(Re: In the continued debate over high school science textbooks in Louisiana, whereby a local opponent of evolution, Judge Darrell White, insisted on connecting the Columbine High School massacre to the teaching of evolution through the phrase “survival of the fittest.”)

When we summarize things we have to be careful that we don’t lose meaning or invite misinterpretation, for instance the phrase “survival of the fittest.” This was first used as a summary of natural selection, which is one of the mechanisms of evolution, but today it is mistakenly and inaccurately used to summarize the entire theory of evolution.

Based on the current usage of the words in the phrase we might be driven to think “survival of the fittest” means: Those individuals that are physically superior to other individuals will continue to live. Perhaps there is even a suggestion that the “fittest” should actively work to kill off the weak (weak being opposite of fit). Indeed people have and do use this phrase to justify the strong taking advantage of the weak, the rich taking advantage of the poor, etc.

However the phrase “survival of the fittest” was originally meant to be a concise summary of a more complicated idea. Over the more than a century and a half since the phrase was originally coined we have learned more about how nature works and today the phrase “survival of the fittest” is an out-of-date inaccurate oversimplification that no serious biologist uses in a meaningful way.

The phrase was coined by Herbert Spencer and first used in 1864. At this time, “fitness” was not referring to physical prowess but how well an organism was adapted to its present environment. For example, during a dry year individuals of plant species X that require less water to grow are “fitter” than individuals of the same species that require more water. The individuals that require less water are more likely to survive. Traits, such as water use, are heritable, so those survivors, the “fittest,” are more likely to pass their traits on to the next generation. This scenario, where individuals with traits favorable to the present environment are more likely to pass those traits to the next generation, is called natural selection.

But our study of life on Earth didn’t stop in the 19th century! As new observations are made, as our tools, technology, and techniques get better we are able to expand our understanding of how nature works. Beginning in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s observations of nature showed us that there was more to evolution than anyone had previously anticipated. This was called the Modern Evolutionary Syntheses and it married natural selection, sexual selection, etc. to population genetics. What we now know as modern genetics (genes, genomes, RNA, DNA, etc.) has allowed us to become much more precise and accurate in our understanding of evolution.

Based on this better understanding of how nature works, an interpretation of “survival of the fittest” would have to be greatly modified. Where before we used a general, nonspecific term: “traits” we can now use a very specific term: genes. And where before we equated “fitness” to how well an individual was adapted to its environment, we now know that many factors influence an individual’s ability to survive and reproduce. Therefore “fitness” is more appropriately understood as a measure of an individual’s genetic influence over the next generation. The “fittest” are those individuals who get proportionally more of their genes into the next generation than others.

Our interpretation of “survival” would have to be greatly modified as well. This would no longer refer to an individual’s life, but to the continuation of a gene from generation to generation. For example those genes that cause a male spider to linger after mating may increase the likelihood of his death at the jaws of the female, but they may increase his fitness. How? There are pros and cons of staying and running away. A pro of staying is that the calories from his body may let the female produce more eggs. A pro of leaving is that he may be able to mate with another female. If, for a particular male, being eaten results in a greater number of offspring than attempting (and probably failing) to find another receptive mate, then his genes have “survived” even though he didn’t.

Today “survival of the fittest” has all but gone extinct among the scientists. They have no use for it. Just about the only groups that do use it misunderstand what evolution is, an explanation of how nature works, and pretend the phrase is an excuse to do bad. So if you run into someone who’s misusing this quip from history to malign a beautiful and fascinating part of our universe don’t be upset. Just look them straight in the eyes and say, “And you know what, that gravity is a crock too. ‘What goes up must come down,’ my ass!”

Author’s note:
“What goes up must come down” is not an accurate summary of gravity, there is no “up” in space and the sun, moon, and stars certainly aren’t coming “down”.

I first started experimenting with watercolor about 10 years ago, and from the beginning got into “wet in wet technique.”  To paint “wet in wet” you paint a base color and then add other colors to it while it’s still wet.  This allows the different colors to bleed into each other, making interesting patterns. People who saw my wet-in-wet work at shows kept mentioning how much it looked like cells under a microscope, so I found some images of cells in mitosis, or cell division, and discovered that they did indeed look a lot like what I was doing.  After looking at the images I began actually trying to paint cells, but I guess I’ve been painting them for about a decade.

