Science: Back Where It Belongs.

“WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama will soon issue an executive order lifting an eight-year ban embryonic stem cell research imposed by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, a senior adviser said on Sunday.”

If there’s one thing guaranteed to spur this normally quite reserved and reticent (no, really, I am) gentleman into voicing his opinion, it’s an assault on science and reason — especially one, as my regular readers will know, that comes from a nonscientific background. The Bush administration, for this and many other reasons, was therefore of great concern to me, and the consequences of what may have happened had Obama not won the presidency simply didn’t bear thinking about.

So when Obama promised during his campaign and his inaugural speech to reverse Bush’s ban on embryonic stem cell research I was, naturally, over the moon. Yes, I was a little sceptical. Obama has a great deal to live up to — too much, I think — and there was a niggling doubt at the back of my mind over whether he would actually fulfil this particular promise. I am, however, happy to now say that it looks as though my scepticism (“caution” might be a better word) was unwarranted.

There are people out there who will argue that embryonic stem cell research is immoral/unethical, and even some who will argue that it is a futile or unnecessary line of research. I would disagree with both of these positions. We have a duty and responsibility to at least try to explore all treatment possibilities and, until the alternatives are perfected, this for me is a significant step in the right direction.

The possible scientific/medical benefits apart, it strikes me as hugely symbolic. Obama is clearly sending out a very strong message. A message I for one appreciate.

© 2009 Gary William Murning

Richard Dawkins Interviewing the Novelist Ian McEwan.

A little short on time and inspiration again, today, but I have, thankfully, an interview that I really must share with you. An atheist and a novelist! How could I not?

All text © 2009 Gary William Murning

Evolution and Medicine.

Whilst watching Richard Dawkins interview Randolph Nesse (see below), I was struck by just how few doctors have, it seems, a background that includes evolutionary theory. The very notion seems quite preposterous — not in the least what I would have expected.

This apart, I was fascinated by the insights that Nesse provided — and rather than waffle on about them myself, because it’s Sunday and I’ve eaten too much, I’ll leave it to the man himself to explain. (The explanation of why our intestines are prone to becoming entangled/twisted seemed so obvious once he’d explained it!)

If you find the video interesting you may also want to visit the website Evolution and Medicine Network.

All text © 2009 Gary William Murning

David Attenborough’s Going to Hell — Yippee, At Least We’ll Have Good TV!

I’m a little pushed for time (and energy) today, so in lieu of my usual, rambling observations on anything and everything, I thought I’d just share this article on David Attenborough with you.

I was especially interested to read his views on the teaching of creationism and evolution in schools as if they were equivalent, alternative perspectives:

“It’s like saying that two and two equals four, but if you wish to believe it, it could also be five… Evolution is not a theory; it is a fact, every bit as much as the historical fact that William the Conqueror landed in 1066.”

It really is that simple.

© 2009 Gary William Murning except for quotation.

Stanford University on YouTube.

Not having had the benefit/disadvantage of a university education (since the age of about 18 I’ve leant rather considerably towards the autodidactic), I occasionally find myself regretting that I never had the opportunity to attend lectures on the subjects that most appeal to and inspire me. It doesn’t trouble me too much, of course, since there are always other avenues of enquiry available — but a part of me has always had a niggling suspicion that it’s missed out on something vitally important.

And then I discovered the more intellectual provinces of that perceived dog-on-a-skateboard neighbourhood, YouTube, and suddenly I felt complete. (Well, as near as dammit 😉 )

The sheer volume of lectures now available is becoming positively staggering. Whether you want something on astrophysics or molecular biology, you’ll find it. Granted, it does to be selective — bad science can thrive in such an environment — but if you follow the basic rules, you won’t go far wrong.

I was especially pleased to discover The Stanford University YouTube Channel — the kind of “place” that makes me wish I had more time to spare.

The video below is the first of ten two-hour lectures from Stanford on Darwin’s legacy. I haven’t even begun to watch them yet but I thought I’d share now, anyway, before I forget. They’re bound to be good.

Twenty hours on Darwin’s legacy… call me sad if you like (though I’d rather you didn’t!), but if that isn’t as close as an atheist can come to heaven I don’t know what is.

All text © 2009 Gary William Murning

(Sperm-Related) Quote of the Day.

“This does not mean that men who prefer Play-Doh to Plato always have poor sperm.“

Dr Rosalind Arden
Institute of Psychiatry

Though I’m betting they don’t always get much of a chance to prove it.

© 2008 Gary William Murning

The Whole Universe in a Glass of Wine.

