'I Should Have Loved Biology' (jsomers.net) 133
James Somers, in a long essay: I should have loved biology but I found it to be a lifeless recitation of names: the Golgi apparatus and the Krebs cycle; mitosis, meiosis; DNA, RNA, mRNA, tRNA. In the textbooks, astonishing facts were presented without astonishment. Someone probably told me that every cell in my body has the same DNA. But no one shook me by the shoulders, saying how crazy that was. I needed Lewis Thomas, who wrote in The Medusa and the Snail: "For the real amazement, if you wish to be amazed, is this process. You start out as a single cell derived from the coupling of a sperm and an egg; this divides in two, then four, then eight, and so on, and at a certain stage there emerges a single cell which has as all its progeny the human brain. The mere existence of such a cell should be one of the great astonishments of the earth. People ought to be walking around all day, all through their waking hours calling to each other in endless wonderment, talking of nothing except that cell."
I wish my high school biology teacher had asked the class how an embryo could possibly differentiate -- and then paused to let us really think about it. The whole subject is in the answer to that question. A chemical gradient in the embryonic fluid is enough of a signal to slightly alter the gene expression program of some cells, not others; now the embryo knows "up" from "down"; cells at one end begin producing different proteins than cells at the other, and these, in turn, release more refined chemical signals; ...; soon, you have brain cells and foot cells. How come we memorized chemical formulas but didn't talk about that? It was only in college, when I read Douglas Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach, that I came to understand cells as recursively self-modifying programs. The language alone was evocative. It suggested that the embryo -- DNA making RNA, RNA making protein, protein regulating the transcription of DNA into RNA -- was like a small Lisp program, with macros begetting macros begetting macros, the source code containing within it all of the instructions required for life on Earth. Could anything more interesting be imagined? [...]
I wish my high school biology teacher had asked the class how an embryo could possibly differentiate -- and then paused to let us really think about it. The whole subject is in the answer to that question. A chemical gradient in the embryonic fluid is enough of a signal to slightly alter the gene expression program of some cells, not others; now the embryo knows "up" from "down"; cells at one end begin producing different proteins than cells at the other, and these, in turn, release more refined chemical signals; ...; soon, you have brain cells and foot cells. How come we memorized chemical formulas but didn't talk about that? It was only in college, when I read Douglas Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach, that I came to understand cells as recursively self-modifying programs. The language alone was evocative. It suggested that the embryo -- DNA making RNA, RNA making protein, protein regulating the transcription of DNA into RNA -- was like a small Lisp program, with macros begetting macros begetting macros, the source code containing within it all of the instructions required for life on Earth. Could anything more interesting be imagined? [...]
I found college biology much like history (Score:5, Insightful)
Biology was the same. We memorized a bunch of stuff with no clue how they related to each other, except $foo did something we'd learn about next semester so $bar could happen. Oh yeah, here's a frog, dissect it and draw pix
Re: (Score:2)
I liked high school biology, and advanced biology. Yes, lots of memorization, but it wasn't bad. And it was kept interesting with dissection, breeding fruit flies, and so forth. When I took bio in college everyone said I was crazy and that it was the hardest class on campus (which seems unlikely for a lower division class), but it was very easy since I already knew much of it and it was mostly just memorization. I loved it actually.
What did screw me up what linear algebra. The prof was booooring, so I d
Re: (Score:3)
What you've shown is that any number to a power that is a positive integer is another integer (rule 1). That makes sense because multiplication is an operation you do an integer number of times. The last line that 6**0 = 1 is an extrapolation: multiplying a number an integer number of times is a clear process - but doing it zero times is not part of that process. You just defined it to be 1.
Rule two says that zero multiplied by itself an integer number of times is still zero. This is another defini
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
You just defined it to be 1.
Yes and no. Yes in that it comes from a definition, but no, because the definition is much broader and more of a lifting of restrictions than a definition.
Consider:
a^2 = a*a
a^3 = a*a*a
a^2 * a^3 = a*a *a*a*a = a^5
a^3 / a^2 = a*a*a/a/a = a
So it should be fairly obvious by now that:
a^b * a^c = a^(b+c)
a^b / a^c = a^(b-c)
at least for positive integers with b>c in the division case. OK so far so good. But instead of saying something as direct as "hey let's define a^0=1", we observe
Re: (Score:3)
Er? According to my calculator 1.5**0.0001 = 1.000004, so X gets closer to 1 as the power goes to zero not closer to itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I was late when I typed that. That section should have said 1.0001, not 0.0001.
X^X does something interesting between 0 and 1.
