If the Genome isn’t a God-like Ghost in the Machine,Then What is it?

Implicit God-like and ghost-in-the-machine metaphors underlie much current thinking about genomes. Although many criticisms of such views exist, none have succeeded in substituting a different, widely accepted view. Viewing the genome with its protein packaging as a brain gets rid of Gods and ghosts while plausibly integrating machine and information-based views. While the ‘wetware’ of brains and genomes are very different, many fundamental principles of how they function are similar. Eukaryotic cells are compound entities in which case the nuclear genome might best be thought of more as a government than simply as a brain.     

What’s in a loop?

DNAs and proteins are major classes of biomolecules that differ in many aspects. However, a considerable number of their members also share a common architectural feature that enables the assembly of multi-protein complexes and thereby permits the effective processing of signals: loop structures of substantial sizes. Here we briefly review a few representative examples and suggest a functional classification of different types of loop structures. In proteins, these loops occur in protein regions classified as intrinsically disordered. Studying such loops, their binders and their interactions with other loops should reveal much about cellular information computation and signaling network architectures. It is also expected to provide critical information for synthetic biologists and bioengineers.     

Would a medium-nicotine,low-tar cigarette be less hazardous to health?

Smoking behaviour and exposure to carbon monoxide, nicotine, and tar were studied in 19 middle-tar smokers. All smoked their own brands for three weeks and then switched to either a conventional low-nicotine, low-tar brand (control) or a medium-nicotine, low-tar cigarette for a further three weeks, the order then being reversed. The medium-nicotine, low-tar brand also had a low delivery of carbon monoxide. With the medium-nicotine, low-tar cigarette mouth-level delivery and intake of nicotine was similar to that with the smokers'' usual brands, and significantly greater than with the control low-tar cigarette. Intake of carbon monoxide from the medium-nicotine, low-tar cigarette was significantly less than with either own or control brands. With both low-tar brands mouth-level exposure to tar was reduced relative to smokers'' usual cigarettes. There was no evidence, however, that the reduction in tar exposure was greater with the medium-nicotine brand than with the control low-tar cigarette. Both low tar brands were "''oversmoked" relative to subjects'' usual middle-tar cigarettes. The medium-nicotine, low-tar cigarette was marginally more acceptable than the control brand, and the particular design used in the study resulted in a lower intake of carbon monoxide. In terms of reducing mouth-level exposure to tar, however, the medium-nicotine, low-tar cigarette had no advantage over the control low-tar product. In part this was because of the ratio of tar to nicotine delivery obtained by human smokers was not the same as that obtained by smoking machine.     

You talkin’ to me? Interactive playback is a powerful yet underused tool in animal communication research

Over the years, playback experiments have helped further our understanding of the wonderful world of animal communication. They have provided fundamental insights into animal behaviour and the function of communicative signals in numerous taxa. As important as these experiments are, however, there is strong evidence to suggest that the information conveyed in a signal may only have value when presented interactively. By their very nature, signalling exchanges are interactive and therefore, an interactive playback design is a powerful tool for examining the function of such exchanges. While researchers working on frog and songbird vocal interactions have long championed interactive playback, it remains surprisingly underused across other taxa. The interactive playback approach is not limited to studies of acoustic signalling, but can be applied to other sensory modalities, including visual, chemical and electrical communication. Here, I discuss interactive playback as a potent yet underused technique in the field of animal behaviour. I present a concise review of studies that have used interactive playback thus far, describe how it can be applied, and discuss its limitations and challenges. My hope is that this review will result in more scientists applying this innovative technique to their own study subjects, as a means of furthering our understanding of the function of signalling interactions in animal communication systems.     

‘You Say You’re Happy, but…’: Contested Quality of Life Judgments in Bioethics and Disability Studies

In this paper, I look at several examples that demonstrate what I see as a troubling tendency in much of mainstream bioethics to discount the views of disabled people. Following feminist political theorists who argue in favour of a stance of humility and sensitive inclusion for people who have been marginalized, I recommend that bioethicists adopt a presumption in favour of believing rather than discounting the claims of disabled people. By taking their claims at face value and engaging with disabled people in open dialogue over impairment and disadvantage, bioethicists may take to heart an important lesson about human fragility and resilience.     

Biodiversity is a chimera,and chimeras aren’t real

A recent article by Burch-Brown and Archer (Biol Philos, 2017) provides compelling arguments that biodiversity is either a natural kind or a pragmatically-valid scientific entity. I call into question three of these arguments. The first argument contends that biodiversity is a Homeostatic Property Cluster (HPC). I respond that there is no plausible homeostatic mechanism that would make biodiversity an HPC natural kind. The second argument proposes that biodiversity is a multiply-realizable functional kind. I respond that there is no shared function to ground this account. The final, and strongest, argument, is that biodiversity is an ineliminable explanans and explanandum in various subdisciplines of biology. I argue that once we look at the details of the relevant research, not only does biodiversity in a broad sense not function in explanatory roles, but we must eliminate biodiversity in favor of more specific concepts in order to make sense of the leading explanations in contemporary ecology and conservation science.