The toilet seat problem has been the subject of much controversey. In this paper we consider a simplified model of the toilet seat problem. We shall show that for this model there is an inherent conflict of interest which can be resolved by a equity solution.

Consider a bathroom with one omnipurpose toilet (also known as a WC) which is used for two toilet operations which we shall designate as #1 and #2. The toilet has an attachment which we shall refer to as the seat (but see remark 1 below) which may be in either of two positions which we shall designate as up and down.

Toilet operations are performed by members of the human species (see remark 2 below) who fall into two categories, popularly designated as male and female. For convenience we shall use the name John to refer to the typical male and Marsha to refer to the typical female.

The performance of toilet operations by John and Marsha differ in a number of respects. The costs of these operations are peculiar to the respective sexes and are fixed except with respect to the position of the toilet seat. In particular:

Marsha performs toilet operations #1 and #2 with the seat in the down position. John performs toilet operation #1 with the seat in the up position and toilet operation #2 with the seat in the down position. If the seat is in the wrong position before performing the toilet operation the position must be changed at an average cost C. Optionally the position may be changed after performing the toilet operation, also at an average cost C. (Changing the position of the seat during the performance of a toilet operation is beyond the scope of this note and is definitely not recommended.)

Consider the scenario where John and Marsha each use a separate toilet. It should be obvious to the most casual observer that each minimizes the seat position transfer cost by not altering the seat position after performing a toilet operation.

For Marsha the seat position transfer cost is 0 since all operations are performed with the seat in the down position. For John the cost is greater than 0 since seat position transfers must be performed.

Let p be the probability that John will perform a #1 operation vs a #2 operation. Assume that John optimizes his seat position transfer cost (see remark 3 below.) Then it is easy to determine that John’s average cost of seat position transfer per toilet opeation is

B = 2p(1-p)C

where B is the bachelor cost of toilet seat position transfers per toilet operation.

Now let us consider the scenario where John and Marsha cohabit and both use the same toilet. In our analysis we shall assume that John and Marsha perform toilet operations with the same frequency (see remark 4 below) and that the order in which they perform them is random. They discover to their mutual displeasure that their cohabitation adversely alters the toilet seat position transfer cost function for each of them. What is more there is an inherent conflict of interest. Attempts to resolve the problem typically revolve around two strategies which we shall designate as J and M

Strategy J
Each person retains the default strategy that they used before cohabiting. This strategy is proposed by John with the argument “Why does it matter if the seat is up or down?”. As we see below this strategy benefits John.

Strategy M
Each person leaves the seat down. This strategy is proposed by Marsha with the argument “It ought to be down.” As we see below this strategy benefits Marsha.

Consequences of strategy J:
Under strategy J the toilet seat is is in the up position with probability p/2. The respective average cost of toilet seat transfer operations for John and Marsha are:

John: p(3/2-p)C
Marsha: pC/2

The incremental costs (difference between pre and post habitation costs) are:

John: ( p – 1/2)pC
Marsha: pC/2
Total: (p^2)C

John’s incremental cost would actually be negative if p were less than 1/2. This is not the case; p>1/2. Note that Marsha’s incremental cost is greater than John’s for p<1. Marsha objects.

Consequences of strategy M:
In strategy M the seat is always left down. When John performs operation #1 he lifts the seat before the operation and lowers it after the operation. The respective average cost of toilet seat transfer operations is:

John: 2pC
Marsha: 0

The incremental costs are:

John: 2(p^2)C
Marsha: 0
Total: 2(p^2)C

In these strategy Marsha bears no cost; all of the incremental costs are borne by John. John objects. Note also that the combined incremental cost of strategy M is greater than that of strategy J.

It is notable that John and Marsha each advocates a strategy that benefits them. This is predictable under game theory. However the conflict over strategies has a cost M in marital discord that is greater than the cumulative cost of toilet seat transfers. It behooves John and Marsha, therefore, to adopt a strategy that minimizes M.

This is not simple. A common reaction is to advance sundry arguments to justify adopting strategy M or J. All such arguments are suspect because they are self serving (and often accompanied with the “If you loved me” ploy.) A sound strategy is one that is equitable and is seen to be equitable. In this regard there are three candidate criteria:

(1) Minimize the joint total cost
(2) Equalize the respective total costs
(3) Equalize the respective incremental costs

The argument for (1) is that John and Marsha are now as one and it is the joint costs and benefits of the union that should be considered. This principle is not universally accepted. It is readily seen that (see remark 5) that the joint total cost is optimized by strategy J which has already been seen to be suspect.

Criterion (2) seems plausible. It requires, however, that Marsha put the seat in the up position after performing a toilet operation some percentage of the time. No instance of this behaviour has ever been observed in recorded history; ergo this criterion can be ruled out. (But see remark 6.)

Criterion (3) argues that the mututal increased cost of toilet seat operations should be shared equitably, i.e., neither party should bear a disproportionate share of the costs of cohabitation. A short calculation reveals that criterion (3) can be achieved if John leaves the seat up after performing toilet operation #1 with a frequency

f = (2p-1)/p

Since the value of p is seldom precisely measured and is variable in any event it suffices to use an approximate value of f. If we assume that p=2/3 then f=1/2. This suggests the following convenient rule of thumb:

In the morning John leaves the seat up after performing #1.
In the evening he puts it down.

This rule may not be precise but it is simple and approximately equitable; moreover the use of a definite rule sets expectations. The seat is put down in the evening to avoid the notorious “middle of the night surprise”.

I expect that this analysis should settle the toilet seat controversey for once and for all – if John and Marsha are mathematicians.

* * *

Remark 1: The toilet has an additional attachment called the toilet seat lid which can only be down if the toilet seat is down. When the lid is down the toilet is (or should be) non-functional for toilet operations. Some persons maintain the toilet seat lid in the down position when the toilet is not use. For these persons the analysis in this note is moot. Such persons pay a fixed cost in seat movement for all toilet operations.

Remark 2: Toilets are also used by domestic animals as a convenient source of drinking water unless the lid is down. (See remark 1)

Remark 3: Experimental evidence suggests that almost all bachelors optimize the seat transfer cost, the exception being those who put the seat up after performing a #2 operation.

Remark 4: Folklore has it that Marsha performs more toilet operations than John, hypothetically because of a smaller bladder. John, however, drinks more beer. We shall not discuss his prostate problem.

Remark 5: “Readily seen” in this context means “It looks obvious but I don’t know how to prove it; you figure it out.”

Remark 6: The toilet lid solution is to put the toilet lid down after all toilet operations. This solution imposes a cost of 2C on each party and is accordingly more expensive. It is, however, more esthetic. It also eliminates the “doggy drinking” problem.

* * *

(REPRINTED FROM ISSUE ONE, MAY 23rd, 2005)

The genetically modified golden rice that was going to save the world in 2000, has yet to leave Louisiana, where it is being tested.

Despite not having reached the countries it was expected to help, the rice with added vitamin A has been making waves among consumers and scientists alike.

Farmers and research centers in the developing world want to see it, environmental groups are up in arms, and the debate rages as to whether this product will in fact help solve the problem of malnutrition in the developing world.

Five years on, the creator of the controversial rice, Dr Ingo Potrykus has revealed a new generation of the crop in Zurich, with ten times the amount of added vitamin A.

Potrykus, a scientist from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology first developed golden rice in 2000, together with Peter Beyer, from the University of Freiburg.

Golden rice is a genetically modified hybrid of rice, incorporating a gene from the daffodil flower to allow production of a beta-carotene compound, which the body turns into vitamin A.

It was originally created as a way of targeting vitamin A deficiency, which currently affects over 120 million people in the developing world, mainly children. Long term effects of vitamin A deficiency include measles, diarrhea, pneumonia and eventually, irreversible blindness, which currently affects 250,000 people in poorer countries.

In the Philippines, one of the main targets for the new crop, rice is the staple diet, and the number one nutrient deficiency is vitamin A. Seventeen Filipino children become blind every day due to vitamin A deficiency (VAD).

Duncan Macintosh from the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines says the company is looking forward to the fortified crop being developed there. Macintosh believes the crop will be greatly appreciated by farmers:

“In addition to it’s nutritional benefits for consumers, golden rice must also be attractive for farmers by having such qualities as high yield and pest and disease resistance.”

