Edge
221
—September 4, 2007 |
![]() |
[click
on image to enlarge]
|
Edge
221
—September 5, 2007 THE THIRD CULTURE LIFE:
WHAT A CONCEPT! FRANKFURTER
ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG SUEDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG J.
CRAIG VENTER INSTITUTE PLOS
BIOLOGY THE
NEW YORK TIMES CNN SCIENCE THE
GUARDIAN XCONOMY THE NEW YORK TIMES NEW SCIENTIST NEW SCIENTIST NEW SCIENTIST NATURE VANITY FAIR THE COLBERT REPORT SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN THE NEW YORK TIMES SLATE NATURE NEW SCIENTIST SCIENCE |
"Life/ Consists of propositions about life." LIFE:
WHAT A CONCEPT! |
![]() |
[click
on image to enlarge]
|
In April, Dennis Overbye, writing in The New York Times "Science Times", broke the story of the discovery by Dimitar Sasselov and his colleagues of five earth-like exo-planets, one of which "might be the first habitable planet outside the solar system". At the end of June, Craig Venter has announced the results of his lab's work on genome transplantation methods that allows for the transformation of one type of bacteria into another, dictated by the transplanted chromosome. In other words, one species becomes another. In talking to Edge about the research, Venter noted the following:
In July, in an interesting and provocative essay in New York Review of Books entitled "Our Biotech Future", Freeman Dyson wrote:
It's clear from these developments as well as others, that we are at the end of one empirical road and ready for adventures that will lead us into new realms. This year's Annual Edge Event took place at Eastover Farm in Bethlehem, CT on Monday, August 27th. Invited to address the topic "Life: What a Concept!" were Freeman Dyson, J. Craig Venter, George Church, Robert Shapiro, Dimitar Sasselov, and Seth Lloyd, who focused on their new, and in more than a few cases, startling research, and/or ideas in the biological sciences. Physicist Freeman Dyson envisions a biotech future which supplants physics and notes that after three billion years, the Darwinian interlude is over. He refers to an interlude between two periods of horizontal gene transfer, a subject explored in his abovementioned essay. Craig Venter, who decoded the human genome, surprised the world in late June by announcing the results of his lab's work on genome transplantation methods that allows for the transformation of one type of bacteria into another, dictated by the transplanted chromosome. In other words, one species becomes another. George Church, the pioneer of the Synthetic Biology revolution, thinks of the cell as operating system, and engineers taking the place of traditional biologists in retooling stripped down components of cells (bio-bricks) in much the vein as in the late 70s when electrical engineers were working their way to the first personal computer by assembling circuit boards, hard drives, monitors, etc. Biologist Robert Shapiro disagrees with scientists who believe that an extreme stroke of luck was needed to get life started in a non-living environment. He favors the idea that life arose through the normal operation of the laws of physics and chemistry. If he is right, then life may be widespread in the cosmos. Dimitar Sasselov, Planetary Astrophysicist, and Director of the Harvard Origins of Life Initiative, has made recent discoveries of exo-planets ("Super-Earths"). He looks at new evidence to explore the question of how chemical systems become living systems. Quantum engineer Seth Lloyd sees the universe as an information processing system in which simple systems such as atoms and molecules must necessarily give rise complex structures such as life, and life itself must give rise to even greater complexity, such as human beings, societies, and whatever comes next. A small group of journalists interested in the kind of issues that are explored on Edge were present: Corey Powell, Discover, Jordan Mejias, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Heidi Ledford, Nature, Greg Huang, New Scientist, Deborah Treisman, New Yorker, Edward Rothstein, New York Times, Andrian Kreye, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Antonio Regalado, Wall Street Journal. Guests included Heather Kowalski, The J. Craig Venter Institute, Ting Wu, The Wu Lab, Harvard Medical School, and the artist Stephanie Rudloe. Attending for Edge: Katinka Matson, Russell Weinberger, Max Brockman, and Karla Taylor. We are witnessing a point in which the empirical has intersected with the epistemological: everything becomes new, everything is up for grabs. Big questions are being asked, questions that affect the lives of everyone on the planet. And don't even try to talk about religion: the gods are gone. Following the theme of new technologies=new perceptions, I asked the speakers to take a third culture slant in the proceedings and explore not only the science but the potential for changes in the intellectual landscape as well.
