Gerhard Adam

I recently watched a program on the Science Channel entitled "Human Nature: Born to Kill".  In this episode, part of the objective was to explore humans killing other humans.  Of course, the usual array of topics were raised, from evolutionary psychology to genes [i.e. the "warrior gene"] and even the "nature vs nurture debate".However, there were a few points that I felt were muddled and confused.

A recent article entitled "Monsanto v Monarch Butterflies" begins by examining the argument that GMO foods are impacting the population of Monarch butterflies.  There are enough references and quotes that indicate that this assertion isn't particularly viable and that it isn't likely that Bt toxin plays any role in the issues facing Monarchs.So far so good.

I recently came across some articles, again, that were focusing on human adaptive behaviors regarding our concept of beauty and attractiveness.  All manner of considerations are mentioned from facial symmetry to female hip-to-waist ratios, etc.However, I would argue that these are precisely the wrong questions to be asking.  

Almost two years ago, I wrote an article entitled "What is life - Part 1" describing various aspects of life that dealt with the issues of "intent" and "purpose".  These are obviously heavily loaded terms, and represent a tremendous difficulty in defining life and trying to come to terms with the obvious and yet inexplicable behaviors we see.Yet, we all recognize this type of behavior and biology even uses the term teleonomy to characterize this (1).

To many, DNA represents the definitive code which governs all life.  It has been compared to a sophisticated computer program from which every aspect of an individual organism is built. Equally it has been stated that DNA is not destiny, so there is some basic recognition that DNA is not the absolute arbiter of everything biological.

Any time the subject of taxes comes up with respect to economics we are invariably treated to examples such as the following, to illustrate how government revenue has an effect on the economy.  Of course, this is all smoke and mirrors nonsense, but nevertheless it seems plausible enough so that many people don't consider the absurdity of these examples.In the first instance, we are treated to the supposition of what society would be like without taxation.

While many people may not be explicitly familiar with Koch's Postulates, they are generally viewed as a type of "common sense" when it comes to pathogens.  Briefly the postulates consist of four criteria.1.  The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.2.  The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.3.  The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.4.  The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

In many modern discussions about bacteria, or germs, we find that novel descriptions are used that are more self-involved than accurate regarding the role of bacteria and microbes.  Certainly there is an increased awareness that many microbes are commensal [or "good"] and are necessary for our well-being, while others are considered "bad" and cause disease.

A recent article addressing the subject of Nikolas Tesla, chose to focus on his opinions regarding eugenics.  One of Tesla’s most disturbing ideas was his belief in using eugenics to purify the human race. Of course, this statement is framed in the modern "correct" view, because it is clearly colored by the Nazi atrocities that followed those decades, and from which everyone invariably wishes to distance themselves.

A recent article about lie detectors brought up a related topic; drug/bomb sniffing dogs or the more general use of police service dogs.  Let me begin by acknowledging a bias; I love dogs.  There seems little doubt regarding the utility of these animals in search and rescue, body recovery, and even sniffing contraband and explosives.  I want to be clear that this is not an attempt to diminish the importance and the role of these dogs in many of the activities they engage in.  Regardless of their error rates or even false positives, the assistance provided by these animals can be invaluable.So what's the issue?

It seems that one continuously hears about individuals passing or failing the lie detector, and despite many questions regarding its veracity, people still assume that there is a scientific basis for its use.However, lie detection, or polygraphy is not based on science.  In fact it isn't based on much of anything, except psychological manipulation of the subject under the guise that taking the lie detector may cause them to confess, because they believe it is based on science.In short ... it's voodoo psychology.

Helicobacter is a good example in our changing understanding of the role of microbes and the human body environment.  Some may recall that this particular bacteria was introduced to the public in a rather striking experiment where it was suspected of causing stomach ulcers and gastritis.  Dr. Barry Marshall drank a petri dish containing cultured Helicobacter Pylori and within days developed gastritis.  This demonstrated a firm connection between bacteria and gastritis/stomach ulcers as well as the role of using antibiotics to treat this condition.Helicobacter is presumed to be present in about 50% of the world's population upper gastrointestinal tract, while fully 80% of individuals harboring this organism are asymptomatic.