A New Day Is Dawning
In part I of this series I revealed my all-time favourite figures from Scientific history and why I admire them so much. In part II, I've decided to talk about the art of Science communication itself and what I consider the finest examples of the craft. Both my jobs are essentially: "explain Science to people who don't know the Science," so obviously this is something I care about a great deal.
I started compiling the list last week, but as I went along I began to notice something rather surprising...all the stuff I've chosen was created in the last few years. Initially, this made me feel like an uncultured swine, but then I realised something pretty exciting. I've seen Sagan's Cosmos and Bronowski's The Ascent of Man. I've read Darwin's On The Origin of Species and Levi's The Periodic Table and while I don't want to dismiss these towering works, I'm going to say something a little bold...I think Science communication is better today than it ever has been.
It's possible to respect the classics of an art-form, while simultanesouly recognising that contemporary material can outshine it. What's wrong with saying you prefer Stephen King as a storyteller to Charles Dickens? Why can't we admit that Shakespeare wrote garbage (The Taming of the Shrew) as well as genius (A Midsummer Night's Dream)? And why can't we dare admit that maybe, just maybe, Next Generation is better than The Original Series?
Absolutely we should honour the trailblazers which came first, but that doesn't mean we can't improve on them. In fact, isn't that what's supposed to happen with time? Shouldn't we learn from the flaws of the past and do better today? Well, when it comes to Science communication I think we're doing just that.
There has never been a better time to be a Science geek because people are getting more educated about how things work and as literacy improves, so does the quality of explanation. Consider how in the 1950 movie Destination Moon, the main characters walk around the lunar surface without helmets because the general public simply weren't aware there was no air in space. Or how in Superman, Kal-El reverses time by spinning the Earth in the opposite direction because people weren't aware that...it wouldn't work. You couldn't get away with those errors in a movie today because people are more informed. We're smarter than we've ever been, so I'm not ashamed to say that I think the best Science communication is happening right now. Without further ado...
Favourite Science TV Series (Non-Fiction): Planet Earth II
Perhaps it's because I'm not a zoologist and therefore less familiar with the animal kingdom, but every sequence from 2016's Planet Earth II had my jaw on the floor. Narrated by the voice of quality itself, David Attenborough (who writes his own scripts incidentally), Planet Earth II presented the most startling footage of animals and their environments I've ever seen. While Attenborough's recent Netflix series Our Planet is also worth a watch, Planet Earth II has a more optimistic tone. Our Planet puts an emphasis on how much we're screwing the planet up - I mean in fairness, we are - but Planet Earth II reminds us why the planet is worth saving in the first place. Also, Our Planet has an insufferable credits song while Planet Earth II has a score by Hans Zimmer. Planet Earth II wins.
Favourite Science TV Series (Fiction...Sort Of): Chernobyl
A bit controversial as it's not strictly about Science, but I think 2019's Chernobyl is still worth mentioning. Currently ranked #4 on IMDb (Planet Earth II is #1 by the way), Chernobyl shows, in agonising and brutal detail, how the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster occurred and how Soviet Scientists worked to contain and understand the damage, clashing with the political obstructions of their culture. It's a fictionalised account of the real tragedy but it's drawn from transcripts, eyewitness statements and court documents, so while it's not exactly a perfect documentary, it's pretty damn impressive. I started watching it one evening at 7pm and found myself so gripped I binged the whole series in one go, finishing around midnight. It's depressing as hell (the fact it was written by Craig Mazin who wrote Scary Movie 3 is kind of astonishing) but if you can stomach the graphic violence, Chernobyl shows you what Scientific honesty looks like.
Favourite Science Book: Behave by Robert Sapolsky
Robert Sapolsky is probably my favourite living Science writer and his books have genuinely brought me to tears from laughter and sadness. Behave is not only his masterpiece, it is the finest thing he (or anyone else) has written about Scientific knowledge. Sapolsky draws on his expertise in anthropology, primatology, biology, neuroscience, psychology, sociology and philosophy to tackle the human condition itself and figure out why we are the way we are. While it's easy to dismiss difficult questions like "nature vs nurture?" Sapolsky doesn't shy away from them or pull his punches. He gets right down to the nitty-gritty of what we know about behaviour and what makes us act the way we do, covering everything from war to religion to economics to education. I have never felt any book should be compulsory reading because forcing a book on someone will make them hate it, but I might make an exception for Behave. If there was one book every lawmaker, leader, preacher and teacher should read...it's this. Oh, and obviously my book. Duh!
Favourite Science YouTube Channel (Non-Technical): Symphony of Science
This one is just plain old fun. Created by John Boswell, Symphony of Science is a series of music videos assembled from auto-tuned interviews with Scientists and documentary footage. It's kind of hard to describe (check out the one above) but if you want a distilled barrage of cool images set to funky techno-songs about Science, Boswell is your guy. While this series doesn't really educate or explain the facts as such, it encapsulates the fun and wonder of Science perfectly, as well as giving you tunes you'll be humming for days. Science can be playful as well as heavy and it's nice to remember that. Plus if you've ever wanted to hear Bertrand Russell rapping, look no further.
Favourite Science YouTube Channel (Technical): The Theoretical Minimum
So let's say you're wanting to get stuck into the complexities of how modern physics works. Let's say you aren't afraid of putting hours aside to dredge up your high-school math lessons and you want "just the facts ma'am". The guy you want to go see is Leonard Susskind, Richard Feynman's protege and probably the finest Physics lecturer out there. A few years ago, Susskind began a lecture series at Stanford University explaining Physics in full detail and stuck them online for anyone to watch. There's no frills or special effects, but by Thor's hammer, this guy knows his stuff. Be warned, it's "Physics with the hard stuff left in" and there isn't a whole lot of singing, but if you're wanting to be stretched, Susskind's raw approach is for you.
Onward to Optimism
In last week's blog, I talked about bits of Science I find challenging and how there's nothing to be ashamed of in getting stuck. We're all human and we all struggle (except for Michael Keaton who is too awesome to struggle with anything) so it's OK to ask for help when needed.
My aim in writing that piece was to encourage people to be open about their difficulties and not feel judged in admitting that sometimes they find stuff hard. It seems to have been a success and I want to say thank you to everyone who e-mailed me confessing to their own hated parts of Science. Nevertheless, I feel obligated to counteract the negativity of that essay and write something a bit more upbeat. What better way to do that, than to write about the bits of science I absolutely adore!
The challenge I faced this time was narrowing it down. There are so many things I want to talk about it wouldn't fit into one blog...so I decided to break it into several. I don't know how many parts there will (or when I'll find the time to write the rest) but I'm going to share my personal picks for the best bits of science ever. Is this going to be a tad self-indulgent? Probably. Sorry about that!
Favourite Scientist (Early) - Michael Faraday
Michael Faraday was the son of a poverty-stricken blacksmith and never got a chance to attend school. He routinely faced ridicule and scorn from wealthier echelons of 19th century English society for not being as well educated, but he was a determined investigator and a perpetual thinker who ended up having the last laugh when he invented the basis of pretty much all modern technology.
When the chemist Sir Humphry Davy (discoverer of seven elements) accidentally blasted his eyeballs apart during an experiment, Faraday was hired as his lab assistant and soon showed so much skill and intuition that Davy was prompted to declare Faraday his greatest discovery.
Faraday’s most significant contribution to Science was the theory of electromagnetism – the idea that electricity and magnetism are both facets of the same phenomenon and that we can manipulate or generate them given the right tools. The importance of this discovery is hard to over-sell. Pretty much every power station in the world runs on Faraday’s principle of inducing electrical current in a wire by spinning a nearby magnet, and almost all our communication techniques rely on controlling electromagnetic fields.
We have Faraday to thank for mains electricity, radio and television, mobile phones, wi-fi signals, infra-red remotes, X-rays, lasers and all of contemporary astronomy. For a guy who could barely do fractions, he more or less invented the modern age.
The main reason I admire him so much however, is not his profound discoveries but his personal character. Faraday believed in the work he was doing and did it purely for the good of mankind. He turned down the offer of a knighthood because he didn't believe in titles and he also refused to accept numerous financial rewards because he was not concerned with making money. He also started giving Science lectures twice a week to members of the public (free of charge) and permitted women and children to attend, because he wanted everyone to have the opportunities he had never been afforded.
Faraday believed in Science and he believed in the human capacity to understand it, no matter what a person's gender, race or age might be. As a Science teacher, I can't help but idolise the guy for that. Oh, and he invented party balloons. No, seriously, I'm not kidding. Faraday invented balloons!
Favourite Scientist (Modern) – Richard Feynman
Richard Phillips Feynman was in many ways at the other end of the spectrum to Michael Faraday. While Faraday was a dignified man of honour, Feynman was a charismatic rogue who delighted in pranks and parties (although, for the record, he thoroughly disliked alcohol and drug-use). While Faraday shunned glamour, Feynman swam in it - scooping a Nobel prize for physics, enjoying the “company” of countless women, and having red carpets laid out for him at weekly lectures.
Feynman was basically the Han Solo of physics, known more for his antics than his actual Science. That's not surprising mind you, given his specialism was quantum field theory, something I can't do justice to in a single paragraph. Although now's probably a good time to shamelessly plug my book on quantum physics.
The best I can do in a few sentences is say that Feynman was the first person to make quantum physics work properly. Before him, quantum physics was a disheveled array of facts and question marks which nobody had synthesised into a single idea. Feynman was the guy who achieved that, by establishing the basic principles everything else sprang from.
The reason I admire Feynman much however, is not for his caddish personality or even for his outstanding contributions to physics. It's because of the way he approached scientific problem-solving. All too often in Science you’re fed a bunch of equations and jargon-words which don’t actually get you any deeper to understanding what's going on. It’s tempting to build on the work of others, but Feynman preferred to do things differently and insisted on working everything out from first principles until he arrived at the same conclusion.
Feynman would start with a handful of easy to understand facts and extrapolate one step at a time, never introducing a new concept without picking it to pieces. He believed that the only way you could understand a phenomenon was to ignore all assumptions and work from the ground upward. Feynman's approach to knowledge is probably best summed up with this quotation of his: “If I can’t explain it to a freshman, that means I don’t really understand it.” For Feynman, the art to being a good scientist was to simplify things, not make them more complicated. Something which is forgotten all too often.
Favourite Scientist (who was really more of a mathematician) - Emmy Noether
There's a good chance you've heard of Faraday and Feynman; they're pretty well known figures in Science history. But not many people have heard of Emmy Noether and that's a shame because she was probably one of the five smartest people of the last hundred years. Oh and if you're wondering how to say her surname, it should rhyme with "murder" with a soft d. Actually, the only word I can think of which rhymes properly is the giant flaming demon-monster from Thor: Ragnarok...so if you've seen that film, you're on the right track.
Born in Germany at the end of the 19th Century, Amalie "Emmy" Noether faced a lot of prejudice throughout her life, partly down to being Jewish and partly down to having a uterus. Naturally she was treated like dirt at University, with numerous male members of staff requesting she be expelled for the crime of...I dunno...being a woman who's good at math I guess? She had to work unpaid in her role as lecturer, and had to advertise her talks under a man's name. But, just like Faraday, Noether was able to confound her doubters by coming up with one of the most important physics theorems in history: Noether's theorem.
Again, it's pretty hard to summarise Noether's theorem in a few sentences. The general gist goes something like this however: in every law of physics there are certain things which cannot change. For example, in thermodynamics we make the assumption that energy cannot be created or destroyed. In engineering and mechanics we find that it's momentum which stays constant. In particle physics it's something called lepton number and so on. What Noether's theorem does is predict which things can and cannot change for any law of physics. Or, putting it another way, it's the foundational law of physics that everything is built on.
Although technically more of a mathematician, Noether's contribution to theoretical physics is so profound it underpins everything from why neutrinos exist to where the Higgs boson comes from. Oh and as if that wasn't enough, Noether was the woman who helped Einstein figure out the mathematics of his theories of relativity when he got stuck. Just think about that. When Einstein got stuck, he asked Noether for help. Not even Michael Keaton can claim that.
Favourite Science Author – Isaac Asimov
My two jobs are talking about Science and writing about Science. So when I’m planning a lesson or lecture or when I'm sitting down to write an essay, the man I most aspire to emulate is Isaac Asimov. In a career spanning 52 years, Asimov managed to write or edit over 500 books, getting published in 9 of the 10 Dewey Decimal non-fiction book classifications. Asimov wrote histories of the Bible, analyses of Shakespeare, books of limericks, biographies of poets and critiques of politics, not to mention a somewhat phenomenal career as a science-fiction author. For me however, his greatest talent was writing about Science for non-experts.
With his wolf-man facial hair, Asimov was a professor of Biochemistry at Boston University and wrote thousands of short articles and essays explaining Science for the general public. Although some people find his acerbic self-agrandising sense of humour a little obnoxious, I always admired him as a teacher because of his guiding principle when it came to explaining things: “Be clear”.
Asimov wrote on every scientific topic imaginable, from the validity of IQ testing to the nuances of special relativity and at all times he insisted that as long as his explanations were clear, he was succeeding. He didn’t pepper his writing with flowery prose or philosophical asides (something I am often guilty of), he just stated the facts in a logical progression. So talented was Asimov, that other Scientists would challenge him to write articles on increasingly complicated and difficult-to-explain subjects, but Asimov always won because he knew something important: if you can say it with Science words, you can say it with regular words too.
Sometimes you read his work and think, “why didn’t I think of saying it like that? Ot’s really simple,” and that is the mark of a good teacher. Someone who can make even the most complicated ideas seem obvious. Frankly, he puts most other science authors to shame, myself very much included. Obviously, I know I will never be as good a writer as him...but you've got to have something to shoot for.