Steve Eury from Syngenta adds that the rice was such a success in field trials in Louisiana that the company is proposing further trials in The Philippines in the future, but he was not able to give a specific date.

Golden rice, yellow in color thanks to the beta-carotine, provides a fraction more vitamin A in the diet. Not enough for a recommended daily amount, but possibly enough to keep blindness at bay.

The new strain of rice uses a gene from the maize plant instead of the daffodil, and could have over ten times the amount of vitamin A as the original. These findings are to be published in the journal Nature later this month.

Golden rice seeds are expected to be given to farmers in the Philippines who make less than US$10,000 a year, to encourage it’s use to help people get vitamin A in their diet. And there are plans for further nutrients to be added to crops, including iron.

Despite claims of increased potency in the new rice, Potrykus has admitted research still needs to be done to determine the effects. According to Greenpeace International, it is still unknown how much vitamin A remains in the rice once it is cooked, how much the body will actually absorb, and whether the crop will be detrimental to human health in the long term. The vitamin A content will always be too small to overdose on, but the effect of genetically modified organisms on the body in the long term is still in question.

The development of golden rice was originally funded by several organizations, including the Rockerfeller Foundation, the European Union and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

The multi-national agricultural corporations Monsanto and AstraZeneca have licensed golden rice, and are expected to distribute the seeds free of charge to producers in the developing world. They are also licensing the golden rice genes with no royalties.

Critics warn that this rice is a clever ruse to inject some more publicity, and possibly cash, into the troubled biotech industry. Greenpeace in particular have been very outspoken in their critique of the genetically modified crop, calling it a “trojan horse”, a gift at first, then a lifelong dependence on large corporations for their supply of seeds.

“Greenpeace is concerned by the ways in which multinational companies are having a hand in the livelihoods of the people in the developing world. We feel that the corporations should not be imposing their will on farmers with limited options,” says Christoph Then, of Greenpeace International in Germany.

“This has the opposite effect of helping countries to help themselves,” says Then.

Greenpeace argues that adding vitamin A to rice is merely exacerbating the problem of malnutrition in the developing world.

Then argues that although any extra vitamin A in the diet is an improvement, it’s not the most practical or economic solution.

Greenpeace International has advocated other solutions to VAD, such as vitamin A supplements and increased food diversity, which have almost eliminated the problem in Bangladesh.

Dave Ng is the Director of the Advanced Molecular Biology Laboratory at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver. He has lectured frequently on the golden rice phenomenon and whilst generally in favor of the technology, is concerned with the impact on local farmers in the developing world.

“What people don’t see are the real pressing economic dangers,” Ng says, which he feels deserves more evaluation than even environmental and health repercussions.

“Health risks associated with GM crops are comparatively small,” Ng says. “and tend to be over exaggerated in the media.”

However, economic repercussions can be significant. Ng knows that the use of GM technology in food production can strengthen a farmer’s reliance on large agricultural corporations. Furthermore, any market advantage the farmer might have because of favourable climate and locale, can be effectively removed through the use of modified crops.

Ng also says that while the environmental and, especially, health risks have often been over hyped, so too have the positive effects of these foods in the press – a good example is that the golden rice isn’t the cure-all for VAD, as it was once touted as being.

Three golden rice meals a day for a child, 150g, provide only 10% of the daily requirement of vitamin A. One and a half kilos of the first generation of rice would have to be consumed to get the recommended daily amount.

But judging by Dr Potrykus’ response in a previous interview, featured on the website grain.com, he stands by his product:

“If some people decide that they want blind children and white rice, it’s their choice. I’m offering the possibility of yellow rice and no blind children. But the decision what people want to eat is theirs.”

Shortly after the rice was introduced in 2000, Time Magazine featured Dr Potrykus on the cover, reporting that the new rice could “save a million kids a year.” Five years later, the original crop has not met the much-hyped goals, it’s not even in the ground where it is needed. Will the new version be the hoped-for answer?

* * *

(REPRINTED FROM ISSUE ONE, MAY 23rd, 2005)

Many years ago, a hippopotamus decided to learn typing. As you may imagine, the task was difficult and discouraging. The hippopotamus however was unusually persistant. First she learned the parts of the typewriter, then she studied all available typing manuals, (even one for an antique which had neither name nor function in any western language; It could best be likened to a linotype machine which set type for haiku poetry in Japanese.) and finally she enrolled in a good secretarial school. In spite of her diligence, there were some practical difficulties; in fact so many that the best of her efforts resulted only in broken typewriters. Nevertheless, in due course she graduated from secretarial school. Some say. this event was precipitated by the unusual number of typewriter repair bills that the school received. We all know that this assertation is a big lie. In fact it is an enormous lie. She graduated because, in spite of her poor technique, she was a brilliant theoretician.

Now that she had graduated, the logical next step was to find a job and become a contributing member of society. Of course, all this happened many years ago when there was a definite moral obligation to become a contributing member of society. Alas! No one wished to hire her as a secretary. Whenever she appeared for an interview, even the lowest jobs in the typing pool had just been filled. Certain people make insinuations which would be classified as racist if we were dealing with a lesser biological difference. As the matter stands, their statements become even more than racist. They said that she could not find employment, because the amount of methane produced by large grass-eating animals became intolerable in closed spaces such as offices. We all realize that this was not the issue. Her problem was simply that she could not type.

After much despair she consulted a vocational counselor. Vocational testing finally revealed the truth. She was strongly interested in methods of typing. Naturally, the vocational counselor suggested that she become a typing teacher. Unfortunately, again her efforts to find a job were futile. The school authorities told her that she was overspecialized. They realy needed a typing teacher who was very ordinary, but one who also possessed a good general education and a teaching credential. In other words they need someone who could also teach welding, calculus, Russian grammar, sex education, music, sewing and girl’s P.E. Furthermore, they always had such a backlog of qualified applicants that it was unlikely that they could consider her for a position that year. There are those who say that she was not welcome because of certain engineering problems. Schools are not built to support hippopotami. Nevertheless, we all know that this opinion is weighted with prejudice. In fact it is overweighted. If the simple truth be known, she was refused because none of her applications were typed.

Eventually, her failure to find employment became unbearable and as a last resort she consulted a psychiatrist. She complained that she could find no place to fit into the world. Her psychiatrist noticed that she did not fit into his office, hence he reassured her and sent her on her way with the suggestion that she become a university professor. We all know the rest of the story. Since she was the world’s authority on methods of teaching hippopotami to type, she was hired immediately.

Only minor difficulties remained. There was no typing program for hippopotami however the administration held a special meeting to deal with the oversight. Admission standards were changed, the publicity department began a recruitment campaign and maintainance crews reinforced the floors of all classrooms.

Even so, we were hardly prepared when the new students arrived. They were practical and enthusiastic students with very little interest in typing. Typically they came from families who had had very little opportunity for education, hence they were determined to do well. As their numbers swelled, our university began to resemble the institution that we see today. The new classrooms were larger and better ventilated, course offerings became more diversified, more salads were sold at the cafeteria, and restrooms became enormous. Hence we have a much bigger and better institution.

Nevertheless some difficulties remain. Of course some say that the problem is tradition, one of the most powerful forces in our history. We cannot change: We only add to tradition. Of course this is a big rationalization, in fact it is an enormous rationalization. The simple truth is that in some secret way we are all hippopotami trying to type, and that is why we spend so much time trying to find new methods for finding new methods to teach hippopotami to type.

* * *

(REPRINTED FROM ISSUE ONE, MAY 9th, 2005)

In the Beginning…

Many people believe that there is a conflict between science and religion when it comes to the question of how life began on Earth. While only a minority of people situate themselves squarely on one side of this debate, the topic tends to draw the attention of everyone. This is because the answer to the question of where we came from serves as the jumping off point for defining our morality and our purpose here on Earth. Quite simply, once we know what brought us into being, we know where to ask for instructions. Consequently, any explanation put forward, especially one that purports to be absolute, must be able to withstand an enormous amount of scrutiny.

