Sitting in the freezing terminal at St. Louis Lambert International goddamn meat locker, but felt like I had a few things to write about…

The first is Kansas. We all know what jokers they are already, but I can’t help but comment on the ridiculousness of “redefining” the meaning of the word “science” so that it somehow encompasses the vague pseudoscience (and I’m already being generous giving it that title) of Intelligent Design. Proponents claim they’re trying to buttress the science curriculum with a fair handed examination of “alternate theories”, or that this is a means to educate kids in the need for broad mindedness in science. Of course, “for the kids” is the first refrain of anyone trying to accomplish anything, good or bad, to the extent that I can hardly hear it anymore without being put off. The point I’d like to make, however, is that a good science curriculum already contains skepticism and the questioning of assumptions as a foundation for everything else. It’s the scientific method. Proposing to teach the scientific method by mandating the treatment of a proposition that lacks any connection to it is absurd in the extreme. The I.D. movement is nothing less than an attempt to dilute the very meaning of science until it lacks any authority in the public mind. It’s designed to discredit the scientific establishment (and intellectualism by proxy) in order to leave the Church as the sole available source of stability in a complex and confusing world. In such a world the false certainty and simplistic absolutism of fundamentalist christianity becomes even more attractive to the anxious and fearful *and uneducated* public. Perhaps I’m giving the architects of this movement too much credit. Maybe Americans’ understanding of what *Science* means is already so eroded that supporters of ID really don’t grasp what they’re doing. I’m not sure which explanation I prefer, truly, but I see the whole argument as a dead canary, a signal that America is heading down a dangerous road of fear, ignorance and marginalization.

Now that I’ve gotten my political excitement out of the way, just a quick note on the science magazines this month. Of course, they follow trends as much as any other industry, and I was struck by the number of articles touching on genetics. Both SciAm and Technology Review had numerous articles and sidebars treating the subject of RNAi, the use transgenic animals as pharmaceutical bioreactors, engineered microbes for environmental cleanup, stem cells and so forth. Of course, this will be nothing surprising if you’ve followed science news at all, but for those who haven’t, take note… computers are great, but bio is the looming large.

To close, I want to write briefly about a short but fascinating article in the aforementioned SciAm, which described a mechanism in which fetal cells (in mice, though as usual, the implications for humans are clear) are found in the brain of their mother. I find it remarkable enough that the connection is so two way, but it’s even more incredible is that these cells get into the brain and become, apparently, neurons, macrophages and all kinds of other useful and therapeutic cells. What the laboratorians found is that if they chemically brain damaged the mother mice, those fetal cells disproportionately migrated to the damaged area in an attempt to repair it. The evolutionary implication is pretty clear here I think, but it also got me thinking about parasites. I don’t recall the name, but there’s that one that infects the hosts brain and makes them want to jump into the water and drown because the parasite needs to get into the water for reproduction… in other words, the parasite influences behavior and, perhaps, psychology. The thought that those cells, on top of providing extra backup for damage control, effect a change in the psychology of the mother seems endlessly interesting to me. Of course, I make no claim to know what I’m talking about, but I’ve read enough sci fi (and sci nonfi) to be gripped by the concept that a fetus could send out cells that modify moms attitudes and interests. That there’s more to the inward focus of a mother than hormones, but that the baby rewired her brain, literally. As I say just a rumination, but how *cool*!

Thursday, November 10th, 2005 @ 7:26 pm Rant, Science, Technology
RSS 2.0 Trackback