Re: (Score:2)
The right answer (and the only way to really understand math) is to realize that *we* are defining the operations. It's no different than writing a computer program. I can define the function f(x,y) to do whatever I want the fact that I write it in infix notation as x^ y doesn't make a different.
Ok, but why should we define 0^0? Well your demonstration shows that we can't define it to make both of those laws true. But why should we define it any particular way at all?
Ultimately, we end up leaving the va
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I quite got your ASCII for.math operations, but to me it makes perfect sense that X^2 is almost the same for these two values of X:
0
0.00000000001
I wanted to be a scientist... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except, you know, its got all that sciency stuff, and like, you have to study hard things, and what with wanting to go to the game, and ALL those social engagements with my friends, and great concerts to go to, and those OH so cute guys/girls/whatever to hang with..
But, its someone else's fault! that's the ticket! If ONLY my teachers had told me something random that has practically nothing to do with the greater subject... Then it would have been SO different.
Sigh.
Re: I wanted to be a scientist... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any color on how they got it in quarantine?
Re: (Score:2)
Any color on how they got it in quarantine?
The thing is, most of what we're attempting to do to prevent the spread of this virus is completely useless. That should have become obvious by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Which country would that be? Because the US percentages don't look all that different from the rest of the worlds.
Re:I wanted to be a scientist... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that and instead of teaching the sciency stuff, the students were just handed a list of terms to memorize an no hint about how they might inter-relate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
students were just handed a list of terms to memorize an no hint about how they might inter-relate.
He was told how they inter-relate. He just wasn't paying attention. The interrelatedness is also covered by the assigned textbook and as many Wikipedia pages as he cares to read.
As a nerd, I seek out knowledge. I understand biology because I made an effort to learn it. I don't have much sympathy for some lazy neuro-typical whiner complaining that his education wasn't spoon-fed to him with a sufficient sprinkle of passion.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, hydrogen is a bad one to start with, because while its valence is usually +1 (as in H2O), it can also be -1, as in sodium hydride (NaH). Also wise not to start with other variable valence elements, like iron (+2 or +3). Start with s.t. simple, like sodium chloride (NaCl), where sodium always has a +1 valence and chlorine always has a -1 valence.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, you know, its got all that sciency stuff, and like, you have to study hard things, and what with wanting to go to the game, and ALL those social engagements with my friends, and great concerts to go to, and those OH so cute guys/girls/whatever to hang with..
But, its someone else's fault! that's the ticket! If ONLY my teachers had told me something random that has practically nothing to do with the greater subject... Then it would have been SO different.
Sigh.
Yeah. Honestly, I've heard of people talking like that (not to that degree and obviously years after school) before. As a former "that straight A asian kid" in high school that people cheated off of, it irritates me when people talk like this. It was especially bad one year when there was a lawsuit in the US to get rid of affirmative action on college admissions then later that year to have another lawsuit to try and get affirmative action applied to them because too many asians were getting in. (not by the
I enjoy long form essays (Score:1)
But Kottke.org has been delivering the goods longer. Longest running blog on the web.
I'm right there with you. I have read, and own three copies of GEB. Hofstadter is (was?) genius blessed with insight: no doubt about it.
That said, I visit Slashdot for the immediate and the concrete, plus the debate. I leave the deeper dives for elsewhere. The real issue here is that it's not clear why I should care about this as a story, unless I have the prior experience of having read GEB.
Politics are timely, but philoso
Wonder and Terror (Score:5, Interesting)
Biology is full of wonders and complexities that make the typical Slashdotter's hardware and software seem insignificant. It also brings with it many philosophical challenges which can strike terror into the hearts of social utopians as easily as it does for strict theists.
Re: (Score:2)
"which can strike terror into the hearts of social utopians as easily as it does for strict theists"
capitalists, and libertarians.
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps because the incredible irreducible complexity and orderliness is opposed to random mutations being the source of this wonder... and its not fashionable to touch that hot potato.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You mean intelligent design? Those freaks have a hard time getting it through their simian skulls that nature if full of wonderful order that got that way by evolving. Even evolving is more orderly than the evangelical extremists are fond of claiming.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There was no "intelligent design".
It was simply a series of random fluctuations where the fluctuation that did not work perished and the successful ones were subject to additional random fluctuations; which, after zillions of cycles, resulted in what you see around you today.
There is no design and there is no purpose. It is simply the natural tendency of the universe to impose order on chaos.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. However, my point is that mutations are not necessarily or even primarily random, there are built in heuristics that guide them. Example: finch beaks evolve faster than finch feet. Directed evolution, because the beak design space is more critical than the foot design. Obviously, the evolution mechanism itself must evolve in order to favor such selected search space, this is just another aspect of fitness.