—JB |
RICHARD DAWKINS—FREEMAN DYSON: AN EXCHANGE RICHARD DAWKINS: ...I would say competition between genes within gene pools. The difference between those two ways of putting it is small compared with Dyson's howler (shared by most laymen: it is the howler that I wrote The Selfish Gene partly to dispel, and I thought I had pretty much succeeded, but Dyson obviously hasn't read it!) that natural selection is about the differential survival or extinction of species. ...[more] FREEMAN DYSON: ...First response. What I wrote is not a howler and Dawkins is wrong. Species once established evolve very little, and the big steps in evolution mostly occur at speciation events when new species appear with new adaptations. ...[more] |
FRANKFURTER August 31,.2007 FEUILLETON — Front Page
Let's play God!; Life's questions: J. Craig Venter programs the future Was Evolution only an interlude? At the invitation of John Brockman, science luminaries such as J. Craig Venter, Freeman Dyson, Seth Lloyd, Robert Shapiro and others discussed the question: What is Life? EASTOVER FARM, August 30th It
sounds like seaman's yarn that the scientist
with the look of an experienced seafarer has
in store for us. The suntanned adventurer with
the close-clipped grey beard vaunts the ocean
a has in store for us. The suntanned adventurer with the close-clipped
grey beard vaunts the ocean as a sea of bacteria
and viruses, unimaginable in their varieties.
And in their lifestyle, as we might call it.
But what do organisms live off? Like man, not
off air or love alone. There can be no life
without nutrients, it is said. Not true, says
the sea dog. Sometimes a source of energy is
enough, for instance, when energy is abundantly
provided by sunlight. Could that teach us anything
about our very special form of life? Relaxed, always open for a witty remark, but nevertheless with the indispensable seriousness, the scientific luminaries go to work under Brockman's direction. He, the master of the easy, direct question that unfailingly draws out the most complicated answers, the hottest speculations and debates, has for today transferred his virtual salon, always accessible on the Internet under the name Edge, to a very real and idyllic summer's day. This time the subject matter is nothing other than life itself. When Venter speaks of life, it's almost as if he were reading from the script of a highly elaborate Science Fiction film. We are told to imagine organisms that not only can survive dangerous radiations, but that remain hale and hearty as they journey through the Universe. Still, he of all people, the revolutionary geneticist, warns against setting off in an overly gene-centric direction when trying to track down Life. For the way in which a gene makes itself known, will depend to a large degree upon the aid of overlooked transporter genes. In spite of this he considers the genetic code a better instrument to organize living organisms than the conventional system of classification by species. Many colleagues nod in agreement, when they are not smiling in agreement. But this cannot be all that Venter has up his sleeve. Just a short while ago, he created a stir with the announcement that his Institute had succeeded in transplanting the genome of one bacterium into another. With this, he had newly programmed an organism. Should he be allowed to do this? A question not only for scientists. Eastover Farm was lacking in ethicists, philosophers and theologians, but Venter had taken precautions. He took a year to learn from the world's large religions whether it was permissible to synthesize life in the lab. Not a single religious representative could find grounds to object. All essentially agreed: It's okay to play God. Maybe some of the participants would have liked to hear more on the subject, but the day in Nature's lap was for identifying themes, not giving and receiving exhaustive amounts of information. A whiff of the most breathtaking visions, both good and bad, was enough. There were already frightening hues in the ultimate identity theft, to which Venter admitted with his genome exchange. What if a cell were captured by foreign DNA? Wouldn't it be a nightmare in the shape of a genuine Darwinian victory of the strong over the weak? Venter was applying dark colors here, whereas Freeman Dyson had painted us a much more mellow picture of the future. Dyson, the great, not yet quite eighty-four year old youngster, physicist and futurist, regards evolution as an interlude. According to his calculations, the competition between species has gone on for just three billion years. Before that, according to Dyson, living organisms participated in horizontal gene transfers; if you will, they preferred the peaceful exchange of information among themselves. In the ten thousand years since Homo sapiens conquered the biosphere, Dyson once again sees a return of the old Modus Operandi, although in a modified form. The scenario goes as follows: Cultural evolution, characterized by the transfer of ideas, has replaced the much slower biological evolution. Today, ideas, not genes, tip the scales. In availing himself of biotechnology, Man has picked up the torn pre-evolutionary thread and revived the genetic back and forth between microbes, plants and animals. Bit by bit the borders between species are disappearing. Soon only one species will remain, namely the genetically modified human, while the rules of Open Source, which guarantee the unhindered exchange of software in