Wolves 2 Whales, and Foxes 2 Dogs

Before the break we had the opportunity to see Neil Shubin for the first time, in the Great Transformations DVD. Shubin, an "Evo/Devo" bio guy, spoke about the tinkering that evolution does as it plays, not with animals' bodies, but with the underlying machinery - their genes. As we learned, their are a few "master control" genes - that control the timing, and structural development of key body parts and segments (head, thorax, abdomen, legs, antennae, etc.). There is a universal body plan - but the details can change over time to allow for evolutionary adaptation to occur in organisms. In this was Philip Gringerich showed the world that modern whales evolved from ancient wolf-like creatures. (That is a picture of Lyudmila Trut and one of her foxy dogs on top of this entry)

A famous experiment took place about 50 years ago that attempted to condense millions of years of evolution into just a few years. Scientists took a pack of wolves and bred them for temperment, their goal being to "recreate" the transition from wild wolves to domesticated dogs. Their premise was simple: breed the dogs, isolate/raise the pups that seemed must comfortalbe around humans, and repeat for multiple generations. Interesting idea, but were they successful?

I'd like you to read this short article Taming The Wild on National Geographic's website: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2011/03/taming-wild-animals/ratliff-text


Once you read the article, I'd like you to share your thoughts - specifically citing at least two ideas directly from the article that you found interesting, enlightening, or just plain cool.

Then I'd like you to address the big idea that is implicit in this article: Is this a good (beneficial) thing? Does this type of research portend great advances? Or, like therapeutic cloning, is this opening a door that some will see as potentially benficial while others will view it as "playing God", and potentially dangerous? Or is it just good, solid scientific research?

Life Looks For Life

Last week, a student in one of my classes (I think it was Molly in advanced biology?) asked about the possibility of doing a "Science Night" project on astronomy. Unfortunately, I had to pt the kibosh on that idea. "Astronomy" I said, "is the study of space. Biology is the study of life, and living organisms".

Perhaps I was a bit rash in judgement in making that response. That thought continued to bug me during the course of the week. Thinking about the nascent field of exobiology - the study of the possible existance of extraterrestrial life - I soon remembered a public service announcement produced by NASA that I had seen recently on a website. (It's also on NASA's Facebook page, in case you would like to add a "like" to NASA). I liked this clip for several reasons, one of them being that the voiceover on the clip belonged to the great, late Cornell-based astronomer Carl Sagan.

Sagan helped fuel my love of astronomy as a younger adult (Mr. Whitaker's too) with a legendary series that aired on PBS in the 1970s called Cosmos. Starting with primitive man's quest for understanding the heavens, progressing from superstitious beliefs through scientific discoveries, Sagan presented a thoughtful, understandable, yet sophisticated way of making the unknown known. Scientific discoveries and concepts were presented in a clear and accessible manner. Sagan spoke at length about mankind's quest to gain deeper knowledge and understanding of the heavens. His narrative voice, and distinct verbal style, ("....there are mmmmmmillions and mmmmmmillions of galaxies...") became somewhat legendary - and ripe for satire on shows like Saturday Night Live.


NASA has used some of Sagan's soundtrack, and has superimposed it onto new footage to create a couple of advertisments for itself. This one is about 4 minutes long - take a look, and a listen. (Perhaps you should listen with a pencil in hand if you want to comment on a specific word or phrase used by Sagan):



As a nation we have retreated from our exploration of space. The demands here on earth seem so extreme. Poverty. Climate change. Sickness. Food shortages. And overall, the depths of a global economic recession. The needs are so many - the dollars available so few. Yet so much of the modern technology we take for granted in 2011 originated with the space program in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Our knowledge, and the tools we created to gain that knowledge, became vast and powerful. Our ability to see and better understand our universe increased exponentially. Still - the great question of all questions - "is there life out there? Or are we alone in the universe?" remains to be answered.

"Life looks for life." But the cost of looking for life is so great - and our needs on earth are so many - should we be spending the funds to search for life in the universe? Or should we be concentrating on taking care of our own - the people who inhabit this increasing crowded, and fragile, planet?

