Double-cross helix?
Your editorial and articles on DNA testing raise the important issue of obtaining appropriate consent for an individual’s DNA to be tested (31 January, p 3 and p 6; 24 January, p 8).
The law in the UK is clear on this: it is illegal for a laboratory to test an individual’s DNA without proper informed consent.
Even if companies refuse to test items such as discarded chewing gum and tissues, there is still a danger of tests being conducted without proper consent. A laboratory receiving “consent forms” by post with samples cannot establish that informed consent has been freely given. Only consent given in front of, and verified by, an independent person of appropriate standing, such as a registered medical professional, can offer assurance that the law is being complied with and so protect an individual against their DNA being “stolen”.
Also of significant concern are questions about the scientific competence and experience of particular laboratories to provide the correct information and interpret it appropriately. Processing DNA and getting a result is frighteningly easy, but obtaining the correct result and interpreting it reliably is complicated. Those who make claims which go beyond their expertise may be defrauding members of the public, with serious consequences.
From John Baker
You hail the UK legislation banning covert DNA testing. Yet the UK already leads the world in illegal DNA testing- the police are holding 857,366 DNA samples of people illegally, as recently determined by the European Court of Human Rights, in a unanimous and damning judgement (13 December 2008, p 7). The UK holds 4.5 million DNA samples, which probably cover most of the population through familial matching. I am far more threatened by this database and the possibilities, such as criminals planting my DNA at a crime scene, than I am by individuals covertly processing my DNA.
In the case of paternity, historically only the mother has been sure, excluding maternity ward mix-ups. The father has a small chance of having been cuckolded. Why should he be denied this information?
Regardless, there is no realistic way of keeping people in ignorance, even if it were justifiable. I recommend routine verification of paternity at birth, with immediate destruction of the samples.
Chalfont St. Giles, Buckinghamshire, UK
From Tony Park
You raise concerns about the damage that covert genetic testing could do to families, yet simply asking for consent for a paternity test could damage the relationship, regardless of the result. In cases where the test shows infidelity or unexpected paternity, it is difficult to argue that the test is the cause of any relationship problems that may result. Similarly, the argument that great harm could result from finding out that your mother had been lying to you all your life is false. The harm is in the lying, not the finding out.
Dunlop, Ayrshire, UK
The editor writes:
鈥� People who suspect sexual betrayal feel strongly they have the right to find out the truth. Should this give them the right to delve into the double helices of anyone who they think can help answer their questions, including innocent parties, without consent? The UK parliament has decided that everyone’s genetic privacy must be respected. Drafting a law that selectively strips rights of privacy from individuals who breach codes of sexual conduct may be impractical.
Holographology
In the concept proposed by Marcus Chown in the article “All the world’s a hologram” (17 January, p 24), the two-dimensional surface of the sphere surrounding the universe is the hologram and the universe (including you) is a holographic image 鈥� a point glossed over by the oversimplified wording that appeared on the cover of the issue.
There are two main problems with this theory. First, if there is a projected image, then some energy must interact with the hologram, either as transmitted or reflected energy. This cannot be electromagnetic radiation as its finite velocity would raise all sorts of problems with time, including predestination. So what is it and where does it come from?
Secondly, if the universe is expanding then the elements of the hologram must either be increasing in number or be being stretched. In the case of a black hole, the event horizon does increase in size as energy falls in, but there is no evidence that energy is falling into the universe. If the elements are being stretched, the graininess of the universe must be increasing.
These issues can be resolved if one accepts that while the elements in the universe and those on the surface of the sphere can be mapped or transformed onto each other, neither the elements inside nor those on the surface create each other. This concept still leaves the universe with graininess at a scale of around 10-16 metres 鈥� compared with the Planck length of 10-35 metres on the surface 鈥� but it does raise questions about the change in graininess as the universe has expanded, assuming the Planck length has always been the same.
Debit risk
Mark Buchanan’s discussion of “unknown unknowns” (24 January, p 32) could usefully be applied to banks’ assumptions of credit risk exposure. Some use Monte Carlo simulations to calculate an acceptable level of value at risk. These use tables of probability of loans defaulting, provided by the rating agencies. One problem with this method is that the probability of any event occurring during the Monte Carlo simulation depends on the number of iterations of the simulation performed.
In 1000 iterations there may be a 10 per cent chance of an “AAA”-rated bond failure being included in the results. If by chance an AAA failure shows up in such a simulation run, it will produce a spike in the tail of the results graph and is likely to be dismissed as an improbable event.
Why, then, include the possibility of an AAA default in the first place?
Magnetic cattle
You reported on research, based on a large number of satellite photos, showing that cattle and some wild grazing animals align themselves predominantly along north-south lines, suggesting an awareness of the Earth’s magnetic field (30 August 2008, p 10). I have since paid particular attention to the hundred or so cattle and sheep visible from my kitchen window.