computers, will also apply to the exchange of genes. The evolution of life, in nutshell, will return soon to a state of agreeable unity, as it existed in good old pre-Darwinian times, when life had not yet been separated into distinct species. Though Venter may not trust in this future peace, he nearly matches Dyson in his futuristic enthusiasm. But he is enough of a realist to stress that he has never talked of creating new life from scratch. He is confident that he can develop new species and life forms, but will always have to rely on existing materials that he finds. Even he cannot conjure a cell out of nothing. So far, so good and so humble. The rest is sheer bravado. He considers manipulation of human genes not only possible, but desirable. There's no question that he will continue to disappoint the inmate who once asked him to fashion an attractive cellmate, just as he refused the wish of an unsavory gentleman who yearned for mentally underdeveloped working-class people. But, Venter asks, who can object to humans having genetically beefed-up Intelligence? Or to new genomes that open the door to new, undreamt-of sources of bio fuel? Nobody at Eastover Farm seemed afraid of a eugenic revival. What in German circles would have released violent controversies, here drifts by unopposed under mighty maple trees that gently whisper in the breeze. All the same, Venter does confess that such life transforming technology, more powerful than any, humanity could harness until now, inevitably plunges him in doubt, particularly when looking back on human history. Still, he looks toward the future with hope and confidence. As does George Church, the molecular geneticist from Harvard, who wouldn't be surprised if a future computer would be able outperform the human brain. Could resourcefully mixed DNA be helpful to us? The organic chemist Robert Shapiro, Emeritus of New York University, objects strongly to viewing DNA as a monopolistic force. Will he assure us, that life consists of more than DNA? But of what? Is it conceivable that there are certain forms of life we still are unable to recognize? Who wants to confirm that nothing runs without DNA? Why should life not also arise from minerals? Seth Lloyd, the quantum mechanic from MIT points out mischievously that we know far more about the origin of the universe than we do about the origin of life. Using the quantum computer as his departing point, he tries to give us an idea of the huge number of possibilities out of which life could have developed. If Albert Einstein did not wish to envisage a dice-playing god, Lloyd, the entertaining thinker, can't help to see only dice-playing, though presumably without the assistance of god. Everything reveals itself in his life panorama as a result of chance, whether here on Earth or in an incomprehensible distance Astrophysicist Dimitar Sasselov works also under the auspices of chance. Although his field of research necessarily widens our perspective, he can present us only a few places in the universe that could be suitable for life. Only five Super-Earths, as Sasselov calls those planets that are larger than Earth, are known to us at this point. With improved recognition technologies, perhaps a hundred million could be found in the universe in all. No, that is still, distributed throughout and applied to the entire universe, not a grand number. But the number is large enough to give us hope for real co-inhabitants of our universe. Somewhere, sometime, we could encounter microbial life. Most likely this would be life in a form that we cannot even fathom yet. It will all depend on what we, strange life forms that we are, can acknowledge as life. At Eastover Farm our imaginative powers were already being vigorously tested. Text: F.A.Z., 31.08.2007, No. 202 / page 33 Translated by Karla taylor DARWIN WAS JUST A PHASE The origins of life were the subject of discussion on a summer day when six pioneers of science convened at Eastover Farm in Connecticut. The physicist and scientific theorist Freeman Dyson was the first of the speakers to talk on the theme: "Life: What a Concept!" An ironic slogan for one of the most complex problems. Seth Lloyd, quantum physicist at MIT, summed it up with his remark that scientists now know everything about the origin of the Universe and virtually nothing about the origin of life. Which makes it rather difficult to deal with the new world view currently taking shape in the wake of the emerging age of biology. The roster of thinkers had assembled at the invitation of literary agent John Brockman, who specializes in scientific ideas. The setting was distinguished. Eastover Farm sits in the part of Connecticut where the rich and famous New Yorkers who find the beach resorts of the Hamptons too loud and pretentious have settled. Here the scientific luminaries sat at long tables in the shade of the rustling leaves of maple trees, breaking just for lunch at the farmhouse. The day remained on topic, as Brockman had invited only half a dozen journalists, to avoid slowing the thinkers down with an onslaught of too many layman's questions. The object was to have them talk about ideas mainly amongst themselves in the manner of a salon, not unlike his online forum edge.org. Not that the day went over the heads of the non-scientist guests. With Dyson, Lloyd, genetic engineer George Church, chemist Robert Shapiro, astronomer Dimitar Sasselov and biologist and decoder of the genome J. Craig Venter, six men came together, each