Perspectives from Science

Scientific method – A method or procedure… consisting of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
- The Canadian Oxford Dictionary [1]

As a model, the scientific method has served as the basis for every major scientific discovery for the last several hundred years. It is supposed to be a means of obtaining unbiased responses to answerable questions. The most validation any scientist can hope to receive from it is when its application fails to refute his ideas – no finding is infallible and anyone who suggests that it is does not understand how to apply the scientific method.

(Theory of) Evolution – A process by which different kinds of organism come into being by the differentiation and genetic mutation of earlier forms over successive generations, viewed as an explanation for their origins.
- The Canadian Oxford Dictionary [1]

As applied to the origin of life on Earth, the scientific method has brought forward the theory of evolution to explain how life has come to exist in its present form. In the 18th and early 19th century, European thinkers such as Georges Louis Leclerc de Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, and Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet de Lamarck began interpreting the fossil record as evidence that organisms change over time to form new types (or go extinct) and that different types may have evolved from a common ancestor [2]. Charles Darwin (grandson to Erasmus) and Alfred Russell Wallace later advanced the idea that these changes over time were due to selective pressures within the environment that favoured one type over another [3]. This theory of evolution by “natural selection” saw changes in organisms over time as a byproduct of competition between life forms.

Since then, an additional century and a half of experimentation and imagination has refined and re-vamped evolutionary theory. Concepts such as the Big Bang, continental drift, and punctuated equilibrium have allowed the understanding of the mechanisms of evolution to mature [2, 4]. The Miller-Urey experiments and subsequent work have shown how constituent components from life can emerge from primordial conditions, offering some support for the idea of abiogenesis [5, 6]. Enhanced methods of genetic analysis have led to further inquiry into evolutionary topics such as the “endosymbiotic” theory for the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts in eukaryotes [7] and the mechanisms of speciation [8].

When examining the bigger picture, it is interesting to note that there are some who suggest that the scope of the Darwinian model is too narrow, that the idea of evolution by natural selection fails to sufficiently address the “co-evolution” of the environment and the multiple organisms within it. These same individuals also take issue with the limited commentary on the extensive evolution of chemicals that pre-dated the formation of even the earliest life [2, 9]. In the last thirty years, unifying theories taking into account these and other aspects have emerged. One example of this is the “Gaia Theory” [10]. In brief, this theory states that Gaia is “the superorganismic system of all life on Earth [that] hypothetically maintains the composition of the air and the temperature of the planet’s surface, regulating conditions for the continuance of life” and that give and take within this system leads to the evolutionary processes that we observe [2]. In a similar vein, Fritjof Capra’s “Deep Ecology” – which incorporates, amongst other things, Gaia theory, chaos theory, and systems thinking – delineates a “web of life” where all living and non-living components on Earth have changed with each other through time [11].

The above examples highlight the diversity of evolutionary research that continues today and demonstrate that there are still many unresolved questions that scientists are pursuing answers for. Contrary to what some anti-evolutionists claim, the level of disagreement between scientists on these topics is not evidence of the shaky ground upon which the idea of evolution stands. In actuality, these disagreements serve as evidence of the vibrancy of the idea and highlight how its continued malleability has allowed it to flourish and take hold.

Genesis for Dummies

The world abounds with creation stories, too many to recount here. The theme common to them all is that a divine force served as the wellspring of life on Earth. In the interests of brevity, I will discuss only the Biblical story of Creation since Catholicism and Protestantism account for a combined 80% or more of the stated religious affiliation of North American citizens [12]. In addition, because the strongest criticism of evolutionary ideas has, by numbers anyways, been levelled by Christians, it becomes necessary to offer a Genesis-based counterpoint in this debate.

Creationism – a theory attributing all matter, biological species, etc. to separate acts of creation, esp. according to a literal interpretation of Genesis, as opposed to evolution.
- The Canadian Oxford Dictionary [1]

In brief, Chapter 1 of Genesis states that God made everything from nothing in less than a week and that after that week the story of life began to unfold [13]. This is termed ex nihlo creation. On the first day, God made light and separated light and dark into day and night. He spent days two through four creating and separating water, dry land, and sky, creating fruit-bearing plants, and creating the sun, moon, and stars (the latter group brought forward so that time could be measured). On the fifth day God made life in the ocean and invented birds, encouraging them to increase their numbers. God created the creatures on dry land on the sixth day, including humans, who were told that they had been made in God’s image and that they were to “fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28). On the seventh day, God rested.

Given that there are some who see Genesis as the blow-by-blow account of the creation of the Earth and everything in it, we can see why there are people who take issue with the theory of evolution. Evolution not only offers an account of the earliest days that is at odds with a literal interpretation of Genesis, it can also be described as undermining the Bible’s anthropocentric premise – that is, that mankind was given dominion over all living things and represents the highest form of living being.

The Sometimes Tortured Relationship between Religion and Science, Existing Creationist Factions, and the Beefs with Evolution

Looking beyond the issue at hand, it is fair to say that Christianity has had a difficult relationship with science (Note: I will, at my own peril, use the term “Christianity” to encompass both Catholics and Protestants. I do this because of the similar perspectives on science and evolution that have, at one point or another, been held by factions within these two groups). Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton were some of the more prominent individuals that were assailed by forces within Christianity [14]. Church positions on issues such as the Earth’s revolution around the sun and the laws of gravity can now be seen as wilfully ignorant, though at the time they justified the Inquisition and similar cheery events.

Because evolutionary thought did not begin to coalesce until a few centuries after the Inquisition, “common descent” proponents were able to avoid the persuasive techniques that had been previously employed by the religious hierarchy. However, from the initial Church protest against Darwin’s ideas, to the Kansas “Scopes Monkey Trial” of the 1920s, to the efforts of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement of the present, there has been a concerted effort by elements within Christianity to undermine evolutionary thinking [15].

At this point it is important to note that a continuum of creation/evolution stances has been characterized, with “Flat Earthers” being the group most adherent to a literal interpretation of the Bible and “Materialist Evolutionists” accepting a completely non-theistic explanation for the origins of life [16]. This continuum includes numerous other groups: “Young Earth Creationists” (YECs) who believe that the Earth is merely thousands of years old and that the “days” described in Genesis were actual 24 hour events; “Old Earth Creationists” (OECs) and related groups who believe that the Earth is ancient, that the “days” of Genesis were not necessarily 24 hour events (thus accounting for the Earth’s antiquity), that “microevolution” – change within an existing group – can occur, and that mankind was made by God in His image; and “Theistic Evolutionists” (TEs) who believe that the world is ancient, that God has created all life through evolution, that Genesis is an allegorical account of creation, and that God has provided a guiding hand during the process of evolution (especially when it comes to the development of man).

Materialism – the doctrine that nothing exists but matter and its movements and modifications.
- The Canadian Oxford Dictionary [1]

Contemporary incarnations of Creationism exist. The ID movement, mentioned above, is an umbrella group that encompasses multiple Creationist factions. Its stated goal is to drive a “wedge” between science’s “materialist philosophy” and the population of the Western world [15, 17]. According to fans of ID, establishing this “wedge” will lead to a “cultural renewal” via a return to Christian principles. ID has led members of different anti-evolution factions (such as YECs and OECs) to put aside their differences in interpretation to provide a unified front against evolution. Organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research or Answers in Genesis are the leading proponents of this movement and they continue to attempt to “debunk” evolutionary theory and re-introduce Creationist teaching into classrooms via grassroots political movements [15].

One argument brought forward by ID proponents and other Creationists is that the process of evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This law states that “no process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body” [18]. Creationists interpret this as saying that things will always progress from order to disorder here on Earth [19]. Unfortunately, the fact that the Earth is not a closed system affects the ability to make this claim, as does the fact that order has been observed coming from disorder on numerous occasions in nature [20, 21].

Another flaw in evolutionary thinking, according to Creationists, is that transitional fossils that would characterize the progression of one form to another do not exist. There are multiple flaws with this argument, including a) the fact that transitional fossils have been observed and therefore some avenues of common descent have been characterized [22], b) the idea of “punctuated equilibrium” can account for instances where there are no transitional fossils [4, 23], and c) new fossils are uncovered all the time, some of which will undoubtedly provide evidence of transition.