In 1999 the Canadian non-profit organisation Companies Committed to Kids ran a television campaign aimed at boosting children’s self-esteem with the slogan: “Nobody’s good at everything, but everybody’s good at something.” By contrast, Public Service Announcements in the UK are about wearing a seat-belt so you don’t kill your dad in a car crash. I mean, they’re both important messages but as a teacher I’m more interested in the first one. It’s rare that I crash a car inside my classroom but I frequently come across students doubting their ability to do STEM (Science Tech Engineering Maths).
That’s to be expected, of course. I mean, let’s be blunt about this…STEM is hard. There’s no such thing as an intellectually perfect person (with the obvious exceptions of Spock and Data from Star Trek) so naturally everyone struggles from time to time. In a perfect world there wouldn’t be any shame in admitting this, but for all sorts of reason we’re often reluctant to advertise our cognitive shortcomings, and this presents a real dilemma for educators.
As both a teacher and author I want to make sure my students/readers feel they can trust me to “know my stuff”. But at the same time, I want them to see me struggle so they don’t feel bad about running into difficulty themselves. If people perceive me as infallible they’re less likely to ask for my help because they’ll be worried about me judging them, but on the other hand if they see me as useless they won’t ask for help in the first place because they won’t believe I can provide it. How do you get that balance right?
I’ve been contemplating this question a lot over the past week with the start of a new academic term, when it struck me that the simplest thing to do would be write a public declaration of various bits of STEM I find difficult. I’m not one for subtlety (check the title of the blog) so, without further ado here’s a list of the top STEM areas you don’t want me teaching you. How's that for a Buzzfeed-worthy title?
Almost All of Biology
This one’s no secret to anyone who has seen me teach the subject. I know virtually nothing about animals, I’m not 100% sure what a chromosome is and I can’t tell you what the pancreas does (something to do with diabetes???). Biology has always been the weakest of the three natural sciences for me, and it's almost a running joke in my department that I'm not allowed to cover a Biology lesson.
It’s hard to pin down why I lost my way with Biology (my high school teacher was actually really good) but for some reason I got turned off to the subject as a teen. By the time I realised it was cool, I was a busy adult and could never find the opportunity to sit down and learn the basics.
On rare occasions when I do have to teach the subject, I read over the material the night before, follow a detailed lesson plan on my desk and by the following night I’ve typically forgotten everything I said. Really, students in my Biology classes might as well just read out-loud from the textbook…that’s more or less what I’m doing.
There are a few exceptions to this rule - I’m fairly well-versed on the brain, the biochemistry of medicines and drugs, and I know a disturbing amount about the composition of plant-matter - but other than that I’m typically worse than a rank amateur. I really wanted to put a Biology metaphor in there but I don't know any! That's the problem!
Basic Mental Arithmetic…that most children can do
I’ve got a tense working relationship with mathematics. The kind you have with a work colleague after you send an e-mail to everyone in the office mocking the shape of their ears, only to realise you accidentally copied them in as well.
I can use mathematics when necessary, but it’s not something I seek out. I only like it when I’m using it for chemistry or physics and if I go outside that comfort zone I’m immediately drowning in symbols. And, without a doubt, the area of maths I’m most clumsy with is basic mental arithmetic.
I’m serious here. I, a thirty one year old STEM teacher with a Master’s degree and a couple of bestselling books to my name, have difficulty doing simple sums in my head. I’ll muddle fractions, I’ll miss decimal places, I’ll get powers of ten in the wrong order and I can’t even sum a series of two digit numbers without writing them down first. I can never split the bill in a restaurant, I am lousy at calculating percentages and I can genuinely see myself getting hauled in front of a judge some day for tax fraud because I’ve accidentally forgotten to carry the one or something.
This can be quite embarrassing in front of a class when I’m struggling to work out 107 - 9 in my head, but there it is. I can explain all four of the Maxwell equations at the drop of a hat, but ask me to work out 60% of 50 and I’m going to need a minute.
There is a mental condition called dyscalculia which is a bit like dyslexia for numbers. I have no idea if I’ve got it (I wouldn’t be surprised) but either way, it doesn’t seem to be something I can avoid. That’s actually one of the reasons I respect people who work in retail. I’ve got no clue how to count my own change, let alone someone else’s.
I’d like to claim this one is just a “fiddly topic” everyone struggles with, but the whole point of this blog is that different people struggle with different things, so I can’t let myself off easy by saying everyone finds this topic hard. But...for the record…they totally do.
Fluid mechanics is the physics of how gases and liquids move and although I can massage my ego by reminding myself that lots of people find it tough, I still suspect I’m much worse at it than most physicists.
You may have come across the entry-level stuff in school yourself. Things like Archimedes’ principle and buoyancy, terminal velocity and air-resistance, gas pressure and expansion etc. They’re all topics I feel edgy when teaching, so if you're in my class and I look a bit nervous talking about these things, it's because I am!
In fact, to give you some idea of how lousy I am at fluid mechanics, I once managed to foul up a calculation so badly I ended up proving the Atlantic Ocean was 3 centimeters deep. Spoiler alert: it isn’t. Clearly this is a topic I’ve never been particularly…wait for it…fluent in! Ha ha ha! Fluid/Fluent? What an amazing use of language! I’m so freaking hilarious! OK, but seriously, buy my book.
And Finally, My Arch Nemesis
If Physics was a 90s video game, the boss at the end of the last level would be (for me at least) the topic of circular motion. Batman has the Joker. Sherlock Holmes has Moriarty. Kanye West has rational thinking. I have circular motion. My ancient rival, tormenting me since before time began.
Circular motion is, as the name suggests, the physics of things moving in circles. Anything from the moon orbiting Earth to balls going round on strings. It’s counter-intuitive, it’s fiddly, it’s mathematically fiendish and it kicks my butt every single time I grapple with it.
With most of the subjects I teach and write about, I understand them deeply enough to explain them in lots of different ways, but when it comes to circular motion I basically just know the facts. I don’t feel like I truly grasp them in my gut. I just cannot get my head round it (I’d like to claim that pun was intentional but it wasn’t. It was, in fact…pun-intentional).
I first encountered this jackass of a topic while studying A-level physics myself at the age of 17. I knew right away it was going to be trouble and the exam I sat on it was so horrible I remember coming out of it and making the joke to one of my friends: “well, there go my University options”. In fact, my score on that exam cost me the top grade at A-level because I nailed all the other papers but bombed that one hard.
This experience of learning circular motion has scarred me so much that I can barely listen to Circle of Life without feeling deep bitterness, and every year when we’re carving up the syllabus to teach, my head of department knows “Don’t give the circular motion topic to tim!” because I’ll go on strike if I have to teach it.
There Is Nothing To Be Ashamed Of
Everyone likes to feel smart. We place a huge value on intellect and it’s no wonder people never want to admit when they can’t do something. But I really think we need to change that mindset. STEM is a vast subject encompassing everything from how lions breed to how computer networks function. Given the sheer amount of information and skills that fall into STEM, it would be weird if you didn’t suck at at least some of it.
There’s so much out there to learn, it’s ridiculous to set yourself the target of being good at everything you ever study. Sometimes you can be smart and still suck at something. That doesn’t mean you’re slow. It simply means you find some stuff hard. Like everyone ever.
I have to remember that just because I can’t do certain parts of STEM with ease, doesn’t mean the bits I can do are suddenly tainted or devalued. In fact, I think this is one of the most important things to remember about the scientific community in general: it's a team effort and it has to be. We're trying to figure out the Universe, nobody can do that on their own!
I’m not very good at Biology but that’s OK because there are plenty of doctors and zoologists who have me covered. I’m not very good at mental arithmetic, but that's OK because Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace invented the calculator! I’m not too hot on fluid mechanics but that's OK because there are so many chemical engineers out there I don’t need to worry about it. Circular motion…that’s a thing which exists.
While I’ll always strive to better myself and face intellectual challenges as they come, I can accept that some parts of STEM I need other people’s help on. And that’s a good thing. That’s what makes STEM so awesome; the collaborations it leads to. Being good at everything has its advantages but it isolates you quite a lot. Being human is much better because it means not only can you help other people when they’re stuck, they can help you too. Not only is there something for everyone in STEM, but there’s someone for everything.
Good luck to all the students out there starting new courses and to all the fallible educators doing their best to help!!!
Stranger Things Have Happened
I've recently been enjoying the third season of the Netflix original series Stranger Things, directed by Matt and Ross Duffer. If you've not run across it, Stranger Things is a nostalgia smoothie of 1980s pop-culture, homaging the sci-fi/horror works of Stephen King, John Carpenter, Steven Speilberg, Tobe Hooper and George A. Romero, with a few Weird Al Yankovic songs sprinkled in for good measure.
It's mostly harmless cotton-candy fun, blending coming-of-age drama with gross-out-horror, and does a nice job of honouring Generation X Hollywood without ripping it off. As someone whose adolescence included a healthy diet of these movies/novels/comics, I've enjoyed all three seasons so although I didn't grow up in 1980s small-town America I can enjoy it for the flashy, splashy, trashy homage-athon it is.
The central conciet of Stranger Things is that shady government forces have accidentally opened a portal to a parallel universe (oops) through which horrible beasties come crawling, and only a group of bicycle-riding pre-teen nerds can save the world from annihilation. Oh, and one of them is telekenitc. As I say, I didn't grow up in 1980s America, so I can only asssume this was a pretty common occurence.
In the show, this alternate dark-dimension is neatly called "The Upside Down", a reference to flipping a Dungeons and Dragons board upside down to get to the dark side of existence. Alternate realities have been a staple of fantasy and myth for centuries, but the idea was formalised in science fiction in the 1934 short story Sideways in Time by Murray Leinster, in which humanity learns there are parallel versions of Earth occupying the same space and time, only on a different frequency, the same way radio station signals exist in the same location but can only be picked up one at a time.
Surprisingly, and rather awesomely, in the last few decades theoretical physics has started taking the idea of parallel realities seriously because they may be necessary to explain some of the most puzzling phenomena about the world around us. By my count, there are three main places in modern Science where parallel universes are talked about, so let's take a look at what physics says about the Strangest Things of all...the laws of nature.
1. The Many Worlds Hypothesis - Quantum Mechanics
I don't want to give too much away on this one, because I've got a book out in less than a month which has a whole chapter on the topic (click here to pre-order Fundamental). I'll whizz through the basics however.
One of the many peculiarities of quantum mechanics is that particles are seemingly able to do more than one thing at a time, even things which are contradictory. Consider the humble light bulb, a device which can be switched either on or off, but never both simultaneously. This seems like an inviolable law of logic: something cannot be in two mutually exclusive states at the same time. Individual particles however do precisely that - an electron can choose to spit out a photon (a particle of light) and simultaneously not spit it out, meaning the electron is both giving out light and not. Although the everyday world seems to follow the laws of logic, quantum particles have no interest in them. Take that, Aristotle!
Unfortunately, we have no way of really understanding how this is possible. There are a few ways of tackling the idea to make it more palatable for our feeble brains however, the most popular of which was the view promoted by Werner Heisenberg (of Breaking Bad fame) and Niels Bohr (of I Hate Einstein fame). In their way of looking at things, you just sort of shrug your shoulders and decide nature doesn't have to make sense to us. If particles want to do contradictory things we have no choice but to let them. But not everybody is happy with that approach.
Probably the most talked-about alternative is the one suggested by Hugh Everett III, who pointed out that although we know particles can apparently do opposite things at the same time, when we observe them we only see one outcome. We have never actually detected the light bulb being on or off together, even though we can infer it must be happening, so Everett suggested both states exist in different Universes, only one of which we can see.
That, according to Everett, explains the bizarre dual nature of particles. There are two overlapping Universes and particles can take entirely different choices/paths in each one. We can infer and calculate that both are taking place at the same time, but we can only ever witness one reality - the one we are in. It's a crazy idea but large numbers of physicists, including Richard Feynman and Stephen Hawking, felt it was the only way to make head and tail of the mystery.
This means there could be a vast number of parallel Universes in which a countless number of events have taken place. The laws of physics would basically be the same, but the way particles choose to operate within those laws could be different everywhere. There are Universes where the particles in your brain have done different things, meaning you have made different choices and lived a different life entirely.
2. The Multiverse Hypothesis - Cosmology
The Universe exists (spoiler alert) and within it, there are physical laws which allow it to do so sesnibly. Things like the law of gravity, electricity and magnetism, nuclear decay, the behaviour of atomic nuclei and so on. If any one of these laws were changed a little bit, the Universe would look very different to the point of being unrecognisable.
For instance, take gravity. A Universe in which gravity did not exist would be totally unfamiliar. Not only would the apple never fall in front of Newton, it would not have existed in the first place because there would be no solar systems, no planets and no objects on their surfaces.
At the start of the Universe there were just a bunch of particles free-floating with little to do with each other. Gradually these particles started sucking themselves inwards until they were crushed into hot balls of plasma - suns - and the only way for this to happen is through gravitational attraction. No gravity, no stars. And, if there are no stars, there is no way for heavier elements to get formed via the fusion process, no heavier elements means no chemistry, and therefore no planets either. Without gravity, the Universe would be one big, boring cloud of hydrogen and helium. In a very real sense, you owe your existence to gravity.
Or let's instead suppose all the laws of physics did exist but in different ratios. What I mean by that is that the strengths of the various laws could be totally different to what they are for us. For instance, there is a force inside the core of a nucleus called the "Strong Force" because it holds protons and neutrons together strongly - gotta hand it to physicists for creative nomenclature.
If the Strong Force were not quite so strong, protons and neutrons would not stick together, meaning atoms would not exist. Forget a big cloud of hydrogen and helium, without this force being strong enough, there would be no freaking atoms at all!