Overwhelmingly, these animals align east-west. Frequently, this appears to be a response to strong winds, driving rain or fierce sun. Even in tranquil times, there is a clear east-west preference. It seems animals in Australia march to a different drum.
Grazing kangaroos show no alignment preference at all.
Talk isn't cheap
Mark Buchanan refers to humourist C. Northcote Parkinson’s ideas about committees (10 January, p 38). Parkinson’s suggestions have more far-reaching applications than just committee size.
When working on a project to reduce the crew workload in a large anti-submarine aircraft, I was continually being pressured to increase the crew size.
In fact, such an increase would have added to the problem.
This is because there is a “communications overhead” created by people interacting with each other. Say there were 1 unit of communication overhead for two people. With three people, the overhead for all three communicating together increases to 3 units 鈥� one for each two-way conversation available. By the time eight crew members are communicating, the overload has risen exponentially to 28 units, sharply reducing the amount of time left to complete the primary task.
For n people, this overhead is equivalent to (n 脳 (n-1))/2 which is the number of unique pairs that can be chosen from the people communicating with each other. Try it.
I would recommend reading Parkinson’s Law: Or the pursuit of progress. It’s must for scientists, engineers and managers.
Lead balloon
I enjoyed Paul Collins’s article on metal balloons down the ages (10 January, p 44). I am not sure, however, about his remark that, since 1941, “no more metal-clads have taken to the skies”.
I seem to recall reading, 30 or 40 years ago, of a successful project at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to design, build and fly a balloon constructed entirely of lead.
The editor writes:
鈥� MIT’s neighbours at the consultancy flew both a lead balloon and a dirigible in May 1977: see photos at . The US TV programme Mythbusters also managed to loft a balloon made of lead foil in January 2008.
Holy herd
David Robson discussed the herd mentality in humans (7 February, p 13). On the rare occasions that I have been to church, I witnessed the power of singing as part of a congregation and the connection you feel with those standing next to you.
I found myself caught up in the moment with emotions of unity, purpose, elatedness and (unusually for me) spirituality. From such experiences I can appreciate how contagious the belief in a god could be, especially when one is feeling particularly lost in life.
Reinforcing faith through mass worship is evident in religious holidays, pilgrimages and ritualistic behaviour. I believe the herd mentality is fundamental to the persistence of organised religion.
For the record
鈥� We wrongly stated that the World Health Organization recommended in September 2008 that the electronic cigarette be banned (14 February, p 33). The WHO in fact stated that it did not consider the electronic cigarette to be a legitimate therapy for smokers trying to quit.
鈥� We said that in 1709 “from Czechoslovakia in the east… everything turned to ice” (7 February, p 46). No such country existed in 1709. It was founded in 1918 and split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993.
鈥� Our picture of the starfish Luidia sarsi was upside down (24 January, p 36).
Double-cross helix?
I read with interest your articles on genetic privacy (31 January, p 3 and p 6; 24 January, p 8): particularly, the assertion by Denise Syndercombe-Court that a man undertaking a stealthy paternity test is “acting for himself; he’s not acting for the child.”
When a man and woman enter into a relationship, they don’t automatically accept responsibility for each other’s debts. The woman certainly doesn’t accept responsibility for any child the man may father with another woman. So why does a man entering a relationship automatically accept responsibility for all the children his partner has, irrespective of whether the father is him or some other man?
I’m also not sure I agree with the statement that “he’s not acting for the child”; certainly not as a universal truth. For a man to seek a stealthy paternity test, there’s got to be some issues in the relationship 鈥� at least some degree of suspicion and mistrust. The relationship may already be severely dysfunctional.
So the man is at least suspicious. If he gets a positive paternity result he’s proven wrong. The child is his. If he has any residual issues they’re with his partner, not the child. That has to be good for the child.
If the test result is negative, however, he gets a reality check. If his decision is to leave the relationship, then I argue there was little holding it together anyway. It’s debatable, but I’d think that the removal of a suspicious non-father with so little reason to stay is as likely to benefit the child as not.
From Milton Sperring
Claims of “privacy” are a thinly disguised attempt to use the child’s “rights” to overcome a potentially successful paternity contestation. In many legal systems a paternity claim is accepted at face value with no proof whatsoever.
This default towards the mother is fair, because without it she would have to seek a DNA sample from the named father to prove her claim 鈥� and society has sensibly decided that such an evidential burden would discourage paternal responsibility.
A fairer course would be to continue with a default assumption that a mother knows and honestly names the father of her child but make such a claim deemed to be permission for a sample of DNA to be taken for the purposes of contesting that claim.