Last winter, when DC was buried under several feet of snow, I decided to finally make a move into online art sales, opening up a shop on Makers Market, a juried online marketplace with a scientific bent.  The cell pieces were instantly my most popular, so I’ve been making more and more cell images.  I’ve been showing my work, mainly at art festivals around DC, for about 10 years.  Selling online connected me to a whole new audience and provided a creative shot in the arm. A bunch of biologists bought my work, and some of them suggested new subjects, like bacteria or blood cells.  One buyer pointed me toward “brainbows” – a series of images of mouse brain cells dyed in bright colors.  I loved them, and the images inspired me to begin painting brain cells.

I was talking about this new work with an artist friend, Sean Hennessey, who mentioned that he was having a show of his work at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and suggested that my cell paintings would be a good fit. The curator at NIH agreed, so I started to conceptualize this show. I decided that a whole show of mitosis paintings would be a little boring, and I wanted the exhibit to have a stronger theme.

I got to thinking about how activity at the cellular level underlies major upheavals in our lives, like falling in love, giving birth and dying.  I decided to divide my paintings into two groups – love and death.  It’s a kind of ridiculously grandiose theme, but I’m a lover of opera and Russian literature, and heck, go big or go home, right?

I learned a whole lot of anatomy and biology while painting these pictures.  I looked up microscopic photographs in books and on the web and did many practice paintings, trying to get the balance right between accuracy and artistry.  The “love” paintings focus on the cells that are involved in attraction and desire – the skin, eyes, and ears, the brain and the circulatory system.  I’m very proud of my blood vessels, especially my abdominal aorta.  (That’s not technically a cell, but ok, too bad.)

For the “death” paintings, I depicted three microscopic killers – bacteria, viruses and cancer.  The cancer piece really hit home, because I lost both my parents to pancreatic cancer over the last decade, and I had never really approached it in my art before.  And I included two mitosis paintings, because cell division underlies the whole process of life and death.

I’m really happy with the work I’ve put together for this exhibit, and I feel like it’s opened new doors for me creatively. The exhibit opens January 14^th and will be up through March 5, 2011 at the NIH Clinical Center West Gallery (10 Center Drive, Bethesda MD 20892.) For more info about getting to NIH, see:http://www.nih.gov/about/visitor/index.htm

(Originally published in BourgeonOnline)

1. Introduction:

Perhaps one of the most profound problems of philosophy is the age-old question of why we exist- here, on Earth, in the short time period which has been allotted to humankind. It probably concerned our prehistoric ancestors: we know it has occupied philosophers from at least the time of Aristotle to the present. Although many answers have been proposed, they seem little closer to a universally accepted truth than are the musings of the average person who gazes awestruck at the night sky. It now seems possible that a combination of the Gaia hypothesis (possibly as the “Intelligent Designer”- more on this later) and modern palaeogeochemistry might provide a solution.

2. Gaia and climate stabilization:

Ever since its introduction by James Lovelock (1979), the Gaia hypothesis has generated intense public interest and considerable controversy among earth scientists and ecologists. Indeed, in recent times the Gaia hypothesis has garnered such respect as to be considered “mainstream” (Peat, 2006). The key aspect of the hypothesis is that Gaia operates (or is) a feedback mechanism that maintains, within limits and subject to some cycling, relatively constant environmental conditions on our planet (Lovelock, 2001). Watson & Lovelock (1983) and Lovelock (1988) proposed a simple biological model which might accomplish this, which they called “Daisyworld”. In this model, two forms of plants occurred. One was to be a highly reflective plant (as “white daisies”), which could thrive under high temperatures. The other, a dark and hence radiation-absorbing form (“black daisies”), was a better competitor under lower temperatures. The white form would spread when the planet was warm, but by reflecting the sun’s radiation away from the planet, would cause it to cool (acting as “air-conditioners” in the terminology of Hsü, 2001). At some lowered temperature, the dark form would be able to outcompete the light one, and by absorbing radiation, would cause the temperature to rise again (= “heaters”: Hsü, 2001). The relative abundances of the two forms were shown by a simple model to be able to maintain the planet’s temperature within a narrow range, over a considerable range of solar input strengths. Hsü (2001), noting that actual “black daisies” had never evolved, nonetheless supported the concept, noting that “The biologic evolution on earth has been an alternate dominance of the ‘air-conditioners’ and the ‘heaters’ to moderate the climate changes on Earth.”