In fact, we are susprisingly lucky that the fundamental forces of nature interact the way they do. Tweak them just a little and physics looks very different. So...how come we're lucky? Is there some reason the laws of physics just happened to fall into just at the right strengths to allow the beauty we take for granted to exist? There are a number of possible explanations.
The first is that it's due to random chance and that we were simply fortunate. Another explanation is that the Universe was arranged this way by a benevolent science-loving entity, which some people call God. Another explanation is that there are trillions of Universes out there all existing in different regions of space like bubbles in a foam. Inside each Universe the laws of physics are slightly different, and we just happen to be in one of the more interesting ones. This idea is called the Multiverse hypothesis and explains why the Universe is so conveniently put together. It's not that the Universe is special, it's just that there are so many Unvierses anything is possible in at least one of them.
3. The Bulk Hypothesis - String Theory
The Many Worlds and Multiverse hypotheses are quite similar. They both propose many Universes with alternate timelines and everything distributed at random with us experiencing just one of them. The physicist Leonard Susskind has even published a paper arguing that these two hypotheses could be the same thing. He proposes that random fluctuations during the big bang meant the laws of physics chose different identities in different realities before branching off. In this view, the Multiverse idea is just what you get as a consequence of applying the Many Worlds approach to the big bang itself. The Bulk Hypothesis, which we get from String Theory (which Susskind co-invented) is very different though.
String Theory is a hell of a subject and I plan to write about it in more detail in the future. For this blog however, we only need to focus on one small aspect of the theory: stacking branes.
In String Theory there are no such things as particles. Instead, all the laws of physics can be explained using a buffet of different objects which interact with each other in complicated ways. One of these objects is called a string...duh...but more relevant to our purposes are objects called Branes (short for Membranes). Membranes are surfaces which can be layered together like pages in a book, each one entirely separate to the one adjacent and the pile of membranes is referred to as a "bulk".
Now imagine an Atlas which has a 2D image of the world on every page. These 2D worlds would be stacked together in a 3D bulk and to any 2D creatures living on the page they would have no idea there was another world right next to them. Now all you have to do is imagine the whole thing in higher dimensions...easier said than done of course.
In The Bulk Hypothesis of String Theory, our Universe could be a 3D membrane, stacked alongside other Universes in a 4D bulk. We just can't see these other Universes. The same way a 2D being could not perceive a third dimension, we cannot perceive a fourth, but there is no reason such a dimension could not exist. In this view, there could be countless parallel worlds all around us, separated along a dimensional axis we cannot see.
Which Is The Upside Down?
The Upside Down in Stranger Things is the classic "dark dimension" where evil psychic tentacle monsters exist, and there are no Ikeas. The scientists in the show are able to access it using a bunch of hand-wavy Universe-penetrating machines in order to exploit a place where the Upside Down Universe and ours are so close the barrier between them is thin. And this actually gives us a major clue about which alternative Universe The Upside Down has to be.
One of the key features of the Many Worlds hypothesis from quantum mechanics is that you can never observe the other reality where particles are doing opposite things. In fact, when two overlapping Universes take different routes they are said to "decohere" from each other and we can only detect them indirectly through the mathematics of our experiments. The many worlds of quantum mechanics are completely inaccessible. Which rules them out.
The same can also be said of the Multiverse hypothesis. In this one, the different Universes are either separated by enormous distances in space, or enormous stretches in time and we have no way of getting to any of them by conventional means. We could potentially create a wormhole between the dimensions but statisically we would be far more likely to find a Universe where the laws of physics are completely different. In Stranger Things, the Upside Down is different to our reality but is still pretty close; everything is made from atoms, carbon-based life-forms exist, there is a weather system, light and electricity behave in a similar fashion etc., so it is very unlikely The Upside Down is part of the Multiverse.
But The Bulk Hypothesis works nicely. If we were to connect to one of the other membranes of the bulk, it would probably be somewhat different to our own Universe, but close enough to be recognisable. The same basic laws of physics would apply, just with a few minor discrepancies - which is what we see in the show. In fact, the show makes a big deal of objects and locations in our world corresponding to objects and locations in the other one e.g. we don't open a portal to the Upside Down and find ourselves in the middle of empty space - there's a planet the same size as ours on the other side, with the same gravity and roughly the same geography.
What's more, the other membranes of the bulk are the only ones we might actually have a way of "reaching". Whereas the many worlds and multiverse realities are completely separated from ours, in String Theory, there are hypothetical particles called gravitons which can move from one membrane universe to another, allowing two universes to talk. Perhaps if we found a way of controlling a graviton beam (which the scientists in the show seem to have done) we might be able to send a pulse from our Universe to the next one along, opening a channel across which information and maybe even matter might be exchanged. What's more, once this rift in the bulk had been opened it would be very difficult to close...leading to huge problems and lots of useful plot developments. So there you have it, Elven and the gang are early pioneers of String Theory!
Personally, I find it pretty cool that the ideas of a speculative TV show like Stranger Things are actually matched by real developments in theoeritcal physics. Sometimes sci-fi shows have no regard for real science, which is fine of course (it's entertainment not education), but I always find it rewarding when there's a plausible way to justify the fun.
The only other show to feature String Theory in any detail was NBC's dubious sitcom The Big Bang Theory, which I have written about here. That show also attempts to mash-up a bunch of nerdy pop culture references but the main difference is that in The Big Bang Theory the nerd characters just spend their time arguing over movies and sex, whereas in Stranger Things the nerds get to save the world.
One year ago, I published a couple of blogs outlining (1) How I somehow became a science author and (2) How I wrote my first book: Elemental. I concluded them both by saying that whether my book was a success or not, I was just honored to have the chance at getting one published. It probably seemed like I was covering my ego’s back there, but I was being truthful. Really.
It was actually quite a surprise to feel that way. I assumed that in the run up to release-date I’d be pining for a success, but I actually became very stoic about the whole thing…I was just happy to have my own book. If it flopped then so be it. How many people get such an opportunity in the first place? Obviously, I wanted people to read and enjoy my work, but I was not aiming for glory.
It was released on July 1st 2018 and, after finishing up my day-job as a school teacher, I headed to my local bookshop to do a signing. It has to be said, it’s a very cool feeling to see your book on the shelves amid the works of…y’know…real authors. But it felt more like the end of a journey rather than the beginning of one. The book was complete, the work was over, now I just had to accept whatever happened.
In fact, if I’m being totally honest, I didn’t expect Elemental to be a hit. It’s a biography of the periodic table - something most people famously hated in school. I figured I’d sell a few hundred copies to my gran perhaps, but that would be the end of it. The shock I got when I learned that Elemental has been a success still hasn't sunk in.
“Yeah it’s doing OK thank you”
People are so supportive when you do something like this and I get asked all the time how the book is doing. It’s really nice that people take such an interest, but I tend to respond in the same way every time I'm quizzed about it. I sort of shuffle my feet and mumble bashfully that it’s doing fine thanks.
I have no clue why I act like this! I respond to people asking about my book the same way I would respond if they were asking about an inflamed gall bladder - like I’m ashamed of the success or something? It’s flattering that people actually want to hear about it, but I guess it's because I don’t know what the etiquette is for an author whose book is doing well. Do people want sales figures? Do they want to know how much money I’ve made? Do they want to know what the critics have been saying?
I tend to be fairly coy about the whole thing and people have to dig it out of me, but I’ve been informed by enough people that being a tad boastful about my achievement would be acceptable, even healthy.
I dunno, it feels a bit weird to acknowledge it, but I will say that Elemental did a lot better than I or my publishers anticipated. It sold out on Amazon within a few weeks and they had to print a second run. Bookshops had to order double the typical amount and it was stocked in at least eight countries I’m aware of, being translated into three other languages. I got featured in Science magazines, did interviews for BBC radio and The Daily Mail listed it as one of the top books of 2018. Even The New York Post arranged an interview with me for the US release - although sadly that never made it to print (I’m not quite that famous yet!)
However, the most gratifying thing about the whole experience, more exciting than the prestige of telling people I’m an author, is the messages and reviews I get from people telling me how much they enjoyed and learned from it.
I’ve received e-mails from people I’ve never met in countries I’ve never visited whose language I don’t even speak, telling me they enjoyed Elemental. I’ve had people e-mail me saying the book has persuaded them to study chemistry at University and I’ve even had people tell me they’re reading it to their kids as a kind of bizarre bedtime story.
The positive response has been worth all the stress and gave the publishers confidence in me as a writer. That was the main reason I wanted to do well…so they’d give me a chance to write more! And, thanks to the response of my loyal readership, two weeks after the release of Elemental my publishers at Little, Brown offered me a deal for a sequel.
They liked the format of Elemental, being a humorous and informal guide to Chemistry, so they asked what other topics I could do it with. This was quite different to last time. When my agent and I first approached publishers we were trying to persuade them to take a chance on me, but now I had proven myself they wanted to see if I had more tricks up my sleeve. I did. There wasn’t even a moment’s hesitation. It had to be quantum mechanics...
When people ask what my favourite area of Science is, I usually respond with the same joke: “Oh I don’t have a favourite, I love all of it. Also, quantum mechanics.”
When I was a teenager my science teacher, Mr Evans, gave me a textbook on the subject and, putting it simply, I fell in love. That sounds mawkish but honestly the feeling wasn’t all that different. I became obsessed with it to the point of adoration and could think of nothing else. Studying it made me happy and I wanted other people to see its beauty.
The basic premise of quantum mechanics is that there are two Universes around us. There’s the universe of everyday “big” things, where laws of logic and common sense hold and then beneath the surface, at the scale of atoms, there’s a different world entirely; a world where the normal laws of physics no longer work and you have to let go of common sense for it to make sense. Quantum mechanics is full of parallel universes, teleportation and time travel as well as approaching profound questions of spirituality and consciousness.
Don’t get me wrong, I love chemistry and Elemental was a really fun book to write. But this one was going to be a passion project. Something I would be writing from the heart. First though, I had a difficult question to answer.
How the hell do you write about quantum mechanics in plain English?
As soon as the publishers gave me the greenlight, I outlined my chapters, got a library of textbooks by my bedside for research and then…I’m just going to admit this plainly…I was hit by a wave of self-doubt.
The pressure of a second book was enormous. Surely I should be playing it safe and writing about something easy! Why had I picked, of all things, quantum mechanics for my sequel? I kept thinking of when Josh Trank got hired to be the director of the Fantastic 4 movie following the success of his small indie-sci-fi horror Chronicle. Trank was not ready to tackle such a huge project and it resulted in a total mess - one of the worst super hero movies in history. Was I in danger of making the same mistake? What if I was a one-hit wonder whose first book did well only as a fluke?
Elemental worked because chemistry can be described in simple terms, without having to get too bogged down in technicality. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, is so abstract and counter-intuitive that explaining it in plain English is impossible without covering the deep science. In chemistry, you can go straight to the fun bits without having to lay any conceptual groundwork, but in quantum mechanics it’s the reverse. In order to get to the cool bits you have to do the tricky stuff first.
That’s the reason physicists prefer to communicate about quantum mechanics through equations - describing this stuff in words is difficult, so it’s easier to come up with a bunch of symbols that represent “the weirdness” and not worry about understanding them. But I wanted to write a book about quantum mechanics without a single equation. That’s not impossible - if you can say something in mathematical symbols you can say it in english language symbols - but it’s a major challenge.
Then there was the problem of which bit of quantum mechanics to focus on. Some books focus on the experimental details, some tell the historical story of how we came up with it, some focus on pure explanation and some handle the philosophical implications. I wanted my book to be all of those things. I wanted to write a complete tour of the quantum landscape, but maybe I was in danger of becoming the Victor Frankenstein of Science popularisers - cobbling together things which did not belong and, in my hubris, creating a monster.
Then there was the biggest threat of all...quantum mechanics is a subject close to my heart. It’s always a risk when writers, musicians, filmmakers etc. get to make their passion projects because they can become self-indulgent. I wanted to make sure my second book wasn't just me going on about something I loved, I needed to show other people why I loved it and why they should love it too.
A Sweeping Epic
As soon as the contract was signed I felt I had bitten off more than I could chew. I started to doubt it could be done or whether I was the right person to do it. In fact, for the first few weeks I didn’t even begin typing - I was too afraid of writing something dreadful. But then I was reminded by a friend that this was a book I’d wanted to write since I was a teenager and that I had a lot to say. If I just got to work without second-guessing myself, maybe the book would just flow out of me. I decided to heed this advice and got on with writing the damn thing. Sure enough, once I started, I couldn’t stop.
Initially, one of the things which intimidated me was that the publishers asked for an 80,000 word manuscript. Elemental was half that size. The task of writing something so huge was daunting, but once I began, I found the stories I wanted to tell forming on the page as if it wasn't me writing them. By late August, I was up to 60,000 words with roughly two thirds of the intended material covered. I was going to hit my target…or so I thought.
A week before school term started I headed to publisher HQ in London to discuss my progress. I explained in a meeting, rather proudly, that I was on track with 60,000 words done already. At which point my publisher stared in confusion: “How are you going to cut it down?” he asked.
I think everyone experiences these moments of horror at some point in their lives. It’s the feeling you get when you suddenly know exactly what the bad news is going to be, but you have to ask for it anyway. Turns out there had been a typographical error in the contract. They wanted the book to be 45,000 words max.
God knows how someone accidentally types 80 instead of 45, but I was now seriously over my word limit, with only two thirds of the book done, and the deadline approaching in a few months. And I was about to start back at school (which is a pretty time-consuming job).
The suggestion was made at one point that I split the book into two - one focusing on the history of quantum physics and one focusing on recent developments. I probably would have made a bucket load more money doing that, but I didn’t want to pull a Deathly Hallows on my readers. People don’t like paying twice to get one story. So I decided I would just write the book in full, then trim it down from whatever size it ended up as. The final first draft wighed in at 76,000 words which I had to reduce by 40%. The only way to do this was to be ruthless.
