Skeptophilia (skep-to-fil-i-a) (n.) - the love of logical thought, skepticism, and thinking critically. Being an exploration of the applications of skeptical thinking to the world at large, with periodic excursions into linguistics, music, politics, cryptozoology, and why people keep seeing the face of Jesus on grilled cheese sandwiches.

Tuesday, August 25, 2020

The left-handed universe

I first ran into the concept of chirality when I was a fifteen-year-old Trekkie science fiction nerd.

I grew up watching the original Star Trek, which impressed the hell out of me as a kid even though rewatching some of the episodes now generates painful full-body cringes at the blatant sexism and near-jingoistic chauvinism.  Be that as it may, after going through the entire series I don't even know how many times, I started reading some of the fan fiction.

The fan fiction, of course, was more uneven than the show had been.  Some of it was pretty good, some downright terrible.  One that had elements of both, putting it somewhere in the "fair to middling" category, was Spock Must Die by James Blish.  Blish had gotten into the Star Trek universe writing short-story adaptations of most of the original series episodes, but this one was entirely new.

Well, mostly.  It springboarded off an original series episode, "Errand of Mercy," in which the Federation and the Klingons are fighting over the planet Organia, which is populated by a peaceful, pastoral society.  Kirk et al. are trying to stop the Klingons from massacring the Organians, but much to Kirk's dismay, the Organians refuse Federation protection, insisting they don't need any help.  And it turns out they don't -- in the end, you find out that the Organians are super-powerful aliens who only assumed human-ish form to communicate with the two humanoid invading forces, and are so far beyond both of them that they indeed had nothing to fear.

In Spock Must Die, the crew of the Enterprise is sent to investigate why Organia has suddenly gone radio-silent.  It turns out that the Klingons have surrounded the entire planet with a force field.  Spock volunteers to try to transport through it, which fails -- but after the attempt, suddenly there are two Spocks in the transporter room, each claiming to be the real, original Vulcan.

[spoiler alert, if anyone is actually going to go back and read it...]  What happened is that the transporter beam was reflected off the surface of the force field, and it duplicated Spock -- there was the original (who never left the transporter pad) and the duplicate (the reflection, recreated in place).  Since both the original and the duplicate were identical down to the last neuron, each of them had the same memories, and each was convinced he was the real Spock.

The key turned out to be the fact that the duplicate had been reflected all the way down to the molecular level.

Why this matters is that a number of molecules in our bodies -- amino acids and sugars being two common examples -- are chiral, meaning they have a "handedness."  Just like a glove, they exist in two possible forms, a "right-handed" and a "left-handed" one, which are mirror images of each other.  And for reasons unknown, all of our amino acids are left-handed.  No organism known manufactures right-handed amino acids.  Further, if you synthesized right-handed amino acids -- which could be done in the laboratory -- and fed them to a terrestrial organism, the organism would starve.

But the reflected Spock, of course, is exactly the opposite.  Kirk eventually figures out what's happened because one of the Spocks barricades himself in one of the science laboratories, claiming the other Spock wants to kill him.  The truth was he had to have access to a lab in order to synthesize the right-handed amino acids without which he'd die.

Clever concept for a story, right there.

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons Petritap, Finnish mittens, CC BY-SA 3.0]

Chirality is quite a mystery.  Like I said, the left-handedness of amino acids is shared by all known terrestrial organisms, so that bias must have happened very early in the generation of life.

Why it happened is another matter entirely.  A persistent question in scientific inquiries into the origin of life on Earth (and the possibility of life elsewhere) is how much of our own biochemistry and metabolism is constrained.  We code our genetic information as DNA; could it be done a different way elsewhere?  Our primary energy driver is ATP.  Are there other ways organisms might store and access chemical energy?  The question of constraint goes all the way up the scale to macroscopic features, such as cephalization -- the clustering of the sensory processing organs near the anterior end of the animal.  Makes sense; you want your sensors facing (1) the direction you're traveling, and (2) what you're eating.  But are there other equally sensible ways to put an animal together?

Some things we take for granted almost certainly aren't constrained, like bilateral symmetry.  So many animals are bilaterally symmetrical that the ones that aren't (like adult flounders) stand out as bizarre.  Aficionados of H. P. Lovecraft might remember that amongst the innovative ideas he used was that the aliens in "At the Mountains of Madness" weren't bilateral, but had five-way symmetry -- something completely unknown on Earth.  (You may be thinking, "wait... starfish?"  Starfish have what I'd call pseudo-pentaradial symmetry.  As larvae, they're clearly bilateral, and they lose a lot of bilateral features when they mature.  But some characteristics -- like the position of the sieve plate, their water-intake device -- give away that deep down, they are still basically bilateral.)

Anyhow, all this comes up because of a recent discovery by astrobiologists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.  In a press release, we hear about a meteorite discovered in Antarctica called Asuka 12236, which is a carbonaceous chondrite -- a peculiar type of meteorite that is rich in organic compounds.  Asuka 12236 contained large quantities of amino acids, which isn't as bizarre as it sounds; amino acids have been shown to form relatively easily if there are raw materials and a source of energy.

