Protein evolution...wha?

If you ignore for a second the constant forward-looking attention Internet news demands and stretch your mind back to the Mad Cow Disease scare of 2004, you might remember thinking "how strange that proteins can act as pathogens in the mammalian body!"

Mad Cow scares us because it's an enigma--a protein disease that acts like it has DNA. But now it's looking more familiar, as researchers prove it mutates very much like a DNA or RNA virus or bacteria.

In the most recent issue of Science, Li et. al. describe what looks like an evolving population of prions (infectious proteins taken from the brain of animals with Mad Cow Disease.) When grown in the lab, each identical prion colony becomes different; some out-compete others and grow a sizable population. This mirrors what happens when bacteria or viruses (with DNA) go through similar tests.

Could prion proteins be another form of heritability?

This hasn't always been a radical idea. If you've got a little extra time, pick up James Watson's "The Double Helix": a riveting tale that, among other things, faithfully describes the scientific attitudes towards heritability in the early 50's. Most big-name scientists (ahem-Linus Pauling) considered proteins not DNA the most important molecule associated with human inheritance. Once Watson and Crick proved DNA the culprit, the case was closed on proteins.

Perhaps if human minds allowed a more detailed memory, we wouldn't be so scared or amazed by prion disease. After all, it wasn't so long ago that proteins were at the center of the heritability research paradigm.

Despite the historical flip-floping, I don't think proteins will ever be proven more important than DNA. But I'll definitely stay tuned to see if other forms of inheritance might be uncovered in the future.

Empiricism comes naturally...

No career seemed insurmountable to me, as a teenager. Im not sure if it was sheer arrogance that got me into science--i'd like to think genuine curiosity and thirst for empiricism had something to do with it, too.

Yet, teens today struggle to see a science career in their future--but, not for the reasons you'd think (it's geeky/boring.)

In the 2010 Lemelson-MIT Invention Index, teens show a strong understanding of the creative and fun aspects of science, but less understanding of the societal implications of that tinkering:

An overwhelming amount of respondents wishing they knew more about STEM in order to create or invent something (85 percent); however, a majority might be discouraged from pursuing professions in these areas due to a lack of understanding of the subjects or what people in these fields do, and not knowing anyone who works in these fields (51 percent). In addition, with less than one-fifth of respondents feeling scientists contribute most to society's well-being, and even fewer selecting engineers (5 percent), many teens may lack a full understanding of the societal impact that STEM professionals have, further exposing the need for teachers and mentors in these areas.

In my second year of college, i remember having no idea what kind of science I wanted to study, and i think I eventually just closed my eyes and pointed.

The problem in our educational system is not that kids/teens aren't interested in science--curiosity and empiricism come naturally to kids. The problem is that kids have no idea what it's like to be a scientists today.

Science is not stuck in a 50s style lab with tools that were invented last century, picking apart frogs whose innards exactly match the textbook. It's uncertain, fun, messy, frustrating, challenging, and yes, sometimes it's a little tedious.

Somewhere along the way, we've succeeded in divorcing the empirical adventure of science from the image of the scientist. Most people think inventors = rich former Silicon Valley inhabitants, but the truth is that they are all around us.

Early Hominids = Sailors?

Ahoy mateys! Some early hominids were seafarers, according to recent research. The evidence? Sizable caches of double-sided human hand axes dating back 130,000 years, found in nine separate sites in southwestern Crete.

Crete is an island (of course)--and has been for 5 million years. To get there, hominids must have sailed!

Researchers believe it unlikely that early hominids ended up on Crete by accident, on a raft blown out to sea. The sheer number of hand axes suggests a large population. (And, they were made of local Crete quartz, so there's no way one group could have carried a bunch over in one boat.)

So, either there were a hell of a lot of inbred hominids running around...or, several groups sailed to Crete purposefully.

At the time when homo erectus, homo heidelbergensis, and possibly early neanderthals were kicking around, who knows which was the first Christopher Columbus? Homo erectus had spread from Africa to Europe and Asia by this time, so he is the most likely candidate.

To think--a homo erectus would risk his life to explore new lands, maybe for food or just for safety. (No scientist has yet suggested a reason why they would have purposefully sailed to Crete.)It's a groundbreaking thought, in my mind, that homo erectus could have been so imaginative and such a risk-taker.