My Only Advice
I don’t feel like I have much advice to give on the topic of writing. I’m new to it as a professional, but the one thing I would say to anyone wanting to become a writer is: pick your test audience well and listen to what they say. Chances are your first draft isn’t going to be a masterpiece and by the time you’ve finished it and put all that work in, you’re too close to know which bits work and which bits don’t. You need to get outsider opinions, you need to trust that they’ll be honest, and you need to act on their feedback.
As with my first book, I recruited a group of people to read the book from different perspectives and be cuttingly honest. I got friends who knew nothing about quantum mechanics, friends who were enthusiastic about it but not necessarily experts, friends who had degrees in the subject and friends who had no interest whatsoever…and asked them all to tear it to pieces as best they could.
Your ego has to take a hike here, because you’re not writing the book for yourself anymore, you’re writing for your readers. The early drafts are where you selfishly write the book as you think it should be…then you have to make it worthy of others. You can’t just sit there feeling smug; you have to expose it to criticism and actually accept it. Don’t argue with the people who review your early drafts, otherwise what’s the point in getting them to read it?
There were jokes which didn’t work and had to be removed. There were sections that made no sense or contradicted what I’d said earlier. There was even a bit where the legal team had to intervene because I spent a whole chapter making fun of a scientist I had forgotten was still alive and liable to sue. But, over the course of several stressful but productive months, we battered the book into shape and by the end of January 2019 it was ready. 45,000 words and a week left on my deadline
Ready for Round Two
The title for my second book had been something I’d joked about since before Elemental. Because Elemental was all about the elements, a book about the fundamental laws of particle physics should be called Fundamental. Presumably my future books will have to be about the brain (Mental), climate change (Environmental) and teeth (Dental).
Discussions then began about what the front cover would look like. As I explained in my previous blogs, the cover is of great importance because that is often the only advertising a book gets. We decided to model the design on a similar theme to Elemental - a simplistic image that would communicate a straightforward approach, as well as looking vaguely friendly and non-intimidating.
At least a dozen e-mails were exchanged about capitalization of words in the subtitle and which letters should be upper and lower case (really) as well as font sizes and styles. This attention to detail still surprises me, but it really is a testament to how seriously publishers and graphic designers take their craft. They absolutely want to hone the design to a point of perfection, so that everything about the cover says “give this book a go”.
Then came the audiobook. With Elemental, the audio was recorded by voiceover artist Roger Davies but for this one we decided it would work best coming from my own throat. I headed down to ID Audio Studios in London and spent two days sitting in a studio where such luminaries as Olivia Coleman, Bill Nighy, Roger Moore and Richard E Grant have recorded books, and then I talked for two days into a microphone as a producer directed me (mostly telling me to slow down because I have a tendency to talk fast when I get enthusiastic).
And now, Fundamental is ready. It will be published in the UK and a few other European countries on August 1st 2019 in paperback, e-book and audiobook. You can pre-order it now on Amazon if you want (which may seem pointless from a consumer perspective, but it helps me as an author by encouraging bookshops to stock it), and now I am ready for round two.
I’ve been here before of course, but this time I’m far more nervous. With my first book, I was just thrilled to have gone on the adventure. But as I write this, with publication a few weeks away, I’m feeling very different. It’s not that this book is a more ambitious project, nor is it the fact that there’s more money involved. When I really think about it, my anxiety comes down to something very simple: I don’t want to disappoint my readers.
With Elemental I didn’t have a fanbase so to speak. I mean the website gets hits and I have followers on Instagram and YouTube, but my debut book was published all over the world to people who had never heard of me. This time I have fans to satisfy. A group of people who enjoyed and learned from my first book and I want them to feel I’ve done them a service with the sequel.
I once heard an author, the name of whom I’ve forgotten, saying “I hope my readers enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it”. I see where they’re coming from but actually I want my readers to enjoy it more. Readers give writers their purpose and if you’re not concerned with keeping them happy, you’re just obnoxiously writing for yourself!
Fundamental was a fun book to write, but the only thing that matters is that other people read it, enjoy it, and learn from it. So, to all my fans out there, thank you for the overwhelming support you’ve shown for Elemental. I’ve put a huge amount of myself into Fundamental but I’ve written it for you. I hope you enjoy what I’ve created!
You can pre-order it here if you want to support the writing: Fundamental: How Quantum and Particle Physics explain absolutely everything (except gravity)
Welcome To Jurassic Park
If you’re anything like me, you probably have fond memories of Mr DNA, the animated strand of genetic material from Jurassic Park (shown below). During the first act of the film, entrepreneur John Hammond asks Mr DNA to explain how scientists have brought dinosaurs back to life so the audience can understand the plot. Interestingly, Hammond’s budget was sufficient enough to reverse 65 million years of evolution, but didn’t extend to animating Mr DNA with a head.
You probably also remember from school that the people who discovered DNA and figured out how it worked were James Watson and Francis Crick, who shared the 1962 Nobel prize for their work. But if you talk to most biologists today, you find that Watson and Crick are spoken of in the same shady tones that wizards use when discussing Lord Voldemort.
These two iconic figures, once heralded as the greatest biologists of the 20th century, have fallen into ill repute and their role in the DNA story has been exposed as a little less shiny than textbooks usually claim. Let’s look at the sordid story of DNA.
Oh and by the way, it’s important in scientific discussion to separate the scientist from their work. You may dislike a particular researcher but if their findings point to an obvious conclusion you have to put personal flaws aside and evaluate the discovery on its own merit. The fact that James Watson is on record as having made racist comments like claiming black people are intellectually inferior to white people is not something I need to mention in this paragraph. I probably won’t bring it up at all in fact.
What Is DNA?
When your mother was pregnant with you, her uterus had to find a way of turning all the food she ate into your body (happy belated mother’s day by the way). You did the same thing as you grew from a baby into an adult and are doing it right now as your cells die and need to be replenished.
You’re able to reconstitute food this way thanks to nanoscopic biological machines called ribosomes that live in your cells and have the ability to draw in chemicals from digested food before sticking them together in the right order to make a bit of liver, a bit of heart, a bit of lung etc. Ribosomes are like building contractors, but in order to do their job they need a blueprint. This is where DNA comes in.
DNA is the molecule which stores information the ribosomes use. It’s the molecule responsible for all your inherited characteristics and the reason evolution takes place at all. The way DNA works is ingenious but confoundingly complex, so I’m going to simplify it and give a crude physicist’s understanding of the process. Enjoy…
Firstly, there are four molecules we need to meet called Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine. These molecules - collectively called nucleobases - are each bonded to two other types of molecule called phosphate and deoxyribose, which join together in a long chain (shown below). The backbone of the chain is made from alternating phosphate-deoxyribose units, with the nucleobases hanging off like pegs on a clothes line.
Nucleobases are attracted to each other and if you get two of these strands lined up side by side, the nucleobases link to form the rungs of a ladder. Due to their specific sizes and shapes, A always pairs opposite T and G always pairs up opposite C, meaning the backbones of the structure stay at a constant distance. Then, as you probably know, the chains twist into a double helix, like so…
When DNA is needed for decoding, the strands of the ladder are unzipped, exposing the nucleobases so that a ribosome can read them. There’s a whole bunch of steps which take place but the gist is that the sequence of As, Ts, Gs and Cs, are read by a ribosome like a cassette-tape fed through a player (if that analogy doesn’t make sense because you have no idea what a cassette tape is…ouch).
As ribosomes move along the nucleobase chain, they analyse it like fingers gliding over Braille. The ordering of the ATG and C molecules tells the ribosome how to arrange molecules from your food into a specific body-part protein and thus the living organism itself (shown below).
Changing the order of the nucleobases completely changes what the ribosomes build, which is why tiny variations in DNA can lead to major differences in the organism. Put the bases together in one order and the ribosomes will build a goldfish. Rearrange them just a little and you get a gooseberry.
Oh and technically I should mention there is a fifth nucleobase called Uracil which your bio-machinery uses as part of the process, but I’m going to ignore it in my explanation because it just convolutes things. Sorry Uracil, you aren’t needed for this. Ura-still important though. (I don’t know what I’m doing with my life).
So, Watson and Crick Figured That All Out?
The general idea of DNA was actually suggested by Charles Darwin in 1859 when he published On the Origin of Species. In order for his theory of evolution to work, it was necessary that genetic information be encoded inside a living thing somehow and copied with occasional errors. Obviously Darwin had no idea we needed to be looking for a specific molecule (we didn’t even know atoms existed at this point) but he knew the body had to have some mechanism for storing genetic information. Frankly, if we hadn’t discovered and figured out the behaviour of DNA, Darwinian evolution would still be just a hypothesis rather than a theory we teach in Kentucky high schools.
DNA itself was discovered ten years later by Friedrich Miescher who was doing experiments on bandage-pus obtained from a Swiss hospital (There. Right there. That’s why I chose physics and chemistry over biology). Miescher discovered that most white blood cells contain an acidic chemical in their nucleus - hence the “NA” part of Nucleic Acid - which had a lot of phosphates in it. Miescher had no idea what the significance of the chemical was, just that the body seemed to contain a lot of it.
Then, in 1878, Albrecht Kossel found that nucleic acid contained the nucleobases A,T,G and C, while Phoebus Laverne discovered they were bonded to deoxyribose sugars - hence the “D” part of the name “Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid”. The idea of DNA being made of chains with nucleobases sticking off them was suggested by Nikolai Koltsov and we thus had a good idea of what DNA was. We just didn’t know what it was for.
That was until 1944 when Oswald Avery discovered something surprising about it. Avery found that by transferring the DNA of a harmful virus into a harmless one he could convert the safe virus into a lethal one i.e. the defining characteristics of a thing, the very notion of inherited characteristics Darwin had proposed, was the DNA molecule. Figuring out the structure of DNA would give us the key to life itself.
Then, in 1950 Erwin Chagraff discovered that the amount of Adenine in DNA is always equal to the amount of Thymine, while the amount of Guanine is always equal to the amount of Cytosine - suggesting nucleobases were somehow paired up. All we had to do was figure out how. And this is where the backstabbing begins. (Unlike Watson's racist comments which came several years later)
Lady of Crystal
The same year as Chagraff’s discovery, a talented physical chemist named Rosalind Franklin came to work at King’s College London as a research associate with the Medical Research Council. She was given the task of analysing crystals of DNA using X-ray crystallography (a way of taking photographs of a molecule) alongside another scientist named Maurice Wilkins.
Franklin was a skilled scientist with several papers to her name, but felt a bit of an outsider, being one of the only Jewish researchers at King’s College. Her feeling of isolation was not helped by Maurice Wilkins who openly badmouthed her and treated her as a lab assistant rather than an accomplished scientist in her own right.
She persevered however and by 1951 had gathered useful data about DNA. In November of that year, she gave a lecture in which she explained “the results suggest a helical structure which must be very closely packed, containing 2, 3 or 4 co‐axial nucleic acid chains.” In attendance at this lecture was James Watson, a geneticist from America studying at the Cavendish laboratory in Cambridge. A week after hearing Franklin’s lecture, Watson and his lab partner Francis Crick proposed that DNA might be helical. Wonder where they got that idea from.
Watson explained in his book The Double Helix that he hadn’t really been paying attention to Franklin’s lecture however, because he was more distracted by her unflattering womanly appearance…so I guess…that’s a defence??? I mean we only have his word for it that he was more of a misogynist than a plagiarist, but in any case he relayed the gist of Franklin’s lecture to Crick and they built a 3D model of the structure: a triple-helix of deoxyribose-phosphate threads with nucleobases sticking out the sides.
As chance would have it, the following month Rosalind Franklin was visiting the Cavendish laboratory, having been invited by its director Lawrence Bragg. When Franklin saw the triple-helix model she immediately explained that it was chemically impossible because phosphate backbones repel each other, meaning the helix Watson and Crick had proposed would tear itself apart in seconds.
Bragg was so embarrassed by this that he told Watson and Crick to drop the project and leave the structure of DNA to Franklin. They officially complied and sent Franklin their disassembled model, possibly to give her a hand but possibly as a childish taunt.
Franklin continued her research and by May 1952 had perfected the technique required to crystalise DNA and take a snapshot. Her best result was an X-ray plate titled Photograph 51 (shown below) taken right down the axis of the helix, which was then written up for the Medical Research Council.
In January of 1953, Maurice Wilkins (the guy who hated Franklin) wrote to Francis Crick and suggested they collaborate on the structure of DNA again. He finished his letter by stating: “Let’s have some talks…when the air is a little clearer. I hope the smell of witchcract will soon be getting out of our eyes” – referring to Rosalind Franklin who had recently applied to be transferred.
Then, on 30th January, James Watson was visiting Wilkins to complain that if they didn’t solve the structure of DNA, somebody else would get the glory (most likely the American Nobel prize winner Linus Pauling who had recently published his own triple-helix model). Unable to find Wilkins, Watson instead went to Rosalind Franklin and got into a row with her after telling her she wasn’t able to interpret her own data and would need his and Crick’s help to do so. Wilkins arrived on the scene and took his friend Watson away from “the witch” and then decided to comfort him by showing him Photograph 51 – without Franklin’s permission.
Watson went straight back with the information and Crick began speculating on what it might be showing. He had recently come across Chagraff’s discovery that nucleobases were paired together but couldn’t figure out how. Then came the crucial month. February 1953.
Round about Valentine’s day, Rosalind Franklin wrote in her lab notebook that DNA was made from two chains of deoxyribose-phosphates, wrapped around the outside with nucleobases on the inside. Basically, she solved the structure of DNA. At roughly the same time, Max Perutz, Francis Crick’s thesis advisor, showed Crick Franklin’s data from the unpublished MRC report – again without Franklin’s permission – and Crick made a crucial deduction. The two strands of DNA wound about each other in opposite directions.