What stands out is that all of the amino acids in Asuka 12236 are left-handed -- just like the ones on Earth.

The scientists studying the meteorite are up front that the first thing to do is rule out that the amino acids in the meteorite aren't contaminants absorbed after the rock crash-landed.  Most of the experts, however, think this is unlikely, and that we're looking at a genuine sample of extraterrestrial amino acids.  And the fact that they all show left-handed chirality is pretty remarkable -- suggesting that the chirality of our biochemicals might, in fact, be constrained, and that we could well find biochemistry similar to our own on other planets.

In that way, at least.

So that's one less thing to worry about if we ever go to an alien world.  Unlike the right-handed reflected Mr. Spock, we'd be able to metabolize alien amino acids just fine.

Of course, how familiar-looking everything else would be is still open to question.

*********************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation of the week is a brilliant retrospective of how we've come to our understanding of one of the fastest-moving scientific fields: genetics.

In Siddhartha Mukherjee's wonderful book The Gene: An Intimate History, we're taken from the first bit of research that suggested how inheritance took place: Gregor Mendel's famous study of pea plants that established a "unit of heredity" (he called them "factors" rather than "genes" or "alleles," but he got the basic idea spot on).  From there, he looks at how our understanding of heredity was refined -- how DNA was identified as the chemical that housed genetic information, to how that information is encoded and translated, to cutting-edge research in gene modification techniques like CRISPR-Cas9.  Along each step, he paints a very human picture of researchers striving to understand, many of them with inadequate tools and resources, finally leading up to today's fine-grained picture of how heredity works.

It's wonderful reading for anyone interested in genetics and the history of science.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]




Monday, August 24, 2020

How to prove you exist

Let me say right up front that I don't mean any of what I'm saying here as criticism of the researchers themselves.

But there are times that it is damn frustrating that the research has to be done in the first place.

This comes up because of a paper that was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences a couple of weeks ago, by a team led by Jeremy Jabbour of the Department of Psychology at Northwestern University.  In "Robust Evidence for Bisexual Orientation Among Men," we read:
The question whether some men have a bisexual orientation—that is, whether they are substantially sexually aroused and attracted to both sexes—has remained controversial among both scientists and laypersons.  Skeptics believe that male sexual orientation can only be homosexual or heterosexual, and that bisexual identification reflects nonsexual concerns, such as a desire to deemphasize homosexuality.  Although most bisexual-identified men report that they are attracted to both men and women, self-report data cannot refute these claims.  Patterns of physiological (genital) arousal to male and female erotic stimuli can provide compelling evidence for male sexual orientation.  (In contrast, most women provide similar physiological responses to male and female stimuli.)  We investigated whether men who self-report bisexual feelings tend to produce bisexual arousal patterns.  Prior studies of this issue have been small, used potentially invalid statistical tests, and produced inconsistent findings.  We combined nearly all previously published data (from eight previous studies in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada), yielding a sample of 474 to 588 men (depending on analysis).  All participants were cisgender males.  Highly robust results showed that bisexual-identified men’s genital and subjective arousal patterns were more bisexual than were those who identified as exclusively heterosexual or homosexual.  These findings support the view that male sexual orientation contains a range, from heterosexuality, to bisexuality, to homosexuality.
So basically what they did was to show naked pics of both men and women to self-identified bisexual guys, and check to see if they got hard-ons from both.

Like I said in the first sentence, I'm glad this research was done, because there is doubt out there.  I've heard that doubt go two ways -- that bisexuals are straight people looking for attention or for a kinky thrill, or that bisexuals are gay people who are afraid to admit it.  I remember clearly being told by a student -- long before I was out of the closet -- that she could understand there being homosexuals and heterosexuals, but she couldn't see how there could be bisexuals.  "How can they be attracted to both at the same time?" she asked me.  "Why don't they just make up their minds?"

I fell back on the research -- that bisexuality and the spectrum-nature of sexual orientation was well-established -- but even after seeing the data, she wasn't convinced.  "I just don't believe it," she said.

Not only was I appalled by this because, in essence, she was talking about me -- telling me that my own identity was an impossibility -- but because even presented with evidence, she went with her "feelings" on the topic rather than (1) the conclusions of the scientists, and worse, (2) people's assessment of their own orientation.

Because that's the thing, isn't it?  How does anyone have the fucking temerity to say, "No, that's not who you are.  I know better.  Here's who you actually are."?  People in the trans community know this all too well; how often are they told that someone else knows their gender better than they do?

And here, we're told we have to prove we even exist.

How about just believing us?

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons Peter Salanki from San Francisco, USA, The bisexual pride flag (3673713584), CC BY 2.0]

I've known I was bisexual since I was fifteen years old.  There was never any doubt about my attraction to both men and women.  Hell, I knew it before I'd ever even heard the word "bisexuality."  The fact that now, over forty years later, there has to be a study published in a major scientific journal to convince people that I actually know who I am -- that I'm not delusional or lying -- is nothing short of infuriating.