of whom have made enormous contributions in interdiscplinary sciences, and as a consequence have mastered the ability to talk to people who are not well-read in their respective fields. This made it possible for an outsider to follow the discussions, even if at moments, he was made to feel just that, as when Robert Shapiro cracked a joke about RNA that was met with great laughter from the scientists. Freeman Dyson, a fragile gentleman of 84 years, opened the morning with his legendary provocation that Darwinian evolution represents only a short phase of three billion years in the life of this planet, a phase that will soon reach its end. According to this view, life began in primeval times with a haphazard assemblage of cells, RNA-driven organisms ensued, which, in the third phase of terrestrial life would have learned to function together. Reproduction appeared on the scene in the fourth phase, multicellular beings and the principle of death appeared in the fifth phase. The End of Natural Selection We humans belong to the sixth phase of evolution, which progresses very slowly by way of Darwinian natural selection. But this according to Dyson will soon come to an end, because men like George Church and J. Craig Venter are expected to succeed not only in reading the genome, but also in writing new genomes in the next five to ten years. This would constitute the ultimate "Intelligent Design", pun fully intended. Where this could lead is still difficult to anticipate. Yet Freeman Dyson finds a meaningful illustration. He spent the early nineteen fifties at Princeton, with mathematician John von Neuman, who designed one of the earliest programmable computers. When asked how many computers might be in demand, von Neumann assured him that 18 would be sufficient to meet the demand of a nation like the United States. Now, 55 years later, we are in the middle of the age of physics where computers play an integral role in modern life and culture. Now though we are entering the age of biology. Soon genetic engineering will shape our daily life to the same extent that computers do today. This sounds like science fiction, but it is already reality in science. Thus genetic engineer George Church talks about the biological building blocks that he is able to synthetically manufacture. It is only a matter of time until we will be able to manufacture organisms that can self-reproduce, he claims. Most notably J. Craig Venter succeeded in introducing a copy of a DNA-based chromosome into a cell, which from then on was controlled by that strand of DNA. Venter, a suntanned giant with the build of a surfer and the hunting instinct of a captain of industry, understands the magnitude of this feat in microbiology. And he understands the potential of his research to create biofuel from bacteria. He wouldn't dare to say it, but he very well might be a Bill Gates of the age of biology. Venter also understands the moral implications. He approached bioethicist Art Kaplan in the nineties and asked him to do a study on whether in designing a new genome he would raise ethical or religious objections. Not a single religious leader or philosopher involved in the study could find a problem there. Such contract studies are debatable. But here at Eastover Farm scientists dream of a glorious future. Because science as such is morally neutral—every scientific breakthrough can be applied for good or for bad. The sun is already turning pink behind the treetops, when Dimitar Sasselov, the Bulgarian astronomer from Harvard, once more reminds us how unique and at the same time, how unstable the balance of our terrestrial life is. In our galaxy, astronomers have found roughly one hundred million planets that could theoretically harbor organic life. Not only does Earth not have the best conditions among them; it is actually at the very edge of the spectrum. "Earth is not particularly inhabitable," he says, wrapping up his talk. Here J. Craig Venter cannot help but remark as an idealist: "But it is getting better all the time". Translated by Karla Taylor |
Edward
Rothstein The New York Times |
Deborah
Treisman The New Yorker |
Antonio
Regelado The Wall Street Journal |
|
Corey
Powell Discover |
Heidi
Ledford Nature |
Greg
Huang New Scientist |
GEORGE CHURCH is Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and Director of the Center for Computational Genetics. He invented the broadly-applied concepts of molecular multiplexing and tags, homologous recombination methods, and array DNA synthesizers. Technology transfer of automated sequencing & software to Genome Therapeutics Corp. resulted in the first commercial genome sequence (the human pathogen, H. pylori, 1994). He has served in advisory roles for 12 journals, 5 granting agencies and 22 biotech companies. Current research focuses on integrating biosystems-modeling with personal genomics & synthetic biology. |
Jordan
Mejias, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
|
Katinka
Matson
Edge |
Andrian
Kreye
Süddeutsche Zeitung |
|
Heather
Kowalski J. Craig Venter Institute |
Stephanie
Rudloe
Shringara |
DIMITAR SASSELOV is Professor of Astronomy at Harvard University and Director, Harvard Origins of Life Initiative. Most recently his research has led him to explore the nature of planets orbiting other stars. Using novel techniques, he has discovered a few such planets, and his hope is to use these techniques to find planets like Earth. He is the founder and director of the new Harvard Origins of Life Initiative, a multidisciplinary center bridging scientists in the physical and in the life sciences, intent to study the transition from chemistry to life and its place in the context of the Universe. |