He and Watson set about building a model to show this and finally, on 28th February, Crick announced to his friends in a local pub that the structure had been solved. Franklin was already in the process of writing up her own research and, on 17th March, learned that Crick had already begun announcing himself and Watson as the discoverers.
Graciously, she added a note to her paper saying that her results agreed with their structure and on 25th April, Watson and Crick published the idea. Watson and Crick did at least admit in the article that their work was “stimulated by the unpublished ideas” of Franklin but gave little indication that she basically came up with most of it.
Sadly, Rosalind Franklin died in 1958, four years before the Nobel prize committee decided to award that year’s prize for DNA and the prizes are not awarded posthumously so her name was not featured. Instead, the prize went to Francis Crick (who published the double helix theory first), Maurice Wilkins (who did some of the experimental work) and James Watson (a scientist).
So the timeline is roughly as follows...
1859 – Darwin proposes the idea of a genetic code
1869 – Meischer discovers DNA
1878-1928 – Kossel, LaVerne and Kotslov figure out what DNA is made of
1944 – Avery discovers what DNA does
1950 – Chagraff discovers nucleobase pairing
1951 – Franklin suggests DNA is a helix, Watson attends the lecture but doesn’t get it right
1952 – Franklin takes “Photograph 51” which looks helical (May)
1953 – Maurice Wilkins shows Watson photograph 51 (January) who then tells Crick about it
1953 – Franklin almost figures out the structure (early February)
1953 – Perutz shows Franklin’s data to Crick (mid February) who figures out the structure
1953 – Crick announces the structure has been solved (late February)
I am the Law
Franklin was treated horribly by the men involved; that much isn’t in dispute. Even Crick admitted “I'm afraid we always used to adopt -- let's say, a patronizing attitude towards her.” The human interest story is therefore that Franklin was mistreated by three men who got rewarded, with her name becoming a footnote. However, the question remains: did the men break any codes of conduct or were they just being sneaky?
Was Wilkins wrong to show Watson Photograph 51 without Rosalind Franklin’s consent? Was Perutz wrong to show Franklin’s data to Crick? Was Watson “stealing” Franklin’s helix idea after seeing her lecture or was he simply building on her work? The morality is a little unclear for one big and important reason: there is no law or governing body in Science. Science works as a collaborative effort and the sharing of ideas is a necessary part of the process – which kind of muddies the waters on what counts as stealing an idea and what counts as testing it.
The only real law scientists hold to is: “don’t make it up”. Other than that, Science is the search for truth and you can’t trademark that because it belongs to everyone. It’s largely accepted that scientists should give each other credit when appropriate, but if people choose not to, there is no “official punishment”. Science is a self-regulating community with nobody in charge, which means that if a Scientist is unethical it’s up to other scientists to exact informal justice.
Sometimes, the scientist’s university will strip them of their titles (as happened to Watson when he made those comments about black people), sometimes they will not get funded again, or never be published in another journal. But they don’t have their Science license revoked and go to Science prison because there’s no such thing.
In the case of Watson (and to a lesser extent Crick) the general response has been to simply judge them as jerks and subtly badmouth them wherever possible. What else can we do? Franklin was 95% of the way to solving DNA but in fairness Crick was the guy who made the final step and published first.
If we assess the facts dispassionately then I think Crick does deserve some of the credit for the DNA discovery. That doesn’t seem fair because he solved it by nefarious means, but I said at the beginning that we have to evaluate the science and the scientist separately. Crick did make a contribution so he deserves to be acknowledged, but I am still allowed to say that what happened to Franklin was downright despicable!
The Great Relay Race of Science
Watson, Crick and Wilkins’s behaviour toward Franklin was not nice but DNA got solved and that’s what matters. We got to the final answer in stages rather than as one revolutionary breakthrough and it’s hard to single out any one person as having been the most instrumental, (although Rosalind Franklin is probably the standout candidate having both carried out the experiments and interpreted the data correctly).
Science is often like a relay race where each person gets the baton for their stretch of the track. The person who actually crosses the finish line (Crick) might get the cheer but they are no more important than the other members – remove any one of them and the whole team loses.
Sadly, or perhaps fairly, that’s how credit tends to work. It’s the person who gets the answer first who is praised, even if they were just adding final touches to other people’s ideas. This is a result of human psychology more than anything else. We like praising people for achievements and we aspire to be like our heroes, but our brains are wired to focus on individuals rather than ensembles. Unfair perhaps, but nobody ever said evolution was fair – thank DNA for that.
As a final thought, I will share that I was recently the subject of outright scientific plagiarism myself. A blog I wrote on “The Science of Infinity Stones” was copied word for word by someone who I will not name and reposted on Instagram without crediting me. They didn’t even paraphrase the damn thing – they literally copy-pasted it word for word and blocked me before I could let anyone know. The person’s account has tens of thousands of followers, many of whom commented how great the post was and that the person should write a book (irony).
I was mildly annoyed about this for a moment, but then I realised I didn’t care that much. I wrote the blog for free and just wanted to entertain and educate. The phrasing and humour is obviously my invention but the Science isn’t “mine” at all. Ultimately, my ideas were being read and people liked it – that’s pretty gratifying in itself!
Getting credit is nice because it boosts the ego but if I’m honest, that’s not the reason to do Science or to teach it. You do it to make the world a better place and sometimes that has to be good enough. Of course, if that guy wins a Nobel prize for my post, I might change my tune.
If you want to find out a bit more about the complex history of Franklin, Crick and the other two, check out my sources...
If I Could Talk With The Animals...
Most animals on Earth engage in some form of communication. Baboons rub feet in each other’s faces to signify “I am in the mood for sex,” herring gulls tap their beaks on the ground to let the young know “I have food,” and cats sharpen their claws on your ankles to make sure you know “you ain’t all that.”
My favourite mode of animal communication however is easily that employed by honey bees. When scouts want to describe their nectar finds to the rest of the hive, they perform what are genuinely called in the literature a “waggle-dance”. They shake their rears around in a figure eight with the length of dance indicating distance from the hive, and the angle they make to the vertical axis of the hive translating to the angle between the sun’s position in the sky and the food source. They also secrete pheromones to indicate how good the source is, meaning rival bees have to argue for whose find is superior. That's right. Bees communicate using bum-dance trigonometry battles.
Sadly, humans have not mastered this subtle art, but we have invented something truly remarkable for sharing ideas and information: languages. Six thousand five hundred of them are known to our species alone, so is it possible that other species could develop something similar?
First off, I think we can argue that many other species have “words” – unique noises which convey a meaning. Chickens for instance have distinct clucking sounds for “predator approaching from above” and “predator approaching on the ground”, indicating that the noise is not just a panic - it is telling other chickens vital information.
Squirrels take this even further with their barks; they are more likely to make a warning call if members of their family are close and less likely to do so if there is a rival squirrel in the area i.e. some animals can not only use sound to convey information, they can change their noises depending on who is listening. There is even a fascinating project being carried out at the University of Washington called Deep-Squeak which aims to build a computer capable of translating mouse-squeaks into English.
You might consider these noises to be nothing like words because they are just simple sounds, but I would immediately dispute that. Consider Silbo, a language which is entirely whistled, allowing shepherds to communicate across the valleys of La Gomera island. Or take the Taa language of West Africa which contains 164 letters, 111 of which are clicking sounds. Or how about the Wakashan language of British Columbia which features throat-grunts as well as vowels. If we consider clicks, whistles and grunts to be legitimate word sounds, why not the noises animals make too?
But Is It Language?
This all sounds pretty optimistic but there is something really important we need to consider. As the linguistic philosopher Noam Chomsky pointed out when addressing this issue, language is more than just a collection of words – it is also the rules for how those words can be combined.
A vocabulary is not the same as a language, in the same way a dictionary is not the same as a play by Shakespeare. In fact, the English language contains over 171,000 words and the average English-speaking adult speaks 60,000 of them, meaning the average English-speaking adult only knows 35% of their own language. Clearly there is more to a language than just "knowing the words".
For example, here is a sentence I doubt anyone has ever written: In Antarctica there are a species of pink pandas who eat wood shavings. That sentence is not one you have seen before, so you cannot simply be recognising the combination. Yet you still know exactly what the sentence means. Language is not just memorising and regurgitating words. It allows us to generate new combinations that are still meaningful.
Another key feature of language is that as we increase the length of word combinations (the sentence) we increase the information contained within them. For instance:
1) I like hats.
2) Janet said “I like hats”.
3) According to Frank the fishmonger, Janet said “I like hats.”
4) According to Frank the fishmonger, who really should not be trusted given the fact he is a Twilight fan, Janet said “I like hats”.
The more words we put in, the more information we convey and we can do this infinitely. Then of course we have to consider the order the words come in. The sentence “Margaret likes Jeff and hates Richard,” means something different to “Margaret hates Richard and likes Jeff”.
These are the kinds of features we do not find comparisons for in other species. Animal noises are mostly isolated and combinations of them contain no new information. A chicken can utter the squawk “predator approaching” over and over, but this longer sentence does not increase the meaning, it is just repetition. Animals also do not seem to invent new sentences or have a grammar to their limited sounds, but this makes sense from a neurological perspective because, as it turns out, human brains are genuinely different to those of most animals.
Dawn of the Language of the Apes
I’m about to horrendously simplify half a century’s careful study into the field of linguistic neurology, but hopefully you should pick up the gist even if my words are not precise. There’s another feature of human languages - a distinction between literal and implied meaning.
The human brain has two main centres for processing language (found on the left side of the brain for 90% of the population) called Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area. Put crudely, Wernicke’s area is the part which deals with comprehension while Broca’s area deals with remembering words and generating combinations.
People who suffer damage to Broca’s area are still able to follow complex instructions and listen attentively to what people are saying, but speak in a halting, staggered fashion. “Me…want…food” etc.
By contrast, people who suffer damage to Wernicke’s area are able to speak fluently and elaborately, but their sentences are meaningless word-salads: “There wasn’t four parsons undulating to birefringent celery opacity for plums with your mesmerisation.”
Most other animals do not even have a Broca's and Wernicke's area, so language is physically beyond their capability, with the exception of the ape species of course. Chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas and bonobos have very small Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas. Nowhere near as develeoped as ours, but these emerging structures might imply that apes can learn something akin to language.
The first attempt to teach an ape to speak was made by Catherine and Keith Hayes in 1951 with their chimpanzee Viki. By rewarding the chimpanzee and moving its mouth to encourage certain sounds, the Hayes were able to get Viki to “say” four words: mama, papa, up and cup. And yes, listening to recordings of Viki is every bit as disturbing as you might imagine.
A lot of debate raged over why Viki could only master those four words for several years, until someone pointed out the freaking obvious: chimpanzees don’t have the vocal chords needed. In fact, no other animals do.
While many animals have a larynx and tongue, the arrangement of them inside the human throat allows us to make a wider variety of sounds than any other creature. There are obviously animals which can make noises we can’t - pistol shrimps produce screaming sounds which reach 200 dB - but those are the only sounds these animals can make. It isn’t just our brains which are unique, but also our mouths and throats.
However, just because apes cannot make sophisticated vocalisations does not mean they cannot learn language. After all, there is a whole category of human languages that involve no sound whatsoever: sign languages.
Sign of The Times
Sign languages have all the same features that “verbal” languages have. American Sign Language for instance has over 50,000 words as well as grammatical rules and syntax. Word-order matters in ASL, longer sentences contain more information, new sentences can be invented, different people sign with different "hand-accents" and they can be used to express metaphor, write poetry and tell jokes.
In fact, deaf and mute babies start “babbling” with their hands at the same age hearing and speaking children start babbling with their mouths. They begin to wave their hands in an incoherent fashion as they grasp the language they are exposed to…which means language is not really about moving your throat and engaging your ears, it is about understanding the meaning behind the signifiers.
And, perhaps most importantly, Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas light up in brain-scans just as much for deaf and mute people as for speaking and hearing people. These brain regions are not really about the ears or the throat, they are about the far more abstract notion of processing and creating meaning for symbols. So whichever muscles your language uses are irrelevant. Your brain still allows you to speak. So obviously we tried it with apes.
The first chimpanzee to learn sign language was named Washoe. In 1967 she was adopted by Beatrix and Allen Gardner who taught her 350 words in American Sign Language, and there were many remarkable findings. Washoe could hold basic conversations with the Gardners and was observed “talking to herself” i.e. signing when nobody else was around.
More remarkable was that Washoe, on a few occasions, was apparently able to join words together to form new combinations. When presented with a picture of a duck for instance, Washoe signed “water-bird” which at the time seemed astonishing.
However, the primatologist Herb Terrace was skeptical of these claims and by studying both Washoe and his own chimp fluent in ASL (which he named Nim Chimpsky), he discovered that what the chimps were doing was not really language.
Apes can only make two-three word combinations at most and are unable to increase the amount of information by extending a sentence. For instance, one of Washoe’s favourite phrases was “tickle me” (Chimpanzees love to be tickled) but if the Gardners refused to tickle her she would simply repeat the phrase over and over: “tickle me, tickle me, tickle me, tickle me”. She could not handle a longer sentence like “tickle me now” or “tickle me or I will be sad.”
Washoe was also not able to get word-order correct. Just as often as “tickle me” she was liable to sign “me tickle”. So her signing ability had no syntax and no extension of meaning. In fact, as Terrace pointed out, even the water-bird phenomenon was nothing special. Washoe could just as easily have been signing “water” because there was water in the picture and then “bird” because there was a bird. The sign combination “water-bird” did not mean “bird that floats on water” but simply “there is some water…there is a bird.”