Re:Wonder and Terror (Score:4, Insightful)
It's absurd as saying, 'every time I copy a linux distro, I throw in a few deliberate random bytes, because one day I'll get a new text editor'. Nope, what you see is all the decay.
You clearly have no idea how evolution works. And you also haven't bothered to try.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd go even further and say there is a God who created an exquisitely complex and beautiful universe.
[citation needed]
The forcing effect of natural selection is nowhere near powerful enough to overcome the LOSS of information of random mutations.
[citation needed]
It's absurd as saying, 'every time I copy a linux distro, I throw in a few deliberate random bytes, because one day I'll get a new text editor'.
You might, if you did it enough times. Nature is obscenely parallel.
Re:Wonder and Terror (Score:4, Informative)
9,999,999 times out of 10 million you get decay. 1 out of 10 million you get some improvement.
Throw away the enormous number of bad runs, keep the one good run. Repeat billions of times, and you would indeed get a new text editor.
Song (Score:3)
There's also a song about this:
Evo Devo [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I felt the same way (Score:5, Insightful)
I like concepts, but having to memorize lots of specifics both took the interest out of it and displaced study time that could have been devoted to concepts.
Don't get me wrong, details matter, but there is only so much study time for student. The courses could have been more balanced.
Re:I felt the same way (Score:4, Interesting)
There comes a point in every path to knowledge where simplicity and elegance has to give way to a messy slog through hard-won experience.
Still, the effort is not without its rewards. It's funny that the summary singles out the Krebs cycle, because for me one of the few moments of most pure intellectual joy I've ever had came from studying that. I was cracking my brain over the diagram, which looks like a plate of spaghetti that has been heaped into a circle, when I experienced a glorious figure/ground reversal: in goes pyruvate (from breaking down fat or carbs) and NAD (from using ATP) and out comes comes CO2 and NADH (which is used to make more ATP).
Of course the book or the lecturer should have made that clear before we had to study the details. If you don't manage to get to that lightbulb moment on your own, it must really seem pointless to study this shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Krebs cycle only makes sense once you know the chemistry behind it. Otherwise, it's just memorizing a list of funny terms.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but the point is that it is what it is. Those details are the result of evolution. While the Krebs works remarkably well, there's nothing fundamentally *right* about it. If we ever discover life from a different origin than ours, even if it oxidizes fats and carbohydrates for energy there's almost zero chance that it would do it this way, even though virtually every known Earthly multicellular organism does.
So you reach a point in your studies where you have to conform your mind to the way things a
Re: (Score:1)
How can we really know if Krebs Cycle is not the optimum path, or at least really close to it? Maybe if Mother Nature reran Earth a thousand times, most incarnations would produce Krebs or something close.
Yes, Krebs is round-about, but that alone that doesn't really tells us about alternatives.
It would be interesting to take bacteria which live off say ocean floor sulfur heat vents, and see if they can evolve to use sun-light as an energy source by gradually taking away (simulated) sulfur vents. The result
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on how many constraints you put on the problem. For example if you don't have a system of energy *consumption* that is based on ATP, then you can't use the Krebs cycle to feed it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and that means the organism has to consume oxygen as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Fermentation and anaerobic respiration using reactive chemical species like sulfates and nitrates. Except it wouldn't be critters, it'd be mostly single cell organisms and colonies.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sun energy" doesn't require oxygen. It's captured via photosynthesis. It requires CO2 and releases oxygen, and we think primordial Earth had a lot of CO2 in the air.
The blue-green algae that first evolved photosynthesis then had to dispose of a toxic waste product (oxygen), and dumped it into the atmosphere, resulting in the largest mass extinction the planet has seen.
But other microbes that evolved defenses against oxygen were then able to use oxygen to more efficiently generate energy from food.
Re: (Score:2)
How can we really know if Krebs Cycle is not the optimum path, or at least really close to it?
Because there are other paths that release more energy. Like burning the fat or sugar.
Also, the Krebs cycle is tied up in how the rest of our energy systems work. If you use a different energy carrier than ATP, you're going to have a different cycle. There's nothing unique about ATP to make it the best energy carrier, so life that wasn't from Earth will use some other molecule if no other reason than probability.