A third argument made by Creationists, this one often specifically targeted at the theory of evolution by natural selection, states that evolution is a tautology (that is, it has a circular definition). These claims are largely based on work from Karl Popper [24]. The Talk.Origins website summarizes the Creationist stance succinctly: “[n]atural selection is the survival of the fittest [and the] fittest are those that survive” [25]. However, many people, including Popper himself, have refuted this over-simplification on the grounds that the term “fitness” refers to more than just survival (e.g. organisms deemed “fit” are constrained by laws such as those pertaining to chemistry and genetics) and therefore the definition is not circular [26, 27].

For individuals interested in a more in depth analysis of the above arguments and additional points of contention between evolutionists and creationists, it is worth noting that there are on-line resources providing exhaustive details on all facets of the creation/evolution debate. I would encourage anyone interested in this topic to thoroughly mine this resource – to check claims vs. counter-claims, etc. – before coming to any conclusions (I would recommend the Talk.Origins website as a jumping off point for the evolutionist perspective [25] and the True.Origins website as a jumping off point for the creationist perspective [28]). In my opinion, many of the arguments put forward by Creationists rely on selective referencing, oversimplification of concepts, and outright falsehoods that are easily contradicted and I feel that careful critical examination of the literature bears this out. More than anything else, it is frustrating that evolutionists are far more willing to point to the gaps in their model than Creationists. This failure to be self-critical about the literal interpretation of Genesis undermines their position.

Cockiness (or: Overstating the Case for Evolution)

I would be remiss if I failed to point out some of the shortcomings in the evolutionist argument. Most problems with the evolutionist perspective arise because proponents make over-reaching claims about evolution. The evidence can be oversimplified or misrepresented by individuals unfamiliar with some of the nuances of the actual research and this sloppiness yields mistakes that then become fodder for Creationist attacks against evolution [29]. Ultimately someone is left to clean up the mess made by others, but this becomes a daunting task since misconceptions will persist in the literature for years [30].

Another problem for evolutionists is the tendency to dismiss elements of the Creationist model automatically, without even attempting to disprove it via the scientific method. This reactionary approach is counter-productive as it undermines the logic that is supposed to drive evolutionist thinking. And while evidence in many instances does favour the evolutionist perspective, in other instances it is difficult, at present, to make a solid claim either way. Creationist interpretations, even if they defy Occam’s razor at its dullest, should not be discounted until a) they have been tested themselves and b) a falsifiable evolutionary alternative is available. Evolutionists would be wise to note that decidedly long leaps have sometimes been made by leading scientists, one example being Francis Crick’s belief in “directed panspermia” (the belief that the building blocks of life have an extraterrestrial origin) [31]. This is not to say that Crick’s theory is incorrect – it is just to point out that our present understanding leaves that theory about as falsifiable as the Genesis story.

Fish in a Barrel – Finding Flaws in the Literal Interpretation of Genesis

I would also be remiss if I failed to subject the Genesis story to the logical scrutiny that has thus far only been applied to the theory of evolution. However, Creationist precepts, as far as we can tell in the present, are not based on observable phenomenon and are therefore unfalsifiable. Hence application of the scientific method to Genesis is impossible. Nonetheless, if the first section of the Bible is to be taken literally (as is the case, to differing extents, in both the YEC and OEC factions), numerous problems emerge. We can ask how plants (created on day three, Genesis 1:12) managed to flourish in the absence of the sun (created on day four, Genesis 1:16). Did God have an alternative means of ensuring the plants’ survival while their chloroplasts were rendered useless? If so, how come it was not mentioned? In the same vein, we can also ask how God managed to have light (created on the first day, Genesis 1:3) show up three days before the sun arrived. Moving in another direction, we can ask if Genesis tells us that God thinks incest is a good thing. The question arises because a) humanity was encouraged by God to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) and b) humanity consisted only of Adam and Eve, so any multiplying in subsequent generations would have to arise through the pairing of their children. Of course, the incest question becomes moot in light of the fact that Adam and Eve never produced any female offspring, however one is left wondering how humanity managed to continue beyond Cain, Abel, and Seth.

Contradictions and conundrums abound in Genesis and the issue for Biblical literalists then becomes this: how do you explain these contradictions without attempting to view the text through an interpretative prism? A literal take on Genesis cannot be done piecemeal as that would go against the notion that the entire Bible is God’s absolute, inflexible word. However, the gaps mentioned above can only be explained through interpretation and speculation, and once that is allowed, equal value must be attached to every other interpretation of the Bible on the creation/evolution continuum.

Something tells me that this would not be an attractive option for some.

One Last Thing (or: Can’t We All Just Get Along?)

In the final analysis, I do not believe that God and evolution have to be viewed as mutually exclusive. There is no proof that a supreme being did not guide evolution, so it makes sense that people are able to reconcile their suspicion that life developed through evolution with their belief in the human soul. The fact that science does not enter the dominion of religion and faith by tackling issues of morality also helps bridge the gap. In 1996, Pope John Paul II re-affirmed the Vatican position that evolution does not necessarily conflict with Christian beliefs [32]. I am sure that there are millions of people who read the Bible for inspiration and moral guidance who agree with the assessment of His Holiness.

Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my thanks to Cathie Garnis and Emily Vucic for helping edit this report. I would also like to extend special thanks to Bradley P. Coe for his many insights into this issue and for his helpful enthusiasm throughout the writing process.

References

1. Barber K (ed.): The Canadian Oxford Dictionary: Oxford University Press; 2001.

2. Margulis L, Sagan D: Microcosmos: four billion years of evolution from our microbial ancestors. New York: Summit Books; 1986.

3. Darwin C: The origin of species by means of natural selection, or The Preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. London: J. Murray; 1859.

4. Eldredge N, Gould SJ: Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Models in Paleobiology. Edited by Schopf TJM. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper; 1972: vi, 250.

5. Miller SL, Urey HC: Organic compound synthesis on the primitive earth. Science 1959, 130(3370):245-251.

6. Orgel LE: The origin of life–a review of facts and speculations. Trends Biochem Sci 1998, 23(12):491-495.

7. Yoon HS, Hackett J, Ciniglia C, Pinto G, Bhattacharya D: A Molecular Timeline for the Origin of Photosynthetic Eukaryotes. Mol Biol Evol 2004.

8. Wu CI, Ting CT: Genes and speciation. Nat Rev Genet 2004, 5(2):114-122.

9. Margulis L: Gaia is a Tough Bitch. In: The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution. Edited by Brockman J: Simon & Schuster Trade; 1995.

10. Lovelock JE: Gaia, a new look at life on Earth. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press; 1979.

11. Capra F: The web of life : a new scientific understanding of living systems, 1st Anchor Books edn. New York: Anchor Books; 1996.

12. CIA World Factbook: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ 2003.

13. Holy Bible (New Revised Standard Version). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers; 1990.

14. Ferngren GB (ed.): Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2002.
15. Pennock RT: Creationism and intelligent design. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2003, 4:143-163.

16. Scott EC: The Creation/Evolution Continuum. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 1999, 19(4):16, 17, 21-23.

17. Discovery Institute: The Wedge Strategy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy 1999.

18. Atkins PW: The second law. New York: Scientific American Library : distributed by W.H. Freeman; 1984.

19. Morris HM, Institute for Creation Research.: Scientific creationism, Public school edn. San Diego: Creation Life; 1974.

20. Kauffman SA: At home in the universe : the search for laws of self-organization and complexity. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995.

21. McShea DW: Possible Largest-scale Trends in Organismal Evolution: Eight Live Hypotheses. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1998, 29:293-318.

22. Futuyma DJ: Evolutionary biology, 3rd edn. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates; 1998.

23. Gould SJ, Eldredge N: Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology 1977, 3:115-151.

24. Popper K: Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography: Fontana Press; 1976.

25. The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy: www.talkorigins.org 2004.

26. Popper K: Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind. Dialectica 1978, 32:339-355.

27. Stamos J: Popper, Falsifiability, and Evolutionary Biology. Biology and Philosophy 1996, 11:161-191.

28. The True.Origin Archive: Exposing the Myth of Evolution: www.trueorigins.org 2004.

29. Wells J: Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: C. W. Daniel Company Ltd.; 2000.

30. Gishlick AD: Icons of Evolution? Why Much of What Jonathan Wells Writes About Evolution is Wrong. http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/ 2004.

