Culture and Biology

I just finished reading Smail's On Deep History and the Brain. The first few chapters were a boring history of historians writing history... but the last few were pretty fascinating.

It's a common idea that humans stopped evolving the day that civilization started. Cultural change is so profound and occurs on a time scale so much faster than natural selection that it's easy to expect that we are essentially living post-biology. It usually takes millions of years for species to adapt to their environment: modern humans appeared about 50k years ago and we started experimenting with agriculture and cities only in the past 10k. The implication is that we are maladapted to our current lifestyle (which is pretty depressing!). The idea is that we're built to live in small bands on the savannas of Africa, not giant cities in all climates.

My favorite part of this book was where Smail makes the argument that the above idea is untrue - evolution is still affecting humans wherever we experience strong selection pressures - even in the span of a few thousand years. Well-established examples of modern humans evolving include the mutation that allows many of us to digest milk throughout our lives, and the sickle-cell gene which conveys resistance to malaria. I just read an idea the other day that ethanol tolerance may have been selected for to allow citizens to drink disease-free water in the form of beer and wine.

Even more intriguing were the ways that he demonstrated that culture can change biology. He gave many examples of ways in which our biological development is flexible, plastic and responsive to the way we live our lives. Smail describes the theory that much of human biology (especially behavior) develops as flexible "modules" that are affected by the physical and cultural environment. One example is that most primates live in rigid, complex social hierarchies. Most anthropologists believe that most human hunter-gatherers live in egalitarian societies that prevent hierarchies from developing. This "module" may have been suppressed by the culture of human hunter-gatherers and re-activated by modern civilization. Similarly, a friend of mine once explained to me how many modern humans often have overbites because eating soft cooked food fails to fully trigger lower jaw growth.

I also liked how he pointed out the just so story nature of much of evolutionary human biology thought. Just because you can come up with a reason why a certain phenomenon could be adaptive doesn't mean it really evolved for that function. Evolution is random and unpredictable - there are many ways that a given trait could show up. One example is the hypothesis that Hindus have a religious taboo against eating cattle because their farmers relied on them to plow their fields - and couldn't afford to be tempted to kill them during a lean year. Sure it could be true, but there's no way to prove it...

Pop psychologists like to suggest that men are only attracted to young women, and women are only attracted to older (wealthier) men - because this is what would be evolutionarily adaptive to both. Smail points out that the studies that support this idea relied on personal ads - not exactly a representative sample. Furthermore he points out that modern human hunter-gatherers (and likely all our ancestors) don't live this way in the first place. Typically, women gather most of the calories that the family consumes and when men are successful hunting they usually distribute it evenly among their tribe. When men have extra meat, they tend to give it to girlfriends instead of wives. Likewise, women rely on help with childcare more from mothers, sisters, brothers and boyfriends than they do their husbands.

It's intriguing to think about ways in which biology and culture could be intertwined. He discusses all sorts of possible ways - mainly revolving around brain-body chemistry. It's also much more encouraging to think that we're not stuck in a losing battle between biology and culture.

"The debilitating power of want"

I was hanging out with some friends this weekend when one began telling an anecdote about his travels in Central/South America where he routinely met people who, without any thread of material wealth or possession, managed to be much happier than most (US) Americans he knows.

The other interjected the title quote with the suggestion that much of the chronic illness you find in the US (which he may or may not have been implying he hasn't seen in his travels through the developing world), is largely due to stress and continuous dissatisfaction. The first then elaborated with the (absolutely correct) observation that many Americans are hugely motivated by fear and are consequentially perpetually over-wound.

I think there may be something to this. I remember reading a study (I wish I could remember a citation!) where it was suggested that some measure of personal satisfaction correlated with wealth - but only within countries, not between them - i.e. people judge how well they are doing based on how well their neighbors are doing, not against some universal, objective standard.

I also once read an editorial that suggested that Americans were happier in the 1950s then they are now because basic consumer goods that we now consider necessities (e.g. refrigerators and cars) were new, exciting and increasingly becoming available - i.e. people didn't have much, but they were excited and happy as they saw themselves and their neighbors steadily accumulating more and more neat stuff and living better - as opposed to today, where we take all our mountains of stuff for granted and only chaff to see people with fancier, more expensive versions of our own refrigerators and cars.

It sounds kinda funny, but it also resonates with me. My daily 2+ mile bike commute through quiet, residential neighborhoods really isn't a big deal on all but the hottest and rainiest days, yet I constantly find myself resenting all those that pass me in motorized vehicles. If everyone else were on bikes, I'd still arrive at work wet on many days, but I don't think I'd arrive as irritated.

Maybe this is one of those ways in which physiology is really intertwined with culture...

[reference to upcoming article...]

Returning bison to the American Prairie

Some visiting friends mentioned this story.

