Shameless Ratzinger

by Martín Bonfil Olivera

Published on Milenio Diario, December 31, 2008

It shouldn't come as a surprise. After all, it comes from the Pope that attacks gender ideology by stating that "it's opposed to human nature" and that it seeks to "emancipate man (sic) from creation and the creator" (in reality, it has been useful to defend women rights).

He's the same pope that declares that "saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior is as important as avoiding the destruction of jungles" and that to protect "human ecology" (ignoring the precise meaning of the term) compared such behaviors to a "destruction of god's work".

He is the Pope that defends "fundamental Christian values" but considers that they include a deep intolerance towards sexual diversity and women's and men's right to fully enjoy their own bodies and to take decisions over them.

Recently he rejected sex change surgeries because they "contradict God's decision".

These press statements serve to justify discrimination and unjust actions such as the State Family Council of Guadalajara (Consejo Estatal de la Familia de Guadalajara), which decided to separate the girl Rosa Isela from her adoptive mother, who raised her for eight years, only because the mother, Alondra, was born as a man named Alberto. The council has maintained Rosa Isela illegally kidnapped though a judge conceded Alondra the custody of the child.

Pope Ratzinger criticizes relativism: to think that things are not intrinsically good or bad; that this epends on the context. But now he is taking advantage of the 400 years celebration of the first telescopic observation by Galileo and of the celebration of the International Year of Astronomy to try to wash the image of the Catholic Church, an institution that traditionally has been an obstacle for science.

He is now proposing through the Pontifical Council for Culture that Galileo, convicted by heresy in 1633, "could be the ideal patron of the dialogue between science and faith".

If there is a distinction between science and religion is that science does not pretend to have absolute truths. Ratzinger, which says he "is convinced of the congruence between faith and reason, seeks to "give reason its deserved place in all the scheme of things". Taking into account Galileo's history, we can imagine what place that is.

It shouldn't come as a surprise, but still it makes one feel indignant.

Happy 2009!

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!

An obtuse program

by Martín Bonfil Olivera
Published on Milenio Diario, December 24, 2008

The Special program of Science and Technology (PECyT, Programa Especial de Ciencia y Tecnología) 2008-2012, published on December 17 by the Official Government Diary is obtuse and lacks ambition. It conceives science not as an integral part of society, but as an matter of elites.

Mi colleagues Arturo Barba and Horacio Salazar are ahead of me on commenting the issue, but it is worth to make the point once again: if the idea is, as declared in the program's objectives, "to strengthen the education-basic science and innovation-technology-application chain", "to encourage a greater financial support" of these areas and "to evaluate the application of public resources that are going to be invested", this cannot be achieved in a society that does not know, understand or is interested in supporting science and technology (I do not know what is the difference between the latter and "innovation").

True enough, the PECyT mentions the promotion of scientific culture (strategy 1.4) and talks about "perception, appropriation and social recognition of science", about encouraging science popularization and support for projects as well as museums and organizations dedicated to science. But in the central scheme that shows the "National System of Science and Technology" (Sistema Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología), where the general concept of the program is defined as well as its participants and organization, the President of México is included (at the top of the list), as well as the National Committee for Science and Technology (Conacyt) and government institutions, and (right at the bottom) the scientists, businessmen and students… but the common citizen did not make it to the list. A vertical and excluding scheme.

The PECyT 2001-2006, conceived during the government of Vicente Fox, promised "to make bigger efforts so that the spreading of scientific knowledge reaches more people". It explicitly included popularization in their objectives (2.6) and mentioned a "special fund for scientific and technological popularization", from which the scientific community did not see a penny. In practice, nothing changed: science popularization in the Country remained, as usual, limited by the achievements of individual popularizers, professional organizations, public universities and media. The government still believes that scientific progress is achieved by decree.

When are we going to understand that our first need is a population that knows, appreciates and supports science?

Merry Christmas!

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!

Klaatu or the hopeful fable

by Martín Bonfil Olivera

Published on Milenio Diario, December 17, 2008

Science fiction, besides being a form of entertainment, usually communicates certain kinds of messages about science, technology and their effect in human society.

That's what the movie The day the earth stood still, a 1951 classic directed by Robert Wise and based on a Harry Bates, did. The story —an extraterrestrial being, together with a super-powerful robot, come to warn humankind of what can happen if they don't choose peace over war — was a typical cold war-era message .

The movie did not end the cold war, but left a mark on the people who watched it.

The new version that is currently being shown in theatres, starring Keanu Reeves (for once, his stiff acting suits the role) as Klaatu the extraterrestrial being, keeps, an updates, the earth-salvation moral of the story. And, apart from the weak ending —I understand that Klaatu's speech at the end of the movie could not be kept, but something should've been done to substitute it —, is a good (not great), exciting and interesting action movie.