Re: (Score:3)
When I took my psychology course in college, I found it dull and tedious. The first chapters were dedicated to the history of psychology and neuroscience, which could have been best titled "All The Shit We Got Wrong." About two weeks into it, I read the entire book over the weekend, made notes of what seemed critical to me, circled back and got back to doing assignments and projects as per the course. Obviously, there was a logic to why the course was structured the way it was, but it didn't fit with my lea
You didn't because you were different (Score:5, Interesting)
Your young self was very different from your adult self. It's a fallacy to believe that arguments you find compelling now would have been effective at the time.
It is very likely that your teachers at the time spent a great deal of energy trying to interest you in their field, they used arguments that you may find very appealing today. But at the time, you were different, you were a normal kid and you were not interested, like most kid, whatever the packaging.
That's the sad part of life: you have to learn things at the age where you are the least interested in learning. And once you are more receptive to learning, you don't have time to.
That's also the difference between the top intellectuals of our species and the rest of us: they were interested in learning at a young age, independently of the packaging used by their teachers.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking this too. Would his teenage self actually responded if his teacher had said to the class.
"was like a small Lisp program, with macros begetting macros begetting macros, the source code containing within it all of the instructions required for life on Earth."
*cue blank stares from everybody in the room*
"James Somers in the back of the class?"
"Can I use this DNA to make a Doom mod?"
"No?"
"Ok. Thanks for the clarification."
*Learns programming so that they can make video games*
Seriously, raise you
Re:You didn't because you were different (Score:4, Interesting)
Absolutely this! I've been "in school" for 33 years. First as a student, then as a University employee. I've seen a hefty number of students who simply aren't the right student for a research university... yet. They have the passion. They have the pressure. But they haven't grown into the necessary duty/responsibility/focus/nerdy person yet to to really put the effort into university education. Some of them leave and come back to kick ass.
My wife was a pretty shit undergrad student. Absolutely intelligent, but she had no idea what she wanted to do and had no particular interest in a subject. In her 30's though, she figured out the industry she wanted to work in. She want back to school through our Alma Mater's distance education system. She had maybe a B/C average in undergrad and then was SO FOCUSED on her new chosen industry that she completed her 92 quarter-unit program with an A average. The HOURS she spent studying... she was a NERD BEAST!
She wasn't her "best student self" until her 30s.
I was the opposite. I was a curiosity driven student from elementary school onward. If something interests me, I fall down a rabbit hole to learn more. I was exactly the right type of student to matriculate from high school to a research university.
I think this issue is why those rigid proponents of online education for all (pre- and post-pandemic) are under the weird delusion that kids will simply want to learn shit on their own. They don't. Education is my focus and I will tell you right now that if we didn't force kids into school (worldwide!), they wouldn't go. Ya, some are self-starters, but no one worries about those ones.
We're not all our best students/learners at the same time. If the write of the article didn't love bio in high school, it's possible that a special teacher would have flipped that switch for her, but we can't know that. As you say, it's likely that K-12 her and now her are just very different people with different mental priorities.
I Should Have Been a Plumber (Score:1)
I should have been a plumber, but then I realized it didn't involve stomping on goombas.
Here's a biological analogy I always liked (Score:5, Interesting)
The lung is like inverse of a tree. A self-similar branching structure with trunk and branches of empty space, arranged to maximize surface area, which reverses the co2 -> o2 work done by a tree.
I find L-systems pretty elegant too.
Re: (Score:2)
The lung is like inverse of a tree.
The mammalian lung. Archosaurian (crocs and birds) lungs have unidirectional air flow so there are loops.They are somewhat more compact and efficient, since with mammalian lungs, not all the gas is expelled from the alveoli, so you get a mix of old and new. The lack of pockets in archosaurian lungs means he exchange of old for new air is much more effective.
Re: (Score:2)
If only someone had told me archosaurian lungs were more efficient. I could have developed into an archosaurian instead of a mammal!
What is the difference between... (Score:3)
Many STEM subjects are like this (Score:5, Insightful)
Many STEM introductory classes are presented as a litany of vocabulary and facts to be memorized. This is a harmful way to teach.
If teachers first propose a story or question, or somehow motivate it, students will study the basics more attentively, and will in the end learn more.
But if nothing else, when teaching, it's very helpful to start off with something like, "There's a bunch of exciting stuff to learn, but first we need to get a handle on the vocabulary, so we can talk about them."
You Still Don't Understand Biology (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You Still Don't Understand Biology (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, I'm going to wager, some students didn't find value in what he taught and how he taught it. You clearly have a particular learning style. You're blaming your teacher, who doubtless had dozens of students he was charged to teach the topic. That sucks. Blame your parents for not sending you to some private or special school program where a more hands on approach, or where self-guided learning was the norm.