31. Crick F: Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1982.

32. II PJP: Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution for It Involves Conception of Man. In: L’Osservatore Romano (English ed). vol. 44. Vatican City; 1996: 3, 7.

* * *

(REPRINTED FROM ISSUE ONE, MAY 9th, 2005)

Banjo On My Knee
Bleeding Heart
Foot In Mouth
Dick Head
Shit for Brains
Get this Monkey off my Back
He’s a Leg Man
Space Between The Ears
Baby Snacks
White Meat Only
Biggest Asshole

* * *

(REPRINTED FROM ISSUE ONE, MAY 9th, 2005)

Simply observing a person in the act of learning to move in a new environment is enough to help you unconsciously learn those movements, says new research by Canadian scientists.

More specifically, Andrew Mattar and Paul Gribble, from the University of Western Ontario (UWO), recently found that individuals who watched a video of a person learning to move a robotic arm, performed this same task better than those who didn’t observe the learning process.

This may not come as a surprise to anyone who has learned by watching a professional athlete or expert craftsman. However, what is unexpected is that this learning of complex motor behaviors appears not to be based on conscious thought. Instead, learning through observation involves implicit actions of the brain—a finding that tells us a lot about how we absorb the actions of others.

“One really cool thing this tells us, is that when you’re watching things going on in the world, your brain is always working,” says Gribble, an assistant professor of behavioral and cognitive neuroscience at UWO. “So, even though you don’t know it, your brain is forming internal representations of how things function.”

Mattar and Gribble asked 84 people to sit at a desk in front of a robotic device shaped like a human arm. The 84 subjects were then asked to perform a task involving holding the robotic device while moving towards circles that appeared on the desk. “It was like they were shaking hands with the robot while making rapid movement to new positions,” says Gribble.

However, during the movements, the robot was programmed to apply forces to a person’s arm. “As you tried to move, the robot would push you from your normal straight trajectory,” says Gribble. This produced curved trajectories that the researchers could measure. But, over time people would learn to compensate for the applied forces and make straighter trajectories, a process that involves the brain learning to re-map its control of muscles.

Mattar and Gribble then went on to show a video of people learning to move the robotic arm to a sub-set of subjects. People who watched the video were then tested and found to produce straighter trajectories more quickly than people who didn’t get to see the video. The results are published in April 7, 2005, issue of Neuron.

Interestingly, subjects who were shown a video of people learning unrelated motions did worse, presumably due to their having mentally mapping an inappropriate representation of how the robotic arm worked.

“This really implies that people are building up an internal model of the task,” says Gribble.

To see if this learning by observation was a conscious strategy, Mattar and Gribble made subjects perform math while watching the video, with the intention of distracting their conscious thought patterns. However, this did not reduce their performance, implying that conscious thought is not required.

“In a nut-shell, this suggests that conscious systems are not necessary for someone to improve by observing,” says Mattar, who completed the current study as an undergraduate project at UWO and is now at McGill University.

However, making people move their arms while watching the video did impair their subsequent performance. This finding points to the need for motor systems to be unoccupied for observational learning to occur.

Mattar and Gribble’s findings come on the heels of a recent movement in neuroscience that links motor control – the ability to generate accurate movements under varying conditions – with the observation of actions. This theory has come to life with the discovery of “mirror neurons”, which are activated by both performing and observing the same action.

“Mirror neurons point to a connection between our neural systems for observation and action,” says Mattar. “So we did the experiments because we were interested in whether the link between observation and action could facilitate motor learning,” says Mattar. Motor learning is essentially the ability to adapt to new mechanical environments, like learning to ride a bike. Such learning is thought to involve acquiring neural representations of the way in which mechanical forces affect muscles.

Together the work does raise an intriguing question of whether people need to observe mistakes in order to learn. “My gut instinct is that you probably get more benefit from watching a person progress from being unskilled to skilled,” says Gribble, “but we’re testing this now.”

In the end, “what it all implies is that if you want to maximize your learning you should stay still and let your motor system absorb information,” says Gribble.

References
UWO Motor Control Lab

Mattar A. A. and Gribble P. L. “Motor learning by observing,” Neuron, 46(1):153-60, April 7, 2005.

* * *

(REPRINTED FROM ISSUE ONE, MAY 9th, 2005)

CHRISTMAS 1970.
by Spike Milligan
A little girl called Sile Javotte
Said ‘Look at the lovely presents I’ve got’
While a little girl in Biafra said
‘Oh what a lovely slice of bread’.

- – - – -

Please enjoy this year’s holiday flavoured pieces. “Older” material will begin running again on December 26th, and the new? … Well, the new will return in the New Year.

A Bio-Christmas Carol (by Vince LiCata)
Is There a Santa? (by Paul Clarkson)
Rant from a Glacier – Concerned, Bitter, and Somehwere Near the North Pole (By David Ng)

Being a scientific investigation of a cultural conundrum

Soon it will be Christmas Eve, and once more children will be divided into distinct factions. Here, Cyr [1] described younger children (<7 years) who believe in Santa Claus, and older children (>12 years) who have ditched this ‘childish’ belief. But he fails, by excluding from his questionnaire, to describe a third group who aren’t really sure – the undecided voters if you like. And as the eldest child, I have spent a large part of my life in this group. Moreover, being scientifically minded even at the age 7, I of course approached this problem according to well-established techniques of investigation.

My first stop was to consult the authorities. My parents (beneficiaries of a liberal arts education and a liberal dosing of 1960’s psychotropic compounds) reassured their young child by explaining that Santa, like all beliefs, was a social construction and as such was true to all who believed in him. When I asked how I would prove that, Mum told me that all truth was relative and that the concept of proof was no more than a projection of hegemony by the dominant culture. Which I thought was a load of old bollocks.

Disappointed but not discouraged I proceeded to a literature search (It wasn’t until much later in my career that I realised this was only ever done after at least 9 months of laborious investigation, although I was naive then, so give me a break). My little red bookshelf contained several volumes referring to Santa Claus. Most were personal accounts [2], and as such counted as no more than Level V evidence (expert opinion). Other styled themselves as authorities [3,4], but lacked references to definitive investigations.

Modern children of course have Pubmed, and conducting a search today for “Santa Claus Existence” gave 5 results, of which one was relevant. In 2002 Cyr surveyed whether paediatric inpatients still believed in Santa Claus. While a good and noteworthy study, this would still have not fit my purposes. I didn’t care if other children believed in Santa, and besides this was still only Level IV evidence (case-series). The author also declared his bias as a continuing believer, throwing all his conclusions under a cloud.

I realised I would have to abandon epidemiological techniques in favour of direct experimentation. I proceeded with the null hypothesis “Santa Claus does not exist”. I designed a trap to snare him in my bedroom, but after two failed years I realised the fault in my experimental design. The only way to reject the null hypothesis was to catch him, but not catching him left me unable to either accept or reject the null hypothesis. Unfortunately we hadn’t studied Karl Popper in reading room at that stage.

I decided to approach things in a more indirect manner. His ability to tell if children have been naughty or nice has been well-described [5]. More specifically, I decided to adjust my behaviour, the independent variable A, and observe the number of presents, the dependent variable B. If he did exist, then B would vary with A, but if my parents were bringing the loot then A should not cause B to vary, as I was an overindulged and spoilt child. Furthermore, being nice and still getting presents regardless would prove little, and besides naughty was much more fun.

So I was as naughty as possible on Christmas Eve. I threw tantrums, messed my room, pulled my sister’s hair and hid my brother’s toys. I interrupted my father and refused to eat my dinner. The next morning I awoke with eager anticipation of my results. I got pretty much the same presents as usual. I then realised with horror that I had no reference standard! What if I was going to get more and had been reduced? How would I know? My brother and sister served as case-controls, but this was wholly unsatisfactory. Was a Barbie doll worth one or two toy cars? Had they been naughty or nice, thus confounding the results?

In any event, I am sorry to report that despite having now reached adulthood, I have still been unable to establish a satisfactory experimental design for this problem. The levels of evidence in this field continue to be amongst the poorest in the literature, and anecdotal evidence abounds. However, there will be a bear-trap at the bottom of my chimney again this year. While Popper may maintain that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist, the truth is that I’ve only got to catch the bastard once to get my answer.

