Adaptive Complexity

It's easy to get lost in a eukaryotic cell. Proteins need to be in the right place at the right time to carry out their functions, but the cell is a crowded place, and the layout isn't exactly simple. Fortunately, the cell has a fairly sophisticated transportation system: if you need to head out of the cell, take the secretory pathway; if your job is to regulate genes, the nuclear shuttle will take you where you need to go.The protein Htb2 hanging out exactly where it is supposed to be - the nucleus

This study on "Gender Differences at Critical Transitions in the Careers of Science" is now old news, but it hasn't answered many of the questions we're interested in about women in academic science careers. Women in 2004 and 2005 at top research universities were as successful as men in obtaining academic jobs and tenure, but the rub is that women are less likely to apply for academic or go up for tenure.Why? Well, like I said, there are more questions that have to be addressed before we know why, but I'm betting that a big part of the problem is this:

The encouragement (or requirement) of diversity sometimes gets labeled reverse racism, under the assumption that encourgaing diversity is only about somehow making up for past injustices by discriminating against today's white men who may never have themselves committed such injustices.I'm not trying to step into the touchy issue of Supreme Court politics (nor am I arguing that quotas are always a good thing), but I've run across this interesting observation in several contexts recently:"Participants push themselves to formulate better arguments when they know they will have to justify them."

One of the biggest recent breakthroughs in stem cell research is the ability to reprogram non-stem cells into stem cells using genetic engineering. The hitch with this technique is that genetic engineering like this can have side effects: stem cells produced in this way can turn into tumors in mice (and presumably humans, but we haven't tried that yet).And thus researchers have been looking for ways to reprogram stem cells without genetic engineering. One promising way to do this is to use chemicals that can mimic the effects of the genes typically used for reprogramming. (The jargon for these genes is 'reprogramming factors' - who says technical jargon has to be opaque?)

Liberals and conservatives don’t just think differently, they also feel differently. This may even be a result, in part, of divergent neural responses.I don't know much about the science behind this, but the NY Time's Nicholas Kristof points readers to an online survey set up by some psychologists to study morals and political beliefs:

FOXP2 may be the gene that makes us human - or so the hype goes. Hyped or not, FOXP2 is rightly a focus of intense research, since it is a gene that clearly has a major effect on human speech. Mutations in FOXP2 are responsible for some rare but strange language disorders, such as the inability to learn grammatical skills or make the proper mouth/facial movements to properly articulate words. 

"Somebody's got to stand up to experts," cried the creationist head of the Texas State Board of Education, Don McLeroy. McLeroy's lament is nothing new in American culture - we love to lionize the artless hero who conquers the world through clean living and common sense, and without resorting to elitist expertise. (Although some see the pendulum swinging the other way.)

I happened to get my hands on some interesting literature on pre-natal genetic screening, literature that amply reinforces my impression that clinical genetic testing is still in the dark ages.Let's say you (or your wife/fiance/girlfriend) are pregnant, and you're interested in taking a blood test to see if your baby is going to develop a neural tube defect, like spina bifida. Should you take the test?In this case, it's a no-risk test (unlike amniocentesis) that involves measuring a blood protein called AFP. Here's what the pamphlet I've got says:- There is a 1:1000 chance that your baby will have spina bifida.- The blood test can identify 80% of spina bifida cases.

Here in Missouri, the annual intelligent design bill has died with the end of the legislative session. Every year, several representatives from Missouri's rural areas introduce some sort of creationism bill. This year, the bill contained the latest anti-evolution line - students must analyze the "strengths and weaknesses" of the science evolution, with the weaknesses being defined as whatever creationists say they are.

That first early morning cup is wearing off; it's time for more coffee zen and a dose of science browsing to bring the day back into equilibrium:Who knew bugs could be beautiful? Bug Safari is one of the most enjoyable blogs in my reader. Cindy has a fine eye for a world that is invisible to most of us - head on over and see for yourself.

You're sitting in a room filled with a gazillion air molecules - how likely is it that most of those air molecules will spontaneously end up in the corner of the room opposite of where you're sitting?Most likely you're not too concerned about this scenario, because something like that, a massive fluctuation in the distribution of air molecules in the room, is extremely unlikely, to put it mildly.When you have zillions of air molecules bouncing around in a room (zillions here being on the order of 10^28 molecules of the various gases that make up air), the fluctuations away from the average distribution are miniscule.

The politics of science is about more than just funding and science-based policy decisions: governments, and in particular the US Federal Government, are into science education in a big way, whether you like it or not. In fact, it's hard to see how the US government can avoid being in the science education business, even if it's not setting national standards for local schools: when people want to know about swine flu, they turn to the US Centers for Disease Control; the major science agencies, the NSF, NASA, NIH, DOE, are obligated (sometimes by law) to explain to the public how billions of dollars of research funds are being spent, and many of the US national parks have visitor centers that explain the science behind the parks' impressive natural wonders.