Selfish genery

One thing that has struck me recently is the odd nature of some of the opposition to ‘The Selfish Gene’ approach to evolution; I would tend to call this the ‘gene centred view of evolution’ but it was of course expertly summed up in the famous book (of the same name) by Richard Dawkins in 1976. Dawkins actually used the book to synthesise much other research into one coherent whole; and, by use of clear and helpful analogies, explain how that natural selection operated at the level of the gene. At the time of writing there was still a lot of support for group selection (that natural selection may occur between groups of organisms) and Dawkins was trying to demonstrate that this was erroneous. The alternative to this is individual selection – that natural selection operates on differences between individuals. Dawkins sought to go further, and I feel by the very basic tenets of biology he must be right, that natural selection operates on differences between the genes within individuals.

 

Before going on with this blog I will make one point; I am an undergraduate and I’m by no means an expert – in fact I am trying to make it clear that I am not claiming to be an expert. I write this blog based on my understanding of biology and my current knowledge of the scientific literature. If anybody notices errors then please feel free to let me know. Also, to explain all the background in careful detail here would take many thousands of words. I would encourage anyone who hasn’t done so to read The Selfish Gene for themselves, and ideally other books about natural selection and evolution.

I was inspired to write a blog on this when I happened upon a section in an old Open University course book on Human Biology. I remember being a bit confused by this section at the time I first read it, but re-reading it now made me realise that confusion about Dawkins’ work even seems to have crept into university student literature. I don’t wish to criticise the Open University as I found them to be an excellent organisation, and this is only 2 pages in a 200 page book. Neither am I suggesting they are challenging evolutionary theory, this section appears in a chapter in which they talk about Darwinian evolution and natural selection. There are a few strange arguments laid forth in this short section, I will deal with one in this blog post and may follow up with some further posts about some of the other points they make.

An issue with this section becomes clear with the heading entitled ‘Nature and nurture revisited’. They talk about whether anything “... in addition to genetic inheritance should also be taken into account when considering evolutionary change” (italic emphasis is theirs and not mine). They then go on to say “There is at one extreme, a gene-centred theory of evolution popularized by the biologist Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene (1976), which views organisms as nothing more than vehicles for ensuring the survival of genes. In this highly reductionist account, all the characteristics of an organism (behavioural, psychological and physical) can be traced to the activity of its genes”.

I realise now, as I start to write more on this, it would actually take a very long time to pick this apart and explain where I am coming from. I will focus on making two points. Firstly, by including this in a section about nature and nurture, I think this shows the author’s desire to indicate that Dawkins’ work reflects a theory of genetic determinism – that it is an extreme view. They wish to suggest that Dawkins says that genes are the be all and end all - environment, social interactions and learning are all inconsequential because everything is explained by the genes. This is the old nature vs. nurture dichotomy, but it is a false dichotomy and the view is not held by Dawkins or any other major biologist whose works I have read. Yes, Dawkins argues that it is differences in the genes that lead to differences in the organism that are then subjected to natural selection – but he is not espousing genetic determinism nor is his an extreme view. He is not trying to say that everything that we see in an organism is a product of the genes alone – in fact if he were to say that (or if any biologist were to say it) he would be going against masses of evidence that organisms often show phenotypic plasticity – simply meaning that the same genes can lead to differences in an organism if they are subjected to different environments. Dawkins knows full well, and if you read The Selfish Gene (or most of his other major work) you will see, that genes and environment always interact during the development of any organism.

But, if Dawkins argues that it is the genes that are subject to natural selection, then isn’t that genetic determinism because the differences must lie in those genes? No, it is not. By definition the reason for the differences must lie in the genes, and I would love anybody to explain how we can get heritable change in any form outside the genes. It is the genetic code that is inherited vertically from one generation to the next, even a small change in a tiny part of the genetic code could make a net difference in some trait of that organism (although changes in non-coding DNA would not); if the altered trait gives an organism an advantage in its environment it may lead to evolutionary change within that species (over many generations). If an organism gains an advantage due to some change of a non-genetic kind (perhaps the organism happens to source a particularly fruitful food supply which he can monopolize) then he may survive better than other organisms and have more children. But, here is the key point, do his children necessarily inherit the food supply? They may do, they may not. The parent may have depleted it, some other organism may find it, the environment may change and the food supply may disappear. It is only genes that are fully heritable (Dawkins calls them replicators); offspring do not inherit the environment in the broader sense of the word – although, of course they are likely to live in the same environment as their parents.