Is it worth it to continue making science fiction movie fables? I don’t know, but they don't hurt either. The impact of movies as means to modify attitudes is well portrayed by movies like Philadelphia or An inconvenient truth, films that, using fiction or documentary, sparked a change in the public opinion about such important issues as AIDS-related discrimination or global warming. The day the earth stood still will not be that influential, surely, but at least it helps people who watch it, to remember that we have a pending issue: to stop hurting our planet.

Although it lacks strict science fiction —it's more a fantasy movie —, the 2008 version includes very welcomed updates to the original version's naïveté: the complex sphere instead of the flying saucer; the destructive nanomachines, the biotechnological placenta-space suit from which Klaatu is "born" in its human form… and it keeps the character of the sensible scientist that chats with the extraterrestrial and starts to convince him that humankind still has a salvation.

In summary, an enjoyable movie, that transmits a very valuable message and gives a positive image about science. Something to be thankful for.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!

The secret of the nucleolus

by Martín Bonfil Olivera
Published on Milenio Diario, December 10, 2008

The news that appeared in several media two weeks ago does not grab the reader's attention at first glance: it's been discovered that parasite Giardia duodenalis does in fact have nucleoli.

It was, however, the subject of several scientific front pages. Why? Let me explain the importance of the discovery and why it is good news.

The amazing image of the cell that molecular biology has revealed to us in the last few decades shows that it is a much more complex and dynamic system than the gelatin with inserted fruits that high school students usually study. For example, the nucleolus appeared inside the nucleus as a little sphere with no well-defined function.

Today we know that it is a complex sub-cellular factory where, with great precision and speed, ribosomes are assembled, whose function is to make proteins. Since proteins are the molecules responsible of performing basically all of a cell's functions, it's clear that ribosomes, and thus nucleoli, are vital to the cell's economy. However, only cells with nucleus — called eukaryotes — have a nucleolus. Bacteria and their cousins archaea — prokaryotes — do not have nucleus nor nucleolus. In the border between the two reigns, it was thought that some "primitive" eukaryotes, like the protozoa Giardia duodenalis (also known as Giardia lamblia), a common cause of gastroenteritis in humans and other mammals, had a nucleus, but not a nucleolus.

This being said, the importance of the discovery is that it "breaks the paradigm" that there were exceptions to the rule that prokaryotes, besides a nucleus, also had nucleolus.

Furthermore, the news deserves our attention because it was a discovery done by Mexican researchers, leaded by Luis Felipe Jiménez, from the Science School at UNAM (the National Autonomous University of Mexico), together with scientists from IPN (National Polytechnical Institute) and from the Cancer and Pediatrics National Institutes (and from Zurich University). The discovery was achieved using diverse techniques of light and electronic microscopy, in which Jimenez is one of the main national experts.

As the note stated, "it was a triumph of Mexican microscopy" and another demonstration that our universities and public health institutes can do first world-quality science, that may have health applications. Good job!

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!

Ten years of ¿Cómo ves?

by Martín Bonfil Olivera
Published on Milenio Diario, December 3, 2008

Evaluating the quality of cultural projects is complex. Even more when we deal with the promotion, popularization, democratization of scientific culture. Two possible criteria are the acceptance of the public to which they are targeted, and their permanence.

With the above basis, I dare to declare that magazine ¿Cómo ves?, published by the Dirección General de Divulgación de la Ciencia (General Direction for Science Popularization) of UNAM (National Autonomous University of Mexico), which yesterday celebrated its first ten years with an event in Universum museum, is an example of top quality science promotion.

Apart from being the largest university publication in the Country (20 thousand copies monthly), ¿Cómo ves? has become one of our most successful popular science magazines. Not only because of its acceptance and permanence, but also because of the intrinsic quality of its contents , elaborated by a small but efficient multidisciplinary team that sums the knowledge of its collaborators — some experts in science; others, in science communication — with the rigorous work of correctors and editors, and the creativity of designers, illustrators and photographers, and an enthusiastic support group.

¿Cómo ves? not only divulges data: it offers scientific culture. Its first number stated that "our ambition is that you get to know where scientific knowledge comes from and how it is related with you and the society you live in". It has achieved its goal. More than scientific curiosity or isolated data, the magazine offers accessible and timely knowledge in context. Science, of course, but also its history, its conflicts and debates; its advances and retreats. It shows us science as a human activity that cannot be isolated from the rest of culture and society.

However, if the goal is to encourage science appreciation by the common citizen, the development in scientific and technical investigation, its vinculation with industry and productive sectors and finally, an improvement of the conditions of a society that, as ours, aspires to get out of the third world and become a first world country, the road is still long. Projects like ¿Cómo ves? are a very good start, but they are not enough. I hope these first ten years are useful as a stimulus for new scientific culture projects. We definitely need them.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!