A nature preserve outside of the twin cities in Minnesota is releasing a few bison into its prairies to explore the possibility of more widespread introductions. I find this very exciting. I love the idea of trying to rebuild some of the wilderness that has been plowed over by civilization. Reintroducing bison seems to be a particularly dramatic and iconic step in this process. Especially now that agricultural land use is shrinking all over the country, converting much of it to (near) original ecosystems seems well-timed.

At the end of the above mentioned experiment, the preserve is planning on slaughtering the animals to demonstrate that such projects can also be economically sustainable. We should increase investments in parks like this all over the country - for ecosystem services such as (cheap) clean water and storm buffers, for recreation (including fishing and hunting) and to help cultivate a sense of place and the appreciation of the public.

Science communication

I just watched an episode of Nova titled "the four-winged dinosaur." I don't think I've ever seen the real process of science portrayed nearly as accurately. They follow different teams of scientists as they debate a big question (whether birds are descended from dinosaurs) by differently interpreting the evidence surrounding a tiny detail (the angle that the fossil leg seemed to fit into the hip).

Check it out! You'll come away with a much better appreciation for how science actually comes to definitive conclusions and why it so often doesn't quite.

Research burning

The California wildfire season is well under way. and it's only July. I had heard there were some small fires in Sonoma County and it occurred to me that my field sites may burn this year. I'd have to say it would be a cathartic way to end the frustrating experience of gradschool!

Here's a blog that includes some maps of the wildfires in Big Sur. When I heard that they were evacuating the area I became a little concerned about the research sites that some of my labmates have down there. I didn't think much of it at first since our lab's sites seems to revolve around moist redwood-tanoak ecosystems - then I heard a description on NPR from a firefighter that had watched pre-heated redwoods literally exploding into flames.

I went upstairs to check in with the boss to see if anyone we worked with was being hurt by the fires. Our one colleague who currently lives down there is okay and was assisting with the evacuation. When I asked my boss if the fires were impacting any of his sites he asked: "want to see?" He showed me a map of the coast and the locations of hundreds of his sites (part of a long-term ecosystem study of sudden oak death). It seemed that half to most were exposed to the fires! I was glad to hear him continue to explain that they had just finished collecting all the data they needed from these sites a few months ago. The lab is now well placed to address the impact that wildfires have on sudden oak death in California ecosystems.

It's encouraging to hear a story where fate works out in a scientist's favor!

Bioregionalism

I came across an interesting idea the other day that's been around for some time.

Bioregionalism is a philosophy that celebrates the diversity of endemic cultures - primarily as a reflection of local environment. It looks to the embrace of local environments and history in order to produce diversity in the face of globalization. It'd be great to have all the economic benefits of free trade without losing fascinating regional differences in attitudes, accents, food and design. I guess this ties in with my earlier post on The Big Sort. Maybe once again, the advance of globalization will defy critics by leading to increased local heterogeneity and self-determination.

And, because I love maps!

Location, location, location

As any interested parties have surely already learned, Richard Florida has been promoting his most recent book, Who's Your City. For any of you who don't already know, Florida has written a series of interesting books describing how the current job market and socio-political climate is largely shaped by individuals congregating in parts of the country that they find appealing - e.g. adventurous software engineers and scientists heading to the Bay Area. I've enjoyed many of his past books and plan to read this one too when it hits the library. The website I linked to above has some neat maps showing where certain types of people are accumulating. On a related note, Robert Cushing's book describes how this may be intensifying red state vs. blue state politics in The Big Sort.

As per usual, I heard it on NPR.

Carbon Farming

Another great seminar - Steve Savage on global warming and agriculture. He described some very interesting observations on the interaction of environmental protection and the free market.

First, he pointed out that despite all the foot-dragging from the Feds, major corporations are already adapting to global warming - mostly in anticipation of public demand, but also in savings of increased efficiency. In the vacuum of government leadership though, each company is haphazardly defining "sustainability" differently (and declaring how their products fulfill it). Since these decisions are driven largely by marketing, little care is invested in analyzing whether apparently environmentally-friendly practices really are (read Wal-Mart's foray into organic food).

Unfortunately, some private certification agencies are similarly more interested in public perception than scientific reality. If any such "sustainability" certification becomes popular, major companies will be compelled to adopt them, enshrining practices that aren't really good for our environment. Again, unless some government or scientific association steps in to fill the void with some facts.

Secondly, he pointed out that in spite of all the lobbying from environmentalists, the only organizations that have managed to prevent the marketing of GMO crops are major food retailers and manufacturers in charge of valuable brands. These companies have already halted the introduction of cultivars such as a ripening-controlled banana and glyphosate-resistant wheat, both of which and with others would have contributed to huge reductions in worldwide pesticide and herbicide use.

note: He also recommended Starving for Science, by Robert Paarlberg, for a description of how the crunchy elite, especially in Europe, have kept life-saving biotechnology out of developing countries in places like Africa. I'll read this and get back to you.