However, this biological activity would of necessity have other consequences. As Lovelock (1988) concisely summarized, we know that before photosynthesis began, most oxygen was locked up in oxidized minerals on the Earths’s surface. There were several climate cycles moderated by various types of “heaters” and “air-conditioners”, and carbon burial in the form of shales and limestones (Hsü, 2001). When Gaia caused green plants (or “daisies”) to evolve they accelerated the process of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, splitting off the carbon to incorporate in their tissues, and expelling free oxygen to the atmosphere (e.g., Dahl et al., 2010). Thus, pre-life and early-life Earth had an atmosphere much richer in carbon dioxide than the present earth. By incorporating and locking up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in their tissues, the plants (“daisies”) would have threatened their own growth by the diminishment of their resource. It also would have reduced the greenhouse effect, leading to lower temperatures, and if the loss of carbon were to go too far, the “black daisies” would be unable to grow enough to effectively oppose the temperature changes. Gaia’s first solution to this “disappearing carbon” problem was the evolution of decay organisms, which could break down the organic remains of the “daisies” (whatever they actually were) and release carbon back into the atmosphere when the plants died, and in the process also produce nutrients for the plants. To help shortcut the recycling process, Gaia also developed herbivorous and then carnivorous animals, which could control excess plant production, providing both faster recycling and fertilizer for the plants, while meanwhile absorbing some of the excess atmospheric oxygen and expelling carbon dioxide directly back into the atmosphere. At death, of course, the tissue carbon of both animals and plants was re-released to the atmosphere by the normal biological decay organisms. For a while this well-designed ecosystem was able to provide adequate stability.

3. Geological processes interfere with “heater” mechanism:

But geological processes were also at work on the remains of these animals and plants, and due especially to sedimentation out from aquatic environments and subsequent burial in sea and lake bottoms, significant quantities of carbon (limestone, shale, coal, oil) were being lost to the system (Dahl et al., 2010). When carbon was buried out of reach and away from oxygen, it could not be recycled back to the atmosphere by biological processes. Over time this created a problem for the plants, and hence for Gaia, as permanent carbon loss would again threaten the stability of the ecosystem, and the problem could not be solved using the organisms developed up to that time. Failure to stop this process would lead to a carbon-poor atmosphere and an eventual diminution of all carbon-based life, and give rise to an overall global cooling trend (e.g. from 65 Ma forward: Zachos et al., 2001). It seems clear in retrospect that Gaia’s response to this crisis was to encourage the evolution of a life-form that would mine this sequestered carbon and return it to the atmosphere (Pearre, 2002). That was, of course, us, filling the latest role of “heaters”. We were apparently equipped with brains wired not only for ingenuity in recovering fossil carbon from its deep deposits but for inventing methods for oxidizing it. We were also apparently programmed to hinder its reburial- for example, by our compulsion to colonize coastal areas, thus removing from the biosphere some of the most potent areas for carbon burial, e.g. salt marshes, seagrass beds and mangrove forests (Duarte et al., 2005). We can be pleased to think that, as Mr. John Ashcroft is said to have opined, our exploitation of fossil fuels is indeed part- or perhaps the whole- of God’s (or Gaia’s, or the Intelligent Designer’s) plan for us. In fact, this is probably the answer to perhaps our greatest philosophical question of all time, posed at the start of this essay: “Why are we here?”: Our purpose is to return the buried carbon to the atmosphere.

4. Gaia as Intelligent Designer:

Does an “Intelligent Designer” exist? It has been pointed out that the designer, if divine, cannot be “intelligent”, as intelligence necessarily implies the ability to learn (Webster, 2010). A supernatural or divine being is defined as omniscient, but if omniscient, has nothing to learn, and hence no possibility of demonstrating intelligence. Therefore, it is more appropriate to refer to an “Omniscient Designer”, or “O.D.” (e.g. Paley, 1802: quoted in Ayala, 2004).