Max
Brockman Edge |
Russell
Weinberger Edge |
Karla
Taylor Edge |
|
![]() |
[click
on image to enlarge] Andrian
Kreye. Süddeutsche
Zeitung
Jordan Mejias, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung |
|
THE
FIRST PUBLICATION OF A DIPLOID HUMAN GENOME FROM ONE PERSON [From the press release, J. Craig Venter Institute:] "In 2001 two versions of the human genome were published enabling researchers a first look at humans at our most basic level. While these achievements marked a new era in science, it was clear that more analysis and more sequenced genomes were needed for a more complete understanding of human biology. And because these first published genomes were mosaics of many people’s genomes, rather than genomes of individuals, it was likely that much of the key information about each person—what particular traits or propensity for disease were coded for in their genes and proteins, was missing. In short the era of true individualized genome medicine was not yet realized, until now. "Today, researchers at the J. Craig Venter Institute, along with collaborators from Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, the University of California, San Diego, and the Universidad de Barcelona in Spain have published the first diploid genome of an individual—Dr. Venter, in PLoS Biology. This analysis and assembly of the 20 billion base pairs of Dr. Venter’s DNA is the first look at both sets of his chromosomes (one inherited from each of his parents) and has shown a greater degree and more kinds of genetic variation with human to human variation five to seven times greater than in previous genome analysis. "This new individual genome has tantalizing vistas—more than 4.1 million genetic variants covering 12.3 million base pairs of DNA. More than 3.2 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), 1.2 million never before seen variants and nearly a million non-SNP variants. But it’s still only the beginning. Many more individual human genomes need to be sequenced, the technology to do so needs to improve, and additional analysis of this first reference human genome will continue. Researchers at the J. Craig Venter Institute are forging ahead on all these fronts in their quest for new and better understanding of human genomics." ... The Diploid Genome Sequence of an Individual Human. Levy S, Sutton G, Ng PC, Feuk L, Halpern AL, et al.
In
the Genome Race, the Sequel Is Personal [picture caption:] A team led by J. Craig Venter, above, has finished the first mapping of a full, or diploid, genome, made up of DNA inherited from both parents. The genome is Dr. Venter’s own. The race to decode the human genome may not be entirely over: the loser has come up with a new approach that may let him prevail in the end. In 2003, a government-financed consortium of academic centers announced it had completed the human genome, fending off a determined challenge from the biologist J. Craig Venter. The consortium’s genome comprised just half the DNA contained in a normal cell, and the DNA used in the project came from a group of people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds. But the loser in the race, Dr. Venter, could still have the last word. In a paper published today, his research team is announcing that it has decoded a new version of the human genome that some experts believe may be better than the consortium’s. Called a full, or diploid genome, it consists of the DNA in both sets of chromosomes, one from each parent, and it is the normal genome possessed by almost all the body’s cells. And the genome the team has decoded belongs to just one person: Dr. Venter. The new genome, Dr. Venter’s team reports, makes clear that the variation in the genetic programming carried by an individual is much greater than expected. In at least 44 percent of Dr. Venter’s genes, the copies inherited from his mother differ from those inherited from his father, according to the analysis published in Tuesday’s issue of PLoS Biology. Huntington F. Willard, a geneticist at Duke University who has had early access to Dr. Venter’s genome sequence, said that the quality of the new genome was “exceptionally high” and that “until the next genome comes along this is the gold standard right now.” ... Genetic variation greater than expected From the first time it was reveled that my DNA constituted the majority portion of the human genome published by my team at Celera Genomics in 2001, I have frequently been asked what it is like to gaze at my own genetic code. Now, with today's publication of my diploid genome in the public access journal PLOS Biology as the first individual genome, it seems to have only increased people's fascination with what it's like to have your genome in hand. The difference between then and now is that many of the questions today center on what you can learn from reading your genetic code and how soon they can get their genomes sequenced. ....
...For the first time, researchers have published the DNA sequence from both sets of chromosomes in a single person. That person is none other than pioneering genome researcher J. Craig Venter. The new sequence suggests that there is substantially more variation between humans than previously recognized and pushes personalized medicine a step closer. ...
