Desperado, Why Don't You Come To Your Senses?

Some 20-ish years ago, my husband was on holiday with his family in Blackpool. As a special treat, he and his brothers were taken to a restaurant that did ice cream floats. The over-enthusiastic waiter told them all that they could have any combination they liked - absolutely any ice cream and absolutely any fizzy drink. Sensible choices were made by the rest of Paul's family, such as vanilla ice cream and American cream soda, vanilla and cola, vanilla and lemonade.

And then Paul made his choice. This was going to be easy. He was going to have his most favourite flavour of ice cream and his most favourite flavour of fizzy drink. What could possibly go wrong?

"So young man, what flavour ice cream would you like?"
"Mint choc chip."
"Okay, and what flavour drink?"
"Lilt."
"..."

I'm not sure Lilt exists over in the USA, but it's pineapple flavoured. This should give you some idea of what was about to go down. Despite suggestions from his parents that this might not be the tasty yummy treat he was expecting, he was adamant - mint choc chip and Lilt.

The nervous waiter duly brought the float and Paul took a big gulp... And started crying like the big baby he was. Why do I tell you this? Because over the past few days I've seen a lot of adverts for this, and I can't help thinking that this might be a similar experience:


I like beer, I really do. The more I drink of it the more I like it. I really like tequila - in fact I love it. In theory it's a win-win situation, taking two foodstuffs I love and combining them (having had steak in a dark chocolate sauce I can vouch for the fact that sometimes it works), but in practice, I fear Desperados beer is just mint choc chip and Lilt.

Impromptu Geology Lesson

As feared, a number of lecturers are stranded overseas at the moment. This, coupled with the college's network being down for most of the day due to building work, has meant a lot of babysitting of classes for me, coupled with very little in the way of resources other than a whiteboard and pen.

Which is a perfect opportunity to teach the kids about volcanoes, plate tectonics and global climate. Today, with my GCSE and BTEC classes, we covered:

• tectonic plates
  
• the mid-ocean ridges
  
• other types of plate boundaries
  
• why Iceland exists
  
• what the jet stream is
  
• how a jet engine works

What we didn't cover was how to a) spell and b) pronounce Eyjafjallajökull. Callan from Mountain Beltway linked to an awesome photo of the eruption:


It's incredibly exciting from an educational point of view to be able to show students geology in action. They understand why aeroplanes needed to be grounded, and by the end of the BTEC class one of my darlings said "Miss, I want to study geology" (although he may have been saying that so I didn't mark him as being 5 minutes late for class).

Incidentally, while classes have proceeded mostly as normal, at Birkbeck, one of the classes cancelled this week is - you've guessed it - "Volcanism Of The Solar System"...

Ask A Biologist Relaunched

Today is the start of the summer term, which in the UK signifies the start of the exams. My students will be sitting GCSE exams from mid-May onwards and A-Level exams from the end of May onwards.

Coincidentally, the superb website Ask A Biologist has been relaunched today, with spiffy new layout, content and super-fast clickability.


So if you're a student with a burning question (e.g. "What happens if you have two Y chromosomes?"), a teacher with a student who has just asked a question that's completely floored you (e.g. "How do snails have sex?"), or a member of the public wanting to bypass the journalists and talk directly to the scientists, go and ask a biologist!

My Local Candidates On Creationism

On Wednesday I decided to ask my local candidates for Brentford And Isleworth their views on a subject close to my heart. Since all three candidates have Twitter accounts it seemed like a good forum:

Question for , and : should creationism be on the science curriculum alongside evolution? #GE2010

The first response came from - you've guessed it - my Lib Dem PPC, Andrew Dakers, who sent me a public response thus:

I think it is reasonable for creationism to be on the curriculum but I would not advocate it being on the 'science' curriculum.

Good - nice clear response and it is clear he would not be in favour of it being on the science curriculum. This makes me happy.

A day later, the Conservative PPC Mary Macleod sent me a DM (not sure why she didn't feel this was something she could @reply):

I think we should discuss different views within the curriculum including creationism, although this is down to faith perhaps not science.

Really not that clear what she'd be in favour of - do I need to "teach the controversy" or would she be happy enough for me not discussing any supernatural ideas in my science class? As she won't follow me back I can't DM her and ask for further clarification.

And what of our current MP, Ann Keen? Here's her response:

[...]

Yeah, that'd be no acknowledgement whatsoever. It would appear from her that she's plenty busy enough metaphorically fellating Gordon Brown and making out that the Labour Party are going to win, but this is by no means the first direct question she has ignored from myself and my husband (Paul has been in touch about the impending closure of the Tropical Zoo).