Having said all that, any gene whatsoever needs a complex interaction with all kinds of environmental variables; such as nutrient supply, hormones during development, temperature, social interaction, the action of other genes and much more. An organism may inherit a gene that has the potential to produce a morphological (physical) difference, let’s say in a kangaroo’s leg musculature to improve jumping, but without the right nutritional input at the right developmental stages it may not develop any stronger legs than other kangaroos without the altered gene. In the gene centred view of evolution nobody is arguing that only genes are involved – but instead they argue that it is the genes that contain the heritable variation that produces differences in individuals on which natural selection can act.

And so to my final point (I promise). Later in the section there is reference to “ ...the holistic view of evolutionary change”, let’s lay aside this odd terminology as I’ve never heard the term before in terms of biology, and see what they are driving at. I quote “This approach to an understanding of evolution asserts, just as Darwin did, that whole organisms are subject to natural selection”. Hmmmm. Does Dawkins not agree with Darwin? I doubt you will find many more committed Darwinists working today in evolutionary biology than Richard Dawkins. More to the point, does the ‘Selfish gene’ theory suggest that whole organisms are not subject to natural selection? No. It states no such thing. The point being made is quite subtle, of course Dawkins realises that it is the actual organisms which live or die; the point is that it is differences at the level of their genes which provides those differences in organisms on which natural selection can act. I may be repeating myself or restating an earlier point, but I think it worth doing so because it seems that this point is often accidentally, or wilfully, misconstrued.

Well, I’ve gone on for long enough. I feel better for getting that off my chest – not that I’m kidding myself than anyone is likely to read all this! However, if anyone reads some, or all of it, then many thanks for reading! Comments, as always, are welcomed.

Dominic

The Piano Teacher - my review

I'm on some kind of a roll with reviews of films. I saw The PIano Teacher by Michael Haneke yesterday and felt compelled to get my thoughts down straight away. I'll try and write a different kind of blog soon, but for now here is my review of a very dark but compelling film. You can see my comments here on Imdb.com too: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0254686/usercomments-224

I'm not sure I should really attempt a review of this because I doubt very much that I can sum it up or even begin to describe the power of this film. One thing to say is that it is extremely challenging viewing and if you are unsure of watching this make sure you know what you are in for first. Not that anything could prepare you for this film, but be aware that it is a dark and often disturbing look into some of the most troublesome aspects of human behaviour.

I can't say that this is an enjoyable film - that surely isn't the right word. However, this is filmmaking at its very best, coupled with a central performance from Isabelle Huppert that genuinely deserves the high praise it has received. I was only introduced to Michael Haneke very recently, and this is only the 2nd of his films that I have seen, but he is clearly an incredibly gifted director and writer who makes films almost unlike any others I have seen.

Films of sustained intensity and anxiety are quite rare, and there are very few films I have seen that are able to achieve the intense and foreboding atmosphere that Haneke, and also Isabelle Huppert, craft here. What is unique is that Haneke doesn't rely on a chilling musical score to build tension, nor is the film cast in dark and brooding light that suggests to us what the underlying nature of the story is. Haneke builds the tension with supreme subtlety and ingenious craft. The only music that is used comes from the piano playing of the characters themselves; the beautiful and artistic music is juxtaposed with the dark and secretive thoughts of Erika.

We gradually delve into the troubled mind of the otherwise austere piano teacher, Erika, and get glimpses of a side of her which initially seems almost out of place. Her acts are played out to a backdrop of a sad and lonely existence, one in which she is still controlled by a domineering and rather embittered mother. The mother, played excellently by Annie Girardot, perhaps gives us a tiny insight into why Erika feels trapped and repressed.

Huppert is astounding and the subtle nuances of her performance are indicative of an actress at the very top of her game. Huppert conveys so much fear, sadness, lust, anger and even love through a veneer of temperance. She constantly reminds us that these feelings are largely repressed and yet we can see them bubbling under the surface. Huppert betrays these underlying dark emotions often with as little as a slight shift in her facial expression – make no mistake this is acting of the highest calibre; subtle, understated and yet utterly powerful and compelling.

The actions of Erika are often quite alarming and certainly not appealing, and yet it is the hallmark of excellence, in both Haneke's script and Huppert's performance, that we can still sympathise with this woman. Even, if it is only a fleeting glimpse of sympathy or understanding – it is still there. That is how I felt, and that is another reason why the film is so challenging. Should I feel sympathy? Should I feel anger? Should I feel disgust? Haneke doesn't insist that we feel one way or another, he lets the power of the story carry itself and the viewer is left to sift through this thickened sea of conflicting emotion.