...The
nearly 3bn pairs of letters that spell out Craig Venter's genetic
code were sequenced for the research paper, which was published
last night in the free-to-access journal PLoS Biology. |
![]() |
Rubbing
Elbows and Dodging Bees With Synthetic Biology
Pioneer George Church On Monday I had the privilege of hanging out with Xconomist George Church and a few other distinguished scientists—Craig Venter, Freeman Dyson, Robert Shapiro, Dimitar Sasselov, and Seth Lloyd—as they discussed some deep topics like the origin of life, the end of Darwinian evolution, and what will come next on our planet. It all took place under a white tent on an impossibly pleasant late-summer day in the Connecticut countryside. We were hosted by the literary agent and cultural impresario John Brockman, who regularly brings together well-known visionaries and thinkers as part of his nonprofit Edge Foundation. Church is one of those thinkers. An entrepreneur (Church has helped start some 22 biotech companies) and professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School, he is one of the founders of synthetic biology, a cutting-edge field that seeks to program cells and other living systems to do useful work (e.g., create renewable energy) much as engineers hack computers. Recognizing the tension between understanding the origins of life and creating new forms of it, Church said, “I’m more interested in the future than the past.”‘ ... |
Tercera
cultura y política ...Para orientarse en los debates ecológicos, sobre el uso de las energías disponibles y desde el punto de vista de la sustentabilidad, ayuda mucho la idea de la entropía descrita por Nicolás Georgescu-Roegen y Barry Commoner. Para entender a la ética ambientalista no antropocéntrica sirve mucho la comprensión de la teoría sintética de la evolución de S.J. Gould. Para justificar la defensa de la biodiversidad y de la igualdad social ayuda comprender la genética y la biología molecular de Dobzhansky, y para combatir el racismo y la xenofobia conviene conocer los trabajos de genética de poblaciones de Cavalli Sforza y de Jared Diamond. Se
podría concluir que la nueva cultura científica
es parte esencial de la cultura en general y desdeñarla
equivaldría a renunciar al más profundo
sentido de la política, definida como la participación
activa de la ciudadanía en los asuntos de
la "polis". Pero, por otra parte, es necesario
comprender que la ciencia por sí misma no
genera conciencia
ético-política y las ciencias de la naturaleza
y de la vida no enseñan cómo llevar la
teoría personal a la decisión de actuar
en beneficio de toda la comunidad. ... |
SCIENCE TIMES Through
Analysis, Gut Reaction Gains Credibility Two years ago, when Malcolm Gladwell published his best-selling “Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking,” readers throughout the world were introduced to the ideas of Gerd Gigerenzer, a German social psychologist. Dr. Gigerenzer, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, is known in social science circles for his breakthrough studies on the nature of intuitive thinking. Before his research, this was a topic often dismissed as crazed superstition. Dr. Gigerenzer, 59, was able to show how aspects of intuition work and how ordinary people successfully use it in modern life. And now he has written his own book, “Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious,” which he hopes will sell as well as “Blink.” “I liked Gladwell’s book,” Dr. Gigerenzer said during a visit to New York City last month. “He’s popularized the issue, including my research.” Q: O.K., let’s start with basics: what is a gut feeling? A: It’s a judgment that is fast. It comes quickly into a person’s consciousness. The person doesn’t know why they have this feeling. Yet, this is strong enough to make an individual act on it. What a gut instinct is not is a calculation. You do not fully know where it comes from. My research indicates that gut feelings are based on simple rules of thumb, what we psychologists term “heuristics.” These take advantage of certain capacities of the brain that have come down to us through time, experience and evolution. Gut instincts often rely on simple cues in the environment. In most situations, when people use their instincts, they are heeding these cues and ignoring other unnecessary information. Q: In modern society, gut thinking has a bad reputation. Why is that? A: It is not thought to be rational. One of the founders of your country, Benjamin Franklin, suggested to his nephew that when he made important life decisions, he should do it like a bookkeeper — list all the pros and cons and then make the decision, after weighing everything. That is the classical rational approach. ... |