For the people who are reading the manifestos, who are watching the televised debates and engaging with their local candidates, most are finding that the Lib Dems are doing incredibly well - in some post-debate surveys from Thursday night Nick Clegg had over 60% of the votes. However, there will be problems with likely low voter turnout numbers, along with the "I've voted for X all my life and I'm going to continue to vote for X" lot.

Inkasaurus Rex

After nearly a decade of wanting a Camarasaurus skull tattooed on my back, I have one. I spent about two and a half hours in the chair yesterday (getting about halfway through Rachel Carson's "The Silent Spring" in the process) in order to get this beauty:


I am indebted to the wonderful Darek at Ouch! Tattoo, who does the most amazing black and grey designs. He dubbed my Metasequoia cone a "freaky freaky tattoo" when he did it a year ago, and was equally nonplussed about doing a dinosaur skull (but I think he really enjoyed doing it). I would strongly advise anyone in London looking for a palaeo-tattoo to check out his work and take along some ideas to him.

I'm now all wrapped up in cling-film (just because of where the tattoo is - I was advised to do this for a few days so it doesn't get rubbed by the waistband of my trousers) and wondering if this could help me lose a bit of weight too!

Needless to say, something like that hurts like a bastard to be done as the bone is so close to the skin, and although I don't understand the superficial nerves of the back it's always fascinating to see where the human body thinks the pain sensation is coming from!

I Get Tweets

I'm going to have to be more careful with . A simple throwaway comment about how my husband got caught by Jehovah's Witnesses for the second week running turned into this exchange which must have gone on for well over an hour (having transcribed this into a blog post I can't be bothered to go back and look at the time stamps!). I'm assuming that is a Jehovah's Witness, although he/she never admitted his/her affiliation.

I've tried to separate out gaps in conversation, in some cases to highlight a complete change of subject on the part of my sparring partner, in some cases to give you guys a break (I suggest you get yourself a coffee or a margarita before you read any further, and consider a bathroom break first). There are some points where we were on two different threads at the same time, so the exchange might look a little disjointed in places.

I'd be interested to see if any of you think I can improve my debating technique, and if there are any good sources for me to read up on to counter the old arguments more effectively let me know!

Everlastinglife: Are you a meek individual?
Morphosaurus: No way! I'm an atheist science teacher who accepts evolution as a fact and does not take kindly to being evangelised.
Everlastinglife: How do you teach an unproven theory, and something that can not be observed by scientific process?
Morphosaurus: Because it is a proven theory and it can be observed by scientific process. Get your facts right. You are ignorant. How can you teach from an unproven book with a made up author thats is mistranslated and full of contradictions?
Everlastinglife: No need to get your back up please :-) Lets try this approach, what proof do you have that God does not exist?
Morphosaurus: Absolutely none. What proof do you have that he does? Please be rigorous. A mistranslated fairy tale does not count.
Everlastinglife: When you observe a house, do you not conclude that it has a purpose, and also a builder and a designer?
Morphosaurus: Yes, however I see a mountain and I know that it has neither purpose, nor builder, nor designer.
Everlastinglife: And when you look in a mirror?
Morphosaurus: I see an organism that has evolved over 3.8 billion years from a few molecules to a functional free-thinking individual.
Everlastinglife: How is it that you see design when you look at a house, but not when you look in the mirror?
Morphosaurus: Because I am a living, natural organism and not a building.
Everlastinglife: Because something is alive it is not possible that it was designed? Does an eye not serve a purpose? An ear?
Morphosaurus: Evolution has no direction or purpose. Do not wheel out the old eye argument as I can knock that down with a feather. The eye has no purpose. It has a function. The ear has no purpose. It has a function. Do not confuse the two.
Everlastinglife: FUNCTION: 1. the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role. I am not confusing the two.
Morphosaurus: You are confusing the two. In your definition purpose bears secondary definition of purpose. However I am talking about primary purpose: the object to which one strives or an aim or a goal.
Everlastinglife: As I look around at our world, I see design and purpose everywhere. As I see the state of the world's environment changing it becomes clear that the Earth and its habitat were designed to fulfill a purpose: to sustain life.
Morphosaurus: No, there was no design involved whatsoever. You are confusing cause and effect. Earth happens to sustain life by accident. Why were Mars and Venus "designed" not to sustain life? What does your god have against Mars and Venus?
Everlastinglife: A camera, has a function, it can record picture, its purpose, to record picture So that camera had no designer?
Morphosaurus: The camera is not striving towards the goal of taking photos! The purpose is provided by the person wielding the camera.
Everlastinglife: A camera had a designer. A camera mimics the function and purpose of our own eye. It is reasonable to conclude then that our eye also had a designer, is it not?
Morphosaurus: No, the eye evolved from simpler light-detecting cells and this can be observed throughout the animal kingdom.
Everlastinglife: And if a camera were alive, what do you suppose it would be doing?
Morphosaurus: So let me get this straight, you're now arguing about what would happen if a camera was alive?? If the camera were alive then it would be a living organism. Since we cannot create golems, it is a strawman argument.