As I said at the start, I don't think I can do this film justice on paper – it has to be seen; and if you do choose to see it you will get something much more – you will feel your way through it. As I watched this film I felt an array of different emotions; I was gripped, tense, anxious, saddened, disgusted and much more. By the end I had a barrage of unanswered questions and I wasn't even sure how to feel about what I'd seen. That is the beauty, and I do mean beauty, of this incredibly thought-provoking and dark film. If after reading this you think you can stomach the content then I would encourage you to watch it for a very unique film experience. It is a breathtaking film but one that might well leave you with an uncomfortable feeling deep in the recesses of your subconscious. 9/10.

The Fighter - my review

Well, University life has been very busy so I haven't posted much. I've just written a review of The Fighter which I posted to Imdb.com, I've been meaning to do it for months. Here it is in full, or you can see it on Imdb.com here: http://imdb.com/title/tt0964517/usercomments-280

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I had high hopes for The Fighter, not only due to the praise which was lavished on it, but also because I loved 'I heart Huckabees'. I know that was a film which polarised opinion, but I thought it was inventive, intelligent, funny and excellently written. I was therefore expecting The Fighter to provide something new. Perhaps expecting David O'Russell to take the boxing movie genre in a completely new direction was asking too much, but I did expect to find unique elements for a film of this kind.

What I saw was a film full of cliché and caricature. I didn't find it very compelling or exciting; instead I found it to be flat and frequently annoying. It was like O'Russell found a book of 'fighting movie clichés' and made sure he included them all. We get the traditional training montage played out to cheesy rock music - something that has been seen, and parodied, many times before. What about the other boxing cliché classic of several fights shown as a highlights package to chart the protagonist's rise up the ranks? Oh yes, O'Russell includes that as well. I actually couldn't believe my eyes that this was felt to be the best way to tell the story. Surely they could have come up with something more original!

I understand that it's the characters being portrayed that are annoying; however, some of them are like cartoon caricatures and infuriating to watch. The gaggle of aggressive sisters were the worst by far. They were not funny or interesting, they had no emotion, no depth and nothing for me to connect with. Amy Adams played Charlene very well, but again I found her to be an aggressive stereotype and I couldn't connect with her character. The scenes with the sisters, Alice and Charlene arguing were cringe-worthy. I can watch old re-runs of the Jerry Springer show if I'm into that kind of 'banter' but it brought nothing of worth to the film.

That brings me on to Melissa Leo as Alice Ward. She landed an Oscar and received much praise for her performance. I have to say that this was a solid, and certainly strong performance, but I don't think it comes close to being worthy of an Oscar. It was one dimensional and abrasive and never gave us a chance to see the woman behind the stern exterior. She stomps around moodily, cigarette in hand, dishing out barrages of f- bombs, and not much more. I couldn't find any depth, or motives, she seems like a cartoonish comedy character and not something to be taken seriously. Maybe we can blame the screenplay – but I think her performance really lacks something, which I look for in really great acting.

So then, what about Dicky and Micky surely they are the heart of the film and the ones who matter. I like Mark Wahlberg a lot and I don't think this his performance as Micky Ward is a bad one, but it rumbles along but never soars. I think it's more of a problem with the screenplay than the acting. I just didn't care about Micky enough to get into the film. After all, he is what this story is about and it is a failing of the film that you never get to see anything that lies behind the mask of bravado worn by this 'tough man'. What drives Micky on? What does he care about? We get glimpses perhaps, but never enough to flesh out the character so we can truly empathise with him. Having said that, the film hooked me in just enough during the last 20 minutes to root for Micky in his big fight, but prior to that I didn't become engaged with what was going on.

Christian Bale also took home an Oscar for his performance as Dicky, and whilst it was good I felt it was lacking heart. Yet again, this is partly to do with the screenplay. The drug addict and unreliable brother who comes good in the end is perhaps another cliché, but one that can be used effectively if it's done well. I though Bale was good, don't get me wrong, but I was left feeling that there was no emotional depth to the character that would give the audience something to care about. Having said that, there is a short scene at the end of the film where Bale showed true emotional depth and it was certainly pitch-perfect acting. But, 10 seconds of engaging and heartfelt acting doesn't warrant an Oscar. Maybe I'm being harsh on Bale but after what I had read about this film I was expecting a lot more. For example, I think he is much better in The Machinist (and I'm not referring to the weight loss method acting, I'm referring to the heart of the performance).

