California thinks you shouldn’t be allowed to see your OWN fingerprints (of the DNA variety) without a doctor’s permission. Last week, the California Department of Public Health sent "Cease And Desist" orders to 13 private companies that were set up during the last several months to provide curious individuals with information about their own DNA.   The crux of the letter is that California regulations "prohibit the offering of a clinical laboratory test directly to the consumer without a physician order, unless specifically exempt.  Genetic tests are NOT exempt." According to Karen Nickel, the official who signed the letter, "the genetic tests have not been validated for clinical utility and accuracy, and they are scaring a lot of people to death."

I've written this post to address some of the issues raised in the comments to my first post on the evolution versus creationism debate.  

(1) A major reason that Biblical creationism thrives in certain parts of America is because -- unlike every other highly developed country in the world -- we do not have a national science curriculum.  America has a very strong tradition of "home rule" which means that state and local school boards can choose, if they wish, to exclude any discussion of evolutionary mechanisms in biology classes.  (I was elected to my own local school board in Princeton, NJ, where the teaching of evolution has never been disputed.)  Children who go to public schools (or Catholic schools) in western Europe and Asia learn biology (life sciences) in a complete sense, which incorporates evolutionary thinking at every level of analysis from genes to cells to whole organisms, populations, and ecosystems.  These educated children have opportunities to pursue scientific careers that creationists don't even know exist.  This is why the exclusion of 50% of America's children from knowing about evolution diminishes our country's competitiveness.

(2) To "do" science of any kind, you must learn what has been done previously and what the state of the field is at the present time. I am not ashamed of the fact that I needed to take three years of college courses in physics and math (16 courses in all) before I was able to understand quantum mechanics and general relativity to a degree where I could actually use these concepts to investigate unknowns. However, even with a Master's degree in physics (I switched to biophysics for my Ph.D.), I don't have the capacity to critique modern ideas like string theory -- but I am not ashamed of this either.  Unfortunately for students today, you can't even begin to take in-depth courses in modern molecular biology without first completing college-level courses in physics, chemistry (organic and inorganic), and math.  Then you'll need to study formal genetics, population genetics, biochemistry, cell biology etc. before you can truly understand the modern synthesis of evolution-genetics-developmental biology that is driving the biomedical enterprise.   This is not an insult against anyone's beliefs or knowledge.  It is simply a fact of the depth and breadth of modern science.

Many scientists have expressed the belief that if they only had a chance to explain the facts, they could convince intelligent educated people (at least) of the validity of a neo-Darwinian approach to understanding life. As the following email exchange suggests, this conventional assumption is wrong. Not all people - even intelligent ones - have minds that operate according to the same principles of rationality.

The following email conversation took place between me and a reader of an article called "Life 2.0" that I published in Newsweek International about synthetic life.  

The reader - a young earth creationist - was only upset by what I wrote in the very first paragraph of a rather long article.  The email exchange that followed is instructive to those of us who want to convince our fellow citizens of the legitimacy of modern science  and its implications for understanding life and the universe as a whole. 

In the contentious political debate over embryo stem (ES) cell research, both proponents and opponents begin with the premise that "embryos are destroyed for their cells," as President Bush claims and non-partisan journalists repeat frequently in stem cell news stories.

It's only when partisans get beyond this premise that opinions diverge. Proponents of ES cell research argue that embryo destruction is justified based on the promise of extraordinary medical advances. In contrast, the President and his supporters describe ES cell derivation as "the taking of innocent human life," which is "always immoral." And yet, in strictly biological terms, the conventional wisdom is wrong. No life is being "taken" or destroyed when embryos are transformed into ES cells.

To understand the relationship between embryos and ES cells, it is critical to understand the process of development that is initiated by fertilization. The single-cell embryo undergoes multiple rounds of division giving rise to about 100 cells after five to six days. At this stage, the cells along the surface undergo biochemical changes that eliminate their potential to differentiate into anything other than the placenta. And in the center of the embryo, only about two dozen cells retain the ability to develop into every tissue and organ that makes up the human body proper.

A Yale University senior named Aliza Shvarts ignited the blogosphere with outrage yesterday, April 17, when the Yale student newspaper announced that Shvarts had artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" over the past nine months and then periodically induced "miscarriages," all toward the goal of developing a "performance art" project in the School of Art at Yale. But there may be students on my campus who perform a similar type of "art" every week without much fuss.

It may all come down to the meaning of words.

Oprah Winfrey introduced the so-called "first pregnant man" to viewers of her April 3rd show this past week. Thomas Beatie appeared, six months pregnant, with his wife Nancy and his obstetrician, Dr. Kimberly James (by satellite hookup). You can see the complete show here. But many viewers thought the whole thing was blown out of proportion because Thomas was born with a perfectly normal uterus.

At the end of my first column on the issue, I said I would post another piece discussing the actual science of male pregnancy.

Is it really possible today? The answer, as I abstract from my 1997 book, Remaking Eden, is "almost certainly yes, but . . ."

As many have undoubtedly heard, Oprah Winfrey introduced "the first pregnant man" to viewers of her April 3rd show this past week. Thomas Beatie appeared, six months pregnant, with his wife Nancy and his obstetrician, Dr. Kimberly James (by satellite hookup). You can see the complete show here, including a video clip with an ultrasound recording of the fetal heartbeat.