Everlastinglife: Do you know the mathematical odds of our earth happening to sustain life by accident?
Morphosaurus: Why yes, I do. I also know the universe is very very big and very very old with a large number of solar systems. So while the individual odds may be small, the probability of intelligent life in the universe is almost certain. The mathematical odds of you winning the lottery are tiny, but the odds that someone will are almost certain.
Everlastinglife: Only small? Any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.
Morphosaurus: Cite your source for those figures. And of course the genetic code has grown with each step of evolution.
Everlastinglife: What are the chances of obtaining all 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes needed for a single cell's activity at random?
Morphosaurus: Bacteria only have about 400 genes. Humans have 20,000. it is quite reasonable for that to develop over 4 billion years.
Everlastinglife: One chance in 10^40,000! Would you invest your life into winning anything based on that number?
Morphosaurus: You are forgetting all the gene combinations that did not "win the lottery", that are not viable for cell function.
Everlastinglife: This is the very investment you make in evolution. Which begs the following question... With odds like that, wouldn't it be prudent to search out another explanation with better odds?
Morphosaurus: And what are the odds of an invisible sky fairy with a flawed design with lousy plumbing designing an entire universe? I await my proof...
Everlastinglife: I have to go on lunch, but I have answers to your earlier question about trusting the Bible for you. Can You Trust the Bible? http://bit.ly/VDlKk Please read and share your thoughts with me.
Morphosaurus: I accept its status as a historical record of life at that time, but the rest of the article could apply to Harry Potter.

Everlastinglife: If I place a watch in all its pieces in a dish washer for 4 billion years, will it come out functional? Where do I need to place a watch in all of its pieces, and for how long, before it arrives together, functional?
Morphosaurus: Nice try with the old watchmaker argument, but that one's been debunked too. You lack scientific knowledge. Why put a watch into pieces? Your argument presupposes that entropy can be reversed. Again, lack of science knowledge.
Everlastinglife: By that logic then, why put the building blocks of life to pieces?
Morphosaurus: You tell me - you're the one arguing for a designer. n your watch example the watch pieces started off as part of a greater whole and now you're expecting them to recoalesce. But the building blocks never started as part of a greater whole. So I can't disassemble a human and expect it to re-form. I can, however, expect simple organisms to mutate and become more complex over time, as observed in nature and in lab. So why does your "accurate" bible say man was created both before and after animals, both in the one book - Genesis? Genesis 1:25-27 = animals before man, Genesis 2:18-19 = animals after man. Which account is correct?
Everlastinglife: Thats an excellent question. The answer is held within the Hebrew language. The Hebrew verb has two states, the perfect state, and the imperfect state. The perfect state indicates completed action. The imperfect state indicates incomplete or continuous action, or action in progress. The imperfect state of the Hebrew verb could be rendered in English by using auxiliary words such as "proceeded,", "went on", "continued", etc. Based on this Genesis 2:19 seems to point to progressive creation. One translation of the Bible rendered the verse: "Yahweh God continued to form from the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds..."
Morphosaurus: Doesn't answer the question. And just shows that it's mistranslated at best and we shouldn't take any of it at face value. And then the KJV says "and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them". So animals still being created after Adam?
Everlastinglife: But it does answer the question! The verb "form" in the imperfect denotes continued, progressive action. Genesis 2:19 - "Now Jehovah God was forming..." <-- continued, progressive action.
Morphosaurus: So which came first? Humans or animals? Come on, it's not a difficult question.
Everlastinglife: The Bible says that after Adam was created God continued to create and to bring to Adam to be named.
Morphosaurus: So you're saying that humans were created before animals? Or somewhere in the middle (a 3rd order of "creation")? Animals then man? Man then animals? Animals then man then animals? Surely your god knows what order he did stuff in?
Everlastinglife: You said in the outset of this conversation that you were not meek, and I congratulate you on your correctness in this regard. I am in possession of knowledge that you are not, and in my attempt to teach you something about language, you balk.
Morphosaurus: I haven't balked at anything - I'm just trying to get you to answer the question. You lack any scientific knowledge! And it would appear that I have a greater command of the Bible than you do!
Everlastinglife: You've no proof that God does not exist, yet you firmly believe in evolution, which allegedly factually denies his existence?
Morphosaurus: Evolution neither denies nor confirms the existence of any deity. A god is irrelevant to the fact of evolution.
Everlastinglife: Why must it be one or the other? Is not the Creator capable of doing things in the order He sees fit?
Morphosaurus: Well he can't do it in both orders all at the same time! I figured he'd want Moses to know the truth?
Everlastinglife: You've lost me entirely. The Bible clearly states that animals were created, then man, and then God continued to make more animals. Where is the problem?
Morphosaurus: So we're not the pinnacle of creation then? The animals that came after us presumably would be the pinnacle of creation? You need to be careful - you're in danger of asserting that we have no special place in the universe. Almost Darwinian!