Unlike high school physics and chemistry, biology unfortunately involves concepts that may not b
Re: (Score:3)
Re:You Still Don't Understand Biology (Score:4, Insightful)
At my school, the Biology class was awful - I did lousy at it because half of the grade was about drawing pictures of what you'd dissected that day or regurgitated pictures from the text. For those of us who couldn't draw, the class was a nightmare. Which is why I made the (latter proved correct) choice NOT to take any other class from him which meant I didn't have Chemistry in high-school. And maybe you can explain why every person in my school who went to the same college as I did and who took Chemistry from the same moron who taught Biology had to take remedial college chemistry, while I (who didn't take Chemistry from him) ended up placing into the normal intro class?
The bottom line is that it's not always the lazy student's fault. And that teacher? He eventually retired to become a barber. And I wouldn't go to him for a haircut, either. God knows how many kids he made stupid in his career as a "science teacher".
Re: (Score:2)
I enjoyed high school biology. I don't really remember how great the teacher was, but we got to look at microorganisms under a microscope, and had an actual human fetus in a jar. Cools stuff.
Re: You Still Don't Understand Biology (Score:2)
Cells are nothing like a program. You still don't understand Biology.
They most certainly are similar! I work at a medical device company in R&D, with a team of mathematicians, programmers, and biologists, and they see the connection.
I'm pretty sure your High School Biology course taught those things you wished you had learned, you just didn't pay enough attention to have learned them.
I am pretty sure you know nothing about the author's high school experience. I took GT biology and my experience matches the author's experience.
Teaching is hard. Inspiring people is hard.
Darwin's Radio (Score:2)
Having read Greg Bear's book, and its sequel Darwin's Children, he uses the idea that viruses are in our evolutionary process, including, in his books, the rise of new "humans". These viruses aren't necessarily happenstance, but have evolved over the eons to guide our evolution, though without thought.
In fact, he proposes the idea that without these viruses, women could not get pregnant. In the back of his book he lists the sources for his conjecture and the books themselves have hard science discussions
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I could just declare that placental mammals got that way through viruses. In fact, as there are other homologous examples in the animal kingdom of far more distantly related animals that give live births, I'd find it, if not implausible, then at least ludicrously oversimplified. I'm always rather skeptical of grand declarations. Clearly horizontal gene transfer plays a more significant role in evolution than previously thought, but to declare that placental animals are that way because of virus
Re: (Score:2)
It's a science fiction book. He doesn't claim this is true, only that in his book, this is how some of the characters came to the conclusion about what is happening. They go into "details" about the whole thing.
I recommend picking up a copy at a used book sale and reading the back of the book to see where his storyline came from. I am certainly no biologist, or any -ist for that matter, but how he lays things out is certainly a plausible, if not outlandish, idea backed up by some, possible, evidence.
DNA (Score:3)
I wrote a paper about recombinant DNA for my high school bio class in the 80's, I was amazed back then and I still am about it all and every time I think about how the body, cells and brain work it amazes me. The billions of years of intricated processes the universe keeps turning out that resulted in plants, animals and humans is quite amazing. It is part of the next wave of technological change that will alter us as humans. Its hard to see it all, but Feynman and Hofstadter did, even Turning did towards the end of his life, he was going down those same ideas. But if you really want to see the details read some Eric Kandel. If your not amazed by biology then you have lost your wonder and awe of the universe.
I could not exercise after learning biology. (Score:5, Funny)
The compact includes draconian provisions. All the cells give up their right to reproduce and only the elite germ line cells have the privilege to undergo mytosis or whatever and produce offspring.
It also mandates when the collective has the right to decide when an individual member has to die. Once the cell-death notice is issued or triggered automatically the cells must die voluntarily.
It is a very undemocratic system where a cell is not allowed to live up to its full potential. Every cell has the DNA and the ability to become anything it wants to be, a heart cell, kidney cell or anything at all. But it is created unequal and it is destined to live by the rules of the caste it was born into
And should one freedom loving cell decide to rebel, and decide to pursue happiness its way, exercise its right to reproduce, refuse to die on command, the whole collective comes down hard. Surgery to excise the tumor they call it politely the selective execution of these cells. Guilt by association too, healthy obedient non rebellious cells are also excised sometimes, calling it prophylactic surgery. The comes chemical warfare. Chemotherapy kills so many healthy law abiding cells, puts the entire collective into severe distress. Not satisfied with chemical warfare, the collective goes nuclear! Yes, sir, they bring in radiation, harmful radiation and blast the rebel and any other cell standing in the way or even behind the rebel cells.