The emotional state of the infant should be fairly balanced against both the emotional state of the named father and the huge financial liability he faces. A child’s emotions are of no greater value than an adult’s 鈥� are older people’s emotions worth less than yours? So there is a clear weight in favour of a father having the truth of this assertion tested.
Dunedin, New Zealand
Truth or pare
The unreliability of information on the internet does raise issues regarding its use in higher education (17 January, p 44). I do not agree that the solution is to have “an international consortium of universities set up panels to audit the worth of websites, endorsing those that are reliable”.
Instead, we need to focus our efforts on developing effective ways to help students develop the necessary critical thinking skills to enable them to make their own judgements regarding the reliability of sources of information. Students should apply these skills to all sources, not just those on the internet. Popular magazines, television programmes and even textbooks and peer-reviewed academic papers can all contain inaccurate information.
For example, regarding internet sources, we could start by encouraging students to ask themselves questions regarding the source of the information they wish to use and why they should believe it in order to make judgements regarding its credibility and usefulness. For example, are they able to establish an author of the website? What is the author’s background, affiliation and qualification? When was it written? Why?
Students should also be encouraged to consult original sources where possible and not rely on second-hand information or solely one type of source. They must reference the sources cited in their work. If my students cite “Wikipedia”, I refer them to Wikipedia’s own sensible advice regarding the academic use of its articles: .
Thou shalt not be popular
Robert Winston relates how he had been ostracised at scientific conferences as a “populariser” (31 January, p 22). This sadly reflects not only the sometimes blinkered vision of one’s fellow scientists but also the reality of the organisation of British science in universities. I know of a well known popular-science writer who left employment at King’s College London because of lack of support and the pressure to publish research in preference to popular science books and articles.
I had to take early retirement from the same university in order to concentrate on publishing books (The Poison Paradox, Oxford University Press) as I was actively discouraged from doing this, ostensibly because of the demands of the UK’s .
And yet scientists are urged by government and others to communicate more with the public.
Day after day
Matthew Chalmers perpetuates a fallacy that a day is the time taken for the Earth to “turn once about its axis” (7 February, p 39). That is actually the sidereal day. However, it is not the source of our Babylonian-influenced clock units, nor what is commonly called a day. It is in fact the solar day, or the average time taken for the Earth to rotate once relative to the Sun. The difference, of a little less than four minutes, comes from the necessity of the Earth to rotate almost 361 degrees in a 24 hour period in order to compensate for its orbit around the Sun.
Cosmic numerology
How can you print an article on the six greatest mysteries of the solar system (31 January, p 28) without mentioning Bode’s law?
This was first proposed by Johann Daniel Titius in 1764, then taken up by Johann Elert Bode in the second edition of his book Anleitung zur Kenntniss des gestirnten Himmels in 1768. Using units of one-tenth of the distance of the Earth from the Sun for simplicity, this states the following relationship between the distances of the planets from the Sun: Mercury: 4 units; Venus: 4+3=7 units; Earth: 4+6=10 units; Mars: 4+12=16 units. Titius and Bode then noted that there was a gap at 4+24=28 units, in which no planet had yet been seen. Then came Jupiter: 4+48=52 units; and Saturn: 4+96=100 units.
This simple empirical relationship became all the more striking when William Herschel discovered Uranus in March 1781, at a distance from the Sun close to the 4+192=196 units predicted by the Titius-Bode rule, and Giuseppe Piazzi observed Ceres (the largest asteroid in the belt between Mars and Jupiter) in 1801 at the predicted 4+24=28 units.
Although it breaks down in the outermost reaches of the solar system, the agreement of the observed distances of the planets appears too close to be coincidence, yet there is no generally accepted theoretical explanation.
The editor writes:
鈥� There is indeed no solid theoretical explanation of the precise form of the Titius-Bode law. But if it is not (as some argue) pure coincidence, it probably has a prosaic explanation in the complexities of gravitational many-body problems: a planetary system, if it is to be stable, will with high probability adopt some form of quasi-regular spacing.
Science play-time
Sebastian Hayes asks science teachers, “What evidence do I see around me of relativity or quantum mechanics?” (31 January, p 25). I whirl round a bucket of water on a rope over my school’s laptop. Relativity shows that gravity and centripetal acceleration are giving and taking in the same currency: the water stays in and the laptop is saved.
Quantised energy in photons and in electron levels in atoms mean that when I sprinkle black copper oxide into a metal dustbin full of methane and light it, the metre-wide fireball that roars out is green. Red copper (I) oxide gives the same green flame. The reverse process to the bin fire prints photos, puts energy into plants (crisps burn nicely to prove it) and makes retinal cells fire; if this New 杏吧原创 is brought to you in colour, that shows the world is quantised.