In December 2006, the National Academy of Sciences sponsored a colloquium (featured as part of the Arthur M. Sackler Colloquia series) on "Adaptation and Complex Design" to synthesize recent empirical findings and conceptual approaches towards understanding the evolutionary origins and maintenance of complex adaptations. Darwin's elucidation of natural selection as a creative natural force was a monumental achievement in the history of science, but a century and a half later some religious believers still contend that biotic complexity registers conscious supernatural design. In this book, modern scientific perspectives are presented on the evolutionary origin and maintenance of complex phenotypes including various behaviors, anatomies, and physiologies. After an introduction by the editors and an opening historical and conceptual essay by Francisco Ayala, this book includes 14 papers presented by distinguished evolutionists at the colloquium. The papers are organized into sections covering epistemological approaches to the study of biocomplexity, a hierarchy of topics on biological complexity ranging from ontogeny to symbiosis, and case studies explaining how complex phenotypes are being dissected in terms of genetics and development.

In the Light of Evolution: Volume 1. Adaptation and Complex Design

I've long been peeved by the ambiguity of phrases like the name of this club. What's so secret? Is it a secret club about open science? Or is it an open club about secret science? Maybe it's a nonexistent club about the science of contradiction.

The Secret Science Club is a free science lecture and arts series. It is open to the public and meets the first Wednesday of every month in the basement of Union Hall in Park Slope, Brooklyn.

So how do you keep the science secret? If you read the article by Thomas Powers about the Nine little words in the NIE, then you know that

One of the basic laws of intelligence is that no big secret can be kept that can be written on the back of an envelope.

So I guess these secrets must be like the toner in The Diamond Age:

"See, there's mites around all the time. They use sparkles to talk to each other," Harv explained. "They're in the food and water, everywhere. And there's rules that these mites are supposed to follow. They're supposed to break down into safe pieces... But there are people who break those rules [so the] Protocol Enforcement guys make a mite to go out and find that mite and kill it. This dust - we call it toner - is actually the dead bodies of all those mites.

Secret Science Club

Apropos of the stem cell news.

Synthetic biologists aim to make biology a true engineering discipline. In the same way that electrical engineers rely on standard capacitors and resistors, or computer programmers rely on modular blocks of code, synthetic biologists wish to create an array of modular biological parts that can be readily synthesized and mixed together in different combinations.

Synthetic biology has already produced important results, including more accurate AIDS tests and the possibility of unlimited supplies of previously scarce drugs for malaria. Proponents hope to use synthetic organisms to produce not only medically relevant chemicals but also a large variety of industrial materials, including ecologically friendly biofuels such as hydrogen and ethanol. The relationship of synthetic biology to intellectual property law has, however, been largely unexplored.

Two key issues deserve further attention.

First, synthetic biology, which operates at the confluence of biotechnology and computation, presents a particularly revealing example of a difficulty that the law has frequently faced over the last 30 years -- the assimilation of a new technology into the conceptual limits around existing intellectual property rights, with possible damage to both in the process. There is reason to fear that tendencies in the way that the law has handled software on the one hand and biotechnology on the other could come together in a "perfect storm" that will impede the potential of the technology.

Second, synthetic biology raises with remarkable clarity an issue that has seemed of only theoretical interest until now. It points out a tension between different methods of creating "openness." On the one hand, we have intellectual property law's insistence that certain types of material remain in the public domain, outside the world of property. On the other, we have the attempt by individuals to use intellectual property rights to create a "commons," just as developers of free and open source software use the leverage of software copyrights to impose requirements of openness on future programmers, requirements greater than those attaching to a public domain work.

Previously:

Synthetic Biology's Implications for Science, Society, and Mass Media

Essay: Our Synthetic Futures by Rudy Rucker

How Do You Like Your Genes?

Ethics of Emerging Technologies : Scientific Facts and Moral Challenges

Drew Endy

BioBricks to help reverse-engineer life

The Implications of Synthetic Biology

Synthetic Biology

Experts worry that synthetic biology may spawn biohackers

Keeping Synthetic Biology Away from Terrorists

Synthetic Biology: Caught Between Property Rights, the Public Domain, and the Commons

One-dimensional (1D) conductive nanowire is one of the most important components for the development of nanosized electronic devices, sensors, and energy storage units. Great progresses have been made to prepare the 1D-conducting polymeric nanofibers by the low concentration process or the synthesis with hard or soft templates. However, it still remains as a great challenge to prepare polymeric nanofibers with narrow dispersity, high aspect ratio, and good processibility. With the rod-like tobacco mosaic virus as the template, 1D-conducting polyaniline and polypyrrole nanowires can be readily prepared via a hierarchical assembly process. This synthesis discloses a unique way to produce composite fibrillar materials with controlled morphology and great processibility, which can promote many potential applications including electronics, optics, sensing, and biomedical engineering.