It may seem like I've totally slated the film but I'm not saying that it's awful. I just think it falls well short of the hype that surrounded it during awards season. I can't see how it deserved nominations for best film or best director. Overall it's OK, I think it's worth watching but it's not something I would choose to see again. It had a few decent moments, but overall there is no meaning. Essentially it contains a lot of angry people shouting at each other for long periods, interspersed with average boxing scenes. It's hard to care about the characters and I think it pushes away any real connection a viewer can have with the story. The last 20 minutes were a bit better but that wasn't enough to redeem it in my eyes. I think it could have been so much better, and in the end I was very disappointed. Obviously enough people loved the film, so I guess it's still worth giving it a go, but as far as I'm concerned it's average and not an award-winning film. 5/10

The wonder of biological development

First of all - Happy New year! I still haven't managed my goal of more frequent posts but I will keep trying. This post is about one of the (many) areas of biology I find fascinating.

I could list hundreds of reasons why I chose to study biology because it really is a rich and diverse field which is thoroughly fascinating in many ways. If I had to specify an overarching theme of biology to explain why it sustains my interest, then I would perhaps say the astounding complexity and powerful beauty that underlies biological processes and systems.

Whilst I was considering this recently one thing struck me very strongly, and that is how some very surprising and often highly complicated biological processes are taken for granted by all people; whilst some others which are based on the same underlying biological themes can be challenged and sometimes derided as fanciful.

To give a good example of the kind of thing I mean I will chose a process familiar to everyone – because it is a key moment in how we all came to be here in the first place. I am referring to fertilization; when a sperm entered an egg and produced a single-celled zygote (the initial product of fertilization prior to development into an embryo). Immediately after fertilization a human zygote is roughly around 150 micrometres in diameter (one micrometer is one millionth of a meter); please take a moment to consider the kind of size we are dealing with. However, the key point I want to press home is that the zygote forms the first cell of a new human body. The zygote has one cell only, but importantly that cell contains the full complement of DNA that will go on to produce the embryo and finally a new baby.

It is not my intention to provide a technical account of development despite the fact it is thoroughly absorbing and well worth reading into (although, my level of knowledge would only allow me to give detail to a certain point in any case). What I primarily want to get across is the almost unbelievably complex and ordered process which takes place to turn one tiny cell into a human body with at least 10 trillion cells (estimates vary of the total number of human cells). Please dwell on that difference – one single cell turning into trillions of cells. Whilst a human body is developing the various tissues, blood vessels, nerves, bones, organs and limbs develop in the correct order, in the right place and at the right time of development relative to each other.

Every cell in your body derived from that initial and tiny zygote. That single cell contained the instructions for making every part of a human body. Again, in an almost mind-boggling feat of complexity the relevant instructions were only turned in each appropriate part of the body. That’s why your eyes became eyes and not fingernails – even though the cells in your eyes contain the instructions for making fingernails as well as the instructions for making a heart, a strand of hair, a toe or any part of the body you could name.

I don’t know about you but I find this truly wonderful and amazing and it drives me to learn more about how this transformation takes place. I have been focusing on humans but let’s not forget that the equivalent happens for all other animals, plants or fungi - and for all multicellular life with specialisation of form (as an aside, a great deal can be said about the complexity of bacteria and other unicellular life – but that is off the point here).

Think for a moment how readily this feat of transformation is accepted by us all. We all accept that a human develops in this way. Again, we have no issue with the fact that a tiny seed can develop into a Giant Redwood tree (Sequoia) over 100 metres tall – again note the difference in size and form between the seed and the tree. We are equally familiar with the fact that a caterpillar will pupate and change form quite remarkably into a butterfly or moth that takes to the air; again consider the difference in form between the stages. To me, these facts are all astounding and yet I have barely scratched the surface of biological wonders.

Having made plain the quite astonishing developmental processes which we often take for granted, I am left to wonder why many people will argue that similar transformations of an evolutionary kind are not possible. I have heard many people tell me how absurd it is to suggest that life as we know it arose from simple unicellular organisms. I don’t wish to claim that ontogeny (development) is exactly the same process as evolution because that would be slightly misleading. What I do wish to suggest is that we should be no more incredulous about unicellular life evolving into complex multicellular life over 3,500 million years, than we are at a single fertilized egg becoming a fully formed human in around 9 months. They both involve a complex, step-wise and highly ordered biological process of change over periods of time. Furthermore, understanding development sheds light on evolution.