Whereas children start inventing new sentences (and sometimes words) around 15 months old, the chimps never did. They were just repeating the physical signs they had been taught and were not understanding them the same way we do. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still impressive that a chimpanzee was able to look at a picture of a bird on water, process the information and sign the correct symbols…but it’s not what we would call a language. Sign language does not allow apes to speak, unless we somehow strap them into some kind of robotic talking device...
The Koko Kontroversy
Perhaps even more famous than the Washoe experiments was the work of Penny Patterson, a former Stanford psychology doctoral student who, in 1979, decided to recreate the Washoe trials with a female gorilla called Koko, borrowed from San Francisco Zoo (“borrowed” is a generous term because Patterson actually refused to return Koko after the agreed lease was over, claiming Koko did not want to live among gorillas anymore and had fully acclimated to humans…which many people considered a form of animal cruelty, isolating Koko from her kin).
Patterson taught Koko a lot of signs (she claims over 1000) and it appeared for a long time that Koko’s verbal skills were even greater than Washoe’s. Koko could identify colours, answer simple questions and even expressed sadness at the death of Robin Williams (a celebrity she had met many years prior). Koko would also issue Christmas cards online through Patterson’s website, wishing the world peace and love. This is a gorilla supposedly making abstract comments about an entire species. It seemed too good to be true. And of course, as Herb Terrace began to demonstrate, it was.
The first suspicious thing was that studies published by Patterson were non-existent. She did not publish data or describe any controlled experiments, preferring to communicate everything through press conferences and edited online appearances. It’s easy to get “oohs” and “aahs” from an audience, but this does not prove Koko was doing the things Patterson claimed. In fact, when Terrace got hold of the original videos of Patterson communicating with Koko, the story which emerged was quite absurd and a little worrying. Here’s the kind of thing that would happen:
Patterson might hold up an object like a banana and ask Koko to sign it. Koko would then sign something like the word for “building,” to which Patterson might respond “come on Koko, stop being silly, what is it?” Koko would then make the sign for “trousers” and Patterson would laugh and say “she’s being funny, come on Koko what is it?” And then, after a bit of cue-ing from Patterson herself, Koko would finally symbol something like plant and Patterson would go “well done Koko it is a plant! What kind of plant?” Koko would then symbol “pain” and Patterson would respond with “yes that’s right, if you eat too many plants your stomach can be in pain! Well done!”
Patterson would sometimes claim Koko was being ironic when signalling the wrong words (I’m not kidding) or that the end of October was tough on her because it was the anniversary of another gorilla’s death. I don’t think anyone would dispute that Koko could be sad when remembering the death of another animal, but Patterson was claiming Koko knew how to use the Gregorian calendar and acknowledged anniversaries the same way humans do. Gradually the scientific community began to distance themselves from Patterson and she was accused of delusion, misrepresenting data and, by her harshest critics, mistreating Koko as some sort of party-trick animal.
Also, bizarre true story: Patterson claimed Koko had an obsession with nipples and there were several charges of sexual harassment against her, claiming she would instruct her students to expose their nipples to Koko (as she would regularly do herself).
From a scientific point of view the Washoe and Koko experiments are super-cool but they don’t prove apes have the capacity for language. In fact they seem to prove the opposite. We could maybe go so far as to say apes have proto-language ability and there is one bonobo currently being studied (Kanzi) who seems to show word-combination skill. But, I’m afraid if we are honest, we cannot justify saying that apes have language. However there is one other place we should consider looking.
Under The Sea
Humans do not have the biggest brains in the animal kingdom by a long shot, but this is not necessarily the most important thing to look at. Elephants have huge brains, but considering the size of their bodies they need them just to move around. Instead, it makes more sense to consider what is called the encephalisation quotient, which measures how big the animal is in relation to its body volume. On this scale humans have the highest score with apes coming in third place and then, sitting in between them, are the cetaceans: whales, dolphins and porpoises. This is where the research gets really interesting.
In 2018, Stephanie King working in Shark Bay, made the discovery that dolphins appear to have what we might consider “names”. A specific sound can be uttered by a member of the pod and only one dolphin repeats it back. When King recorded the same sounds and played them herself, the same individual dolphin echoed it and none of the others paid attention. It’s almost like the Dolphins are shouting “You there Harry?” and the other one shouts back “This is Harry.”
Then there was an intriguing study carried out in 2016 by Vyacheslav Ryabov who analysed the clicks and whistles exchanged between two Black Sea bottle nosed dolphins named Yasha and Yana. What he found is that the noises were broken down into as many as five distinct sound-chunks which he likens to five-word sentences. Even more crucially, he discovered that dolphins do not interrupt each other when doing this.
If you bring two chimpanzees together who have both been taught sign language (as has happened) they do not exchange information. They “talk” over each other constantly, and repeat the same symbols back and forth. Dolphins however, pause when the other dolphin is making their noises and they do not repeat the same sounds. This could genuinely be a form of language.
Then there is whale song which is a total mystery. A pod of whales will sing patterns of notes which can carry several kilometers across the water to a different group who can modify and send it back, or pass it on to another pod. Some researchers have suggested that whale songs are transferred across great distances like a whale internet and everything from mating calls to story telling has been touted as a possible explanation. Although obviously I’ve seen Star Trek IV, so I know exactly what's going on.
Why Cetaceans Are Tricky
Unfortunately we know hardly anything about cetacean neurology because of the obvious problem…all the methods we use to analyse the brain cannot be used under water. We tend to figure out how brains work by performing brain scans on live animals, observing the behaviour of brain-damaged individuals, observing the effects of medication, or by carrying out various tests in a controlled environment.
Brain-scanners are out of the question because (funnily enough) sensitive electrical equipment doesn’t work under water. We also cannot tell if a whale has been brain-damaged or suffered a stroke because all we can observe is how they swim about. We cannot ethically give them psychiatric medication either and because they move in vast arenas (it’s the sea) it is not easy to perform any kind of controlled experiment.
The only things we can sensibly do are make deductions about their behaviour in captivity or analyse the brain once the animal has died. But even that is difficult because you either have to wait for a carcass to wash up on shore and hope the brain is in tact by the time you extract it (a rare occurence) or you hunt and kill a whale yourself. Curiously, people who feel passionate about cetaceans and want to study them are not the same people who want to hunt them.
On the rare instances we do get hold of a cetacean brain in good condition, there is still a limit to what we can find out about it. We cannot watch it in action, so we can only make statements about things like size, mass and chemical composition, which is like trying to figure out what software a computer was running by looking at the hard drive after it has broken down. And even when we do this we run into a huge problem: cetacean brains are not put together the same way ours are. It isn’t known if they even have Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas. Their brains look different so, simply put, nobody has a clue what’s going on inside them.
Personally, I feel there is just enough evidence to answer the overall question of animal language with a hard "maybe". Whales and dolphins are our best bet and, given that the field of cetacean linguistics is new, we could be in for some exciting surprises over the next few years.
Maybe if we can learn to speak dolphin we will get an insight into how another intelligent creature views reality. Maybe we can learn how our own minds work from studying those which are drastically different. And maybe, just maybe, if we can prove these wonderful creatures are capable of language it will persuade those who hunt them to reconsider what they are doing. Maybe Science won't just save our species, but others too!
Unicorn Hunters of Ye Olden Days
The King James Bible has unicorns in it. There are nine separate references in the Old Testament to these magical beasts (Num 23:22 & 24:8, Deut 33:17, Job 39:9-10, Psalm 22:21, 29:6 & 92:10, Is 34:7) and baring in mind the Old Testament gives historical records of ancient culture, are we to conclude there were genuine unicorns roaming the Earth at this time?
Well, probably not. The King James Bible is a 1611 translation of the Biblical books, derived in part from a 4th Century Latin translation called The Vulgate, based on a 3rd Century BC Greek translation called The Septuagint, based on earlier texts written in Hebrew, Persian and a few other languages.
In the original Hebrew, the animal being referred to is called a re’em and unfortunately we have lost the identity of whatever this animal was. All we know for definite is that it was a strong creature with...ironically...more than one horn. Which is kinda weird. In Deuteronomy 33:17 the writer talks about the horns (plural) of a single re’em so it was obviously not believed to be a unicorn and nobody knows how the term 'unicorn' entered the language.
The hypothesis I find most reasonable is that re’em is close to the older Assyrian word rimu, which referred to a species of now-extinct ox called, in English, an auroch. In Assyrian art, aurochs were depicted in side profile (see below) giving them the appearance of a one-horned animal and thus early writers may have mistook auroch paintings for one-horned animals.
It could also be that "one-horn" was a nickname for an actually two-horned beast. Like the species Bradypus Variegatus which is nicknamed "three-toed sloth" despite obviously having twelve toes. The name is not meant to be taken literally, but understood in a certain context. Just like the equally disappointing Vampyroteuthis infernalis, more commonly known as a "vampire squid" despite being neither a vampire nor a squid. Sometimes we just give animals dumb names.
Either way, rimu in Assyrian seems to have become re’em in Hebrew, which became ‘monokeros’ in Greek (which means one-horn) and then finally 'unicorn' in Latin and thus English. It is tempting to ridicule the early translators for being careless, but we shouldn't judge them too harshly. Unicorns were once beleived to be genuine creatures. Even the Greek scholar Ctesias described a one-horned beast native to India which he called a rhinokeros (nose-horn). That animal was almost certainly a rhinoceros, but once again a series of mistranslations and misunderstandings led many to believe Ctesias had discovered unicorns in the Asiain subcontinent.
The idea of unicorns being horses with spiralled horns seems to have begun during the middle ages, probably due to sailors bringing home narwhal tusks (which are spiraled) and selling them to buyers as "unicorn horns". Even the throne of Denmark is constructed from narwhal tusk but was originally claimed to be bona fide unicorn.
For obvious reasons, unicorns were perceived as creatures who refused to be captured and many houses of Scotland during the 1400s displayed unicorns on their banner-crests to represent a refusal to submit to English rule. Even today, the Unicorn is the official emblematic animal of Scotland (the Welsh flag features a dragon for similar reasons).
It is only in the last couple of centuries that people have finally accepted unicorns are probably not real. However, I am pleased to inform you that there is nothing about them which is biologically far-fetched. After all, many different species have evolved horns. There are breeds of lizard, mammal, fish and even one species of bird (the cassowary) which have horny structures on their heads, so it's obviously something evolution is fine with.
The primary function of horns is for fighting rivals or predators but they also serve for the purpose of attracting a mate. Because living things use most of their energy on movement, brain-activity and maintaining a healthy immune system, if your immune system is in perfect order you have energy to spare. What better way to advertise that than adorning yourelf with unnecessary decorations which would hinder a lesser creature?
It’s called the Zahavi Handicap Principle and is often used to explain why certain animal species evolve completely unnecessary features; even features which serve as a handicap. Peacocks grow spectacular tails, giraffes grow inconvenient necks and we may even see evidence of it in humans (the only species whose female members have engorged breasts all year round rather than exclusively at the time of ovulation). So why not horses too?
Unicorns of the Sea
Horses do not have horns of course, and usually attract their mates via a combination of elaborate tail flicks and enticing urination (yeah, I know) but there is no reason they could not have evolved down the route of growing horns. In fact, some of them sort of did.
It’s widely accepted that life began in the oceans and eventually made its way to land, but it can happen in reverse sometimes. That’s what whales are. Whales were originally land-dwelling creatures, similar to hippos, but gradually moved into the ocean as a permanent residence, losing their legs over time. That’s why whales have useless hip-bones under their blubber. Sometimes they use these hips as slightly ineffecient sex-anchors to attach themselves to prospective mates, but the shape and design is clear. Whales used to be hippies.
That is also why whales and dolphins move their spines vertically as they swim, reminiscent of horses galloping, while fish (who have always been aquatic) move their spines horizontally. Whales and dolphins are effectively trotting and cantering through the ocean. Now, since narwhals are a species of whale and whales are descendants of horsey creatures, evolution can, in a certain sense, if you are very patient, give horns to horses.
But I don't want to wait millions of years, tim!
Of course you don't. You want a live unicorn without having to rely on the chance-nature of Darwinism and hippos who like to swim. Is there a scientific way of justifying the existence of real equine unicorns? The answer (magically) is maybe. Provided we invoke the right kind of tumor!! And I know what you're thinking at this point. This is a family-friendly blog and I’ve just given unicorns cancer. But fear not, the kind of tumors we are talking about will be totally safe. Twilight Sparkle will go unharmed if you bear with me...
A tumor is not an infectious disease caused by a bacteria, virus or parasite, it’s certain cells of the body growing too much, too fast. If cells in one area start growing at an accelerated rate they begin absorbing nutrients away from other cells or squashing everything in their vicinity to one side, damaging the organs and preventing them from doing their job. That’s when a tumor becomes a cancer. But tumors can be harmles. In fact, to avoid the negative association, let's call them "neoplasms" which is a friendlier-sounding word for the same thing.
Since neoplasms are cells growing out of control, what can sometimes happen is that the cells get so excited they mistakenly believe they are a different part of the body and turn into that instead of what they’re supposed to. This is possible because every cell’s nucleus contains a full DNA strand, with the genetic information necessary to become any part of the body. A cell in your kidney contains the information required to build a heart or a lung and if the cell is activated incorrectly (which can happen if it’s growing too fast) you can grow body parts in the wrong place.
It’s called a teratoma and although it sounds like something from a David Cronenberg movie, it’s absolutely real. It is rare to develop whole organs though (the creepiest example is an instance reported in 1999 by doctor Otto Herwart who discovered a fully grown eye inside a neoplasm) but keratin, which horns are made from, is straightforward for your body to produce so teratomas can easily manufacture horns.