Critics have argued against the concept of an Intelligent or Omniscient Designer on several grounds. Firstly, because most species which have existed have become extinct, which seems wasteful (Hull, 1992, and others). However, the number of “wasted” extinct species is merely a consequence of the trial-and-error process used to derive the species needed to keep the world in homeostasis: some wastage is inevitable, and many of the extinct species were, after all, progenitors of more modern ones. Perhaps more importantly, a number of critics (e.g. Darwin, 1859 and later writers) have remarked on the sub-optimal design of our eyes, our backs, and many other bodily systems: they argue that an Intelligent or Omniscient Designer (“I.D.” or “O.D.”) would have devised better solutions (see Avise, 2010). However, besides being anthropocentric, that perspective is very naïve. On the contrary: good, elegant and economical engineering involves making a machine which is sufficient to do the job for which it is meant- it is wasteful of time and effort to make a perfect machine if a sub-optimal, more quickly produced one will suffice. Our physical imperfections have not, after all, prevented us from doing our part in returning the buried carbon to the atmosphere, and so may, in fact, actually further argue for the sophistication of the Designer.

If such an O.D. exists, is he/she/it identifiable with Gaia? As both the Omniscient Designer and Gaia have been said to be responsible for our creation, this would seem only reasonable. Therefore, it will be convenient to combine the concepts as “Gaia-the-Omniscient Designer”, or “G.O.D.”, who has indeed assigned to us a special place in creation.

5. Our purpose: fulfilled.

That said, some of us will probably find it worrisome that, when the fossil fuels have all been extracted and burned, humanity’s purpose will have been fulfilled. At current rates this will be within a vanishingly short time (in geological terms), and G.O.D. will have no further need for us. Lovelock (2001) felt that we should trust the Gaian mechanism to keep our world habitable for us (but see Lovelock, 2006). However, once the carbon is successfully returned to the atmosphere, Earth’s temperature regime will have been restored to its Daisyworld range, and we, an extraordinarily rapidly developed species (a “quick fix”), will have done the job for which we were created (Pearre, 2002). If he/she/it can muse on such things, Gaia-the-Omniscient Designer will, perhaps gratefully and certainly with satisfaction, bid us farewell- we had faithfully and predictably fulfilled our intended part as “heaters” in our cycle of the Great Homeostasis Scheme. We should get a great deal of job satisfaction from this.

Gaia even seems to have arranged our psychological constitution so that not only would we carry on with our intended program until all the buried carbon was returned to the atmosphere, but that we would be self-extinguishing at the end of our useful life as a species. This can be considered analogous to design of an automobile or other appliance which breaks down as soon as its warranty runs out. We have been programmed for inventing societies which always drive us to consume whatever resources we depend on even though it means destroying our life-support systems (Diamond, 2004; Wright, 2005; see also Kolbert, 2005). As a backup system, G.O.D. also equipped us with brains apparently genetically wired (e.g. Hamer, 2004) for fanatical beliefs in supernatural entities. These differ between societies such that the “sacred truths” of one contradict those of another, and so inevitably lead to hatred and religion-sanctified slaughter.

In another interpretation of Robert Frost’s (1923) famous metaphorical poem “Fire and Ice”- (“Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice…”) either of these programs- “fire” (our entanglement in religious- perhaps bioagent or nuclear- wars), or “ice” (our condition when we have exhausted our resources) might well be sufficient to end at least our role in the world- as Gaia intended.

6. Conclusions:

Our purpose in being here is to return buried carbon to the atmosphere. This, while worth knowing, is not particularly good news for us.

7. References:

Avise, J.C. (2010). Footprints of nonsentient design inside the human genome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107 (Suppl. 2): 8969-8976.

Ayala, F.J. (2004). In William Paley’s shadow: Darwin’s explanation of design. Ludus Vitalis 12 (21): 53-66.

Dahl, T.W.; Hammerlund, E.U.; Anbar, A.D.; Bond, D.P.G.; Gill, B.C.; Gordon, G.W.; Knoll, A.H.; Nielson, A.T.; Schovsbo, N.H.; & Canfield, D.E. (2010). Devonian rise in atmospheric oxygen correlated to the radiations of terrestrial plants and large predatory fish. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107 (42): 17911- 17915,

Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. John Murray, London.

Diamond, J. (2004). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. Penguin Books.

Duarte, C.M.; Middleburg, J.J.; & Caraco, N. (2005). Major role of marine vegetation on the oceanic carbon cycle. Biogeosciences 2: 1-8.