Biological Templated Synthesis of Water-Soluble Conductive Polymeric Nanowires

In pursuit of evidence that life arose on Earth more than once, scientists are searching for microbes that are radically different from all known organisms.

In this image, artist Adam Questell has imagined an alien cell that carries its genetic material in twin nuclei.

See also, Darwin's Surprise in the latest issue of The New Yorker.

Are Aliens Among Us? | Scientific American

Discover reports (briefly) on a Nature article from this past summer.

Natural selection, we’re told, is the process by which nature promotes our best qualities. But a look around strains that notion. If nature selects health, beauty, and intelligence, why are most of us far from flawless?

It may be because genes involved in reproduction work against themselves in opposite sexes across generations, says biologist Katharina Foerster at the University of Edinburgh. In her study of eight generations of red deer in Scotland, she noticed a curious pattern: The most prolific male deer sired daughters that tended to have fewer offspring, while the worst male breeders (the deer equivalent of ugly) fathered females that had more offspring. This is evidence, Foerster says, of sexually antagonistic genes. The same gene that makes a buck sexually successful can leave his daughter behind.

Foerster suspects that sexual antagonism is a way to maintain genetic diversity. But with so many reproductive choices available, it would be nearly impossible to detect this pattern in humans.

That's the water cooler version.

Details are also available, including the latest paper (although a subscription is required for full text). A more recent paper cites Foerster's work.

Why Aren’t You Beautiful?

In a bid to progress beyond the shotgun approach to fighting cancer—blasting malignant cells with toxic chemicals or radiation, which kills surrounding healthy cells in the process—researchers at the Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology (HST) are using nanotechnology to develop seek-and-destroy models to zero in on and dismantle tumors without damaging nearby normal tissue.

Nanoparticles Enable Surgical Strikes against Cancer

We have developed a mathematical approach to the study of dynamical biological networks, based on combining large-scale numerical simulation with nonlinear ‘‘dimensionality reduction’’ methods. Our work was motivated by an interest in the complex organization of the signaling cascade centered on the neuronal phosphoprotein DARPP-32 (dopamine- and cAMP-regulated phosphoprotein of molecular weight 32,000). Our approach has allowed us to detect robust features of the system in the presence of noise. In particular, the global network topology serves to stabilize the net state of DARPP-32 phosphorylation in response to variation of the input levels of the neurotransmitters dopamine and glutamate, despite significant perturbation to the concentrations and levels of activity of a number of intermediate chemical species. Further, our results suggest that the entire topology of the network is needed to impart this stability to one portion of the network at the expense of the rest. This could have significant implications for systems biology, in that large, complex pathways may have properties that are not easily replicated with simple modules.

This is an open access article.

A mathematical tool for exploring the dynamics of biological networks

Here is Paul Davies:

Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.

Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality.

There are a bunch of responses at Edge. Related archive items:

Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster

How To Defend Society Against Science

Taking Science on Faith

How do we understand the world? While some look to the heavens for intelligent design, others argue that it is determined by information encoded in DNA. Science serves as an important activity for uncovering the processes and operations of nature, but it is also immersed in a social context where ideology influences the questions we ask and how we approach the material world. Biology Under the Influence: Dialectical Essays on the Coevolution of Nature and Society breaks from the confirms of determinism, offering a dialectical analysis for comprehending a dynamic social and natural world.

In Biology Under the Influence, Richard Lewontin and Richard Levins provide a devastating critique of genetic determinism and reductionism within science while exploring a broad range of issues including the nature of science, biology, evolution, the environment, pubic health, and dialectics, They dismantle the ideology that attempts to naturalize social inequalities, unveil the alienation of science and nature, and illustrate how a dialectical position serves as a basis for grappling with historical developments and a world characterized by change. Biology Under the Influence brings together the illuminating essays of two prominent scientists who work to demystify and empower the public's understanding of science and nature.

For many years, Lewontin has written for the New York Review of Books. In 1990, he responded to a review of Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind", in which he asks, ARE WE ROBOTS?

Maynard Smith again juxtaposes a "fact" about people with an assumption of motivation. "The people who are going to like this book best, however, will probably be those who don't understand it. As an evolutionary biologist, I have learned over the years that most people do not want to see themselves as lumbering robots programmed to ensure the survival of their genes."

Unless he has been carrying out a stratified sampling poll of Great Britain, John surely means "most literate and educated people, professors, students and people who write letters to the editors", since those are the people that he, and I, mostly know and hear from. But if what he says about them is true, then they are extraordinary masochists as well. They have made a best-seller out of The Selfish Gene in which the robot metaphor first appeared, and a popular intellectual figure and modest academic success out of its previously undistinguished author, Richard Dawkins.

With enemies like these, people have no need of friends. Of all the vulgar errors about biology presently circulating, the notion that we are "lumbering robots blindly programmed" by our genes which "control us body and mind" (Dawkins' original dictum) is surely the most popular by a long shot.

Biology Under the Influence: Dialectical Essays on Ecology, Agriculture, and Health