Everlastinglife: Mathematicians state that odds > 1in10^50 has never happening, why then do you believe in odds far far greater?
Morphosaurus: Again, which mathematicians? Can you name and cite your sources? Bible is only self-referential - tortological book. It's not a case of belief - evolution is a scientifically proven fact. Impossible to "believe" in a fact. A fact simply is.
Everlastinglife: Thank you for your time... I honestly seek only to encourage you to make a search for God while he may yet be found.
Morphosaurus: Never going to happen. I hope you one day discover the beauty of the science of evolution.
Everlastinglife: You may deny the purpose of life, but an honest thinking person can not miss the design of nature and life its self.
Morphosaurus: Well I am honest thinking and my honest thinking is that nature and life has no design or purpose save what we give it.
Everlastinglife: "If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation [the mathematical odds against it] wipes the idea entirely out of court." - Astronomers Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe
Morphosaurus: Nice try - the theory of panspermia they came up with doesn't preclude evolution and rather puts paid to biblical creation!
Everlastinglife: Don't be afraid of what happens when you see the purpose in life, its the most beautiful thing that ever happened to me.
Morphosaurus: Understanding the wonders of a natural universe and our own evolution is the most beautiful thing that ever happened to me.
Everlastinglife: Thank you for your time, I really do appreciate it.

Suffice to say, after this, I needed a very strong drink!

Voting For Science

I am a self-confessed bleeding-heart liberal, and it's coming up to election time. So prepare for some hand-wringing and political posturing (those of you unfortunate to follow me on will already have seen that starting to crank up to speed).

Science and its status in society and education is a big issue for me, so it's time to look at the political parties' manifestos now that the Big Three have published theirs (sorry Green Party, you've got great ideas and all, but since I don't even know if you have a candidate in my constituency I'm guessing you're not really trying this time round). In alphabetical order:



Sticking on the auto-search to wade through 131 pages of the Tory manifesto, we get to this:

• encouraging the establishment of joint university-business research and development institutes
  
• initiating a multi-year Science and Research Budget to provide a stable investment climate for Research Councils
  
• creating a better focus on Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) subjects in schools
  
• establishing a new prize for engineering

Okay, I like the bit about focusing on STEM in schools. That's worthwhile. Onto more about education:

• pay the student loan repayments for top Maths and Science graduates for as long as they remain teachers, by redirecting some of the current teacher training budget

Personally I like that - I'd very much appreciate not have to pay £100 a month of my student loan when I'm earning a full-time salary. But I'm not okay with having the teacher training budget diverted. Retention of excellent teachers is very important, but you also need to train new ones.

• allow all state schools the freedom to offer the same high quality international exams that private schools offer – including giving every pupil the chance to study separate sciences at GCSE

How about rather than the opportunity to study separate sciences making it compulsory to study at least one science? I saw countless students at enrolment last year who did not have any qualification in any kind of science. A level of scientific literacy should be as vital as other basic skills.



The current government's manifesto is really difficult to read, but they at least have a sub-section entitled "Investing in science and research", from which we can glean these points:

• We are committed to a ring-fenced science budget in the next spending review
  
• We will provide focused investment for Technology and Innovation Centres, developing technologies where the UK has world-leading expertise
  
• We will also support university research through the Higher Education Innovation Fund, and through the development of a new University Enterprise Capital Fund

So a pledge to protect science funding is a great thing, and an injection of cash into academic research is also much needed. However, I can't help but wonder why Labour have spent the past 13 years cutting money going to science and research... On to education:

• More young people will be able to study single science subjects and modern foreign languages
  
• In the coming years, priority in the expansion of student places will be given to Foundation Degrees and part-time study, and to science, technology, engineering and mathematics degrees

As opposed to more funding for bullshit "degrees" in tourism for people who want a job in a travel agents. About time.



