Darwin and death

By Martín Bonfil Olivera
Published in Milenio Diario, June 10, 2009

The game of linking concepts that at a first glance look unrelated can be a good way of keeping one's mind in shape. I was invitated to give a talk about "the death of Darwinism", and that's a good excuse to explore the relations between the life and work of Charles Darwin and the subject of death (since Darwinism is alive and evolving).

Darwin's encounters with death are not few. His mother died in 1817, when he was only eight years old; that forced him to be admitted in a boarding school. Years later, already married to Emma, his cousin and then wife, he had ten children, of which two died very young (not an unsual thing in those times). But the death of his favorite, little Annie, at the age of ten, was no doubt the most traumatic encounter of Darwin with death. So much that it is believed that this put an end to whatever rest of religious faith he had left.

Darwin's own death was not unusual: he was buried in with honors at Westminster Abbey, the place reserved for the great men of England. The excessively austere grave on the floor that marks his resting place contrasts with the nearby grave of Isaac Newton, a kind of mini-Disneyland.

Darwin's ideas are too related to death: they help us to understand, for example, how it emerges.

It turns out that the oldest organisms, composed of only one cell, are immortal. They feed, grow and, when the time is right, they divide in two, but they don't die. Only with the emergence of multi-cellular organisms and sexual reproduction do phenomena like ageing and death emerge; they are the price we have to pay for the capacity of forming more complex organisms.

Apart from helping us to understand death, if Darwin's ideas are used in the wrong way, they can cause death: at the beginning of the 20th century, the development of the pseudoscience of eugenics, which intended to improve human race through Darwinian selection, was a global trend, and gave way to the excesses of Nazism. Even today, the application of Darwinian thinking in social contexts bears this stigma.

The moral of the story is that Darwinism, as any other knowledge, can be used for good or bad. That's why it is convenient to have a good understanding of it.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

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

Science in the media

By Martí­n Bonfil Olivera
Published in Milenio Diario, June 3, 2009

The science that appears in the media —newspapers, radio, television, the internet— normally takes the form of news, curiosities, entertainment… science as another form of spending time in a pleasant way.

And it's ok it's like that. It is good that science is present in our daily life, that we know about it, we enjoy it and understand it.

But there are occasions —as happened with the recent influenza epidemic— in which we suddenly remember that science can be a matter of life or death. And we realize that in Latin America we do not have specialized communicators, capable of handling it and putting it into the reach of the public in a clear, rigorous and reliable way.

Science, unlike other journalism "sources", requires a special preparation, because it does not yet form, unfortunately, part of our citizens' culture . That's why I was conforted when I went to two events that seek to put a remedy to that shortage of science journalists.

The first was the seminar "Science, technology and innovation as news", organized in Acapulco, in the Mexican state of Guerrero, by the Scientific and Technological Consulting Forum, an assessing organism of the executive government, and the Mexican Society for Scientific and Technical Popularization (SOMEDICYT).

As already mentioned by my colleague Horacio Salazar, this gathering of scientific journalists served to realize that we are a few and we're isolated and disorganized, but that we have the potential to form networks and associations to make us more professional and increase our numbers.

The second event was the XI Reunion of the Latin American and Caribbean Network for the Popularization of Science and Technology (RedPOP), in Montevideo , Uruguay, where science communicators from Latin America gathered to share experiences and analyze the challenges.

From both reunions I gather the conviction that our labor is necessary, because the need to democratize scientific knowledge will become more urgent day by day, and that it is worth to collaborate in an academic way to make it advance and improve.

After all, what we science popularizers are here for is to serve the citizens that, with their taxes, pay for scientific research. The challenge is to get scientific culture become popular culture.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

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

Falsifying science

by Martín Bonfil Olivera

Published in Milenio Diario, May 27, 2009

The great trust we have in science and in the knowledge it produces is based, mostly, in its rigorous quality control system.

For something to be considered valid in science, its not enough that somebody with a pHD says it, . The work of a researcher, including a detailed description of his records, methods, an analysis of the results and the arguments that support the conclusions, have to be socialized in seminars and conferences and accepted by the community of experts to which he belongs.

The process ends with the publication of the work in an international refereed journal. These journals only accept works that have gone through a thoroughly process of "peer review", generally anonymous, in which is frequent to ask for changes or additions based on the expertise of the referees.