In the end, Dr. Savage really emphasized that if you want to optimize the sustainability of agriculture, you really need to establish appropriate standard metrics. He pointed out that if you measure pollution per unit of land, you encourage low yielding techniques that require more land to produce the same amount of food, and produce more pollution per amount of food. He argued that we should compare agricultural systems by the amount of pollution (E.g. carbon) produced per bushel of food. He cited a few studies that found that intensive agriculture, with intelligent use of chemicals and GMOs, produced more food per land/amount of pollution in comparison to organic agriculture (with limited exceptions).

It was also interesting to hear that organic agriculture (contrary to all the hype) accounts for a tiny fraction of total agriculture (half a percent!) and is growing at a slow, linear rate. In contrast, modern no-till ag now accounts for 15% of all ag. He then used no-till ag as a jumping off point to explain how modern, intensive agricultural practices including safe and highly specific chemicals and erosion-limiting no-tillage could be used to sequester carbon. (as another aside, he showed a great chart showing that many modern pesticides and herbicides such as glyphosate, are safer than aspirin and caffeine!)

He explained how a carefully constructed carbon trading program could quickly become very profitable for many growers. At $5 a ton, carbon would produce greater domestic income than the national grape crop, at $10 a ton, more than wheat, and at $30 it would become the nations second most profitable agricultural "crop."

Overall he recommended changing ag regulations from a system that rewards inefficiency and ignores pollution to one that rewards efficiency and decreases pollution by linking true costs to monetary costs. According to some ag economists, this problem will take care of itself with a little regulation.

Or as the agronomists say,

"The best cure for high commodity prices is high commodity prices"

Coal as the fuel of the future

I just saw a short piece on the news about Sasol, a South African company that's promising to produce gasoline from coal (profitably and with lower emissions). It seems that every few weeks we hear some scientist or company announce that they're about to release some revolutionary new fuel or fuel system that will solve all our oil woes.

I'm pretty jaded to it at this point.

On the other hand, I've only really been keyed in to these technologies for the past few years, which is significantly shorter than most development pipelines. Maybe some of these new systems really will sweep away our energy problems in the near future. In the meantime we need to commit ourselves to make the policy changes that will encourage future technological development while making the most of what we already have (e.g. energy conservation!).

It does appeal to me to be able to use coal as an energy source. It would seem like a waste not to take advantage of such an abundant natural resource - especially one so common in the U.S. Any move to take advantage of this technology would need to (from the start) plan how to deal with environmental effects though. I still haven't seen any sufficient efforts to sequester carbon, let alone enough to offset burning even more coal than we already do. Not to mention that coal is often mined by shearing off mountain tops....

Maybe we'd be better off without this technology after all.

Market environmentalists

Here's a balanced and thorough description of an interesting idea I've come across before:

Wildlife conservation via private ownership and sale.

It arises from the idea of the Tragedy of the commons; when everyone shares a resource, no one has any incentive to harvest it in a sustainable manner. It doesn't pay to go easy on your local fishery if all your neighbors are dredging up all the animals you spare. It's been suggested that many historically destructive extractive industries (such as commercial fishing and logging) would behave much better if they were given exclusive rights to harvest from certain areas.

This article does an excellent job of parsing out this issue - especially contrasting conservation efforts that redirected market forces and efforts that opposed them. It sounds like another messy subject that will have to be thoughtfully addressed on a case by case basis! I hope any environmentalists who oppose this approach on philosophical grounds can at least take away the lesson that shutting down supply works much better when you also address demand.

Who "killed" the electric car?

Something else I've waited awhile to find?
A good synopsis of the current state of automotive battery technology.

Nanobacteria

Here's a discussion of the supposed existence of "nanobacteria."
I'm surprised I haven't come across this topic before...

CFLs on a landscape scale

I listened to a NPR story today about upcoming legislation to encourage the switch from incandescent to compact fluorescent light bulbs. I'm looking forward to perceiving this switch from 30k feet. I noticed a few years ago that the nighttime lights of civilization were switching increasingly from yellow to white. Grids of pure white to blueish lights appear pretty futuristic in comparison to yellows reminiscent of oil lamps.

At least it's a more aesthetically pleasing form of light pollution...

Gene therapy for cyborgs

I wondered aloud to a friend tonight:

"How long do you think it will be before people lose their feeling that there is something sacred in nature, and [after the technology becomes available] begin to undertake trivial genetic engineering and electronic modification of their bodies and children?"

This conversation was started with the statement of a fellow grad student that stem cells are being proposed as a vector to introduce drugs and genes into sick patients. It's easy to see powerful near term possibilities (e.g. correcting cystic fibrosis) in addition to ethically worrisome long term possibilities (e.g. increasing height), but my one friend's labmate came up with a new perspective I hadn't encountered before.