Frost, R. (1923). “Fire and Ice” In: Mack, M.; Dean, L., & Frost, W. (eds.) Modern Poetry, Vol. 7: Prentice-Hall, 2nd Ed. 1961: 117.

Hamer, D. (2004). The God Gene: how faith is hard-wired into our genes. Doubleday: New York.

Hsü, K.J. (2001). Gaia and the Mediterranean Sea. In: Gili, J.M.; Pretus, J.L.; Packard, T.T. (eds.): A Marine Science Odyssey into the 21st Century. Scientia Marina 65 (Suppl. 2): 133-140.

Hull, D.L. (1992). God of the Galapagos. Nature 352: 485-486.

Kolbert, E. (2005). The Climate of Man II: The curse of Akkad. Annals of Science: New Yorker, May 2: 64-73.

Lovelock, J.E. (1979). Gaia: A new look at life on Earth. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K. 157 pp.

Lovelock, J.E. (1988). The Ages of Gaia: A biography of the living Earth. W.W. Norton & Co. Reprint Ed: Bantam Books, New York, 1990: 252 pp.

Lovelock, J.E. (2001). A way of life for agnostics? Skeptical Inquirer 25 (Sept./Oct.): 40-42.

Lovelock, J.E. (2006). The revenge of Gaia. Basic Books, New York, U.S.A. 176 pp.

Pearre, S., Jr. (2002). Comment on: Lovelock, J., 2001. A way of life for agnostics? Letter: Skeptical Inquirer: 26 (1): 65.

Peat, F.D. (2006). The saving of planet Gaia. New Scientist 2543: (March 16): 48-49.

Watson, A.J. & Lovelock, J.E. (1983). Biological homeostasis of the global environment: the parable of Daisyworld. Tellus 35B: 286-289.

Webster’s New World College Dictionary (2010). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; Cleveland, U.S.A.

Wright, R. (2005). A short history of progress. House of Anansi Press, Toronto, Canada: 211 pp.

Zachos, J.; Pagani, M.; Sloan, L.; Thomas, E.; & Billups, K. (2001). Trends, rhythms, and aberrations in global climate 65 Ma to present. Science 292 (5517): 686-693.

these three remainders
you, me and her are
the legacy of simple math
and boolean logic, not so much

we have lost our ability
to add and multiply
desire sliding slowly
off the tail end of X

crossed paths in a cradle of
American comforts
so many plus signs
weighed us down

there is no magic in subtraction
a solitary horizontal bar
where nothing stays,
at least for very long

this foil between us
I lunged from the left
you two repelled, siblings
parrying behind Prospero

division is our only function
anemic lines squeezed
between fecund dots
expecting no friction

only a clean cut
which never heals
despite our common
denominators

heir apparents with no answers
still wanting some of it all

Drawing ludicrous cartoons to memorize scores of gory scientific details has always been an incredible pastime for me. After all, why study off of stacks of flashcards with miniscule writing on them when you can study off pictures instead, as well as have a jolly time envisioning the crazy things you drew while writing the stressful final? And for those who firmly believe that they have no artistic ability whatsoever, rest assured that doodling, especially extremely random and ghastly-looking things, is a no sweat activity! That’s because you don’t have to be an artist to do this! You own your drawings, and they don’t have to make any sense to anyone but yourself!

That being said, the last of my ninth grade visual arts lessons have long given way to science courses like Chemistry and Biology and Physics. But by eleventh grade, reading off notes handwritten on loose-leaf became a stale way to study, so I turned instead to artistic impressions of worms with evil smiles and arched eyebrows to remember their role in the pathogenesis of humans. And now in university, there’s no end to the opportunities where I can unleash my crude artistic abilities! I say crude, because my ability to draw drooling macrophages (a kind of immune cell that gobbles up bad germs) and bacteriophages (a bacteria-infecting virus that looks like a lunar-landing space craft) is by no means sophisticated. It’s just a quick and dirty way to digest stacks of microbiology notes.

For instance, drawing cells with bullet holes all over their surfaces and twisted expressions of agony on their faces helped me remember that natural killer cells are a kind of white blood cell that secrete perforin (an enzyme that punches holes in foreign invading cells). The natural killer cell in this case would be represented by a smiley face with an vindictive, lopsided grin, ready to pull the trigger on a perforin gun.

