Banner
Melville on Science vs. Creation Myth

From Melville's under-appreciated Mardi: On a quest for his missing love Yillah, an AWOL sailor...

Non-coding DNA Function... Surprising?

The existence of functional, non-protein-coding DNA is all too frequently portrayed as a great...

Yep, This Should Get You Fired

An Ohio 8th-grade creationist science teacher with a habit of branding crosses on his students'...

No, There Are No Alien Bar Codes In Our Genomes

Even for a physicist, this is bad: Larry Moran, in preparation for the appropriate dose of ridicule...

User picture.
picture for Hank Campbellpicture for Heidi Hendersonpicture for Bente Lilja Byepicture for Wes Sturdevantpicture for Ian Ramjohnpicture for Patrick Lockerby
Michael WhiteRSS Feed of this column.

Welcome to Adaptive Complexity, where I write about genomics, systems biology, evolution, and the connection between science and literature, government, and society.

I'm a biochemist

... Read More »

Blogroll
The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), the branch of the NIH which funds the majority of academic genome research in the US, is trying to lay out its next big road map, and personalized medicine looms large. The NHGRI wants to use its hefty funding power to ensure that personalized medicine is based on solid research as it become more commercially available.

The institute has offered several white papers, including one on "Applying Genomics to Clinical Problems-Diagnostics, Preventative Medicine, Pharmacogenomics".

Some of the key questions are:

1. "What do new genetically-based diagnostic or risk assessment strategies add to the existing medical armamentarium?"
John Hawks discusses how messy the abuse of genetic testing results could get:

Imagine a custody battle, in which the father hires a private investigator to get a mother's genome. With two variants that yield a 15 percent higher risk of schizophrenia, will the mother's genetic risk be held against her? Or think of corporate boards, looking for a way to dismiss a CEO without paying that golden parachute. Could a genetic test result showing a higher risk for early Alzheimer's give them a reason to invoke a "health" clause in the contract?

Sound familiar?



If you find yourself saying, "No matter how hard I try and try, I can't make my kid do X ..." or "No matter how hard I try, I can't make my kid understand Y ..." it's usually a clear sign that expectation and enforcing that expectation are a significant part of the problem. Your expectation may in fact accurately address the mean—that is, you may expect a behavior of your 9-year-old that most 9-year-olds can do—but remember the range of human variability and try to structure antecedents (the things you do to encourage a behavior to occur) with room for that variability.




This is of course harder to do when you're surrounded by parents whose kids nicely hit or exceed that behavioral mean.
Salon has an interview with Stuart Kauffman, a biologist who has written multiple fascinating books about complex systems. Kauffman has a new book, Reinventing the Sacred, in which he argues that we need to toss out scientific reductionism and take a new, holistic approach to science and rename it God. But how bad is the problem really?

Laplace famously claimed that if we knew the initial position and momentum of all the particles in the universe, we could confidently predict the future of the universe - that is, the universe is completely deterministic. Quantum mechanics seems to indicate that it is not - there is a graininess to the universe at a fundamental level (unless there are so-called 'hidden variables' determining the quantum behavior of particles).
The combination of a very pleasant but busy holiday visit with my In-laws and feeling a bit under the weather has caused my blogging to drop precipitously this past week. I'm back, ready to start off the New Year on the right foot with some free, meaty, internet science reading. (No, I'm not talking about my writing!)

Is there something missing at the heart of quantum mechanics? Einstein and Bohr, like King Kong vs. Godzilla, famously battled over the possible incompleteness of quantum mechanics.

A "new respect for science" in the Obama administration?

The dissonance is jarring:
Obama says:

I am confident that if we recommit ourselves to discovery, if we support science education to create the next generation of scientists and engineers right here in America; if we have the vision to believe and invest in things unseen, then we can lead the world into a new future of peace and prosperity.


And then he passes the megaphone to Rick Warren: