J. Alden Page
January 20, 2008
Philosophy, Science
2 Comments
Reproduction is the means that enables evolution. Because of this, what is considered sexy often has as large an effect on how a species evolves as the characteristics that help survival. In humans surviving nature has become easier than ever, this means that sexual preference is driving evolution to a greater degree than in the past.
There are many examples of sexual preference trumping survival fitness. A classic example of this is the peacock. Males have large brightly colored feathers, while females are colored to match their landscape and have small feathers that stay close to their body. Male peacock feathers are a disadvantage in terms of survival, but this trait is selected for because it increases the chances of the male reproducing.
Large female breasts are an example of this in humans. It’s a common misconception that large breasts are for giving babies lots of milk. Chimpanzees, gorillas and other apes are able to feed their children with very small breasts. The truth is that human female breasts are almost entirely fat, with a relatively low percentage of mammary tissue. If large breasts aren’t advantageous to survival, why do women have them and why are men attracted to them?
One popular theory is that breasts evolved to feed babies that did not have a prominent jaw. A flat face pressed against a flat chest might have lead to high rates of suffocation. If this theory is correct, then it would make sense that males who were attracted to prominent breasts would be more likely to have children that survived. Once this attraction was ingrained into most males, breasts may have continued to increase in size because males were still sexually selecting for them.
This type of sexual selection was not unique to our ancestors. What traits are being selected today? The answer to this lies in what characteristics are resulting in more children.
I only know of a few characteristics that have been shown to be correlated with having more children:
1. Beautiful women have more daughters
2. Men with low voices have more kids
3. Uneducated people have more children
With less need to hunt down animals and survive the elements, our continued evolution may be largely influenced by selecting for characteristics like the ones listed above.
Interestingly, there may be many characteristics which we aren’t aware of that are significantly different from the human population a few thousand years ago. For example, males might have lower voices than they used to, we wouldn’t know. Our ability to record visual and auditory information, could lead to suprising revelations about which traits are being selected.
J. Alden Page
January 15, 2008
Science
No Comments
Today the FDA declared that it is safe to eat cloned meat. (see article)
“We found nothing in the food that could potentially be hazardous. The food in every respect is indistinguishable from food from any other animal,” FDA food safety chief Dr. Stephen Sundlof said. “It is beyond our imagination to even find a theory that would cause the food to be unsafe.”
Cloning the perfect meat cow, the chicken who lays the most eggs or the lamb that produces the finest wool would have obvious benefits. How long will it be before we are cloning the smartest mathematicians, greatest artists, and strongest Olympians?
Will cloning the “best” help or hurt society in the long run?
blejkrajli
January 14, 2008
Uncategorized
No Comments
1. Nanohazard warning symbol contest (via Boing Boing): While some look good, Anders Sandberg distinguishes between nanoparticle, nanodevice, and self-replicating device threats.
2. Creating synthetic life (via Boing Boing): Are patents on synthetic cells more justified than those on discovered genes?
3. Intelligent amoebas (via Unqualified Offerings): Intelligence might be a strong word, but there are signs of learned behavior.
4. Magnetic sense (Warning! Potentially disturbing images): Add a new sense through implanted magnets, which allows you to detect magnetic fields and electrical currents.
5. Smell, the suppressed sense: Americans try to suppress natural scents; could this trend turn around?
6. Morals and evolution: Modern society might require that we overcome aspects of a moral sense instilled by evolution.
7. Innovation and regulation: Businesses respond to regulation with innovation, but what innovation could have occurred if incentives weren’t redirected in this manner?
8. Revisiting the Turing test: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck (despite its positronic brain and servo motors).
J. Alden Page
January 12, 2008
Science, Society
No Comments
The excerpt below is from Michael Crichton’s bestselling book “Next”. Here Michael Crichton makes it very clear that he believes genes should not be patented. Is he correct? Does gene patenting stunt progress by limiting our ability to use genes? Or does it accelerate advancement by giving researchers and corporations more incentive to identify and isolate genes?
“Stop patenting genes. Gene patents might have looked reasonable twenty years ago, but the field has changed in ways nobody could have predicted. Today we have plenty of evidence that gene patents are unnecessary, unwise, and harmful.
There is great confusion about gene patents. Many observers conflate a call to end gene patents with anticapitalist and anti-private property sentiments. It is nothing of the sort. It is perfectly reasonable for industry to seek a mechanism that will ensure a profit on productive investment. Such a mechanism implies a restriction on competition involving a created product. However, such protection does not imply that genes themselves should be patented. On the contrary, gene patents contradict long-established traditions of intellectual property protection. (…)
Because it’s a patent on a fact of nature, a gene patent becomes an undeserved monopoly. Ordinarily, patent protection enables me to protect my invention but encourages others to make their own versions. My iPod doesn’t prevent you from making a digital audio player. My patented mousetrap is wood, but your titanium mousetrap is allowed.
This is not what happens with gene patents. The patent consists of pure information already existing in nature. Because there has been no invention, no one can innovate any other use of the patent without violating the patent itself, so further innovation is closed. It’s like allowing somebody to patent noses. You couldn’t make eyeglasses, Kleenex, nasal sprays, masks, makeup, or perfume because they all rely on some aspect of noses. You could put suntan lotion on your body, but not on your nose, because any modification of your nose would violate the patent on noses. Chefs could be sued for making fragrant dishes unless they paid the nose royalty. And so on. Of course, we would all agree that a patent on noses is absurd. If everyone has one, how can anyone own it? Gene patents are absurd for the same reason.”
Michael Crichton argues that genes are a “fact of nature”, so it does not make sense to patent them. The official guidelines of the Patent Trademark Office disagree with this assertion. In these guidelines they state the following:
“An isolated and purified DNA molecule that has the same sequence as a naturally occurring gene is eligible for a patent because (1) an excised gene is eligible for a patent as a composition of matter or as an article of manufacture because that DNA molecule does not occur in that isolated form in nature, or (2) synthetic DNA preparations are eligible for patents because their purified state is different from the naturally occurring compound.”
The patent office justifies patenting genes by saying that isolated genes do not occur in nature. Thus, being able to discern the function of a gene requires invention. There is some validity in asserting that isolating a gene deserves a patent. Since every gene is different, the process of isolating genes is lengthy and varies significantly. Additionally, the proteins produced by the isolated gene must be isolated so that the function of the gene can be determined. This is usually a very difficult task. It is easy to understand why patents might be needed as an incentive for spending the amount of time and money that is necessary for accomplishing this type of research.
However, as Michael Crichton points out, there is an intuitive ridiculousness to having ownership of a natural component. He uses ownership of the nose as an example. It would be to silly have ownership of the nose and everything that is associated with the nose. Biological processes often involve multiple genes, so owning a gene could entail partial ownership of multiple processes. If one or more of these processes were important, this ownership could significantly slow down the practical application of these discoveries.
My opinion is that gene patenting is currently beneficial, because it is spurring new discoveries about genes. But, I think in future years gene patenting will be detrimental. Individuals should receive credit for discovering and isolating genes, but receiving ownership for 20 years could significantly slow down progress. I think if gene patenting is to remain, the period of ownership should be reduced to a couple of years.
Links:
The official guidlines for patenting genes.
The five conclusions made by Michael Crichton, at the end of his book “Next”.