This one below features a macrophage drooling in a state of stupor, accompanied by a group of confused T cells wondering how on earth they’re going to activate it. T cells are a kind of white blood cell that can, among many other responsibilities, spot and activate awakened macrophages that have just gobbled up a bad germ. Activating it makes it more aggressive at killing and digesting the germ. And in case you wonder why the T cells are all wearing graduation caps, they’ve just “graduated” from thymus “school”, an organ near the heart where the T cells learn to be assistants of immune combat.

Now here’s an angry macrophage.

Below is a picture of some cells, depicted as bruised and weather-beaten refugees fleeing a fiery and badly inflamed warzone. It illustrates the functions of hyaluronic acid, a goopy substance found between cells of the body. Hyaluronic acid promotes inflammation and plays a role in cell migration and wound healing. Notice the ninja who comes to the aid of these wretched cells.

Below is a cartoon that illustrates the term “Influenza Mixing Bowl”. Pigs are often host to a variety of a influenza strains arising from humans, chickens (alas, they cannot swim very well and are not shown), and aquatic birds (depicted by rubber ducks), all living in close proximity, and therefore can “mix” or recombine these strains to make new ones that infect humans each flu season.

Here is one last cartoon of mine. Ah, the bliss of science! They abound with opportunities to doodle happy microbes or livid inflamed cells. Again, for the science student seeking an invigorating studying experience, try this for yourself! Hide the embarrassing drawings from prying eyes, or show them off to an understanding friend!

The lytic cycle of the bacteriophage: a lunar analogy
1) The bacteriophage does a lunar landing…
2) …and injects its DNA…
3)… which codes for the protein-bits of the bacteriophage…
4) …that assemble into new bacteriophages…
5) …and the moon-cell explodes.
6) Bacteriophages now free to wreak havoc on the entire universe!!

We can safely proclaim that, in the twenty-first century kitchen, ”molecular gastronomy” is passé. Ever since Barbara Lynch unveiled a neutrino-infused chocolate ganache earlier this year, the trend in fine dining has been decidedly subatomic.

While we owe a great debt of gratitude to the flour-dusted shoulders upon which we have stood, it behooves us as men and women of food science to not rest on our laurels, however succulent they may be, especially when zested over a summer beet salad.

It is with that spirit in mind that we present a brief survey of the latest findings in the literature. Whether you’re aiming for that fourth Michelin star or just having a few friends over for a Nobel after-party, strict adherence to these methods will allow you to achieve those subtle quantum-level flavors which exist for only millionths of a second, but whose impressions last (much like radium poisoning) for a lifetime:

A particle’s position and velocity cannot be known simultaneously. Ergo, a watched pot will not boil. Wear a blindfold at all times while cooking. If no blindfold is at hand, arrange multiple pots on your stovetop in a sinusoidal curve, which will cause the wave function of the original pot to collapse. Salting the water is not necessary in this case.

A perfectly hardboiled egg should be immersed for exactly 7.237 minutes in water heated to a temperature of precisely 380.25 Kelvin (note for higher altitudes: convert to Centigrade and multiply by your exact distance, in light-years, from the center of the Hydra-Centaurus supercluster). Exceeding this temperature will cause the charm quarks inside the egg’s component atoms to misalign ever-so-slightly, resulting in that icky greenish ring around the yolk. Using cooler water risks transforming your egg into a strangelet, which, although rich in good cholesterol, is sure to end life as we know it.

For a fun fondue, bring the cheese to its triple point so your guests can enjoy all three phases of matter. Highly enriched breads, such as brioche, pair well with gaseous cheeses. Do not, under any circumstances, attempt this method with Roquefort.

When sautéing mushrooms, slice the caps into roundels of about 6.27×10^28 electrons thickness, give or take one significant figure. Olive oil should be spread over the slices in an S-matrix in order to maximize dual resonance. However, keep in mind that mathematicians are still trying to resolve superstring theory as it applies to extra-virgin olive oil.

To really bring out the flavor in tomato-based soups, reverse their polarity. Make sure the tureen has been autoclaved first.