So thanks to Jabbour et al. for establishing peer-reviewed research that I hope and pray will put this question to rest once and for all.  I know it won't convince everyone -- my long-ago evidence-proof student as a case in point -- but maybe we'll move toward accepting that gender and sexual orientation are complex and completely non-binary, and better still, toward valuing people's understanding of who they are over society's pronouncements of who they should be.

And as I've said before: I wish I'd been strong enough and fearless enough to claim my own identity when I first realized it as a teenager.  I have often wondered what trajectory my life would have taken if I'd spent all those years free of the humiliation and fear I was raised with, and proud of who I was instead of ashamed of it.  You can't change past mistakes, more's the pity, but at least I can state who I am now and hope that my voice will add more volume to the call that each of us should be free to celebrate who we are without having to prove anything to anyone.

*********************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation of the week is a brilliant retrospective of how we've come to our understanding of one of the fastest-moving scientific fields: genetics.

In Siddhartha Mukherjee's wonderful book The Gene: An Intimate History, we're taken from the first bit of research that suggested how inheritance took place: Gregor Mendel's famous study of pea plants that established a "unit of heredity" (he called them "factors" rather than "genes" or "alleles," but he got the basic idea spot on).  From there, he looks at how our understanding of heredity was refined -- how DNA was identified as the chemical that housed genetic information, to how that information is encoded and translated, to cutting-edge research in gene modification techniques like CRISPR-Cas9.  Along each step, he paints a very human picture of researchers striving to understand, many of them with inadequate tools and resources, finally leading up to today's fine-grained picture of how heredity works.

It's wonderful reading for anyone interested in genetics and the history of science.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]




Saturday, August 22, 2020

A prehistoric hoax

One of the hazards of becoming more aware of how biased and (sometimes) duplicitous popular media can be is that you might finally, de facto, stop believing everything you read and hear.

It's called being a "cynic," and it's just as lazy as being gullible.  However, because the credulous are often derided as silly or ignorant, cynics sometimes feel that they must therefore be highly intelligent, and that disbelieving everything means that you're too smart to be "taken in."

In reality, cynicism is an excuse, a justification for having stopped thinking.  "The media always lies" isn't any closer to the truth than "everything you eat causes cancer" or "all of the science we're being told now could be wrong."  It give you an automatic reason not to read (or not to watch your diet or not to learn science), and in the end, is simply a statement of willful ignorance.

Take, for example, the site Clues Forum, which has as its tagline, "Exposing Media Fakery."  In particular, consider the thread that was started several years ago, but which continues to circulate, lo up unto this very day... entitled "The (Non-religious) Dinosaur Hoax Question."


Muttaburrasaurus skeleton (Queensland Museum)  [Image is in the Public Domain]

And yes, it means what you think it means.  And yes, the "Question" should simply be answered "No."  But let's look a little more deeply at what they're saying... because I think it reveals something rather insidious.

Take a look at how it starts:
Dinosaurs have, in recent years, become a media subject rivaling the space program in popularity and eliciting similar levels of public adoration towards its researchers and scientists.  The science of dinosaurs and other prehistoric life is also directly linked to other controversial scientific topics such as evolution, fuel production, climate and even the space program (i.e., what allegedly killed them).
So right from the outset, we've jumped straight into the Motive Fallacy -- the idea that a particular individual's motive for saying something has any bearing on that statement's truth value.  Those scientists, the author says, have a motive for our believing in dinosaurs.  Supporting controversial ideas for their own nefarious reasons.  Getting us worried about the climate and the potential for cataclysmic asteroid strikes.  Therefore: they must be lying.  We're never told, outright, why the scientists would lie about such things, but the seed is planted, right there in the first paragraph.

Then, we're thrown more reason for doubt our way, when we're told that (*gasp*) scientists make mistakes.  A dinosaur skeleton found in New Jersey, and now on display at the New Jersey State Museum, was reconstructed with a skull based on an iguana, since the actual skull could not be found.  The article, though, uses the word "fake" -- as if the museum owners, and the scientists, were deliberately trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, instead of interpolating the missing pieces -- something that is routinely done by paleontologists.  And those wily characters even gave away the game by admitting what they were up to, right beneath a photograph of the skeleton:
Above is the full-size Hadrosaurus mount currently on display at the New Jersey State Museum in Trenton.  The posture is now recognized as incorrect.  At the same time the skeleton is fitted with the wrong skull of another type of duck-bill dinosaur.  Signs at the exhibit acknowledge that both the mounted skeleton as well as nearby illustrated depictions of what the living animal looked like are both wrong.  Both are slated for correction at some unspecified future date.
Because that's what clever conspirators these scientists are.  Covering up the fact that they're giving out erroneous information on dinosaurs by... um... admitting they had some erroneous information about dinosaurs.

But according to Clues Forum, this is yet another hole punched in our confidence, with the revelation that (*horrors*) there are things scientists don't know.  Instead of looking at that as a future line of inquiry, this article gives you the impression that such holes in our knowledge are an indication that everything is suspect.

Last, we're told that it's likely that the paleontologists are creating the fossils themselves, because fossils are just "rock in rock," leaving it a complete guessing game as to where the matrix rock ends and the fossil begins.  So for their own secret, evil reasons, paleontologists spend days and weeks out in the field, living in primitive and inhospitable conditions, grinding rocks into the shape of bones so as to hoodwink us all:
But, in our hoax-filled world of fake science, doesn't this rock-in-rock situation make it rather easy for creative interpretations of what the animal really looked like?  And, once a particular animal is “approved” by the gods of the scientific community, wouldn't all subsequent representations of that same animal have to conform with that standard?
By the time you've read this far, you're so far sunk in the mire of paranoia that you would probably begin to doubt that gravity exists.  Those Evil, Evil Scientists!  They're lying to us about everything!

Of course, what we're seeing here is the phenomenon I started with; substituting lazy gullibility with lazy disbelief.  All the writer would have to do is sign up for a paleontology class, or (better yet) go on a fossil dig, to find out how the science is really done.

But I've found that people like this will seldom take any of those steps.  Once you suspect everyone, there's no one to lean on but yourself -- and (by extension) on your own ignorance.  At that point, you're stuck.  

So I should correct a statement I made earlier.  There is a difference between gullibility and cynicism.

Gullibility is far easier to cure.

***************************

Fan of true crime stories?  This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation of the week is for you.

In The Poisoner's Handbook:Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York, by Deborah Blum, you'll find out about how forensic science got off the ground -- through the efforts of two scientists, Charles Norris and Alexander Gettler, who took on the corruption-ridden law enforcement offices of Tammany Hall in order to stop people from literally getting away with murder.

In a book that reads more like a crime thriller than it does history, Blum takes us along with Norris and Gettler as they turned crime detection into a true science, resulting in hundreds of people being brought to justice for what would otherwise have been unsolved murders.  In Blum's hands, it's a fast, brilliant read -- if you're a fan of CSI, Forensics Files, and Bones, get a copy of The Poisoner's Handbook, you won't be able to put it down.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]




Friday, August 21, 2020

Deadly fireworks

I've always thought it would be amazingly cool to witness a supernova.

Imagine it.  Within a few hours, a dim, ordinary-looking star increases in luminosity until it outshines every other astronomical object in the sky except the Sun and Moon.  It's visible during the day and you can read by its light at night.  It's not a blink-and-you'll-miss-it phenomenon, either; the light from the massive explosion peaks rapidly but declines slowly.  Most supernovae will be visible for months, before dimming to near-invisibility, ending as neutron stars or black holes.

There are lots of candidates for what could be the next supernova, although don't get your hopes up; most of these fall into the "some time in the next million years" category.  Yeah, it could happen tomorrow, but I wouldn't put money on it.  Still, the list is sizable, and here are five of the best possibilities:
  • Betelgeuse (720 light years away, in the constellation Orion).  This one got some serious press a few months ago because it suddenly started to decrease in brightness, and astronomers wondered if this was a prelude to an explosion.  What appears to have happened is that there was turbulence in the star's core that blew a cloud of dust from its surface, obscuring the star and making it appear to dim.  So we're still waiting for this red supergiant to explode, and probably will be for a while.
  • IK Pegasi (154 light years away, in the constellation Pegasus).  IK Pegasi isn't well known because at an apparent magnitude of 6, it's not visible to the naked eye, but it bears mention as the nearest serious supernova candidate.  It's a double star -- a main-sequence star and a massive white dwarf orbiting a common center of mass.  As the main-sequence star evolves, it will become a red giant, with a radius large enough that its white dwarf companion will start suctioning matter from its surface.  When the white dwarf reaches what's called the Chandrasekhar Limit -- 1.4 solar masses -- it will explode cataclysmically as a Type 1a supernova.  This will not only be spectacular but potentially dangerous -- a topic we will revisit shortly.
  • VY Canis Majoris (3,820 light years away, in the constellation Canis Major).  Another star not visible to the naked eye, VY Canis Majoris is a lot more spectacular than you'd think to look at it.  It's the largest star known, with a mass fifteen times that of the Sun, and a radius so large that if you put it where the Sun is, its surface would be about at the orbit of Jupiter (so we'd be inside the star).  This "hypergiant" is one of the most luminous stars in the Milky Way, and is only dim because it's so far away.  This one is certain to go supernova, probably some time in the next 100,000 years, and the remnants will collapse into a black hole.
  • Eta Carinae (7,500 light years away, in the constellation Carina).  Eta Carinae is another huge star, with a radius twenty times that of the Sun, but what makes this one stand out is its bizarre behavior.  In 1837 it suddenly brightened to being one of the five brightest stars in the night sky, then over the next sixty years faded to the point that it was only visible in binoculars.  Detailed observations have shown that it blew out a huge cloud of material in "The Great Eruption," which is now the Homunculus Nebula.  It's a unique object, which makes it hard to predict its future behavior.  What seems certain is that it'll eventually explode, but there's no telling when that might occur.
The consensus amongst astronomers, however, is that the next likely supernova probably isn't on the list -- that it will be a previously-unknown white dwarf or an unremarkable-looking red giant.  We know so little about supernovas that it's impossible to predict them with any kind of accuracy.  And while this is an exciting prospect, we'd better hope that the next supernova isn't too close.

The Homunculus Nebula with Eta Carinae at the center [Image licensed under the Creative Commons ESA/Hubble, Cosmic Fireworks in Ultraviolet Eta Carinae Nebula, CC BY 4.0]

Not only do supernovas produce a lot of light, they generate a tremendous amount of radiation of other kinds, including cosmic rays.  A close supernova could produce enough cosmic rays to wipe out the ozone layer -- leading to a huge influx of ultraviolet light from the Sun, with devastating effects.

Scarily, this may have already happened in Earth's history.  One of the lesser-known mass extinctions occurred at the end of the Devonian Period, 359 million years ago.  Because it is poorly understood, and was dwarfed by the cataclysmic Permian-Triassic Extinction a little over a hundred million years later, it's not one you tend to read about in the paleontology-for-the-layperson books.  Even so, it was pretty significant, wiping out 19% of known families and 50% of known genera, including placoderms (armored fish), cystoids (a relative of the starfish), and graptolites (colonial animals not closely related to any living species).  Most striking were the collapse of reef-forming corals -- reefs didn't begin to form again on any significant scale until the Mesozoic Era, almost two hundred million years later -- and the near-complete wipeout of vertebrates.  The latter left no vertebrate species over a meter long (most of them were under ten centimeters), and again, it was millions of years before any kind of recovery took place.

Fortunately for us, it eventually did, because we're talking about our ancestors, here.

The cause of this catastrophe has been a matter of speculation, but a team led by Brian Fields, astrophysicist at the University of Illinois, may have found a smoking gun.  In a paper this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, we find out that the most likely cause for the End-Devonian Extinction is a nearby supernova that caused the collapse of the ozone layer, leading to the Earth's surface being scorched by ultraviolet light.  This triggered a massive die-off of plants -- which had only recently colonized the land -- and worldwide anoxia.  

The result?  A mass extinction that hit just about every taxon known.

The idea that a supernova might have been to blame for the End-Devonian Extinction came from the presence of hundreds of thousands of plant spores in sedimentary rock layers that showed evidence of what appeared to be radiation damage.  This isn't conclusive, of course; the Fields et al. team is up front that this is only a working hypothesis.  What they'll be looking for next is isotopes of elements in those same rock layers that are only produced by bombardment with radiation, such as plutonium-244 and samarium-146.  "When you see green bananas in Illinois, you know they are fresh, and you know they did not grow here," Fields said, in an interview in Science Daily.  "Like bananas, Pu-244 and Sm-146 decay over time.  So if we find these radioisotopes on Earth today, we know they are fresh and not from here -- the green bananas of the isotope world -- and thus the smoking guns of a nearby supernova."

So as much as I'd love to witness a supernova in my lifetime, it'd be nice if it was one well outside of the terrifyingly-named "kill zone" (thought to be about 25 light years or so).  And chances are, there's nothing inside that radius we need to worry about.  If any of the known supernova candidates explode, we'll almost certainly be able to enjoy the fireworks from a safe distance.

***************************

Fan of true crime stories?  This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation of the week is for you.

In The Poisoner's Handbook:Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York, by Deborah Blum, you'll find out about how forensic science got off the ground -- through the efforts of two scientists, Charles Norris and Alexander Gettler, who took on the corruption-ridden law enforcement offices of Tammany Hall in order to stop people from literally getting away with murder.

In a book that reads more like a crime thriller than it does history, Blum takes us along with Norris and Gettler as they turned crime detection into a true science, resulting in hundreds of people being brought to justice for what would otherwise have been unsolved murders.  In Blum's hands, it's a fast, brilliant read -- if you're a fan of CSI, Forensics Files, and Bones, get a copy of The Poisoner's Handbook, you won't be able to put it down.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]




Thursday, August 20, 2020

Of rhinos and puppies

You're not alone if you immediately think "Africa" when you hear the word "rhinoceros."  The two largest and best-known species -- the black (Diceros bicornis) and white (Ceratotherium simum) rhinos -- are both native to the southern parts of Africa.  There are three additional extant species in southern Asia, however; the Indian (Rhinoceros unicornis), Javan (Rhinoceros sondaicus), and Sumatran (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis) rhinos.  The latter two are amongst the most endangered mammals in the world, with only about 60 and 245 individuals left, respectively.

Rhinos, though, used to be much more diverse, and much more common.  One of the most remarkable fossils ever discovered is the Blue Lake rhino, a fifteen-million-year-old cast of an extinct rhinoceros species called Diceratherium in what is now eastern Washington state.  The "remarkable" part is that it's fossilized in igneous rock, which isn't supposed to happen -- fossils are supposed to all be in sedimentary rock, right?  But what happened is there was a colossal eruption fifteen million years ago that produced the Columbia River Flood Basalts, releasing an estimated 174,000 cubic kilometers of lava, an amount that's hard to fathom.  Anyhow, this poor rhino was peacefully grazing, minding its own business, and suddenly BAM, it gets hit by a fast-moving, highly liquid lava flow, its body entombed then burned away.  Fast forward to 1935, when a fossil hunter named Haakon Friele discovered a strange cave in a basalt formation, crawled inside with a flashlight, and somehow thought, "Hey, this hole is shaped just like a rhino."  A bit later, a crew of paleontologists from the University of California - Berkeley were called in, and they made a plaster cast of the interior -- and sure enough, it's a cast of a very surprised-looking rhino who was very much in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There were other rhino species more recently, however.  The woolly rhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatis) was an ice-age species that lived pretty much everywhere in what is now Asia and Europe, but started declining in population about forty thousand years ago, dwindling until only a remnant population was left in Siberia.  The last ones died fourteen thousand years ago, give or take.