It’s a rare condition called cornu cutaneum and in all honesty nobody knows what causes it. The skin spontaneously begins growing a neoplasm on its surface which overproduces keratin and thus ends up forming a horn. They are completely harmless and easily removed since they have no bones or nerve endings, but my advice would be not to Google image-search them right before a meal.
The most astonishing instance of this condition in humans is that of Zhang Ruifang, a 101-year old woman from China who grew a pair of horns on either side of her forehead in 2009 which she refused to have removed, despite them earning her the obvious nickname in her neighborhood of ‘devil-woman’.
And it’s not just humans who can get horns. There are reports of dogs, cats, cows and, fortunately, even horses, developing horn-bumps as a result of a neoplasm. In fact, Unicorns are not only within the realm of possibility, one or two may have existed by accident.
Yes, you read that right. I, a public school teacher with a responsibility to educate future generations, am throwing my lot in and saying “sure, there has probably been at least one unicorn”. Horses have been around for over 50 million years and today there are an estimated 60 million roaming the Earth, mostly in the wild. Chances are that at least once, somewhere, purely by chance, one of those horses developed a teratoma neoplasm which gave it a horn between the eyes.
Resurrecting A Dead Idea
As a Science educator, I get asked a bunch of interesting questions by students. Many of them are about standard topics like explosions, space or quantum zeno effects during antimatter hadron collisions. The usual. But by far the most common things I get quizzed about are dreams and death.
Dreams are a tricky one to answer because nobody has a clue what's going on there, so most of the time I have to answer such questions with a shrug. Death, on the other hand, is a really interesting topic and well worth exploring because we actually do have some good knowledge about what happens. Especially the issue kids always want to know about: "could a zombie apocalypse really happen?" It's a question we've all asked ourselves at some point, often while watching the shopping channel, and I addressed it briefly in an article I wrote a while back (here ya go kids).
In that article I focused on what would happen to our infrastructre during such a crisis and how we would survive. Short answer: move to Scandanavia (actually that solves a lot of problems). But at the end of the article I dismissed the whole thing as fanciful because it was basically impossible for zombies to exist. Once you're dead, you're dead.
However, part of being a Scientist is changing your mind when the evidence requires it, and I am happy to say that on the issue of zombification I may need to do just that. Research I've slowly become aware of has made me re-evaluate the whole question and I have come to the conclusion that if you are prepared to be a little generous in your definition of "zombie" then they aren't totally ridiculous.
Which is just as well. The US Department of Health commissioned a report in 2011 on how the CDC might prevent a zombie apocalypse in a paper called ‘The CDC Zombie Initiative’. Originally published as a tongue-in-cheek way of exploring the idea of mass panic, they quickly had to issue a public retraction and apology when people assumed they were proposing a real zombie-outbreak was imminent...ironically causing a mass panic. Now, thanks to this blog, a zombie apocalypse might really be on the cards after all. Hurrah for Science!
The Biology of Death
At a cellular level, death is a simple process. A cell is a bag of chemical reactions so it’s easy to pinpoint when it has died because the reactions change irreversibly, usually accompanied by the outer membrane dissolving and everything leaking out. Once a cell has expired there is no going back, but at the scale of a whole organism it’s harder to define when death occurs because everything shuts down at different rates.
We’ve all heard stories of people who were apparently declared dead by a doctor, only to return to life after a brief intermission. They sound like urban legends but it’s actually a recognised medical phenomenon called Lazarus syndrome. Since 1982, when it was first defined, nearly 40 people have been declared dead by a qualified physician but then decided to make a comeback. The most extreme case being that of 78-year-old Walter Williams from Mississipi, who was registered dead in February of 2014...only to be discovered a few days later by coroners trying to kick his way out of a body bag. Alive and kicking indeed.
Because different organ systems shut-down at different times it can occasionally happen that the main systems go offline, giving the appearance of death, but there can be plenty of chemistry still going on and if the right reactions occur, the whole system can reboot. There are several animals which do precisely that during hibernation after all, including extreme examples like the Alaskan wood fog, Rana Sylvatica, which can survive with two-thirds of its blood frozen solid during winter, before thawing itself back out.
Cells which have truly died can’t be brought back, but new cells can always be regrown (you do it every time you recover from a cold) so it’s possible for parts of an organism to shut down but then rebuild. In fact, according to one research paper published in 2017 by Peter Noble, some cells actually increase their productivity after the body is dead, so even a corpse is still alive in many ways. Death is not clear-cut and can, in some rare cases, be reversed.
We can definitely agree however, that a body eventually reaches a point of no return, even if we can’t say precisely when this point occurs. People have returned from year-long comas but nobody has returned from something like rigor mortis (when the body stiffens up because you are no longer making ATP, the chemical required to break down bridges between muscle fibres). If something fully dies, it’s not possible to bring it back because the cells have burst, but we might be able to justify a zombie apocalypse by picking the right biochemistry to make a person appear to die.
Horrors in the Night
Most people have a fear of death so it’s no surprise that zombies are a common staple of horror stories. Zombies represent the inevitability of death slowly creeping toward us without pause, breaking through our barricades to consume us no matter what we do.
The modern depiction of zombies as shambling corpses seeking the living to eat them alive comes almost entirely from the 1968 movie Night of the Living Dead by George Romero, in which a group of middle-class Pennsylvanians get trapped in a country house under siege by re-animated corpses, originally referred to in the script as "ghouls".
Over the course of six films, Romero invented most of the familiar rules we know today for zombie stories e.g. being bitten will turn you into one, zombies can’t be stopped unless you destroy their brain and they gradually get more rotten as their flesh decays.
Prior to Romero’s hexology of films, zombies were already a well-known monster in folklore but they were just corpses who came back to life, often with their brains in tact. Some of them even ran for government. The Bible itself refers to mass outbreaks of zombies stumbling from their graves and tormenting the living (Zechariah 14:12, Matthew 27:52) as shown in the Fresco below from Notre Dame de Bayeuax Cathedral.
In Romero’s series, it is hinted that the outbreak is caused by a space probe detonating in the atmosphere and showering the ground with radioactive debris. Radioactive material can certainly do icky things to you like make your skin fall off, but it can’t make you impervious to pain and turn you into a cannibal. If we want to legitamise the zombie outbreak we'll have to look somewhere other than 1960s cold war paranoia-infused science fiction...which is always a disappointing sentence.
Taste the Rainbow
The word ‘zombie’ comes from the Haitan word zombi (originally Central-West African) and the folkore of Haiti features tales of people brought back from the dead in a trance to do the bidding of the witch who summoned them.
In 1985 the ethno-botanist Wade Davis even wrote a book about the science of Haitan zombification called The Serpent and the Rainbow, which was adapted into a semi-decent horror movie directed by Wes Craven and starring, of all people, Bill Pullman...whose only other horror credit is freaking Casper.
In The Serpent and the Rainbow, Davis analysed the powder being used by Haitan witches to zombify people and found it to contain a chemical called tetrodotoxin - the active ingredient in puffer-fish poison. Davis claimed this dust would send a victim into a comatose state for a few hours, giving the appearance of death, before they would rise in a hypnotic trance, ready to do the bidding of the witch master.
His results were resoundingly panned by other scientists who tried to repeat the findings but couldn’t because his methodology was so poor. Furthermore, when the powder was analysed by other teams they found it didn’t contain enough tetrodotoxin to even make someone sick, let alone knock them into a coma or put them in a trance (which is not a known tetrodotoxin side-effect anyway).
To give you some idea of how lousy the science in the book is, Davis claims that a witch only had to sprinkle zombi-dust on the road in front of their intended victim to achieve the effect. It sounds like the whole thing had more to do with the power of belief than the power of witches.
If you are raised in a culture that believes ardently in zombification at the hands of a witches, it’s conceivable you might go along with it because of something called ‘the nocebo effect’ - a reverse placebo where you can be convinced you have an illness you don’t really have.
Stranger things have happened. Take the case of Sam Shoeman who was diagnosed with cancer in 1973 and died on schedule according to doctor predictions. It was only at his autopsy that it was discovered his doctors had made a mistake and the tumour was benign. He showed all the appropriate symptoms of slowly dying of cancer, despite not actually having it! Apparently, you can literally talk someone to death. Something I will have to remember for my classes.
Nobody knows how placebos or nocebos work, but our minds are evidently capable of doing things to our bodies through willpower alone. It seems likely to me that so called "witches" are simply telling people they have to act like zombis and the victims just go along with the ritual because they believe they have no choice. So I don’t think we can trigger a genuine zombie apocalypse using puffer-fish. Sorry. Puffer-fish are useless.
What about that guy on the news..
So you may have heard about 'bath salts’ (if you haven't, your kids will have), it's the street drug which hit headlines in 2012 because it reportedly turned people into violent flesh-eaters. Just to make sure we're handling rumour control here, there's no such thing. It's a twisted account of a real event which happened once and once only. This gets a little weird though.
On May 26th 2012, in Miami, a man named Rudy Eugene decided for some reason to attack a homeless man named Ronald Poppo and...eat his face. While holding a Bible. Naked. For eighteen minutes.
Eugene only stopped after being shot five times by a police officer and when he turned out to be a proud Haitan, it was no surprise the press jumped on the story and dubbed him The Miami Zombie.
Police at the time described his relentless and delusional behaviour as consistent with someone taking ‘bath salts’ (a mixture of mephodrone and dimethocaine) and hence bath salts became unofficially known as the ‘zombie drug’ because it made you impervious to pain and susceptible to cannibalism.
However, the toxicology screening of Eugene’s corpse didn’t find any trace of bath salts, only large amounts of cannabis (and large amounts of Ronald Poppo I guess). So I don’t think street drugs are going to give us the zombie apocalypse we’re looking for. I think if we want to come up with a plausible zombie pandemic, it’s going to have to come from the world of infectious diseases.
In the Danny Boyle movie 28 Days Later, the outbreak is started by an engineered super-virus which amplifies the aggression centre of the amygdalae and turns the host into a maniac. Although technically the monsters in 28 Days Later aren’t true zombies because they don’t die and come back, they just go nuts. They also run and zombies are supposed to represent the inevitable onslaught of creeping mortality...we can’t have them being zoom-bies.
I'm going to totally steal their idea however, because it seems to me that it would be the best way of doing it. What we're looking for is some sort of infection which can cause a person to apparently die, before coming back to life as an indestructable flesh-eater on a shulking, rotting rampage.
To start with, there are plenty of diseases which can affect a creature's brain, sometimes in very surprising ways. Consider ophiocordyceps, a breed of fungus which has a disturbing effect on carpenter ants. Once the ants breathe in the spores, it somehow alters their neural chemistry and forces them to abandon whatever they are doing and climb the nearest plant, after which the fungus blasts through their skull, releasing more spores to rain down on the ants below.
This is a parasite which makes its host no longer care about their own safety or other members of their species. It just makes them climb no matter what, forcing them to their own head-exploding doom. If we could propose a comparable fungus for humans that would give us a start. Some sort of fungus which infects the brain and makes the host not care about pain or the well-being of other people. There is no known fungus at present which does this (probably a good thing) but baring in mind we haven't explored something like 90% of our own rainforests, fingers crossed such a human-brain fungus could be out there.
The next thing to study I reckon is lyssavirus, the viral infection which causes rabies. Rabies can be transferred through the bite of an infected host and has an eerily familiar effect on its victims. The symptoms present slightly differently depending on the person, but it usually causes paralysis and apparent death-like symptoms in the early stages, before heightened aggression and violence a few days later.
Thinking about it, perhaps that’s where the original zombie myth came from? The word zombi does originate in Central-West Africa where rabies is common, so maybe that’s where we got the first stories of people who apparently die, then come back and attack us? Zombie myths could be the result of rabies. Rabies doesn’t easily transfer from human to human though, so we’d be talking about an unknown strain which can transfer rapidly, moving to anyone who gets bitten.
If we combine this hypothetical rabies virus with our hypothetical brain-controlling fungus then we might be onto something at last. Contracting a fungal and viral infection simultaneously is pretty rare, although there is one known species of mycovirus (a virus which infects a fungus) which can be transferred to humans called AfuTmV-1. Clearly it’s possible for a fungal infection to hitch a ride with a virus molecule, so let’s say that’s what our zombie pathogen consists of.
Now all we need to do is throw in an aggressive bacteria which can cause necrotising fasciitis - a disease in which the soft tissue of your skin starts rotting while you’re alive, making the infected parts of your body look corpse-like, the so called "flesh eating bacteria" (do NOT google that before a meal). There are quite a few bacteria which do this so let’s propose a variety which spreads in the saliva.
Why I went into Science
So, let’s say that by sheer bad-luck, there is a double epidemic unleashed on the Earth by the powers of fate. A rabies/fungal infection hits first, making all the victims appear dead for a few days before they rise to perpetrate attacks on the living (caused by the rabies). The fungus simultaneously switches off their sense of self-preservation (as it does in ants), meaning infected people will stop at nothing to get food, ignoring all injuries...unless we deactivate their ability to move by destroying the brain.
Then, gosh-darn it, an outbreak of flesh-eating bacteria just happens to hit us as well. All the infected people whose immune systems have been weakened by the rabies-fungus cocktail now end up catching this bacterial inconvenience, making their skin decay as they go after the living. Voila. Zombie-apocalypse achieved. Also, probably the only blog on the internet to feature Disney and Bible references alongisde Motorhead and cannibalism!
I'll be right back, there's some guy in a CDC jacket at my door...
This has been one of the trickiest blogs I have ever written. Race is a delicate issue and I'm writing as a white, English-speaking male. In other words, I'm writing from a position of privilege without having been on the receiving end of racial abuse. I have not suffered the oppression and discrimination people of colour regularly endure and I would not pretend otherwise. I am also not an expert on Biology, so to write an article on the Biology of race has been a huge challenge.