References

1. Cyr C. Do reindeer and children know something that we don’t? Paediatric inpatients’ beliefs in Santa Claus. CMAJ 2002 Dec 10; 167(12): 1325-1327

2. Moore CC. ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas. The Sentinel 1823. Heirloom edition available from Running Press Book Publishers.

3. Apple M, Baum LF, Riley, MO. The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus. Signet Classics

4. Perkes A. The Santa Claus Book. Lyle Stuart Publishing.

5. Coots JF, Kellogg S. Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town. HarperCollins

Characters:

Dr. Scrooge
Young Scrooge
Teen Scrooge
Scrooge’s mother
Dr. Jacob Marley
Graduate Student Bob Cratchett
Bob Cratchett’s wife
Tiny Tina
The Spirit of Christmas Past, a Developmental Biologist
The Spirit of Christmas Present, a Biochemist
The Spirit of Christmas Future, an Evolutionary Biologist
Faculty member #1
Faculty member #2
A boy

(14 characters if singly cast. Several parts could be double cast. Scrooge can be either male or female. The Spirits and Faculty Members can also be either gender).

- – - – -

Scene 1. “Scrooge’s Office”

Scrooge and Cratchett are sitting working at their desks. Cratchett is in the process of putting on his coat to leave.

SCROOGE: Cratchett, Cratchett you ingrate, come in here at once.

BOB CRATCHETT: Yes Dr. Scrooge?

SCROOGE: Cratchett, you’re not leaving are you?

BOB CRATCHETT: Well it is 10pm Dr. Scrooge.

SCROOGE: Have you finished those assays I asked you to do?

BOB CRATCHETT: Well, Dr. Scrooge, I started looking at—

SCROOGE: Cratchett you idiot, I told you we need those assays done immediately. What part of “immediately” don’t you understand?

BOB CRATCHETT: But, Dr. Scrooge, these are complicated assays.

SCROOGE: I know they’re complicated Cratchett, I developed them myself, don’t you think I know they’re complicated?

BOB CRATCHETT: I thought you and your old partner, Dr. Marley, developed them together?

SCROOGE: Don’t mention that man’s name to me Cratchett! You know that the mere mention of his name gives me a rash (he starts scratching himself as he talks). Yes, Jacob Marley and I did develop these assays together, I haven’t forgotten about him. But ever since he dropped out of science to become an Air Force Drill Instructor, I’ve had a hard time giving him any credit (he scratches some more and then suddenly stops). But you’re changing the subject Cratchett – what about those assays?

BOB CRATCHETT: I’m sorry Dr. Scrooge, but I haven’t quite finished them.

SCROOGE: Haven’t quite finished them? Haven’t quite finished them? Well, then you’ll just have to quite finish them tomorrow won’t you?

BOB CRATCHETT: Tomorrow? But tomorrow’s Christmas sir! And I was hoping to leave a little early today…

SCROOGE: CHRISTMAS???? CHRISTMAS???? Are you not a scientist Cratchett? I didn’t get to be chairman of this department by taking time off for the least little ridiculous reasons.

BOB CRATCHETT: Yes, yes, of course Dr. Scrooge. I’ll be here tomorrow. (He leaves)

SCROOGE: (to himself) These students, where do they get off thinking they can just take off for any little event in their lives that pops up?

(Two faculty members enter)

FACULTY MEMBER #1: Chairman Scrooge?

SCROOGE: Yes, what is it?

FACULTY MEMBER #1: Sorry to bother you on Christmas Eve and all, sir, but several of us on the faculty were discussing….um…..

FACULTY MEMBER #2: (picking up where F1 trails off) We were discussing the problem of low graduate student stipends —

SCROOGE: (cutting them off) LOW STIPENDS! LOW STIPENDS??!! How many times do I have to hear about these low stipends?

FACULTY MEMBER #1: Well, sir, some of the students don’t have enough to buy proper food.

FACULTY MEMBER #2: They eat generic pet food out of cans.

FACULTY MEMBER #1: And they live in cardboard boxes inside the labs.

SCROOGE: And, the problem is?

(Pause, F1 and F2 look at each other)

FACULTY MEMBER #2: Well, sir, we just thought we might be able to help them out a little.

FACULTY MEMBER #1: Perhaps with a little bit of a pay bonus, seeing as it’s Christmastime and all…

SCROOGE: Gentlemen, your concern for our dedicated young work force is touching, but as you know, as I know, and as they know: graduate school is only one step up from being in prison, without many of the disadvantages of actually being in prison, except in some labs—and (he points at them) I think you know which labs I mean. As such, however, the wretched little cretins should be content with what they have, and happy in the knowledge that they can bend over to pick up a pipette tip without fear.

FACULTY MEMBER #2: But, Dr. Scrooge…

SCROOGE: Thank you for stopping by gentlemen. The door is right there behind you (he points, and then goes back to work, ignoring them. They leave).

(After a moment, Scrooge closes his book, puts on his coat and starts to leave. Just before he leaves, he stops and laughs heartily, as if he had just heard an extremely funny joke)

SCROOGE: (after he stops laughing and catches his breath) Imagine, raising graduate student stipends, that’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all day. (He exits)

- – - – -

Scene 2. Scrooge at home.

(Scrooge is at a desk in his house, working)

SCROOGE: Ah, this is one of my favorite tasks, deciding the yearly pay raises…(he consults the papers in front of him), let’s see now. Smith (he thinks a moment) plus 25% (he shouts/barks out each percentage, then he writes each “raise” down after he says it). Hmm….Jones….zero – and he’s lucky it’s that high, if I find one more dead fruit fly in my coffee I’m taking away some of his space. Okay..Roberts….minus three percent – and it will stay minus three percent until shaves that mangy beard off. Okay now….LiCata….zero – no wait, I forgot about that horrible Christmas play he wrote about me… minus 5 percent. Okay now…Stephens…oh great God, how I hate her guts—

JACOB MARLEY: (entering and cutting him off as he muses about Stephens’ pay raise) Dr. Scrooge!

SCROOGE: (sees Marley and immediately stands up) Oh my God, Dr. Marley! Jacob, what are you doing here? I thought you became an Air Force Drill Sargeant?

JACOB MARLEY (talks and acts “other worldly”): I did, Dr. Scrooge…I’ve come back to warn you Dr. Scrooge.

SCROOGE: Warn me? What in blazes are you yapping about Marley? Is this because I stole all your data when you left science?

JACOB MARLEY: Dr. Scrooge, I am warning you, you must change your ways, or you will be destroyed!

SCROOGE: Destroyed? It ain’t me that’s gonna be destroyed, Marley, it’s the department. That’s what Chairmen do. Do your best to destroy the department and then move on. You taught me that.

JACOB MARLEY: Dr. Scrooge…I am here to warn you that you will be visited this evening by three spirits. The spirits of Biology Past, Present, and Future. These spirits will show you the errors of your ways, Scrooge.

SCROOGE: They can’t come tonight, I’ve got to do pay raises. Let me check my schedule and I’ll let you know when I can fit them in.

JACOB MARLEY: (As he is leaving) Change your ways, Scrooge…before it is too late…..

SCROOGE: (has been looking down, checking his schedule) How about a week from Tuesday? (he looks around, but Marley is gone) Oh well, they’ll just have to make their appointments themselves. Now back to the fun. (He sits down to work again) Now, where was I, oh yes…Stephens…hmm….I wonder if I can get away with taking away her entire salary?

- – - – -

Scene 3. Scrooge’s Home, several hours later.

(Scrooge is asleep with his head on the desk).

Spirit of Christmas Past, a Developmental Biologist (Abbreviated “PAST”): Excuse me! Hello? (Scrooge remains asleep. PAST goes over and pounds on the desk near Scrooge’s head).

SCROOGE: (startled) What? What? Hey, who are you? What the hell are you doing in my house?

PAST: I am the Spirit of Christmas Past.

SCROOGE: Do I know you?

PAST: I have taken the form of a Developmental Biologist, so as not to frighten you. I have come to show you your Past, Dr. Scrooge. (Explaining) You know, to show you your “Development”. Get it?