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons ДиБгд, Wooly Rhino15, CC BY-SA 4.0]

The blame for the woolly rhino's demise has been attributed to overhunting by early humans, but recent research suggests the cause was actually climate change.  In the paper, "Pre-Extinction Demographic Stability and Genomic Signatures in the Woolly Rhinoceros," by a team led by Edana Lord of the Swedish Museum of Natural History, we read the following:
Ancient DNA has significantly improved our understanding of the evolution and population history of extinct megafauna.  However, few studies have used complete ancient genomes to examine species responses to climate change prior to extinction.  The woolly rhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatis) was a cold-adapted megaherbivore widely distributed across northern Eurasia during the Late Pleistocene and became extinct approximately 14 thousand years before present (ka BP).  While humans and climate change have been proposed as potential causes of extinction, knowledge is limited on how the woolly rhinoceros was impacted by human arrival and climatic fluctuations.  Here, we use one complete nuclear genome and 14 mitogenomes to investigate the demographic history of woolly rhinoceros leading up to its extinction.  Unlike other northern megafauna, the effective population size of woolly rhinoceros likely increased at 29.7 ka BP and subsequently remained stable until close to the species’ extinction.  Analysis of the nuclear genome from a ∼18.5-ka-old specimen did not indicate any increased inbreeding or reduced genetic diversity, suggesting that the population size remained steady for more than 13 ka following the arrival of humans.  The population contraction leading to extinction of the woolly rhinoceros may have thus been sudden and mostly driven by rapid warming in the Bølling-Allerød interstadial.
So at least that's one calamity we're not responsible for.

On the other hand, another recent discovery shows that we might not have doomed the woolly rhino, but our best friends might have had a hand -- um, a paw -- in it.  A friend and long-time loyal reader of Skeptophilia sent me a link to an article about a mummified body of a dog found in Siberia that, when analyzed, was found to have bits of meat from a woolly rhino it its stomach.  "This puppy, we know already, has been dated to roughly 14,000 years ago," said researcher Love Dalén, also of the Swedish Museum of Natural History.  "We also know that the woolly rhinoceros goes extinct 14,000 years ago.  So, potentially, this puppy has eaten one of the last remaining woolly rhinos."

Dogs: Eating Stuff They Shouldn't Eat For the Past Fourteen Thousand Years.

So that's today's excursion into weird cul-de-sacs of zoology.  And honestly, I'm just as glad the temperate-area rhino species are gone, cool as they undoubtedly were.  We have enough trouble keeping the groundhogs and rabbits out of the vegetable garden, I can't imagine how we'd deal with rhinos tromping around the place.

***************************

Fan of true crime stories?  This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation of the week is for you.

In The Poisoner's Handbook:Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York, by Deborah Blum, you'll find out about how forensic science got off the ground -- through the efforts of two scientists, Charles Norris and Alexander Gettler, who took on the corruption-ridden law enforcement offices of Tammany Hall in order to stop people from literally getting away with murder.

In a book that reads more like a crime thriller than it does history, Blum takes us along with Norris and Gettler as they turned crime detection into a true science, resulting in hundreds of people being brought to justice for what would otherwise have been unsolved murders.  In Blum's hands, it's a fast, brilliant read -- if you're a fan of CSI, Forensics Files, and Bones, get a copy of The Poisoner's Handbook, you won't be able to put it down.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]




Wednesday, August 19, 2020

Scooting past the reviewers

If there's one piece of advice I have for anyone trying to stay informed, it is: check your sources.

Unfortunately, these days, that takes more than just a quick look, or a recommendation from someone with authority.  After all, just two days ago Donald Trump tweeted that Fox News wasn't right-wing enough for him, that all of his faithful MAGA followers should troop on over to OANN (One America News Network),  that it was the only news source that was "fair and balanced."  Of course, this was transparent enough; in Trump-speak, "fair and balanced" means "willing to kiss Trump's ass on a daily basis."  OANN is a far-right outlet allied to sites like Breitbart -- and let's face it, anything to the right of Fox News isn't even within hailing distance of unbiased.

So "sounds like a reliable source" is itself unreliable.  As an example, take the paper that appeared last week, authored by Mathieu Edouard Rebeaud (University of Lausanne), Valentin Ruggeri (University of Grenoble), Michaël Rochoy (University of Lille). and Florian Cova (University of Geneva).  I won't tell you the title, but leap right in with an excerpt:
As the number of push-scooters has been rising in France, so has the number of push-scooters accidents.  Some of these accidents have proven to be deadly and previous YouTube™ and Dropbox© studies have warned against the deadly potential of push-scooters [1].  For a comparison, only three Chinese people had died from the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 at the end of 2019 [2].  It is therefore important to reflect on the use of push-scooters through an accurate and ethical cost-benefit analysis.