If you are attempting a soufflé for the first time, you may be disheartened by your failure to locate the Higgs boson. We suggest upping the strength of the particle beam aimed at your ramekin to 8 teraelectronvolts. Or perhaps you are over-whipping the egg whites. Try, try, again! A great chef once said: ”do not be troubled by your difficulties in mise en place; I can assure you, mine are far greater.” Remember that culinary genius is 1% inspiration, 92% perspiration, and 7% margarine-of-error.

Only experienced chefs should try their hand at Schrödinger’s Salisbury Steak Surprise. It’s often difficult to gauge when to remove this dish from the oven, since it perpetually exists in a state that is both done and not done. Be sure your Geiger counter is set to ”purée”.

We’re expecting some exciting new developments in the field this month. The latest issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has a paper from the Sauces and Scanning Electron Microscopy department at Le Cordon Bleu that offers an intriguing solution to the 4th Demiglace Paradox.

There’s also a palpable air of anticipation surrounding this year’s Julia Child Memorial Lecture at the Max Planck Institute, where it is rumored that Stephen Hawking will present the recipe for his famous Marshmallow Squares. Gordon Ramsay will also be in attendance. He’ll be accepting a dishonorary PhD from the Institute in recognition of his work in the field of MMMM-theory, which has claimed the lives of 46 MIT graduate students to date.

Alright everyone, you know it’s high time for some major spin control. We may have managed to plug that baby up, but now we’ve got to fight that public relations fight. Ha ha – who would have thought that 4.9 million barrels of crude oil spilling out would piss so many people off? But seriously, the bad press is still everywhere, and we are, quite frankly, getting hammered out there. So what can we do about this? How exactly can we turn this PR nightmare into a PR fairytale?

Well, we in the spin department think that we’ve got an idea that you upper managerial types are gonna love. Let me explain. Basically, it’s like this: when we thought about fairytales, we thought about castles. And when we thought about castles – as vanguards of the consumer world, we didn’t think about real “historic” castles. No, we thought about pink stucco creations – you know, like the kind you might associate with movie studios and animated versions of Cinderella. And then, like magic (and we mean that literally), we said in unison, “THEME PARK ON AN OIL RIG!” And then we wondered, how much energy is 4.9 million barrels anyway?

Well, it turns out (this with some very speedy back of the envelope calculations) that the amount of energy we can get from 4.9 million barrels is just about the same as the energy needed to run our own magic kingdom for the better part of a year! This is the honest to freaking goodness truth! We can even show you the calculations if you want. Believe me when I say we did them properly: Yup, did that 30% efficiency pulled from the crude oil thingy, and other science stuff like that. That’s right. Magic castle on the water, oil from the water, energy from the oil, and then energy to run the park! It’s freaking awesome!

But we digress. Let’s not bore you with talk of numbers: let’s talk THEME PARK ON AN OIL RIG!

Now this is just preliminary brainstorming, but we’re thinking a great name would be something like SLICK CITY! Nice, right? Maybe even add to that a catchy tagline – something like THE FAMILY FRIENDLY OIL SPILL. We can even have animal characters wandering around the park, with maybe some kind of funky oil in their fur and feathers so it looks all fancy like. We can even envision a theatre area where an oiled down anthropomorphic animal mascot version of Grease is performed. Maybe it’s just us, but we think people will pay some serious coin to see that.

And the rides? Well, obviously we need a roller coaster. Perhaps one made to look like crude oil on tracks – black and all shiny like. People can even sit in barrels or something. Wait – maybe we should save the barrels for something like the log ride. Except that the barrels might even go faster since they’re flowing through a petroleum based fluid: dredging up some first year physics here and stuff about friction coefficients. Oh man, wouldn’t it be cool if we can somehow light it on fire!

What about a game like “Stop the Press?” You can have all these carts that go around a track, and the riders can have these light guns that shoot at things for points. For instance, they can shoot lasers at all the nasty news articles and opinion pieces. Or how about at the journalists themselves? Ha ha, just kidding – we’re just throwing ideas out there, but you get the picture right?

What we’re saying is that we think (in a manner of speaking) that we’ve hit oil here! A gusher of an opportunity, if you know what we mean. Seriously folks, it’s like the ideas are spilling out uncontrollably. It’s like – wait a minute – FRIED FREAKING FOOD!

Whoa. That one came out of nowhere. Somebody pinch us now. This is going to be so awesome…