

Should there be a greater role for religious influences within the public square? There is certainly plenty of room for discussion on this issue, and reasonable people can disagree. But let’s have an honest debate and not attempt to muddy the water with unscientific ideas like intelligent design.

The following day, Feb. 23^rd, Stanford Geophysics professor Norman Sleep attacked the science of ID (“Intelligent design must meet evidentiary standards”) with this choice quote from Galileo:

“Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something.” It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.”

Lastly, I responded to Tristan Abbey’s letter on Feb. 28^th (“Intelligent design fails as a science”). Those interested can follow the link. However, since I’ve copied everyone else’s conclusion, here’s mine:

ID should be rejected as science because it utterly fails as a science. The religious foundations of ID may help explain why its proponents, many of whom have advanced degrees, continue to advocate its teaching, despite its complete failure to gain any acceptance within the mainstream scientific community. It is entirely possible that a religiously-based theory of origins could be scientific; but ID isn’t, regardless of its inspiration. The sooner people realize that accepting evolution doesn’t require the abandonment of faith, the sooner we can put this sad episode behind us.

Please note: the Daily Stanford website seems to load really slowly, so be patient.

“King Kong” opens today (Weds. Dec. 14^th). While it would be gratuitous good fun to jump on the “Kong” bandwagon simply to ride the giant gorilla’s coattails, there is actually an on-topic reason to discuss this brutish Hollywood megastar today.

Here is a list of recent editorials, opinions, and letters about evolution. You can always send news stories to [Enable javascript to see this email address.].

• CA: Faith vs. evidence
• WA: Some stories count more than others
• PA: Bush endorsement of ID no surprise
• GA: U.S. sacrifices science on the altar of religion
• UK: City schools could be front for evangelists
• FL: Survival of the fittest? Darwin meets Intelligent Design
• CA: Creationism isn’t science
• UT: Evolution lacks fossil link
• US: ‘Intelligent design’ smacks of creationism by another name
• IL: Bush words on Creation not exactly stunning
• AU: ‘Intelligent design’ an option: Nelson
• UT: Devolving Arguments
• NH: You’re being narrow about creationism
• MS: Stealth creationism will cripple science

The American Institute of Biological Science has issued a statement Criticizing the President’s comments:

“Intelligent design is not a scientific theory and must not be taught in science classes,” said AIBS president Dr. Marvalee Wake, a perspective shared by President Bush’s science advisor, Dr. John Marburger III. On Tuesday, August 2, Marburger stated in an interview that “evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology” and “intelligent design is not a scientific concept.”

(AIBS Criticizes President’s Statement on Intelligent Design)

The committee that wrote Kansas’ new science standards have voted to distance themselves from the revisions being championed by the State School Board.

Most members of the committee that wrote Kansas’ science standards asked Tuesday to have their names removed from revised standards that encourage criticism of evolution.

The committee endorsed a 14-page critique of everything the State Board of Education’s conservative majority added in June and July.

The wording critical of evolution “parallels the language of the Intelligent Design Network and Discovery Institute,” the committee wrote. “Critical analysis of evolutionary theory is a repeated theme of both organizations’ Web sites and literature. This critical analysis has no basis in science or science education.”

(Authors snub new science standards)

Most of the news this week concerning evolution has dealt with President Bush’s statements supporting adding “intelligent design” to education. Of course other things are going on in our world.

• In the Dover case, the judge has ruled that reporters can testify about what they witnessed but don’t have to turn over their notes.
• Steve Olson writes an op-ed on anti-evolution.
• Ken Miller and Wes McCoy appeared on Open Source last Thursday.
• Carl Baugh is covered by the Austin Chronicle

You can send us links to news stories at [Enable javascript to see this email address.].

We at the Panda’s Thumb can’t always comment on everthing in the news that touches on something related to our mission. Here is a list of recent stories that we don’t have the time to comment on.

• Kansas Evolution Debate
• Fundamentalist education raises eyebrows in Britain
• Evolution Wars Show No Sign of Abating
• Kansas School Board Debating Evolution Again
• Blackwell Companion to the Philosophy of Education
• The Bait and Switch Of “Intelligent Design” Creationism “Intelligent Design” Is Religion Masquerading As Science
• Academic Freedom: David Horowitz vs. Russell Jacoby