And what does the collective promise the cells in return for giving up so much? Regular supply of oxygen, nutrients, removal of carbon dioxide, lactic acid, regular municipal function of garbage collection and ration of food. That is all.
Now what happens when you exercise? Oxygen denied to much of the body, lactic acid not removed promptly, nutrients reduced to some cells. .... They might rebel at this point. When the collective did not keep its end of the bargain, why should the individual cell obey the draconian undemocratic elitist Eukaryote Compact?
This is how I concluded exercise causes cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
biology is changing (Score:3)
Biology is undergoing a revolution as meaningful and fundamental as the introduction of quantum mechanics and relativity was to physics at the start of the 20th century. The difference is that it's not a few famous theories leading the charge, but a change in the way of thinking and experimentation across almost every sub-field of biology. It's slow and hard to see day-to-day, but no less fundamental. It's easy to remember that until very recently, biology had more in common with butterfly collecting (to use a cliche) than with a reductionist science like physics or computer science. To put it simply, for most of the 20th century biology was about collecting facts instead of a quest for the secrets of life. So we were all taught how to collect facts.
The frustration in TFA about not getting the details and wonder of biology taught early on comes from the fact that we're still figuring out the fundamentals of how biology works.
The major revelation of the human genome project is still being digested by the science community. That revelation was the certainty that we only have about 30,000 genes. If you look back at the editorials that were written in science journals when the human genome was published, you'll see some despair that the project didn't find some potential greater store of information in the genetic code. The thing is, we contain over 2 million different types of proteins. Our DNA is not a static code for manufacturing proteins, it's dynamic, and only a very small piece of an incredibly complex system that directs protein creation (itself only a small part of how biology works). Figuring out that complex system is rightly a conveyor belt for Nobel Prizes.
While this has been easily understood and (more or less) accepted by biologists for 20 years, what to do about it is more difficult. For some of us, it means that the separation of sub-fields of biology into protein biology, genetics, epigenetics, developmental biology, etc. are human created structures that lead us to think about biology in incorrect ways. The "revolution" in biology could be summarized by saying that system biology is really the only way to gain a complete understanding of what's happening.
Now, that sounds great, and we can all get excited about the engineering looking diagrams and pseudo-code style descriptions of system biology. The problem now is that our experimental understanding of biology has been (and continues to be) through the use of old -omics related lab tools. We purify out a single component and freeze it in time. As the TFA says, the one thing conserved across biological fields are the tools used. They've been conserved across fields for 30+ years, we've simply made them faster and easier to use. With such a large number of potential components, each changing function over time, this approach is obviously not going to be giving us very useful information. It's the equivalent in software of taking apart code line by line, giving each line to a different person, and then hoping they're able to make the logical connections on their own to the lines they've never seen.
When you sit down and understand how biologists have been able to take these snapshots of biological components and fit them into some functioning model of biological system activity, you'll realize that the only things more amazing than biology are the biologists themselves who have essentially performed miracles so that we can generate the tiny bit of understanding that we have today.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we've known the rough number of genes in humans for longer than twenty years. We've certainly known about signaling genes in developmental biology, in particular HOX genes in vertebrates, since the early 1980s. Developmental biology is very much a work in progress, but we do have some idea that during development in vertebrates (and through homologues in other multicellular species) genes switch on for critical periods, then switch off, and that fetal development involves numerous cascades as popula
Re: (Score:3)
not that you can convince Creationists of that, as they seem to want to impose the nice sequential orderliness of computer storage and retrieval on to biological systems that are considerably more complex than that.
I've always found this an odd one. I'm an atheist, though I'm not sure that matters as plenty of religious people are not creationists. It seems strange that certain ultra religious types seem to feel strongly that the almighty, all powerful god could only do things at a scale and complexity lev
Re: (Score:2)
It's the equivalent in software of taking apart code line by line, giving each line to a different person, and then hoping they're able to make the logical connections on their own to the lines they've never seen.
To continue the analogy, your proposal is to hand out a compiled binary to a person and hoping they'll be able to figure out every little bit about how it works, without a decompiler or even a CPU specification.
We have to understand many of the bits before we can understand the larger picture.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I think the analogy is stretched pretty thin, and I'm not at all a computer scientist, so I'm sure I'm missing many details here. Essentially, we can't understand "bits" in biology right now, because there's not yet an understanding of what the "bits" are and what the "system" is. It's not clear there is a difference; studying "bits" may be a fools errand.