I would like to start by expressing enormous gratitude to my friend Lee Agostini, a genetic researcher at Thomas Jefferson University who consulted on the Biology, and also offered insights into the experience of being a black man in modern America. You should absolutely follow him on instagram: @lee_the_scientist and check out his awesome Science-themed website: BioIsLifeMedia.
The important thing to say up front is that we all agree racism is bad (unless you're a racist I guess?) but when issues of race get discussed there are misconceptions and cultural confusions which make the debate appear not so black and white, if you'll excuse the pun. My aim in this article is to highlight the hyporcisy of racism from a scientific point of view because as far as Science is concerned racism makes no...freaking...sense!
However I'm fully aware that as a white non-Biologist I may have missed crucial nuances of the discussion. Please contact me if I'm getting stuff wrong (I want to learn) but also please appreciate that if I say something you find offensive it's coming from a place of accidental ignorance, not wilfull malice. If I upset you, I pre-emptively cry your pardon and ask you to help me do better!
The Strange Case of the Black Woman Who Wasn't
I want to kick things off by reviewing one of the most bizarre media firestorms I have ever seen. You may recall hearing about Rachel Dolezal on the news but if not, here’s a quick summary: Rachel Dolezal was elected the Spokane chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People in 2014. She taught classes on African-American culture at Eastern Washington University and served on the Police Ombudsman Commission for Spokane, representing the black community. Dolezal was a well-respected public figure who spoke out on black issues...until a year after her election when a member of the press exposed something remarkable. Dolezal was not really black. She was white.
To be clear, there’s no reason a white person shouldn’t be working for the NAACP - that wasn’t the issue. The issue was that she had been claiming to be something she wasn’t. She was committing fraud.
She doesn’t exactly deny these allegations either. In one interview with NBC, a reporter asked her “Do you feel you’ve been deceptive at all?” to which Dolezal responded: “There have been some moments with a level of creative non-fiction,” which I think is a fancy way of saying “yes, I was lying,” although she insists she never intended to deceive anyone. Her skin is kinda dark for a white person (see below) but when she claimed her parents were black, that was flat-out creative non-fiction.
When Dolezal’s story was inevitably brought into the media glare it sparked an international debate about her mindset. To some, she was highlighting issues of race and identity, to some she was a con-artist wanting attention and to others she was a mentally-troubled woman desperately seeking identity.
Dolezal has written a book about her experiences - In Full Colour - and there is a documentary about her on Netflix called The Rachel Divide charting her life after the chaos. What fascinates me most as a scientist however, isn’t her motivation, it's her terminology. Dolezal has described herself as transracial, transblack and even explained that she “identifies as black”. What exactly is she talking about?
Using the phrase “I identify as black” has obvious parallels with the vernacular of the transgender community. I’ve written in great detail (here) about the biological difference between male and female brains and how transgender people are not ”making it up” or “wanting to be something they’re not” (quite the opposite…they’re wanting to be something they are). I won’t rehash that whole essay, I'll just say that the biological evidence comes down firmly in support of transgender people. But the language we use is very important.
If a transgender woman says “I am a woman,” then critics could fire back by saying “No you’re not. You don’t have a uterus or XX chromosomes,” which would technically be correct. But if a transgender woman said “I want to be a woman,” that wouldn’t be accurate either. A transgender woman doesn’t simply like the idea of being female, her neural architecture means she is female.
That’s why the phrase “I identify as a woman” is so useful. It is stronger than saying “I want to be female,” but doesn’t make a false claim about biological anatomy which gives ammunition to critics. So when Dolezal “identifies as black” we have to question what she means. She seems to be saying that being black is an inherent thing and that she is (to put it crudely) a black woman in a white woman's body. So, fully aware of the potential minefield involved, I’m going to do my best to explore what Biology says about "race".
It’s In Your Genes
Every nucleus in your body contains a set of DNA strands collectively called your genome. It’s split into chunks called genes which are bits of biological information telling your body what to be. Genes code for things like eye colour, tongue length, heritable diseases etc. and although it’s not as simple as "one gene = one feature", the basic principle is more or less that.
The percentage of genes which actually makes us different to each other is very small (we're more alike than we are different) but within that small percentage, there's a huge amount of diversity accounting for variety among the human population.
Different versions of a gene are called alleles and because our species has been spreading across the planet for a very long time, adapting to different environments, this has led to certain alleles cropping up in some regions more than others.
We can measure the probability of a particular allele occurring with what’s called the allele frequency - how often an allele appears within a group of people. For instance, 25% of people in Central Asia have B-type blood whereas in Northern America it’s closer to 5%. That means if you test the DNA of an unknown individual and find it contains genes for B-type blood, it’s more likely they are from Central Asia, but you can't say for certain. B-type blood appears all over the world and obviously 75% of Central Asian people do not have it, so it wouldn’t be accurate to say Central Asian people have B-type blood. Just slightly more likely.
The same is true with diseases. Sickle-cell anemia is more common in Afro-Carribean people and cystic fibrosis is more common among Europeans, but white people still get sickle-cell anemia and black people still get cystic fibrosis. Certain groups may have a higher allele frequency overall, but on an individual basis you can’t tell anything about a person’s geographical region from their genome.
So when a person says they are something like “50% Irish” this is biologically meaningless. There is no such thing as an Irish gene, just allele frequencies which may be higher on average in the Irish population as a whole. You can't be half of one race and half of another. Unless you exist in the Star Trek episode Let That Be Your Last Battlefield (TOS Season 3 Episode 15)...
Obviously there isn't one country where black people come from, but there is an obvious biological difference between people of different skin colour...they look different! Black and white people's genes are obviously causing differences in appearance, so doesn't that mean there is a genetic difference between black and white people after all?
Well, technically yes. There are several genes which work together to define skin colour but the primary one is called MC1R and I'm going to use that as a shorthand for the whole collection. MC1R alleles tell your skin what colour to be, so yes black and white people do have different versions of one particular gene. But that is the only difference. MC1R doesn't code for anything else about the person, not even hair or eye colour.
The colour of your skin is unrelated to the rest of your genome and that’s crucially important. You can genetically determine (with reasonable accuracy) if a person is black or white by looking at their MC1R, but that’s all the gene tells you. There is no other physiological or neurological feature black people have that white people don’t or vice versa. Two black people (people with the same MC1R allele) can otherwise have totally different genomes while a white and black person (people with different MC1R alleles) can otherwise be genetically identical.
You can’t be white on the surface but internally black because “internally black” doesn’t mean anything. Your black or white characteristic is exclusively external and unrelated to everything else about your body. Black people's brains are no different to white people's brains so I'm afraid the word "trans-racial" is not an actual thing as far as Biology is concerned.
Besides, skin colour is a spectrum. Everyone has melanin in their skin (including white people) and there is no cutoff between someone being black and someone being white. It would be like defining a mountain as being split into the summit and base, or defining a rainbow’s colours as either red or violet. There's a lot of stuff in between the extremes.
Our brains work by putting things in categories because it’s easier to store information. But “ease of classification” probably shouldn’t be our priority when we’re dealing with actual human beings.
I mean, if we absolutely have to split people into categories then why stop at skin-colour? Shouldn't we start seeing redheads as a different “race” to blondes and brunettes? Or blue-eyed people as a different race to brown-eyed people? There's the same amount of genetic difference between them as between black and white.
So as far as Biology goes, there really is no such thing as race. People have different colours on their surface but that is as far as the difference goes. It’s almost like people of different colour…are all equal????? How about that.
What about DNA testing?
You’ve probably seen adverts for DNA-testing kits. These are products which take a sample of your DNA (usually from a cheek swab) which you send off for analysis and get a profile back. They can tell you things like eye colour, shape of your ear-lobes or even ear-wax consistency.
The problem comes when people claim they can determine your ancestry from your DNA i.e. saying things like: you are 20% European, 50% scandanavian, 6% hispanic etc. I’m not going to outright say these companies are misleading anyone (I don't want to get sued) but they don’t seem to be going out of their way to correct certain misconceptions about genetics.
The first problem is that genome analysis is looking at allele frequency so everything is based on probability not certainty. The second flaw is that the precision of DNA testing is not as good as CSI might have you believe. Not even close.
In one disturbing 2010 study conducted by Itiel Dror, 17 DNA specialists were given a sample of DNA used in a criminal trial and asked to compare it to the defendant. One specialist concluded the defendant was guilty, four said it was inconclusive and twelve said the defendant was innocent. Depending on which laboratory the court hired to consult with, the trial could have gone in very different directions…and these are specialists hired by our legal system.
One DNA-testing company I looked at claimed an ancestral gene precision of +/- 30%. That means any percentage they give you is falling within a range 60 percentage-points wide! Suppose you get your results and it says you're 40% South American. The precision is 30% either way which means you could actually be anywhere from 10% to 70%. Really it’s not much better than guessing.
The third big flaw with ancestral DNA testing is that their allele databases are drawn from modern populations. Nobody has an allele library for cavemen because not many cavemen were voluntarily giving blood. So if your profile says you're 70% Indian, that doesn't mean 70% of your ancestors come from India. It means your genome is similar to 70% of the modern Indian populace. So unless they were going back in time and becoming your ancestors, it's very misleading to say your genetic commonality with modern people can be "traced back" to ancestors.
It's also important to remember that genetics doesn't work like blending paints together. It's not as if you are a 50% hybrid of mom and dad. DNA sequences get mixed up in chunks so although you have genes from both your parents they can be rearranged in a novel way which neither of them has.
There’s also the pretty important point that you are a mutant. The average human genome contains over 400 mutations; features not found in either of your parents or any of your ancestors. The further back you go, the more mutations you have to factor in and eventually you get to a point where a lot of your ancestors become undetectable!
So even if there were racial genes they would fade from the genome after a few rounds of breeding. And besides, we couldn't trace your nationality back more than about 18-19 generations because prior to that, countries didn't exist.
Nationality Is New
It might seem like the idea of countries has been around forever but they’re a pretty recent invention. Monarchs have always fought over territories but the concept of national borders wasn’t formalised until 1648 at the Westphalia peace treaties. Prior to that, kings and queens were interested in cities, farms, mines etc. but the land in between was irrelevant. There were no officially recognised borders because nobody cared.
This made sense because society used to work in a “vertical” way. A person would know who the count of their land was, the name of the lord who reigned over them and then the king or queen in charge, but they had no interest in which other lords, lands or towns were governed by the same monarch.
The problem with a vertical system of course is that disputes started happening when leaders wanted more power. As their empires expanded, people started to disagree about who owned what and decided it was necessary to draw boundaries to prevent endless wars. So the monarchs of various regions agreed to draw lines on their maps which would correspond to invisible and made-up "borders." Thus people started defining themselves “horizontally” by who else lived within the imaginary lines.
When Italy was established in 1861 for instance (making it less than 160 years old) the statesman Massimo d’Azeglio remarked in his personal diary: “we have invented Italy, now we must invent Italians,” because there was no sense of national identity and less than 3% of people within the established border even spoke the Italian language. The idea of a nationality is something politicians had to introduce but humans have existed for 200,000 years without it.
In fact, the human brain might only be equipped to handle meaningful relationships with about 150 people (it's called the Dunbar number) so belonging to a country with a population of millions, which most of us do, is actually something we can't really grasp. I'm not saying the idea of nationality is a bad thing of course, I'm just wondering if we might do away with it once it has served its purpose...whatever that might be.
Black Is A State of Mind?
It’s possible that when Rachel Dolezal says she identifies as black she means culturally. It would make more sense (not hard to do, since Biologically it makes no sense) although it’s still a pretty nebulous thing to say since there are numerous cultures of people around the world whose members have black skin and saying they are all the same is a bit…well…kinda racist.
There’s a vast difference between the culture of the Masaai tribes of Kenya and the aboriginal people of Australia. There’s an even bigger difference between the cultures of Detroit Michigan (80% black) and people living in the Republic of Congo. In Nigeria, where I grew up, there are intense tribal rivalries and members of such tribes would be sickened at the suggestion they share a culture with their rivals just because they have the same colour skin.
There is no such thing as one "black culture," because there's huge cultural diversity among the billions of black people on Earth, just as there is between all the white people. Saying you identify with black culture is like saying you identify as "religious”…it’s a sweeping statement with little specificity. Which one do you mean?
Besides, if you appreciate certain cultural ideologies which are more common among black populations, you can still appreciate them as a white person. If race is a social construct (as Dolezal has claimed often enough) surely identifying as black is buying into that same social construct? Why not just be a white person who admires the culture of a particular group of black people?
A lot of members of the NAACP were understandably outraged by Rachel Dolezal's actions because the discussion suddenly shifted away from how black people are treated in society to…what is going on with this woman? It made everything a media circus and nobody was listening to what really mattered anymore.
I suppose the only thing you could argue all black people have in common is the centuries of suffering they and their families have endured at the hands of white people. Countless black people experience racism (both overt or passive). Some would even say that experiencing racism is a critical aspect of the African American experience, and this is not something Dolezal has lived through. Her great-great grandparents were not slaves. She did not go to school with children who called her the N-word at recess. She has not had to put up with constant harmful stereotypes since birth and she does not fear for her life when she gets pulled over.
If Dolezal wants to admire and champion a particular community then good for her. But when she claims to be black it doesn't mean anything biologically and its only cultural meaning involves things she has not experienced.
Ultimately, people have different coloured skin and that’s all there is to say. You country of birth doesn’t affect your genetics and you can’t learn a person’s racial origin based on DNA. Skin colour has no more to do with a person's brain than does their eye colour. Race does not exist, but sadly racism does. And it's not just ethically awful, it's sloppy Science.
I love science, let me tell you why.