“A poet once said “The whole universe is in a glass of wine.” We will probably never know in what sense he meant that, for poets do not write to be understood. But it is true that if we look at a glass closely enough we see the entire universe. There are the things of physics: the twisting liquid which evaporates depending on the wind and weather, the reflections in the glass, and our imaginations adds the atoms. The glass is a distillation of the Earth’s rocks, and in its composition we see the secret of the universe’s age, and the evolution of the stars. What strange array of chemicals are there in the wine? How did they come to be? There are the ferments, the enzymes, the substrates, and the products. There in wine is found the great generalization: all life is fermentation. Nobody can discover the chemistry of wine without discovering, as did Louis Pasteur, the cause of much disease. How vivid is the claret, pressing its existence into the consciousness that watches it! If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts — physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on — remember that Nature does not know it! So let us put it all back together, not forgetting ultimately what it is for. Let it give us one more final pleasure: drink it and forget it all!”

Richard Feynman.
The New Quantum Universe (2003) by Tony Hey and Patrick Walters; Epilogue. (Originally, from “The Feynman Lectures on Physics,” by Feynman, Leighton and Sands.)

Obama Apparently Set to Unpick Bush’s “Most Egregious Acts”.

Whatever my concerns regarding the possibility of Obama returning to protectionist ways, I still have absolutely no doubt that the recent electoral result was most emphatically the right one.

In the Guardian today, Ed Pilkington reports that:

“Barack Obama will move swiftly to unpick many of what he sees as the most egregious acts of the Bush administration when he enters the White House in January, including restrictions on stem cell research and moves to allow oil drilling in wilderness areas, a leading member of his transition team said yesterday.”

Whilst I applaud all of these intentions, the one that really stands out for me is the easing/possible removal of restrictions on stem cell research. This sets the tone, I believe, for the impending Obama administration’s attitude to science in general, and it’s one that leaves me feeling hugely relieved. For too long the religious right has dominated and limited one of the most scientifically and technologically able countries in the world — superstition and self-righteousness, disguised quite crudely as morality, stalling advancement and (let’s not be coy about it) ultimately killing people.

A good first step. Long may it continue.

© 2008 Gary William Murning

Problems of Consciousness — Knowing Your Own Mind.

I’m currently reading (very slowly!) Daniel Dennett‘s Consciousness Explained. Given that he’s one of the Four Horsemen I have, naturally, listened to Dennett speak on a number of occasions, largely on the subject of atheism. Until now, however, I’d never actually picked up one of his books, and I’m kind of glad that I didn’t — because now I have all that wonderful stuff ahead of me.

Understanding consciousness is something I previously would only have attempted back in my drinking days. Contemplating such apparent unfathomables is something I wouldn’t have dared attempt without a large whiskey or three inside me. With Dennett holding my hand like the philosophical Father Christmas that he is, however, I now feel that I can ponder the non-dualistic, materialistic explanations with admirable sobriety!

It’s a tough subject nevertheless. What is consciousness? What is the “mind”? What differentiates it from “the brain”? If it’s merely the product of cellular processes, does that mean that my consciousness is the same as your consciousness? These — and many others — are the questions that we’ve all asked ourselves, I’m sure, in one form or another at some time in our lives. And they go to the very heart of who we are and, more to the point, perhaps, what we are. Yet, it is a subject that so many people feel we can never understand or, even worse, are afraid of even attempting to understand it. If we understand consciousness, will it somehow change us? And will any changes be for the better or for the worse?

Dennett bravely tackles these questions and thus far Consciousness Explained is proving stimulating, demanding and utterly fascinating. I’d recommend it.

For those interested in such questions, the Dennett lecture below should provide a reasonable and entertaining introduction.

Enjoy! (And, incidentally, how does enjoyment actually work?!)

© 2008 Gary William Murning

Reduce the Risk of Dementia — Surf the Web!

Whilst wondering what I should blog about today, I fell into my predictable, familiar routine of seeking inspiration by doing that old pointing-and-clicking-thing. I’m sure you’re already well-practised at this yourself. You start at a favourite webpage and, well, point and click on whatever takes your fancy. And, if you’re anything like me, after doing this a number of times, following links into the wild blue yonder, you probably end up back in familiar territory. Which was the case today.

After a little surfing, sure enough, I found myself back on the BBC News website reading about a University of California Los Angeles team that has discovered a possible new health benefit to the very pastime we are all so fond of:

“For middle aged and older people at least, using the internet helps boost brain power, research suggests.”

It seems that the decision-making process and “complex reasoning” involved stimulate areas of the brain that, for example, book-reading tasks do not.

Rebecca Wood of the Alzheimer’s research trust says on the BBC website:

“These fascinating findings add to previous research suggesting that middle-aged and older people can reduce their risk of dementia by taking part in regular mentally stimulating activities.

“Older web users – ‘silver surfers’ – are doing precisely this.

“Frequent social interactions, regular exercise and maintaining a balanced diet can also reduce dementia risk.”

So there you go;  If you’re getting on a bit, surf the web content in the knowledge that you’re giving yourself a mental workout — but munch on a carrot whilst you do so and when you need a toilet break, remember to jog there!

© 2008 Gary William Murning