The Lib Dems make it very easy indeed to find their science policies with a whole section devoted to it:

• Respect the convention that the science budget, once allocated through the Comprehensive Spending Review process, is not used for other purposes
  
• Ensure that the decisions on the funding of research projects are made on the basis of peer review not Whitehall interference, while recognising the need for government to identify broad strategic priorities in a transparent manner
  
• Ensure that all state-funded research, including clinical trials, is publicly accessible and that the results are published and subject to peer review
  
• Reform science funding to ensure that genuinely innovative scientific research is identified and supported, instead of basing funding decisions on narrow impact factors
  
• Tackle the gender gap at all levels of scientific study and research to help increase the supply of scientists
  
• Safeguard academic freedom and the independence of scientific advisers by amending the Ministerial Code to prevent government from bullying or mistreating advisers and distorting evidence or statistics

Did you see that? Third point down - they're pledging open access publications!! What do you think to that one, oh Open Source Paleontologist? And there's more - the Lib Dems seem to be the only party promoting science for science's sake, treating the pursuit of science as a worthwhile career. There is an intellectual curiosity among the Lib Dems that I do not see in the other two parties - in much the same way that Barack Obama shows intellectual curiosity whereas George W Bush showed fart jokes.

And heading into the education section:

• First to attract more top graduates into teaching. We will improve training for existing teachers over the course of their careers to keep them up to date with best practice. We will seek to ensure that science at Key Stage 4 and above is taught by appropriately qualified teachers
  
• Give 14–19 year-olds the right to take up a course at college, rather than at school, if it suits them better. This will enable all children to choose to study, for example, separate sciences or modern languages at GCSE, or a vocational subject

Speaking as someone who narrowly missed being taught chemistry by a teacher who did not have A-Level chemistry, I'd be down with having qualified science teachers! And college can be the making of a student - I have several students who came from schools where they were disruptive and not applying themselves, and they've settled into college life and become my top learners.

To be honest, I think the Lib Dems win this one hands down, despite some common points. I find it very difficult to see any other option for anyone involved in science. And that's before we get onto any of the other subjects close to my heart (reproductive rights, immigration and asylum, human rights and healthcare). Ian Hopkinson has already spoken of his reasons for voting Lib Dem, and he points out their not-so-secret weapon in Dr Evan Harris, the science spokesman. Now if only more people knew about him...

Wordless Wednesday: The Very Hungry Caterpillar

The Biologist's Dilemma

During the last week of term, I ordered a dozen sheep hearts for the A2 students to dissect. It is my greatest hope that some of my students become biologists like these two:

Wordless Wednesday: Common Newt, Bewildered

Things I Learned From My Students #4: The Easter Holidays

Two-thirds of the way through my first year of teaching, it's time to divulge some more of the little nuggets of wisdom I have picked up from my students.

1. A surprisingly large number of students like Bon Jovi.
   
2. Every group of biology students thinks they're the first ones to ever put the class skeleton into THAT position.
   
3. It's really difficult trying to get a lot of very passionately anti-choice teenagers to think objectively about the biology of abortion.
   
4. Despite the alleged low attention span of the average teenager, they will sit and watch a video for a whole hour completely rapt.
   
5. The Spearman Rank Correlation test will become the Spearmint Rhino test in no time.
   
6. Pebble jars with incentives like class trips really work.
   
7. Whoopee cushions make great impromptu buzzers for quiz-show-style activities...
   
8. ...But they render the student incapable of answering due to an attack of the giggles.
   
9. For a teacher, being officially graded is not as important as being asked by the kids whether you will be teaching them next year.
   
10. It is really awesome when your kids come running to the staffroom to say they got an offer at University X.
    
11. It's even more awesome when you know they hadn't considered a) that university or b) that course until you became their teacher.
    
12. The same students who feel queasy about touching a real human bone will not think twice about getting stuck into a sheep's heart.
    
13. A "that's what she said" joke can even be incorporated into a dissection class.
    
14. Eventually, all the students will enjoy fieldwork.
    
15. Students would rather pee in the woods than use a chemical toilet.
    
16. Finding a live newt is a big deal.
    
17. For some students, touching a newt is the first time they have ever touched a species other than their own.
    
18. Bribery and corruption works - extensions on informal deadlines can easily be paid for in Bounty bars (for the Merkins - Bounty is like Almond Joy without the almond).
    
19. A-Level Biology may be the only subject where you can discuss whether being kicked in the nuts is more painful than childbirth without it really being off-topic.
    
20. Dissection makes people hungry. Fact.