SCROOGE: Get out of my house before I call the police.

PAST: You have no power over me Scrooge. (He waves his arm dramatically over Scrooge).

SCROOGE: (His arms hang limp at his sides) Hey, I can’t move my arms. What have you done to me? Hey, I can’t move at all. (PAST moves his hand over Scrooge’s mouth, Scrooge can no longer talk. He still tries to make some sounds but soon stops).

PAST: Come with me Dr. Scrooge, we have work to do. (He moves to an area to the side, Scrooge obligingly follows.)

(A child is sitting on the ground playing with a pipetteman, pipette tips, and a rack of microfuge tubes. The Spirit and Scrooge come up behind the child.)

PAST: Here you are as a young child, Scrooge. You were happy then, and interested in science and the world around you. Ah, here comes your mother.

(Scrooge’s Mom enters)

MOM: (to young Scrooge) Hi honey, how’s it going?

YOUNG SCROOGE: Hi Mom! Guess what?

MOM: What, honey?

YOUNG SCROOGE: I’ve just discovered a new protein!

MOM: Another one? That’s wonderful dear. That’s the fifth one this month. Those nice people at the Journal of Biological Chemistry will be so happy! I think you’ve been in every issue this year.

YOUNG SCROOGE: (stands) Not every issue, Mom. Remember I missed submitting once to spend time with you and Dad on Christmas vacation. (hugs Mom) It was worth it though, Mom. I love you guys.

PAST: If only you could have somehow kept hold on that youthful innocence and exuberance. Come, Scrooge, let’s move a little into the future. (He and Scrooge walk around in a small circle as the child is replaced by an older, teenaged Scrooge). Here you are a few years later.

MOM: Hi honey, how’s it going?

TEEN SCROOGE: (Pipetting furiously) Go away Mom!

MOM: Ah, honey, I just wanted to know if you wanted to eat dinner with me and Dad.

TEEN SCROOGE: You don’t get into Science or Nature by eating dinner with your Mom and Dad every night, now do you?

MOM: But I don’t ask every night, honey, just once in a while would be nice.

TEEN SCROOGE: Either go away or pick up a pipetteman, Mom.

PAST: You soon became blinded to all else, Scrooge, focused only on your beloved Science, alienating everyone and everything else in your life. Am I making myself clear?

(Scrooge nods his head yes, but in a frustrated “could you be more obvious” sort of way).

PAST: Let us return, Scrooge, our work here is done.

(The spirit and Scrooge return to Scrooge’s room. Scrooge sits down at his desk again. The Spirit waves his hand over Scrooge and Scrooge passes out on the desk. The Spirit leaves. After a moment Scrooge awakens.)

SCROOGE: That was the strangest dream I ever had. (He massages his jaw). That’s odd, it feels like my jaw was wired shut or something.

PRESENT: (Entering the room) Yeah, well there’s some people that would pay good money to see that.

SCROOGE: Who are you? What are you doing here? What are you doing in my house?

PRESENT: Kind of a slow learner, aren’t you? I am the Spirit of Christmas Present, I’ve come in the form of a Biochemist, so as not to frighten you. Starting to see a pattern here?

SCROOGE: So I’m not dreaming?

PRESENT: Well, that’s sort of a matter of artistic interpretation, and it’s sort of beside the point, so it doesn’t technically matter if you’re actually dreaming, or if you’re experiencing this in some sort of hypnotic trancelike state, or whatever. You know what I mean?

SCROOGE: It’s uncanny. You talk just like some biochemists I know.

PRESENT: Yeah, well, the spirit world is full of unexplained mysteries. So, ready to go?

SCROOGE: Where are you taking me?

PRESENT: Oops, I haven’t the faintest idea. (He starts searching through his pockets). They gave me the schedule and I didn’t even look at it. (He finds the schedule folded up in his pocket). Ah, here it is. Let’s see, second spirit, that’s me…looks like we’re going to Bob Cratchett’s house. That’s your student, right? (Scrooge nods in agreement). Oops, says here I’m supposed to magically lock your jaw shut.

SCROOGE: Please don— (PRESENT waves his hand and locks Scrooge’s jaw shut. Scrooge makes some closed mouth sounds, then becomes quiet again.)

(PRESENT motions for Scrooge to follow him and they walk around in a circle, arriving at Bob Cratchett’s house. Bob and his wife are at the table making Christmas decorations and/or dinner. Nearby, Tiny Tina is on the floor trying to pipette, similar to what young Scrooge was doing in the previous scene. Tiny Tina is concentrating very hard throughout the scene, but obviously is having trouble pipetting correctly.)

BOB CRATCHETT: He said I only had to work a half day tomorrow.

CRATCHETT’S WIFE: The old sot! No one else in the department has to work Christmas day, why should you?

BOB CRATCHETT: It’s a good lab, honey. I’m being trained by a world-class scientist.

CRATCHETT’S WIFE: A world-class sociopath you mean. Scrooge doesn’t care one iota about you or anyone else in his lab, or the department. He doesn’t even pay you enough to have a decent life. Look at poor Tiny Tina there, trying to learn to pipette. If Scrooge didn’t keep you in lab all hours of the day and night, I’m sure you could teach her to do it right. We barely get to see you, dear, and when we do you’re so exhausted, and it’s all because of that beast Scrooge.

(At that moment Tiny Tina gets particularly frustrated and throws a tube down on the floor.)

TINY TINA: Oh, I hate it? I hate it! Why can’t I get this right?

(Bob gets up and goes over to her).

BOB CRATCHETT: Oh, honey.

TINY TINA: Hi Daddy.

BOB CRATCHETT: Don’t be so disappointed, honey, these things take a while to learn.

TINY TINA: Can’t you teach me to pipette daddy?

BOB CRATCHETT: (He sighs) I’ll try to find some time real soon, honey, I will. I’m just so busy at work and all. But I’ll find some time, somehow, and we’ll get you pipetting like a pro. I promise.

PRESENT: (To Scrooge) You know Tiny Tina won’t get into a good college unless she can pipette accurately and reproducibly. (Scrooge looks kind of guilty, but not too much.) Come, let us go to our next appointment…(he looks for the schedule again) which is…okay, looks like we’re going to a Christmas Party at a faculty member’s house.

(They walk around in a circle again. Bob Cratchett’s family is replaced by two faculty members holding drinks and talking.)

PRESENT: (Looking around the room) Hmm…nice party. Everyone in the department is here but you. Let’s listen in on this conversation (they go over to the two faculty members).

FACULTY MEMBER #1: No…he never comes to any of the parties. Too beneath him.

FACULTY MEMBER #2: Yeah, he wouldn’t want to rub elbows with the hired help, now would he?

FACULTY MEMBER #1: I’m sure that’s how he thinks of us, too…as hired help.

FACULTY MEMBER #2: Let’s just hope he doesn’t destroy the department before his contract runs out.

FACULTY MEMBER #1: I’ll drink to that. (They toast).

FACULTY MEMBER #2: Perhaps he’ll knock over an electrophoresis tank and electrocute himself.

FACULTY MEMBER #1: I’ll drink to that. (They toast, then continue to talk silently as the Spirit and Scrooge talk).

(Scrooge gets the Spirits attention and in mime asks if the faculty members are talking about him.)

PRESENT: You want to know if they are talking about you? You’re a quick study, figure it out yourself. It’s time for us to leave now.

(The spirit and Scrooge return to Scrooge’s room and desk. Scrooge remains awake and somewhat somber as the Spirit releases his jaw lock. Scrooge rubs his jaw.)

SCROOGE: (Quietly) Is that all then? Are we done?

PRESENT: There is one other who will visit you. Goodnight, Dr. Scrooge.

SCROOGE: (After PRESENT leaves:) I suppose this last Spirit will be from the scariest Biology division of them all: Evolution.

(Just after he says this, the Spirit quietly enters.)

SCROOGE: You are the Spirit who most frightens me. I suppose you are here to show me things that are to come?

(The spirit extends his hand and leads Scrooge around in a circle again. They arrive back at Bob Cratchett’s house. Bob and his wife are sitting at the table alone.)

SCROOGE: This is my student’s house. Why have you brought me back here Spirit?