Evidence
for unified theory may lie in black holes That may not sound much, but Dirac originally envisaged magnetic monopoles as being a single point without volume. Davies believes that if magnetic monopoles have size, and therefore mass, then adding them to a black hole would increase its entropy, even if it is also shrinking (www.arxiv.org/abs/0708.1783). "It turns out that there's a very subtle balance between these effects, which help to save the monopole," he says. |
Editorial: The power of fiction ....We take worthy tomes on vacation, only to sneakily open up a Henry James or a Dan Brown when we get down to the beach. So why do we feel guilty? Why do we feel the need to justify those hours spent curled up with a good book? Why would Rebecca Goldstein, the lead essayist in this week's Science in Fiction special (see "Science in fiction: Essay by Rebecca Goldstein"), feel she needs to defend her life as a novelist?... |
Science in Fiction: Essay by Rebecca Goldstein ...Science is always adding to, and sometimes changing, our views on what objective reality is like. When those modifications are radical, there is a time lag in bringing our world view into line, and sometimes we never fully succeed. So it is that we have struggled to come to terms with, say, the devastation of our view of time that was wrought by Einstein. Time is so fundamental a concept, not only in the objective scientific world view, but in our inner worlds, where time flows ineluctably, no matter what scientific revolutions may come our way. Almost all of our emotions - hope, fear, anticipation, worry, excitement, regret, nostalgia, remorse, resentment - presume the linearity of time. Can we make art that reflects on the world with which we've been presented by our ever more powerful sciences? Can we explore what these discoveries mean in human terms? Richard Powers's The Time of Our Singing meditates on the non-linear notion of time in the very structure of the story he tells. I tried to do something similar in Properties of Light: A Novel of Love, Betrayal and Quantum Physics, though, as the sub-title signals, I dwell more on the disruptions to our natural ways of thinking prompted by quantum mechanics, by ideas such as quantum non-locality and entnglement. ... |
What do Eric Lander, Frank Wilczek, James Randi and Martha Stewart have in common? The answer can be found at Nautilus (http://tinyurl.com/35xbq9): all attended the recent Science Foo Camp, co-organized by Nature Publishing Group, O'Reilly Media and Google, and hosted at the Googleplex in Mountain View, California. The 'Foo Camp' format has been pioneered by O'Reilly, a publisher of computing books and organizer of technology conferences, as an antidote to restrictive formal conferences, where the best conversations seem to happen in hallways and during coffee breaks rather than at the main sessions. Foo is self-organizing, unpredictable and rather anarchic — but also quite wonderful. Visit Nautilus for fuller accounts of what Henry Gee calls in his 'End of the Pier Show' blog "a gathering of some of the coolest and most influential scientists, technologists, engineers and thinkers on the planet". You will be directed to Gee's blog on Nature Network, an essay by George Dyson on the Edge website and Timo Hannay's account on Nascent. |
God
Bless Me. It's a Best-Seller! One of America's most seminal books is William James's The Varieties of Religious Experience, in which he argues that the subjective experience of the divine can be understood only by the believer. I have just been finding out how true this is. You hear all the time that America is an intensely religious nation, but what you don't hear is that there are almost as many religions as there are believers. Moreover, many ostensible believers are quite unsure of what they actually believe. And, to put it mildly, the different faiths don't think that highly of one another. The emerging picture is not at all monolithic. People seem to be lying to the opinion polls, as well. They claim to go to church in much larger numbers than they actually do (there aren't enough churches in the country to hold the hordes who boast of attending), and they sometimes seem to believe more in Satan and in the Virgin Birth than in the theory of evolution. But every single time that the teaching of "intelligent design" has actually been proposed in conservative districts, it has been defeated overwhelmingly by both courts and school boards ... |
Dr.