Use and promotion of push-scooters have been advocated on the basis that they would contribute to the reduction and slowing of global warming.  In fact, the French scientific elite has been working on the subject and has recently argued that there was no proof of global warming, as he could not see the ice cap melt on his computer [3].  So, even if global warming was real, there are serious reasons to think that France is not affected, as global warming clearly stopped at the closed border [4].  Unfortunately, the debate is being polluted by bots, trolls and so-called experts funded by Big Trottinette to spread misinformation. Indeed, an independent study (in press on the third author’s Google Drive®) found a positive correlation between experts’ positive advocacy of push-scooters and the amount of money they received from Decathlon® (r = 3.14).  The fact that push-scooters are now a ‘generic’ means of locomotion that can be produced by anyone for a cheap price might lead people to the conclusion that no private interest is involved, but we’re not fooled, we know the truth [5].  So, it is important to diminish the increasing number of push-scooter drivers who are sacrificed on a daily basis.
The authors then go on to show that the way to combat the deadly push-scooter accident surge is through doses of hydroxychloroquine, which also shows promise in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  (Well, most of their research supported this.  They didn't have so much luck with Study 2.  "Study 2 was excluded from analysis and from this paper," the authors write, "as it did not provide informative results (i.e. the results we wanted)."

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons Alex Genz, Female rider on Egret One eScooter, CC BY-SA 4.0]

Also notable is that besides the four actual authors, there are also additional co-authors listed as belonging to places like "The Institute of Quick and Dirty Science of Neuneuchâtel, Switzerland" and the "Institute of Chiropteran Studies of East Timor," and one is called a "General Practitioner and Independent Seeker of Science" from Ankh-Morpork, France.

You may be thinking that this must have appeared in some kind of science spoof site like the brilliant Journal of Irreproducible Results.

You may be wrong.

This paper, titled, "SARS-CoV-2 Was Unexpectedly Deadlier than Push-scooters: Could Hydroxychloroquine be the Unique Solution?", was published in the Asian Journal of Medicine and Health.

(If you want to read it -- which I highly recommend -- you should do it soon.  My guess is that it'll be taken down before long.)

Sounds like a legitimate source, doesn't it?  You might be clued in that something was wrong if you noticed that the paper was submitted on July 24, accepted on August 11, and published on August 15 -- I say that notwithstanding the obviously goofy content from the title on, because most of the papers in the AJMH aren't blatantly off.  But if you look at stuff like this -- dates that make it clear that there was zero peer review involved -- there's no doubt left that this is one of those predatory pay-to-play journals, that will publish damn near anything if you give 'em some money.

Which, of course, was the point of the Rebeaud et al. paper.  It wasn't just to give us all a good laugh -- although it did that as well -- it was to shed some light on the way that predatory journals muddy the waters for everyone.

So back to where we started: CHECK.  YOUR.  SOURCES.  Which doesn't just mean a cursory "okay, it's a 'journal of medicine and health,' it must be reliable."  Take five minutes to do a quick search to see if there are any reviews or commentary on the journal itself.  The best thing is to find good sources that you know you can always rely on -- top-flight research journals like Science, Nature, Cell, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, and PLOS-One, to name five -- as well as research-for-the-layperson journals like Scientific American and Discover.

If you get outside of those realms, though, caveat lector.  You never know what kind of lunacy you'll find, up to and including recommendations for taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent push-scooter accidents.

***************************

Fan of true crime stories?  This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation of the week is for you.

In The Poisoner's Handbook:Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York, by Deborah Blum, you'll find out about how forensic science got off the ground -- through the efforts of two scientists, Charles Norris and Alexander Gettler, who took on the corruption-ridden law enforcement offices of Tammany Hall in order to stop people from literally getting away with murder.

In a book that reads more like a crime thriller than it does history, Blum takes us along with Norris and Gettler as they turned crime detection into a true science, resulting in hundreds of people being brought to justice for what would otherwise have been unsolved murders.  In Blum's hands, it's a fast, brilliant read -- if you're a fan of CSI, Forensics Files, and Bones, get a copy of The Poisoner's Handbook, you won't be able to put it down.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]




Tuesday, August 18, 2020

The power of ritual

I was raised in a devoutly Roman Catholic home, but after spending my teenage years feeling question after question bubbling up inside me, I left Catholicism, never to return.  In my twenties I tried more than once to find a faith community that seemed right -- that made sense of the universe for me -- attending first a Quaker meeting, then a Unitarian church, and finally a Methodist church, and each time I ended up faced with the same questions I'd had, questions that no one seemed to be able to answer.

The prime question was "How do you know all this is true?"  In other realms, that question was usually easy to answer.  Science, of course, was cut-and-dried; factual truth in science is measurable, quantifiable, observable.  But even with situations that aren't exactly rational, there's usually a way to approach the question.  How do I know that my family and friends love me?  Because they demonstrate it in a tangible way, every day.