In agriculture, humans have been surprised repeatedly (and devastated!) by the unforeseen consequences of genetic modification. Continual selection for yield traits in crops neglects disease resistance traits that are invisible until you really need them. Incorporating a certain cytoplasmic sterility trait into corn allowed great advances in breeding until a fungal pathogen showed up that was able to exploit a subtle weakness that went along with it.

No amount of genomics will completely decode our DNA or explain every function of every gene and intergenic region. So what happens if large portions of our population start adding or removing certain specific genes from their own genomes?

What rare pathogen, toxin, or environmental stress will make its periodic (and formerly unnoticed) appearance after widespread interuption of the obscure genetic element that formely defended us from it?

House of Cards

One of my buddies asked me tonight what I want to do with my degree. I said all I wanted was to get paid by someone to do something that mattered.

"Oh, is that all?" he laughed.

"Well, it just needs to matter a little..."

Many people you talk to in academia (especially those most invested in the system) will answer this question with a detailed description of their theoretical interests. I was reassured tonight to hear a couple of my friends echo my disillusionment with the professional pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake.

Plant pathology is one of those rare academic disciplines that continually justifies its existence with the promise of solving real-world problems. Plant pathologists often pride themselves on keeping "one foot in the furrow," of not pursuing theoretical knowledge purely out of curiosity. My buddy talked about how all studies in plant pathology seemed to be advocated as "if only we knew more about [some phenomenon], then we could reduce plant disease."

Although I could probably write a tediously long post on the practical benefits of plant pathology, on many days it seems that 90% of growers dealing with disease boils down to buying resistant cultivars and spraying with pesticides when things get out of control...

He told me about how he had signed up for a class in my department. About half way through the professor's lecture one day, it occurred to him: "I don't care!!" "Why does any of this matter?!" Every protein and gene was chased down and characterized with the hope of one day preventing plant disease, but none of the examples ever seemed to lead to any new ways to control diseases. He questioned "how many decades are we going to have to study these things before we actually get anything practical?"

The best part of the story is that he went to the professor's office afterwards to get his perspective. Interestingly, the professor kinda agreed. He said that as he approached retirement, he was reflecting more and more on his legacy. When he started his education, he had big dreams of really making a difference but was increasingly coming to believe that, in a way, it was all for nothing. He described much of plant pathology as a house of cards and wondered how much longer it could continue before people caught on.

Most disciplines don't worry about justifying every little experiment with the promise of concrete results. As my friend pointed out, theoretical physicists don't appear compelled to make promises about practical results of their work. Discovering the Higgs boson probably won't make my car go faster.

It's a shame that some of the people in my field feel ineffective if they fail to transfer technology to society. I think it must take a unique personality to make basic science your vocation, and many people without this inclination are attracted to disciplines like plant pathology. Although all applied science is limited by the foundation of basic science that underpins it, I know that I love science when it allows people (hopefully me!) to create new products and paradigms that make the world a quantitatively better place.

I just don't want to wave my hands anymore to justify what I'm doing to the taxpayers.

Giant spitting earthworms, Batman!

Wow, here's a charismatic invertebrate that I didn't know existed.

Driloleirus americanus is a 3 foot long earthworm that lives in deep, permanent burrows in the prairies of eastern Washington state. Apparently, it spits at those who approach and smells like a lily. I was skeptical that it even existed but it's listed on government sites!

There's a lot more to the story of earthworms in the states. Invasive species of earthworms are currently creeping through North American soils, driving out local soil inhabitants and changing ecosystems. I'm feeling frustrated that I can't find any federal fact sheets on the topic, but here's a page on the effect that invasive earthworms are having on Minnesotan forests.

T minus zero to a private space industry

Wow, we're closer than I thought.

Virgin's ready to start testing their spaceship this year, and expects to break even by 2014!

Signing away my copyrights

I completed the final step today to publish my first peer-reviewed, first-author paper. It's very much a minor paper, but it's kinda cool to go through the whole peer-review experience for the first time. After I okay'd the proofs, the last task was to fill out and fax off the copyright transfer agreement.

It's funny to think i have something worth copyrighting to give away.

Genetic engineering taking off

Most commercial releases of GMOs so far have been more or less simple plug and play transgene additions, e.g. herbicide resistance. A new soybean cultivar, on track for release in 2009, appears to involve more sophisticated metabolic engineering. Most vegetable oils have to be modified by hydrogenation in order to make them stable against chemical breakdown, with negative health side effects (the production of trans fats). This new soybean cultivar has oils that are already stable and won't require hydrogenation. I expect we'll see increasingly complex biochemical engineering in the near future.

Just in time to adapt to global warming! or cooling... or whatever...