While I'm not a computer scientist, I am a biological physicist, and I build the tools and the data streams necessary for system level measurements
Me, too (Score:3)
I had a similar experience when I took biochemistry, embryology, and other such biology courses, back in the 1970s. I even remember asking a graduate student teaching assistant the same question about how the blastocyst selects the geometric axis that will eventually become the alimentary canal.
However, the answer to that question -- and many others -- back then was entirely unknown; while it was relatively difficult to find a question to which no one knew the answer in physics (one had to get to subatomic particles and such things, or maybe cosmology and black holes), it was relatively easy to ask a biologist a question the answer to which was completely unknown. In fact, it was harder to find a question to which the biologist did know the answer. And it wasn't just that no one knew the answers to most of the questions; there were also no immediate ideas on how one might *get* the answers.
So I majored in something else. I suspect that if I were to take those same courses today, I would find them much more rewarding and satisfying, as much of the unknowns have been filled in in the intervening 45 years.
Academia (Score:2, Insightful)
That one word transmutes any subject, miracle or not, into tombs of esoterica. Disguised within academia, egos hide in their ivory disciplines hoping no one challenges their assumpions.
A beautifully written snippet of insight and intellect captured in poetic verse the essence of life, where the whole of academia couldn’t. Instead, they were happy to turn out text in books that could advance their craft, career and tenure.
Storytellers always find a narrative, a through line plot and the ring of truth i
Biology is a fancy word for witchcraft (Score:1)
Chemistry (Score:3)
For me it was chemistry. I found chemistry fascinating in high school. My first year chemistry prof did a thoroughly professional job of curing me of any further interest in the subject.
I see Periodic Videos [youtube.com] on YouTube and wonder where things went wrong.
...laura
It's all the same, if you look at it the right way (Score:3)
My favorite teacher in high school was my biology teacher, Mr. Hook. Somehow, what he taught and the way he taught it, combined with his labs, seemed to be perfectly suited for my brain to absorb. I also loved chemisery (sp) and physics, but they were more of a struggle. After high school I spent 6 years in the US Navy, fell in love with tech, and when I started college 6 years later I knew I would become an engineer.
But I had keep a job to pay for college, so I was on "the 5-year plan" from day one. I would have time to work, and have a manageable class load. But this also left time for lots of electives, each of which affected me more than any other single class in my major of Computer Engineering (CE, which was stuffed with awesome classes).
So, given my earlier love for biology, I took the Bio 1 sequence as electives, starting with cellular biology. The sequence was taught by Dr. Paul Saltman, a world-class researcher who also had a passion for teaching undergrads. His pedagogical approach centered on "Structure-Function Relationships". The thing is, my CE classes also had Structures and Functions and Relationships. The literal mapping was 1:1, especially if you view cells as classes. I was in love with Biology once again, and put way too much time into these "electives", mainly to see just how deep the mapping went.
After each exam was graded and returned, Dr. Saltman would also distribute answer keys, so we could work on the problems we missed. But he didn't make his answer key himself: He chose the best of the student answers for each question to include in the key. He would always ask permission before using a student's answer, so he'd call the students down a couple lectures after an exam and gather with them for a few minutes after class. I was shocked when I was called down on the first midterm of the first class in the sequence. Dr. Saltman gathered is in a conference room, and we went around the table stating our majors: Biology, Biophysics, Bioinformatics, Bio-this and Bio-that. Then it was my turn: "Computer Engineering".
Clearly an anomaly, and Dr. Saltman took it in stride. Then it happened again. And again, by which point Dr. Saltman started asking me if a switch in majors would be a good idea. This went on into the third class in the sequence, by which point he was offering me some paying lab support gigs, if only I would change my major. I was severely tempted.
The thing is, my best answers were motivated by love, and were not due to depth or breadth of knowledge. I kind of cherry-picked my way through the classes, earning good grades, but nothing special. Except for that occasional answer to a question that felt like a pitch straight into my catcher's mitt.
I finally found the right reply to Dr. Saltman's entreaties. In my Computer Engineering major, I often wrote some scary code to explore the limits of some aspect of a computer system, and quite often I found ways to blow it up and shut it down. If I were to do in Biology what I did in Computer Engineering, I'd need a Level 6 Bio Isolation Facility. Unfortunately, the Bio Isolation Facility scale only goes up to 5. After a good laugh, Dr. Saltman agreed I should stay in Computer Engineering.
The bottom line is that as more and more of our technological systems obtain levels of complexity that defy comprehension and management, the more they start to look like Biology. So understanding the broad strokes of Biology is truly beneficial.
Education systems are failing us (Score:4, Interesting)
It would be a far better world if our education systems would actually educate. I know the system I went though was simply a child-prison aimed at keeping us off the streets while our parents worked, and it was staffed by those who simply failed to get higher paying industry jobs. Currently it's a case of "Those who can do, those who can't teach."
