New Scientist takes the hype road.

The primary goal of a magazine is to sell magazines. However, if a magazine is about science and wishes to preserve its credibility as a source of science information (and thus, to sell magazines), it should do its best to avoid unnecessary hype, especially when this touches on sensitive issues in science policy or education.

Well, I am afraid to say that New Scientist, which I have previously praised for excellent, balanced coverage [here and here], now looks to be taking the hype road.

Look at these two recent cover stories.

Forget genes? Really? This story was about epigenetics, and floated the idea that maybe evolution is Lamarckian after all. Nevermind the fact that they don’t seem to know what Lamarckian evolution actually is.

This one has, rightly, provoked the ire of many bloggers/scientists [see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here]. It is without question irresponsible, poorly timed, and sure to be invoked by anti-evolutionists, making the job of defending science and science education more difficult. The explanation offered by the author/editor for it is unacceptable.

Fundamentally, Darwin was right about his two big ideas that really matter: common descent and natural selection. To say “Darwin was wrong”, even within the article’s context, is nonsense. The fact that it will undoubtedly be taken to refer to the big ideas rather than a specific analogy makes it infuriatingly misleading.

Compare this with the approach taken by National Geographic.

Pretty provocative cover, but still phrased as a question — and answered without ambiguity.

There is a lot that Darwin didn’t know, and I hope that the success of evolutionary biology in the 150 years since the Origin is talked about in abundance this year. But the fact that his two big ideas, common descent and natural selection, have survived every scientific discovery since the mid 1800s is overwhelmingly convincing that he was brilliant and insightful and right. (The associated story, Modern Darwins by Matt Ridley, is certainly worth reading.)

To be clear, I don’t think magazines should make decisions about their covers or articles solely on the basis of how anti-evolutionists might use them. But as communicators, they — and any scientists interviewed in popular articles — have a responsiblity to think about the implications of what they say.

As pointed out recently by Scott and Branch,

in science, we do not shape our research because of what creationists claim about our subject matter. But when we are in the classroom or otherwise dealing with the public understanding of science, it is entirely appropriate to consider whether what we say may be misunderstood.

I strongly encourage New Scientist to rethink the message that cover stories like this send.

Don’t call it Darwinism

For those of you who still are not reading Evolution: Education and Outreach, here’s another reason to check it out.

Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education have a nice article coming out in the next issue entitled “Don’t call it Darwinism“. It is already free to access in preprint.

While you’re at it, you can have a look at the special issue on eye evolution, and my first contribution to a series entitled “Evolutionary Concepts” on artificial selection.

A farewell to Evolgen.

Well, it looks like Evolgen has decided to shut down indefinitely. I kept Evolgen on my feed list the whole time (plenty of others have been dropped, only a few re-added), and I enjoyed reading it. However, I can sympathize with blogging becoming a lower priority. Honestly, my posts have gotten fewer and farther between since last semester.

[rant]
I also was quite disappointed with the lack of response by the blogosphere to the special issue of E:EO on eye evolution, which I really thought would be of interest. (I think perhaps very few people read Genomicron anymore, after a sporadic updating for a few months).
[/rant]

So, anyway, farewell Evolgen, and I don’t blame you for leaving when you felt the blog had run its course.

More Darwin Year gear!

We have uploaded another set of designs for Darwin Year gear. Be sure to check out the shop (http://www.cafepress.com/darwinyear2009), and for additional stuff keep watching the related website which is still in progress.

If you have a blog, we would certainly appreciate a plug (remember, 50% of the proceeds go directly to charity, and the rest will be spent on developing evolution web resources).

Here are some more examples of what you can find there:

If you get it, you definitely deserve to wear it:
More quotations:


These I am really hoping will turn out on t-shirts:

Image spelled out using last paragraph of the Origin:

Matrix Darwin (again, text from the end of the Origin):


http://www.cafepress.com/darwinyear2009
http://www.darwinyear2009.com

Darwin Year gear!

Two years ago, I had t-shirts made up for my evolution course that depicted Darwin’s notebook sketch of a simple tree diagram capped by the words “I think”. In total, we generated about $500 for conservation charities, and the students got a pretty cool shirt (I still see them around campus fairly frequently). Had I been teaching the course this semester, I probably would have produced the t-shirts again. This is Darwin Year, after all. But I’m not, so I won’t.