What do you think?

Humpty Dumpty & Ghosts In The Machine

Last week in class, as we viewed David Attenborough's marvelous introduction to Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution, I found myself thinking about his simple - yet profound - idea of natural selection. Natural selection states that "more offspring are born to a mother than can survive. Those that do survive are somehow stronger; better suited and "fit" to their environment. As the stronger survivors have offspring of their own, species will evolve, or adapt to their environment - ensuring a better "fit", and improving their chances for long term survival. Species evolve together, weaving balanced predator/prey relationships, and establishing balanced ecosystems that evolve as well, in order to maintain the balance of life within them.

The modern world has offered mankind many opportunities to alter the process of natural selection within ecosystems. Human have "unnaturally" selected to import, or remove any number of animals or plants within specific habitats. We have allowed invasive species to move into new, exotic environments. And we have cleared land for cultivation of our crops, and construction of our homes. This not only alters the long term process of natural selection, but more immediately, the natural ecological balance that exists within ecosystems and their food webs.

Philosophers and psychologists have long spoken of the "ghosts in the machine" - the ancient, ancestral remnants of brain/mind that continue to play a role in our mind/body relationship. We may no longer think like our "inner reptile" (well, most of us...) but these ancient parts of our brain give rise to some of our deepest, immediate responses to stumulii from our environment. (Goosebumps anyone?) We may respond with immediate fear when we see movement in a darkened room, but our modern brain knows to relax the body when it realizes that the movement was only our shadow on a wall.

Biologists have also spoken of a "ghost in the machine". In the biological sense, the ghosts exist following the unsuccessful introduction of a new species into an existing ecosystem. While the unsuccessful organism may disappear (go extinct) it's disapearance may leave an unseen impact - a ghost - on the ecological balance within that community. The extinction may allow opportunistic predators to move in. Predation may increase on particularly vulnerable smaller prey. In turn their numbers may go down. The ghost may have a domino effect throughout the ecosystem.

Biologists have tried to re-introduce species that disappear, in valiant attempts to restore, what had previously been, a natural ecological balance. Alas - this is known as the "Humpty Dumpty" effect, for like the eponymous egg (good SAT word! Look it up!) from the Mother Goose rhyme, all the king's men cannot put the ecosystem back together again. It is difficult, if not well neigh impossible, to restore ecological balance once it's gone.

Ecosystem experiments have proven extremely difficult to do. There are just so many variables. Noted evolutionary biologist Olivia Judson has written the following:

"For instance, suppose you’re interested in the question of whether individuals of different species can live together. (This is an important question, for it bears on how ecosystems form.) To keep things simple, you decide to investigate a mere six species. You want to be thorough, so you’re going to consider all combinations, from each species living alone, to all six together.
But that’s already 63 combinations. Worse, in order to be more confident about the results, you can’t just do each one once, you need to replicate them. So you set up each combination six times. That’s 378 microcosms. Worse still, ecosystems — even small and simple ones — don’t stabilize in an afternoon. You have to wait for several months before you can be sure the system has settled into a “final” form."

Judson goes on to note that the experiment has actually been done, with a success rate of about 12% with the simplest of combinations: two different species.

Natural selection takes time. Decades. Centuries. Millenia. Yet ecosystems can be irreparably damaged in a moments time. It is hard for me to think of the oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico, melting glaciers in the Arctic and Antarctic, deforestation in Africa, and population explosions in Asia, and development right here in the Upper Valley, wihtout thinking of their ecological impacts.

Ghosts and Humpty Dumpty. Sounds so childish, so innocent. Yet their very light names refer to very "heavy" ideas that govern the fragility of the world around us. I'll let Judson have the last word:

"How do ecosystems form? How much impact do invaders have? What are our chances of restoring damage done by fishing or farming? We are pushing our ecosystems to the brink. If we don’t understand how they work, we can’t hope to limit the damage. And we need to try: after all, this is our home."