Only 600 miles or ten hours by car from Newport Beach (AITSE headquarters) you can find an impressive array of 42 dish antennas. And Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft does not intend to stop there--the Cascade mountain countryside will soon sport 350 dishes.

One might ask "why"? A reasonable question. The answer, "To look for aliens," might seem less obvious. But, nonetheless, the purpose of the Allen telescope is to search for radio signals that might indicate the presence of extraterrestrial beings. After all, in our experience of the world, the source of specified complexity (such as code) is always intelligent beings.

But, the question is, will the code necessarily be detectable? After all, humans beings are using less and less radio technology and are increasing their use of fiber optics and other technologies. Surely other civilizations would do the same (this is not necessarily an accurate assumption)!

Therefore, various scientists have suggested alternatives to searching for radio waves--and most involve searching for...pollution! Or, retired particle physicist, Dr. Dick Carrigan suggests how about searching for something thus far only found in science fiction? Dyson spheres (see Ringworld by Larry Niven).

Well, whether you think these are good or bad ideas, please do note the underlying assumption. When one detects design, whether in radio wave patterns, factories spewing out pollution or artificial satellites, it is logical to consider that it might be due to the action of intelligent beings. And then, I suggest we need to follow the evidence where it leads.

Dr. Paul Bloom of the Infant Cognition Center at Yale University recently published an amazing article in the New York Times Magazine--all about how babies show signs of innate morality--even at 5-8 months of age. Before discussing the article in more detail, let me point out my granddaughter, Megan (above), who is eight months old. Megan can sit, blow bubbles, and does a mean shout. She also thinks it's just fine to bite Mommy and Daddy to help with teething pain and giggles when Mommy objects. Hmm, not much moral sense there. But of course, this is anecdotal, not scientific, evidence. Actually, it is much like Charles Darwin's written observation that his six-month old son felt sad when his nurse pretended to cry. Also anecdotal.

But, what of the scientific evidence? Dr. Bloom's team's studies seem to indicate that children appear to have a "prewired understanding of what to pay attention to and what generalizations to make" and have an inborn sense of right and wrong--moral ideas that are more than empathy in that there is an awareness that people can choose to obey the inner urge to do what is right--or not. In fact, the studies show that babies understand 1) that helping is good and hindering is bad and 2) good should be rewarded and bad should be punished.

The question then was asked, where does this innate moral insight, which is both general and universal, come from? Some have suggested that conscience can only be explained by reference to a godly force. Others say that it is a result of evolution--if we are kind to relatives, then our DNA is more likely to be passed on. Of course, this does not in any way explain the baby behavior--since they were not related to the puppets that the scientists were showing them, nor does it explain the fact that we consider altruism towards a stranger as a higher moral good than that towards a family member.

Well, Dr. Bloom has a lot more arguments, but I will leave you to read them for yourself--and in the true spirit of scientific integrity, make up your own mind!

HeLa cells--I worked with them while a student at Warwick University and while engaging in multiple sclerosis research at Oxford University. We had them in the freezer at the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, MD, they have been sent into outer space, been infected with human viruses and bacteria, and in fact have probably done more for medical research than any other cell line known to man. If piled up, it has been estimated that they would weigh 50 million metric tons!

In the book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, author Rebecca Skloot describes how 31-year-old African American mother of four Henrietta Lacks died of cervical cancer in 1951, but her cancer cells are still doing well. Doctors from Johns Hopkins obtained her tumor cells, grew them in the lab, and they went on to be used to transform medicine. But her children lived below the poverty line and never received a penny. In fact, they were even recruited 25 years later (1976) so that researchers could learn more about the cell line, but not informed of the reason for the blood tests. Amazingly enough, some of her descendants do not have medical insurance and still find it difficult to pay for the medicines their ancestor's cells helped to develop.

According to New Scientist's Mark Mattson, there is a problem with pharmaceutical drug testing--and it is not lack of integrity. It is the use of fat rats and mice. Basically, he points out that lab animals are "couch potatoes". They eat as much as they like, whenever they like, and rarely get any exercise. The result is that they develop typical obesity-related illnesses: high blood pressure, diabetes, kidney disease, low self-image (ok I made that one up).