But the claims of religion seemed to me to be outside even of that, and I never was able to get answers that satisfied.  Most of them boiled down to "I've had a personal experience of God" or "the existence of God gives meaning to my day-to-day experience," neither of which was particularly convincing for me.  I have never had anything like a transcendent, spiritual experience of an omnipresent deity.  And something imbuing meaning into your life doesn't make it true.  I'd read plenty of meaningful fiction, after all.  And as far as my wanting it to be true, if there was one thing I'd learned by that point, it was that the universe is under no compulsion to behave in a way that makes me comfortable.

So ultimately, I left religion behind entirely.  I have no quarrels with anyone who has found a spiritual home that works for them, as long as they're not forcing it on anyone else; in fact, I've sometimes envied people who can find reason to believe, wholeheartedly, in a greater power.  I just never seemed to be able to manage it myself.

That's not to say I'm unhappy as an atheist.  Perhaps I can't access the reassurance and comfort that someone has who is deeply religious, but there are a lot of the petty rules and pointless, often harmful, restrictions that I wish I'd abandoned many years earlier.  (The chief of which is my years of shame over my bisexuality.  The damage done to the queer community by the largely religiously-motivated bigotry of our society is staggering, and heartbreaking.)

But there's something about being part of a religion that I do miss, and it isn't just the sense of community.  You can find community in a book group or weekly sewing night or runners' club, after all.  What I find I miss most, strangely enough, is the ritual.

There's something compelling about the ritual of religion.  The Roman Catholicism of my youth is one of the most thoroughly ritualistic religions I know of; the idea is that any believer should be able to walk into any Catholic church in the world on Sunday morning and know what to do and what to say.  (Giving rise to the old joke, "How do you recognize a Catholic Star Wars fan?"  "If you say to them, 'May the Force be with you,' they respond, 'And also with you.'")  The vestments of the priests, the statuary and stained glass windows, the incense and candles and hymns and organ music -- it all comes together into something that, to the believer, is balm to the soul, leaving them connected to other believers around the world and back, literally millennia, in time.

Window in the Church of St. Oswald, Durham, England [Image licensed under the Creative Commons Tom Parnell, Church of St Oswald - stained glass window, CC BY-SA 4.0]

What got me thinking about this topic was a fascinating look in Science News at the effect that COVID-19 has had on rituals, and how that's affected individuals and society as a whole.  Not just religious rituals, of course; the pandemic has also put the kibosh on rituals like graduations, baby showers, weddings, funerals, secular holiday celebrations, sporting events, even personal ones like birthday parties and anniversaries.  All this has left a lot of us feeling unmoored.  What's taken their place -- Skyping, virtual get-togethers, Zoom meetings -- hasn't proven to be a replacement emotionally, even for non-religious people like myself.

Why humans are so attracted to rituals is an interesting question in and of itself, and one which the article looks at in some depth.  What interests me is not the obvious answer -- creating an in-group, a way to recognize our tribe.  There's a lot more to it than that.  It seems like humans are so wired into ritualistic behavior that it doesn't even matter what the context is.  One experiment the article cites took volunteers and separated them into two groups.  Each group was given a list of one-syllable words to read.  Members of the first group took turns, each participant reading aloud one column of words, then another participant moving on to the next, and so on.  The second group, though, did something different -- they recited the words together to the beat of a metronome.

The researchers gave the volunteers a standard "cooperation game" to play afterward.  The way it works is that you have two choices, X or Y.  If you choose X, you get seven dollars.  If you choose Y, you get ten dollars -- but if and only if every other member of the group also chooses Y.  If anyone chooses X, the ones who chose Y get nothing.

In the group who had recited the words in sequence, only 21% took the risk of cooperation and chose Y.  In the group who had chanted the words together, almost three times as many -- 62% of participants -- chose Y.

We bond to each other through rituals, even if it's something as silly as chanting a list of random words together.

Given that the pandemic is showing no signs of waning -- here in the United States, at least, where for some people wearing a mask to protect yourself and others is considered a fundamental infringement on your liberties -- my guess is that our rituals won't be returning to normalcy for a long time.  What's certain is that our desire for those rituals is very deeply wired into our brains, and their loss has hit a lot of people hard.  It remains to be seen whether we'll find alternate ways to exercise this drive, at least until there's an effective vaccine for COVID-19.

What long-term effect this will have on society -- on cohesion, connection, cooperation, even rates of depression and anxiety -- is unknown.

***************************

Fan of true crime stories?  This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation of the week is for you.

In The Poisoner's Handbook:Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York, by Deborah Blum, you'll find out about how forensic science got off the ground -- through the efforts of two scientists, Charles Norris and Alexander Gettler, who took on the corruption-ridden law enforcement offices of Tammany Hall in order to stop people from literally getting away with murder.

In a book that reads more like a crime thriller than it does history, Blum takes us along with Norris and Gettler as they turned crime detection into a true science, resulting in hundreds of people being brought to justice for what would otherwise have been unsolved murders.  In Blum's hands, it's a fast, brilliant read -- if you're a fan of CSI, Forensics Files, and Bones, get a copy of The Poisoner's Handbook, you won't be able to put it down.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]