Hence the little scandal that erupted when The scientist magazine (April 30) published that pharmaceutical company Merck, Sharp & Dohme had negotiated with Elsevier, the most famous and powerful scientific magazine publisher in the world, the publication, between 2003 and 2004, of a scientific magazine made by order with summaries and review articles published in other magazines which results were always favorable to Merck products.

The pharmaceutical industry is one of those dangerous places where the border between science and business is blurred. It's not wrong for a company to publicize its products. Informal magazines that are given to medical doctors and summarize information of arbitrary magazines are common practice. But it is always clear that these are not true scientific magazines, but instances of propaganda.

The alarming thing about this case is that Merck's "infomercials" were disguised as good science. And worst: in view of the scandal, Elsevier revealed that it had made not only one, but six magazines paid for by companies. They stopped doing this years ago, but the moral of the story is clear: the greed of publicists and companies can put the quality and the reliability of science at risk.

As it also occurs in democracy, transparency, far from debilitating science, makes it stronger. Let's hope Elsevier learned their lesson.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

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

Mexican genome, my foot!

by Martín Bonfil Olivera

Published in Milenio Diario, May 20, 2009

On May 12, the "Mexican genome" was presented with a lot of hype.

But according to the National Institute of Genomic Medicine (Inmegen), which did the work, what was really shown was "the map of the genome of Mexicans". This distinction matters because there is no unique genome that we Mexicans all share. Each human being has its own combination of genes. And although the variation between individuals is minimal (0.5 percent), it's what makes us unique.

The media also gave the wrong impression that the "Mexican genome" information was read letter by letter.

Actually, the study titled "Analysis of genomic diversity in Mexican Mestizo populations to develop genomic medicine in Mexico" was much more modest. It examined the differences in little genetic markers between 300 individuals of seven groups: six mestizo and one from Zapotec civilization. It's a smaller version of the so-called "Hap Map", or "haplotype map": the study of genetic markers in different population groups of the world. It will be useful to relate the genetic variability with the susceptibility of the populations to certain diseases (that' where all the talk about "genetic medicine" comes from).

Inmegen concludes that it would be worthy to perform a haplotype map of the Mexican population. The study is the draft of a draft that would allow to start developing genetic medicine in Mexico.

But reading the statements of Felipe Calderón, the de facto president of Mexico ("we are entering the medicine of the third millennium", "we will have first world health", "we could prevent the development of diseases such as cancer, diabetes, hypertension or obesity, etc."), it looks like we were already in the first world.

Reality is different: Inmegen lacks support. It operates in inappropriate facilities - an office building where they cannot work with radioactivity nor microorganisms - and the construction of their definitive building is plagued with irregularities. Until recently, the Institute had a very rigid hierarchical structure in which only its director could make decisions.

And the situation is general: INDRE (the Diagnostic and Epidemiological Reference Institute), fundamental in the influenza epidemic, is "obsolete and insecure", as reported on monday by MILENIO. As published in the first page of El Universal (one of the most influential newspapers in Mexico), "Mexico is paying its abandonment of science".

With all the shortages on the health research system, to simulate that Mexico is a scientific power is dishonest.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

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

Schizophrenia

by Martí­n Bonfil Olivera
Published in Milenio Diario, May 13, 2009

The relationship between Mexicans and science is schizophrenic. On the one side, we want to trust science, and on the other we deny its credibility.

In the wake of the recent outbreak of influenza, Mexican media demanded precise and fixed figures from day one, when the were impossible to have. Reporters demanded them in part by lack or knowledge about how science works, how it advances slowly and by successive approximations.

But the informative void was filled by another virus: conspiracy theories (mainly through e-mails or by word of mouth).

The majority of these were just simply absurd: the virus is an invention ("influenza my ass", López Obrador dixit); Obama brought the virus to Mexico; it was released as part of an agreement to reactivate world economy, at any cost; the outbreak was part of a strategy to scare Mexicans right before the July elections…

The problema is that in Mexico —and in a lot of other Countries— we lack a scientific culture that, beyond having or not certain knowledge, would allow us to distinguish between anecdotes or suppositions and verified data.

What we do have, certainlly, is an advanced "culture of distrust": when our expectations do not match, we deny the data, we accuse science of authoritarism and we tend to believe in complots.