So what's going on here? Well, Thomas was born in a female body and named Tracy, but Tracy always self-identified as a male. As an adult, Tracy decided to undergo a biological "sex change" by having female breast tissue entirely removed, and by taking daily doses of testosterone, which produced a manly body and a scraggly beard. Thomas met Nancy, and five years ago, they became legally married as "husband and wife," in the state of Oregon. Then Thomas and Nancy decided they wanted to have children. The problem was that Nancy had previously undergone a hysterectomy to remove a diseased uterus; Thomas, meanwhile, still had his intact. So, he stopped taking testosterone, which allowed him to undergo ovulation, and then used artificial insemination (through his intact vagina) to get pregnant.

Homeopathic medicine was the creation of a single person, Samuel Hahnemann, who graduated from a German medical school in 1779 and practiced the "healing arts" until 1843, first in Germany and then in Paris.  The theoretical underpinning of Hahnemann's new approach to health and vitality is that a healthy human being is inhabited by an integrated spirit or vital force.  In Hahnemann's words, "The vital force that animates the healthy body, rules with unbounded sway, and  retains all the parts of the organism in admirable, harmonious, vital operation . . .

Before the 18th century, scientists and non-scientists alike assumed that the material substance of living organisms was fundamentally different from that of non-living things -- organisms and their products were considered organic by definition, while non-living things were mineral or inorganic. 

With the invention of chemistry in the late 18th century, scientists uncovered the incoherence of the traditional distinction: all material substances are constructed from the same set of chemical elements.  Today we understand that the special properties of living organic matter emerge from the interactions of a large variety of large molecules built mostly with atoms of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen.

Chemists now use the word organic to describe all complex, carbon-based molecules—whether or not they are actually products of an organism or products of laboratory synthesis.  But many educated people in Western countries think that only some crops and cows are organic, while all others are not.  How can one simple word -- organic -- have such different meanings?

CORRECTION:  Charles Margulis -- who works with the so-called Center for Food Safety, an organic food lobbying group -- has called my attention to the fact that 200 people were made seriously ill (rather than dead) from eating manure-contaminated fresh spinach last fall. Only three people actually died.  My apologies for the unintentional error.  "Proper composting" of manure is supposed to kill off the trillions of bacteria that are naturally present in the fresh stuff (otherwise known as "poop" in the language used by my son).  But something went wrong at some point in the practices used by the Missions Organics farm, and the poop seemed to end up everywhere.  Synthetic fertilizer does not contain bacteria of any kind -- period.  So synthetic fertilizer cannot cause food poisoining - no need to worry if it's been processed properly.  (Bacterial contamination can occur at later stages of the food making process.)

I've been traveling across eastern Europe and off the blogosphere for the past week, but this news item caught my attention, as it was relevant to my previous post on the problems with "organic food."

Scientists working at Novocell, Inc. in San Diego, CA have reported a stunning advance in the race to move embryonic stem cells from the province of basic scientific research into the arena of clinical trials for patients suffering from diabetes. Type I diabetes results from the degeneration of specialized cells in the pancreas (called beta-cells) that produce the hormone insulin. In healthy individuals, a rise in blood sugar after a meal induces beta-cells to secrete insulin, which enables other cells to absorb and utilize the sugar as fuel; when blood sugar levels drop, insulin production is turned down. In diabetics, insulin regulation fails. Currently, patients suffering from this disease have no choice but to constantly monitor blood sugar levels and take insulin shots when those levels rise.

 On December 28, the Food and Drug Administration issued a draft report stating that "meat and milk from clones of adult cattle, pigs and goats, and their offspring, are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals."   In modern-day America, however, the FDA is not allowed to base its decisions concerning public safety simply on the basis of scientific knowledge.  It must listen to the way people feel -- rationally or not -- about its finding.  And so, the FDA explained, 

Blurring boundaries

High up on the bluffs overlooking the Pacific Ocean in southern California, strange animals scurry about in their cages. They eat, drink, copulate and occasionally try to run away from human hands that enter their confined quarters. If you didn't know better, you would think they were ordinary mice. But these particular animals contain a hidden component not present in their naturally conceived cousins. Inside their brains are living human neurons that help them to see, hear and think.

Challenging Nature is the title of my new column here on Scientific Blogging as well as the title of my new book. Since the idea of challenging nature may seem heretical to some, I will provide a brief explanation here of both the rationale for my argument and the opposition it faces. 

The word "nature" and its cognate "natural" are typically imagined as metaphors for what is good and right in the world -- natural things are God's creations, not to be tampered with unduly by humankind. In opposition stand the unnatural, artificial, and synthetic -- the imagined profane creations of human intellect that despoil the world. Advertisers are well aware of the subliminal effects that these potent words have on people. 

Food items, in particular, are routinely promoted as "all-natural," and "without any artificial flavors, colors, or preservatives."

What is so remarkable is how disconnected this world-view is from reality. In the fall of 2006, 204 Americans became seriously ill after eating freshly packaged spinach contaminated with a toxic bacteria found "naturally" in cow and pig manure. Ironically, the company that grew the tainted spinach was named "Natural Selection Foods."