(The spirit points to Bob and his wife, and Scrooge and the Spirit listen to their conversation.)

BOB CRATCHETT: I don’t know if we will get paid this semester, dear. He’s destroyed the entire department in his wake. No one can agree with anyone else. All the best people have left or are leaving. The departmental budget is completely overspent. It’s a shambles. Total devastation.

CRATCHETT’S WIFE: I’m sorry dear. I would say I told you so, but what good would it do?

BOB CRATCHETT: I should have listened to you from the start dear, and done my graduate work at Texas A &M. We’d have food on the table now. We’d be happy now….

SCROOGE: Have I caused this Spirit? (The spirit does not make any motion) Why do you not answer me, spirit? (Scrooge looks around) And what about Tiny Tina? What has become of her?

(The spirit motions for Scrooge to follow him again. They move around in a circle once more and come to Tiny Tina standing behind a counter. She is handing a McDonald’s bag to someone on the other side of the counter.)

TINY TINA: Did you want fries with that?

SCROOGE: No, spirit, tell me it is not so! It is not I who have caused this, is it? Tell me spirit, are the things we are seeing things that will be, or things that only might be? Please tell me Spirit!

(The Spirit leads Scrooge away and they go back to Scrooge’s office. On Scrooge’s desk there is a large, obvious tombstone shaped sign facing away from the audience)

SCROOGE: This is my office Spirit. Why are we here?

(The spirit points at the sign on Scrooge’s desk)

SCROOGE: (Going over to it) What is this? A portent of what will be? Or what could be? I am afraid to look at it Spirit. Please don’t make me look.

(The spirit points again at the sign on Scrooge’s desk)

SCROOGE: (Turns the sign around. It says in large letter: “Vice Provost Scrooge”) Vice Provost? No (Scrooge falls to his knees in front of the Spirit) No, I’ll never be able to do science again. Please say it isn’t so, Spirit! Please say the future does not have to be this way! (Scrooge bends over crying, the spirit waves his hand over Scrooge, and Scrooge slowly falls asleep. The spirit takes the sign and quietly leaves.)

(After a moment, Scrooge wakes up. He looks around for the spirit and the sign).

SCROOGE: The sign is gone! It looks like morning! I wonder what day it is? (He goes to the window/front of the stage and looks out) You there, boy! What day is this?

BOY: Why Christmas day, sir!

SCROOGE: Christmas day! Christmas day! I haven’t missed it! The spirit scientists did their work all in one evening! Unusually efficient for our department, but thank goodness! (Looking out the window again) Boy!

BOY: Yes sir?

SCROOGE: (Throwing down some money). Here’s some money, boy. Go buy some pipette tips and take them over to married student housing, apartment 22G.

BOY: What size tips sir?

SCROOGE: All sizes, P200’s, P1000’s, P10’s, everything money can buy! And keep the change for yourself boy! (He rushes back to his desk). It’s Christmas day! It’s not too late! (He looks around on his desk a moment) Ah, pay raises! (He picks up some papers and tears them up). Everyone gets an across the board 10% raise! Except the graduate students….I’m going to raise their salaries by 100% (He thinks a moment) But where will I get the money? Oh yes! Those photographs I have of the Dean with that undergrad! I knew one day they would come in handy!

(He organizes a few things, and puts on his coat) I’ll go over and surprise Bob Cratchett and his family with the good news. Food! I need to take some food with me. (He gets a dish of food and rushes over to Bob Cratchett’s house).

BOB CRATCHETT: Thank you for the (whatever Scrooge brought over) Dr. Scrooge, it’s wonderful. (To his wife:) and isn’t wonderful about the stipend increases dear?

CRATCHETT’S WIFE: (She is genuinely happy) Why it’s wonderful, Bob. It’s wonderful Dr. Scrooge.

SCROOGE: Yes, it’s wonderful. It’s a wonderful Christmas. Why it’s the best Christmas ever! And right after dinner, with your permission of course, I’d like to give Tiny Tina some personal pipetting lessons.

TINY TINA: (getting very excited) Oh, mom! Yes! Say yes! Dr. Scrooge is the best pipetter in the whole world! I’ll get into any college I choose, if he teaches me how to pipette!

CRATCHETT’S WIFE: Of course dear! (To Scrooge) We’d be honored, Dr. Scrooge. I must admit, I really underestimated you, Dr. Scrooge, but you’ve made us very happy. Merry Christmas Dr. Scrooge.

SCROOGE: Oh, group hug! Group hug! (He gathers them all up into a group hug) Merry Christmas to one and all!

ALL: Here, here! Merry Chistmas!

The End

I’m a girl that likes to know what she’s looking at.

I have a degree in biology, and I’ve spent the past few summers exploring Eastern North America, learning about the wildlife there. Those trips left me with an urge to identify every interesting plant, animal, or mineral I see, so that I can play the role of Madame Know-it-all the next time I see it.

When I’m on a hike, I want easy access to a field guide, or better yet, an expert naturalist—that way I don’t have to remember how to use those complicated identification keys in field guides

But last week, I found myself resource-less. I was on a poorly planned and hastily packed road trip down the West Coast of California. No National Geographic bird guide, no Peterson guide to trees, no National Audubon book of reptiles and amphibians

I braced myself for a lot of hikes, wandering clueless through the wild, with nary an opportunity to prove my biological superiority to my traveling companion.

For the first few days, I had it easy.

Those giant trees in Redwood National Park were giant redwoods (I guess). Interpretive signs on the beach at Monterey Bay helped me figure out the difference between the seals and sea lions out on the rocks.

Then came Santa Cruz, and the beach with thousands of little aberrations. No field guide. But at least I had a camera.

Even if I had a university library at my disposal, I wouldn’t know what field guide to look in. I was raised inland, and these coastal beasts were entirely outside of my frame of reference.

My first (extremely uneducated) guess was razor clams, something I’d never seen, but had heard lived on the West Coast. I assumed were named for their sharpness. That little flap sticking up from my mystery creature looked like a jagged piece of broken glass.

“Don’t take your shoes off on this beach!” I yelled to my companion. “There are razor clams everywhere!” I chose to disregard the fact that the tiny monster didn’t seem to have a shell, or resemble a clam in any way.

The razor clam theory was tossed after one touch. The flaps feel a lot like rubber, and nothing like razors. (Later, I’d discover that razor clams aren’t actually razor-sharp, they’re just shaped like old-fashioned straight razors. Whoops.)

Well then, I reasoned, what about that dark blue stuff along its edges? Looks a bit like ink, and the only thing I could think of that produces ink is a squid. Unfortunately, these little guys didn’t have any visible legs or tentacles. Lucky for me, I’d kept my mouth shut this time.

Though I was disheartened by my ignorance, I let it go. I knew the pictures I had taken would help me solve the mystery when I returned to Vancouver.

Once home, I rushed to crack open my bible—The Variety of Life by Colin Tudge, a book that surveys all things that have ever lived. The problem was that I couldn’t even guess where to begin.

I decided to flip through the 150 pages of invertebrates, hoping that something would catch my eye. Within seconds I found my answer, wedged between Hydra and box jellyfish.

The little creatures are called “by-the-wind sailors,” or Velella velella if you’re fancy. They belong to the phylum Cnidaria, which is better known for its corals and jellyfish.

I turned to a Velella-centric website by Dave Cowles at Walla Walla College in Washington. The flaps are made of chitin, and act as little sails, keeping the sailors moving at a 45-degree angle to the wind’s direction. Strong westerly winds can drive them to shore, like the ones that I saw.

They do have tiny tentacles and a mouth on their underside to catch and eat zooplankton. Rings of concentric gas-filled inner tubes keep them floating on the water’s surface, and the blue colour is caused by a pigment caused astaxanthin.

Ah, that wonderful feeling that comes with a new piece of knowledge. I want to drive back down to Santa Cruz, stand on the beach and yell, “This is Velella velella!” What a rush.

References

Velella velella
http://homepages.wwc.edu/staff/cowlda/KeyToSpecies/Cnidaria/Class-Hydrozoa/Chondrophores-Siphonophores/VelellaVellela.html

* * *

(REPRINTED FROM ISSUE ONE, MAY 9th, 2005)