Mr. Mattson then points out that the effect of a chemical differs depending on the recipient. For example, some cancer-causing agents are more potent in pudgy rats than in their more svelte counterparts. Therefore, the routine use of unhealthy animals may lead to spurious results in drug testing.

This is where I would suggest there may be a problem. After all, Colorado is the only state in our country that boasts of an obesity rate of less than 20%. In comparison, about half a dozen states have an obesity rate of over 30% (CDC statistics). So, maybe we should have separate drug testing--on obese rats for those medications to be used on overweight individuals and on healthier rats for those medications to be targeted to a slimmer population. But then, what about using female rats for females and rats who like beer for those who like beer? It quickly becomes a rather unwieldy proposition. And, let's face it, totally healthy people rarely need to use medicine anyway!

Maybe this is why medications undergo clinical trials before they are released onto the market? First, as Phase I, their safety is ascertained in healthy volunteers. In Phase II, the drug is given to patients with the condition of interest, again testing for safety, but also for the best dosage, drug efficacy, and more. Finally, the drug undergoes Phase III testing in a large group of patients (>1000). It is usually only after this that the drug is approved by the FDA. The final phase (IV) is conducted after release of the drug to monitor long-term or unexpected effects. Therefore, as long as the results are reported accurately, the original fat rats may not really matter.

"Argument and debate are common in science, yet they are virtually absent from science education. Recent research shows, however, that opportunities for students to engage in collaborative discourse and argumentation offer a means of enhancing student conceptual understanding and students' skills and capabilities with scientific reasoning. As one of the hallmarks of the scientist is critical, rational skepticism, the lack of opportunities to develop the ability to reason and argue scientifically would appear to be a significant weakness in contemporary educational practice. In short, knowing what is wrong matters as much as knowing what is right."

This is the goal of AITSE: to improve science education and increase scientific integrity by offering clear, reliable, and balanced education, liberating science and technology from ideology, politics and the illusion of consensus. Basically, we are encouraging people to be free to think--and according to Dr. Osborne, this is by far the best way to help students learn.

The news has been full of it--Venter Labs made a self-replicating synthetic cell. Some have even gone so far as to claim they created artificial life (the Economist's headline is "And Man Made LIfe")! If this is true, it is headline news and certainly worthy of all the attention it has received. But, what exactly have they done?

To understand, we need a quick review of cell biology--my favorite topic, as you may have noticed. Basically, imagine that cells are cities. In that case, they all contain instructions in their head office (nucleus) for making all the buildings and machines that are located in that city. The instructions are written in ink (DNA). When a structure needs to be built, these instructions are accessed by a previously existing and intricate system of data retrieval, transcribed so that they can leave the head office, and acted upon. Once the machine is made, it is loaded into a previously existing transport system and taken where it needs to be, assembled, and more. This is vastly simplified, but gives an idea of the multi-layered information network necessary.

So, what did Venter labs do? First, they copied the DNA instructions from an existing bacterial cell, then they made another copy of this using component parts of the DNA (an admittedly huge task since the code was over a million base pairs long). Next, they exchanged the DNA they synthesized with DNA that was in a cell from a different species. And, finally, they found that this new cell, with its information retrieval system etc. still in place, could use the synthetic DNA.

Let me put it even more simply. Mommy writes a sentence on a piece of paper. Junior takes magnetic letters from a bag and copies the same sentence on the fridge. Daddy comes home and can read the sentence that Mommy originally wrote. Junior is so proud that he publishes it. The media finds out and says that Junior invented--what?

In conclusion, yes, Venter labs did a huge amount of work and should be proud that they were able to copy the information found in a bacterial genome and make another genome from scratch (if you don't count already having the component pieces of DNA). But, did they, as they claim "write the software of life"? No, not unless you count plagiarism as an original idea.

Since this newsletter is already too long, let me just give you a quote to whet your appetite. "There are essential functional properties of centralized information-processing systems: for digital computers these properties reside in the computer's hard drive, and for eukaryotic cells they are manifest in the DNA and associated structures."