The wonderful world of chemistry - none of us could understand the teacher's accent. Even today I'm pretty sure I'd get 40% of the words at best.
The wonderful world of math - The teacher could not control the class. It was just stupid children yelling that made my ears hurt and no learning at all.
Languages - mostly a failure. Obsessed with grammar. There are countless courses that teach languages better.
Computer Science - Not even allowed in the class as they didn't have space.
Art - Simply pointless.
Physical education - Get yelled at my a sociopath who likes to bully weaker humans. This was actually a good lesson in life.
Now children don't even get the choice of which science to study, they are forced into mixed science as it's more cost effective for the school.
You should talk to people from other cultures and ask what their school systems are like. Some are worse, but some are far better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it was the UK.
The torturing animals bit stopped me. (Score:2)
Isn't there enough sufferring in the world without torturing animals to death for no reason?
That's nothing. (Score:2)
You should see what String Theory has done to any passion I once had for Physics.
If you didn't find Golgi apparatus sexy.. (Score:3)
Who's fault is that? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
High school biology circa 1965 was a disordered mess of unrelated concepts and thousands of fancy words with Latin or Greek roots like "eukaryote" that made no sense to an English speaker. There were few principles that attempted to make sense of the mess and they seldom applied. There was no math to quantify things.
How is the student to develop excitement for that?
Biology - no first principles - not a science (Score:2)
Biology is observational.
Even when torturing small and large animals it's: "Let's try this and see what happens."
There are no founding principles that allow anyone to say: "Given this and this, we hypothesize that the following should hold true." ..."Oh look, something _can_ live in this environment", "Oh, swans _can_ be black." etc.
As a result, every new thing is a surprise
Given that, all biology can pass on to students is "Look, this is what we've seen. We can't derive it so you just have to memorize it
Re: (Score:2)
It's also the only science where you can bump into the unknowns at the high school level.
High school physics? Mostly Newtonian, maybe poke a bit at the well-studied parts of the quantum level
High school chemistry? Nothing that hadn't been completely worked out in the 1700s and 1800s.
Biology? "How does one half of an embryo know it's the top half?" "Nobody knows" (at least back when I was in high school). Not because there's no "first principles", but because there's an enormous number of confounding fac
Discovered my love of Biology too late (Score:2)
Basic biology education in high and college (I'm talking Bio for non-majors) was terrible in my experience. If it was better, I would be a Biologist right now. I came to live Biology in graduate school (though a professor in college who had me read Jabklonka and Lamb's Evolution in Four Dimensions first got me to think about Biology in a new way). In grad school I learned things like nonlinear dynamics, chaos theory, and nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and how these can be applied to the study of life. I lea
The world isn't perfect (Score:2)
It's the same in chemistry and physics (Score:2)
STEM and STEAM are attempts to improve that. My kids had an awesome STEM teacher and he turned my 3 daughters into scientists. He didn't teach them boring harmonic oscillations, he told them to find a partner, get a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Learned to play the guitar
2. ????
3. Profit
Turns out the ???? = Nothing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Guy has 30th birthday.
Guy feels old.
Guy misses school.
The End.
Re: (Score:1)
You could say this about anything. I spent years in school not understanding fractions, until a math teacher through up his hands in grade 8 when he asked me to stay behind at lunch to sort it all out and said "Jeez, it's just division!" And then I got it, and never had a problem again.
Some people don't get subjects the way they are often taught. When you're a kid it's tough, because a lot of it does seem like recitation of facts, and yet, you just ask a kid "So how do embryonic cells differentiate?" withou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How's business these days?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
through up his hands
So, maybe just a phone user, or bad speller. Autocorrect is ass, almost as bad as Apple's swiping keyboard that does all the dumb fucking shit that Swype did ten years ago, without any of the improvements that it implemented along the way (e.g., I am not a fitness writer; I don't mean "abs", a word I have never used on the phone, I mean "and", a word I use in 50% of my texts).
That said, he has a very good point: sometimes there's something about a subject that is absolutely, positively crucial to underst
Re: This isn't news. This is someone's homework. (Score:3, Insightful)
You are the apathetic product of today's lifeless institution we call "school" that this article is about.
Re: (Score:3)
The like magic in the 90s the Internet was unleashed on the public; I learned how to view source in my browser and the rest is histo
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Biden's pick to head the FDA?
Re: (Score:2)
. The platypus came early in mammal evolution and took a different path from mainstream, more successful mammals.