My World of “Ought to Be”

The New Biology

Greg Bear writes: That organisms exchange genes through other than sexual means is now irrefutable for metazoans as well as microbes. Retroviruses, and now perhaps bacteria, may well serve as vectors for such exchanges. Commensal bacteria in our intestines commonly interact with our tissues. Surprisingly, there appear to be mechanisms in most organisms for evaluating and either destroying or utilizing RNA from outside sources, including retroviral sources. This evaluation process is extremely important, and understanding it may be key to understanding how the genome works in both individuals and in populations. The "selfish gene" is certainly a valid concept in some instances, but not in the vast majority. Rather, because genes rely on interaction with many other genes-hundreds in some cases-to be effective, they are less like competitive rogues than tame office-workers. The "social gene" becomes a better model. And in fact the social aspects of the genome have been championed for decades by brave molecular biologists and geneticists, including Lynn Margulis. Altruism in societies is well demonstrated, and rationally quite defensible. That genes operate in their own societies, and that species both compete and collaborate in those larger societies called ecosystems, functioning as nodes in an extended neural net, makes the problem of cooperation and altruism far more tractable. Random processes are also at work in evolution, quite clearly, leading to either uncorrected errors or serendipitous discovery-but I do not think that we can any longer support random mutation as the sole cause or even the major cause of variation. Darwin himself deliberately avoided subscribing to chance as the sole cause of variation, thus leaving the actual cause to be discovered in the future. Later generations leaped in well before the facts were available, and cemented the hypothesis, slowing the pace of biological discovery by actively discouraging alternatives. (04/13/03)

Who's Kidding Whom ?

Peter Russell writes: Sustainable Development is one of those terms that seems to have leapt into our vocabulary from nowhere. Five years ago no one, apart from a few green philosophers, had ever heard of the term. Today, thanks largely to the publicity it received from the 1993 ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio, it has become common parlance. Politicians speak passionately about the need for it and the steps we must take to achieve it; corporations bend over backwards to show their dedication to it; while the media enthusiastically tries to explain what sustainable development means. But what exactly does it mean? At the last count there were over a hundred different definitions of the term, and there has been much debate over their varying merits and relevance. But one principle common to most of them is that it we should leave the planet in as good a state as we found it. The Brundtland Report’s definition is typical. It defines sustainable development as ‘development that meets the need of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’ The goal is certainly worthy. Many argue that it is also an imperative. If such principles are not put into practice we could do irreparable damage to the planet’s biosystem. But amidst all the clamor for sustainable development, few stop to ask whether it is possible. The consequences of an environmental catastrophe are so frightening – the end of civilization as we know it; perhaps the end of humanity itself – that people seldom question whether our current conceptions of sustainable development are adequate or realistic. (04/13/03)

Planting Trees

New York Times: Environment -- This weekend, Roanoke students are planting seedlings from a weeping willow that stands near Thoreau's cabin at Walden Pond and from the last tree that Johnny Appleseed planted, a Summer Rambo, in Nova, Ohio. (04/13/03)

Failure to Protect

New York Times: Environment -- The Interior Department wants to limit Bureau of Land Management lands eligible for wilderness protection to 23 million acres nationwide, a figure environmental groups say leaves millions of acres vulnerable to development. The department told Congress on Friday that it intended to halt all reviews of its Western land holdings for new wilderness protection and to withdraw that protected status from about three million acres in Utah. ... Environmental groups said the suspension of wilderness reviews would leave millions of undeveloped acres vulnerable to oil and gas development and off-road vehicle use. "What they're saying is these wilderness-quality lands throughout the West will continue to be degraded and continue to lose their eligibility for wilderness," said Jim Angell of EarthJustice. "It's just appalling." (04/13/03)

World warming in 2002

BBC Science -- The planet is now 0.6 Celsius warmer than in 1900, an increase that scientists attribute to human activity. Researchers say even a fractional boost in average temperatures has significant consequences for the health of the planet. ... Scientists predict more frequent and extreme weather events because of climate change, but last year's droughts and floods cannot be tied definitively to it, said Dr Waple, as the climate record is not long enough. "But we are operating in a world that is warmer than it was 100 years ago," she said. "Certainly that baseline climate change plays a role." (04/13/03)

SARS may spread in the Workplace

CCN Health -- Dr. Julie Gerberding, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said a suspected SARS virus patient who became ill after traveling to Asia may have infected a co-worker in Florida. Gerberding said she was "very concerned" about the possible spread of the disease and said the Florida case is being investigated. The case is in the Gainesville area. A 47-year-old woman is believed to have been infected at work by a 60-year-old woman who was the county's first suspected SARS case, said Tom Belcuore, director of the Alachua County health department. The older woman had recently traveled to Asia. Until now, severe acute respiratory syndrome has appeared to spread only to family members or health workers who have had close contact with an infected person. (04/11/03)