As the eminent mexican pathologist Ruy Pérez Tamayo writes (La Crónica, May 8) "the handling of the necessary measures to face an epidemic is not only matter of logic and good intentions; it deals with actions based on a lot of accumulated experience through the years, on specific and well documented information, on a wisdom acquired in the books as well as in the field. For an emergency situation such as the one Mexico is going through, it is fundamental to trust authorities, especially when these are real experts with regards to the problem".

Unfortunately, our authorities have not earned that trust. Sadly, also, our culture of distrust makes us prefer conspiracy theories than trustful information.

Poor Mexico: so little science and such a taste for rumors!

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

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

Virus, science and society

by Martín Bonfil Olivera
Published on Milenio Diario, May 6, 2009

The influenza outbrake that has kept Mexico City - and the whole country - semi-paralyzed since April 24 leaves several points clear.

First, the outbreak was expected. Not necessarily in Mexico, or from viral sub-type H1N1 (the favorite candidate was H5N1 which caused the avian flu outbrake in 2006). But evolution, the nature of these viruses —promiscuity; fragmented genome; human, swine and avian hosts— and the natural history of influenza made it perfectly predictable that sooner or later we would be facing another pandemic.

Second, a problem of this magnitude its not only a scientific or medical matter: it affects the whole of society: economy, politics, diplomacy, daily living (we chilangos, inhabitants of Mexico city, know that well). International organisms (especially the World Health Organization) had the good sense to foresee and prepare measures to contain the inevitable: manuals, international agreements, labs, purchase of anti-viral drugs…

Mexico simply followed these indications —not ideally, but adequately, considering our limitations— when the outbreak data were clear.

Now there's talk of slowness in the response, but one of the bad things about an epidemic outbrake is that it cannot be recognized until it's there. To declare the alert before being sure was too high a risk (there are also those who say that the measures were excessive, but the virus could have been very lethal: H5N1 kills 50% of people infected.)

My usual readers know that I don't support Felipe Calderón, our non-legitimate president. But in this case, the actions of his government, as well as the ones from Marcelo Ebrard's (in Mexico City) were not only appropriate, but successful. The intellectual credit for this is for the international medical community; but the political credit is theirs.

The lessons from this situation are that we have to demand more support for scientific investigation and the reconstruction of a health system that works on prevention and research —not only in health attention. There's also a necessity of a much better communication strategy for authorities. And finally, an urgency to have more well prepared science journalists, to avoid the epidemy of conspiracy theories that only make social reaction much more difficult.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

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

Influenza and evolution

by Martín Bonfil Olivera
Published on Milenio Diario, April 29, 2009

The problem is that's what viruses are like: promiscuous and addicted to gambling. And that's what evolution is like, taking species trough twisted and unexpected roads. And that's what science is like, unable to advance on its own road, no less random, faster than it can, held up by its method, which demands it makes sure about what it knows up to that moment before taking the next step.

The influenza virus which is currently bothering us (family orthomyxoviridae, type A, the most common ones, that also infect birds, pigs and horses) is, as are all viruses, a protein capsule that contains genetic material; in this case, ribonucleic acid (RNA), the older and less stable cousin of DNA.That's part of the problem: RNA copying is less accurate: sometimes it adds, sometimes it substracts, and thus causes spontaneous mutations inside one species of viruses.

And if several different viruses infect one same cell, they can recombine, taking with them pieces of genetic information from the others. The virus that concerns us has genes from other influenza viruses that infect humans, pigs and birds. And it can continue changing. What's alarming is the fact that it has learned to jump from human to human (as was feared from bird flue in 2006).

Its last name H1N1 refers to two proteins of its surface: haemaglutinin (of which there are 15 variants; this is number 1), which the virus uses to bind to the cell it's going to infect, and neuraminidase (9 variants) which allow the new viral particles to come out of the infected cell without being stuck to it.

Oseltamivir (Tamiflu -do not self medicate!), one of the drugs that work against the current influenza virus, inhibits this enzyme, and prevents that the new viruses form disseminating.

Science, as evolution, is unpredictable. I can seem slow and expensive, but if James Watson and Francis Crick hadn’t discovered, 56 years ago, the DNA double helix, today we wouldn't have the molecular biology tools that allow us to study and fight this virus.

And if we do not widely invest in scientific investigation —as Barack Obama said, immediately backing his words by increasing his country's investing in science by 3 percent of USA's gross domestic product— we won't be able to fight future crises -whether they be health crises or any other type of crises.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

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