Instead, I have teamed up with a good friend (and former fellow grad student) who is now a website designer and graphic artist to come up with a whole line of Darwin Year gear. We are planning to donate 50% of the proceeds directly to conservation charities, and the other 50% is to be invested in developing other evolution-related websites (hint: www.evolverzone.com and www.darwinaut.com). We’ve been having a lot of fun coming up with ideas, and we’ve also been working on a dedicated webpage with recommended books, links, and so on.

Our view is that Darwin Year is not just about Darwin, but is meant to be a celebration of the achievements of the entire scientific discipline that he helped to establish 150 years ago.

If you are looking for evolution-related shirts and other stuff, I invite you to check out the store at www.cafepress.com/darwinyear2009 or the main website www.darwinyear2009.com. Both of these are still under construction, and we’ll be producing many more designs in the near future. But you can already access quite a few designs.

What will you find? Here are some examples:

Front:

Back:



Word use in the Origin (one of many designs):

(Inspired by ERV🙂

www.cafepress.com/darwinyear2009
www.darwinyear2009.com

Evolutionary gems — Nature.

Nature recently provided a list of “15 evolutionary gems“.

…the document summarizes 15 lines of evidence from papers published in Nature over the past 10 years. The evidence is drawn from the fossil record, from studies of natural and artificial habitats, and from research on molecular biological processes.

In a year in which Darwin is being celebrated amid uncertainty and hostility about his ideas among citizens, being aware of the cumulatively incontrovertible evidence for those ideas is all the more important. We trust that this document will help.

A bicycle without a wheel.

I won’t get into this in detail, in part because I wrote about it in my paper The evolution of complex organs in the special issue of Evolution: Education and Outreach about eyes.

It seems the most recent analogy drawn by anti-evolutionists to support the idea of irreducible complexity is a bicycle — yeah, a unicycle works but a bicycle missing a wheel doesn’t, therefore it’s irreducibly complex. You can find out more at The Loom, where Carl shows people riding single-wheel bikes.

I am only weighing in because the discussion seems to be overlooking an important point about exaptation/co-option: the function need not be the same in both instances. So, although riding a bike with one wheel the way you would ride a two-wheeled bike a la wheelie is fine to show that it wouldn’t be totally non-functional, an even more relevant counter-example would involve a bicycle with one wheel that worked well for some other role.

Voila.

This is just the first single-wheeled, functional-for-something-different, co-option example I found. This actually involves one shift and one addition of function. Loss of wheel to make it useful for exercise indoors, then addition of other parts to run a laundry machine. Of course, modern stationary bicycles used for exercise are more specialized, but you can still find gear to convert a normal bicycle into a stationary one, sometimes by taking off the front wheel.

So, basically, bicycles with one wheel provide a very nice illustration of how co-option with shift in function can and does work.

The peppered moth.

The peppered moth, Biston betularia, has been used as a classic example of natural selection in action. This moth (like many others) includes both light and dark forms that change in frequency under conditions of higher or lower pollution. Anti-evolutionists have challenged this, and unfortunately they gained ammunition in this regard from a book review by Jerry Coyne.


As part of their Top 10 evolution articles, New Scientist provides a story entitled Reclaiming the peppered moth for science.

Bad news, the New Scientist story is subscription only.

Good news, Evolution: Education and Outreach will include a paper about the peppered moth by leading expert Michael Majerus in the next issue, and it’s a) already available in pre-print, and b) free.

While you’re visiting the journal, check out the last issue which is a special volume all about eyes.

Special issue of the Lancet.

From The Evolution & Medicine Review, a notification about the special issue of the Lancet on evolution. (And don’t forget the special issue of E:EO!).

S1
Foreword

Steve Jones

S5
Darwinism’s fantastic voyage

Helena Cronin, Oliver Curry

S11
The Origin of Species

Richard Harries

S14
Art and evolution

Tom Lubbock

S21
Evolution: medicine’s most basic science

Randolph M Nesse

S28
The evolution of fruit-fly biology

Ralph J Greenspan, Martin Kreitman

S34
Socioeconomic inequalities in ageing and health

Robert L Perlman

S40
Forebears and heirs: a sketch

David Sharp

S45
Synthetic biology

Henry Nicholls

S50
Darwin’s charm

Peter Hayward

S57
Bold flights of a speculative mind

Andrew Bell

S68
Darwin and the philosophers

Athar Yawar

S74
Darwin’s writing

Richard Horton

S85
Race, genetics, and medicine at a crossroads

John Hardy

S90
Epigenetics in evolution and disease

Manel Esteller

S97
Antibiotic resistance: adaptive evolution

George PC Salmond, Martin Welch

S104

21st century eugenics?

Nancy E Hansen, Heidi L Janz, Dick J Sobsey