Blog News: I've been a bad blogger....

Gentle Readers:

You may have noticed that the rate of postings has declined precipitously of late. Believe me, it's not for lack of love, but for lack of time. I've recently taken on a substantial freelance project, which is cutting into my valuable blogging time.

But fear not! Once I discover the secret to omnipotence (which, according to my calculations, seems to have something to do with this odd concept called "work-life balance"...sounds French to me), I'll be back on the blogwagon with a vengeance. Until then, though, you'll have to make due with only the occasional post.

For the moment, I leave you with some words of wisdom from Dilbert.

TiVo in the brain?

It's a whole new way of looking at the "rat race." Rats, while resting after performing a task like running a maze, run the entire experience backwards in their brains in a kind of instant replay. The process, researchers at MIT hypothesize, may help solidify memory and promote learning.

Does the same happen in humans? Likely. (Anyone want to volunteer to run back and forth in a maze with food at either end after having their brains wired up?) The findings may relate to the association of action and reward, and even add weight to the idea that rest after performing a task can facilitate the process of learning from experience.

In an interesting side note, they study may also help explain why hyperactive children can sometimes have learning problems - they don't get enough down time to process what they've learned.

[Read more at New Scientist]

Happy Birthday, Charlie!

Sunday marked the 197th birthday of Charles Darwin, author of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (aka The Origin of Species) and (along with Alfred Wallace) one of the founding fathers of the theory of evolution. A day of celebration for scientists, yes, but for churches?

According to the New York Times, ministers around the country held services yesterday commemorating Darwin's birthday. Their respective churches were participating in Evolution Sunday, a nationwide event aimed at making the point that science does not undermine faith. That the fundamentalist voices supporting creationism and its kissing cousin, intelligent design, and who proclaim that Christians and others must choose between religion and science are misleading.

Good on 'em. I have long held that one can foster both spiritual faith and scientific understanding simultaneously, that each should hold sway in their own realm. A favorite example of mine in support of this idea comes from - of all places - the Bible. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and give unto God what is God's." (Mark 12:17) Can we replace "Caesar" with "Darwin?"

I see no reason why not. While some scientists find no room in their worldview for religion, others find their belief strengthened by their scientific inquiries, that what they see and learn enhances the world's mystery. In a remarkable irony, as his thoughts on natural selection crystallized, Darwin was drawn away from religious faith, while Wallace became ever more convinced in the existence of a higher intelligence. Maybe this, at some level, is where intelligent design comes from, an extreme extension of science informing faith. In my mind, the crucial question is whether one can find the balance between both types of knowledge, the secular and the spiritual.

[Learn more about Evolution Sunday on the website of the Clergy Letter Project, an academic and clerical response to efforts to discredit the teaching of evolution in public schools.]

Update 2/28/06: And good on William Broad at the New York Times for pointing out that those on both sides - secular and religious - who claim that their's is the "true faith" may be guilty of the highest forms of arrogance and hubris. [Note - let me know if the link doesn't work and I will reprint the article in a separate post.]

From Jaws to jaw lines: when evolution diverges

The shark - a favorite scourge of the beach and the movie theater - has a "sixth sense," an ability to detect weak electrical fields in its environment. This sense evolved to navigate (potentially be detecting slight variations in the earth's magnetic field) and to help track prey, allowing the shark to seek out the weak electrical signals produced by the nerves of fish. Researchers at the University of Florida believe that the cells that make up the electricity sensing organs - electroreceptors - in a shark's head develop using the same genes that oversee the development of facial features in humans.

Interesting, because developmental biologists believe that all primitive vertebrates had the ability to sense electricity. But while marine mammals and fish retained the ability, terrestrial animals have lost it over time.

Which makes sense - given that air is not a great conductor of electricity . As one of the researchers said, "When it happens, it's called a lightening bolt, and you don't need special receptors to sense it."

[More on Yahoo!]

The Biology of Partisanship

What with the Alito confirmation and the State of the Union Address, I thought it timely to point out a report released last week showing that both Democrats and Republicans are remarkably adept at ignoring facts that contradict their philosophies. The researchers, based at Emory University, monitored brain activity in members of both political parties while asking them to ponder information from the 2004 Presidential election that threatened their preferred candidate.

In short, brain circuits that control reasoning shut down, and circuits involved in emotional control and reward lit up. The pattern was consistent and, ironically, bipartisan - both Republicans and Democrats "consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate but detected contradictions in the opposing candidate."

So what in the brain, biologically speaking, drives partisan preference? How do we choose one side and stick to it? And I'm not just talking about politics - Red Sox vs. Yankees, Mac vs. Windows, Coke vs. Pepsi, anything that involves a strong, unshakeable preference I imagine would fall under the same category. What has more influence, nature or nurture (yes, I have to open that can of worms)? Are Democrats more left brain, Republicans more right brain? (And are anarchists schizophrenic?)

[See Slashdot and LiveScience for more.]

Blog news: Tweaking the name

A loyal reader (if I can actually have one at this point) has brought it to my attention that my Latin is a little off. The name of the blog, Scriptorum Scientifica, was meant to roughly translate to "Room of Writings Regarding Science" or, even more roughly, "Scientific Writing Room." As it stands, it translates to "Scientific [things] by Writers." Therefore, to remain honest and to keep from offending any classical scholars reading this, I've changed the name of the blog to Scriptorium Scientifica. To prevent a logistical nightmare, though, the Web and news feed addresses will remain the same.

My apologies.