Michael Shermer |
SKEPTIC Rational
Atheism 1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe. As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned his anti-Communist colleagues in the 1950s: “An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be.”... |
ANTIGRAVITY What's
the Big Idea? ...The book includes 108 contributions, some of which go egghead-to-egghead. For example, physicist and computer scientist W. Daniel Hillis's dangerous idea is "the idea that we should all share our most dangerous ideas." Whereas psychologist Daniel Gilbert's dangerous idea is "the idea that ideas can be dangerous." I both agree and disagree with both. Nature's chief news and features editor Oliver Morton has the dangerous idea that "our planet is not in peril," although he quite rightly points out that many inhabitants of the planet are in great jeopardy because of environmental crises. Actually, George Carlin covered this territory years ago when he said, "The planet is fine. The people are f*^#ed ... the planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas." My personal favorite entry is that of philosopher and psychologist Nicholas Humphrey, who knows a dangerous idea when he sees one and so simply quotes Bertrand Russell's truly treacherous notion: "I wish to propose ... a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it true." The danger of ignoring this doctrine can almost certainly be found in the politics or world events stories on the front page of today's New York Times. On whatever day you read this. |
Sleights
of Mind ...In his opening address, Michael Gazzaniga, the president of the consciousness association, had described another form of prestidigitation — a virtual reality experiment in which he had put on a pair of electronic goggles that projected the illusion of a deep hole opening in what he knew to be a solid concrete floor. Jolted by the adrenaline rush, his heart beat faster and his muscles tensed, a reminder that even without goggles the brain cobbles together a world from whatever it can...“In a sense our reality is virtual,” Dr. Gazzaniga said. “Think about flying in an airplane. You’re up there in an aluminum tube, 30,000 feet up, going 600 miles an hour, and you think everything is all right.”... ...But if zombies do exist, it is probably in Las Vegas. One evening as I walked across the floor of the Imperial Palace casino — a cacophony of clanging bells and electronic arpeggios — it was easy to imagine that the hominids parked in front of the one-armed bandits were simply extensions of the machines...“Intermittent conditioning,” suggested Irene Pepperberg, an adjunct associate professor at Brandeis University who studies animal intelligence. If you want to train a laboratory rat to pull a crank to get a food pellet, the reflex will be scratched in deeper if the creature is rewarded with some regularity but not all the time...Dr. Pepperberg has thrown a wild card into studies of consciousness with her controversial experiments with African gray parrots... ...One evening out on the Strip, I spotted Daniel Dennett, the Tufts University philosopher, hurrying along the sidewalk across from the Mirage, which has its own tropical rain forest and volcano. The marquees were flashing and the air-conditioners roaring — Las Vegas stomping its carbon footprint with jackboots in the Nevada sand. I asked him if he was enjoying the qualia. “You really know how to hurt a guy,” he replied...For years Dr. Dennett has argued that qualia, in the airy way they have been defined in philosophy, are illusory. In his book “Consciousness Explained,” he posed a thought experiment involving a wine-tasting machine. Pour a sample into the funnel and an array of electronic sensors would analyze the chemical content, refer to a database and finally type out its conclusion: “a flamboyant and velvety Pinot, though lacking in stamina.”... |
Milton
Friedman, Meet Richard Feynman If economics can tell us something useful about crime, marriage, or carpooling—as I believe it can—then other academic disciplines should have something to tell us about economies. Last month, Science published an example that may turn out to be important. Two physicists, Cesar Hidalgo and Albert-László Barabási, and two economists, Bailey Klinger and Ricardo Hausmann, have been drawing unusual pictures of economic "space" that promise a deeper understanding of the biggest question in economics: why poor countries are poor. ... |
Correspondence Scientists
should unite against threat from religion There are bridges and there are gangplanks, and it is the business of journals such as Nature to know the difference. |
Comment:
Atheism à la carte But having said that, what on earth does Dawkins think his latest campaign will achieve? It seems to me to be as ill-advised as attempting to label atheists as "brights" - with its implication that those who are not atheists are dumb. Dawkins has a great record of using sound intellectual arguments to try to convince the faithful to abandon their faith and persuade non-believers to be open about their scepticism. But before embarking on this new effort to appeal to people's emotions, he might have been well advised to consult a public relations firm. The scarlet A is strongly reminiscent of the A for "adulterer" in Nathaniel Hawthorne's classic novel The Scarlet Letter. I don't know who thought that this, combined with the phrase "coming out" with its gay connotations, and references to a "Jewish lobby", would win hearts and minds in middle America, but I can't imagine that it will. |
Efforts to resolve political conflicts or to counter political violence often assume that adversaries make rational choices (1). Ever since the end of the Second World War, "rational actor" models have dominated strategic thinking at all levels of government policy (2) and military planning (3). In the confrontations between nation states, and especially during the Cold War, these models were arguably useful in anticipating an array of challenges and in stabilizing world peace enough to prevent nuclear war. Now, however, we are witnessing "devoted actors" such as suicide terrorists (4), who are willing to make extreme sacrifices that are independent of, or all out of proportion to, likely prospects of success. Nowhere is this issue more pressing than in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute (5). The reality of extreme behaviors and intractability of political conflicts there and discord elsewhere--in the Balkans, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, and beyond--warrant research into the nature and depth of commitment to sacred values. Sacred
Values |
|
Edge Foundation,
Inc. is a nonprofit private operating foundation under Section 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code. |
John Brockman, Editor and Publisher |
|Top| |