Recent progress in evolutionary-developmental biology (or Evo Devo) has cast light on how changes in development drive large evolutionary change. It can be shown how changes in the timing of gene activation, or even in the location of where genes are turned on, can produce quite striking differences of form. One interesting example I recently learnt of during lectures is how the webbing in ducks feet are formed. During development bird feet are webbed but the expression (turning on) of certain genes causes the webbing between the toes to die; the toes themselves do not die off because another gene called ‘Gremlin’ is expressed on the toes - this prevents the toe cells from being killed. In Ducks, Gremlin is also turned on in the webbing and therefore it does not die and they are born with aquatic webbed feet. If chicken embryos are manipulated so that Gremlin is expressed in the webbing (before it is killed off) then they too are born with webbed feet. This is quite a complex process and difficult to sum up easily in a few sentences, the take-home message is that by changing where a gene is expressed can change the form of feet quite dramatically – a simple genetic change produces an evolutionary step. We may think ducks and chickens have very different feet but the underlying genetic changes are very small.

If you are intrigued by this idea of ‘Evo Devo’ then I would recommend reading “Endless forms most beautiful” by Sean B Carroll for some greater clarity and insight than I have just provided.

I was inspired to write about this because both evolutionary change and developmental change stir up a sense of awe inside me, and that is a primary reason I have chosen to study biology. I hope that I have been able to give a glimpse into the remarkable complexity and beauty that biology offers and that you may decide to find out a bit more about it. I can only touch upon things in a blog but rest assured there are many more examples I could give – and more interestingly there are many more waiting to be discovered!

Many thanks for reading,

Dominic

Inception and the genesis of our thoughts

I haven’t kept up with my idea of more frequent blog posts but better late than never. This is a blog entry which is part film review and part an exploration of a concept within that film. The film, which I have seen twice in order to try and absorb it, is Inception by Christopher Nolan.

The first thing to state is that the film is excellent; it’s an entertaining, engaging and thought-provoking film which is brilliantly shot and contains solid acting. I expect that most people will have heard of the film by now and it is receiving rave reviews. However, one word of caution – if you have been looking at the ratings on imdb.com (the internet movie database) you will note that it is currently ranked the 4th best film of all time by the users of the site. It was ranked 3rd best for a long time but I note it has dropped down to 4th. Over time I expect it will fall more than this but I have to say that I think it’s a slightly inflated rating. This puts it up there with The Shawshank Redemption and Godfather Part 1 and 2 as well as making it a better rated film that Schindler’s List and many other notably great films. At this stage it’s hard for me to say whether it’s a classic and I haven’t rated it yet on imdb.com. It would at least go into a shortlist of my top 50 favourite films but where it would end up I can’t say yet. In short though, if you haven’t seen it – go and see it at the cinema, it’s a brilliant cinematic experience.

Returning to the content of the film itself it’s a highly complex plotline which takes a difficult but fascinating concept and manages to make the complex ever more complicated; the story plumbs deeper into the subconscious distorting the concept of what is reality and what is not. This is a high budget film and it makes a wonderful change to see a summer blockbuster that challenges the viewer to think deeply and doesn’t dumb down to appeal to the perceived tastes of the mass market. I believe that one explanation of its high rating on review sites is down to its broad appeal; this is a psychologically puzzling film but it is also a special effects laden action film. Christopher Nolan has managed to keep the high quality of his screen-writing whilst also producing a highly exciting and action-packed film.

The idea of exploring the subconscious, and also of playing with the human perception of reality, is not new at all and can be seen in different forms in Nolan’s Memento and The Prestige. These ideas are also explored in other films like The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (and most films written by Charlie Kaufman, but I pick this as having the strongest parallels), Mulholland Drive and The Matrix, and that’s to name only a few that come straight to mind. Inception does provide a nice twist on this idea and it takes it into a very fascinating direction. The storyline is so complicated and I am unsure if it all makes sense when examined carefully; but I trust Nolan enough to believe that he thought deeply about the screenplay. I won’t write too much in case somebody reads this who hasn’t seen it yet, but for those who have I would ask you to consider carefully some aspects of the totems and the concept of limbo in particular (which seems to have been a plot device which was necessary to add more drama to the idea of death in a complexly layered dream, but of all the ideas explored in the film this seems the most vaguely conceptualized).

Manipulating our concept of reality and also exploring the genesis of our beliefs are subjects I have spent much time considering and this for me is the best part of Inception (which derives its name from the inception of an idea in the mind). In the film Leonardo DiCaprio’s character (Cobb) compares an idea to a resilient parasite and that once it has taken hold in the mind it can be extremely powerful and have massive consequences (I am paraphrasing and not quoting the script). This notion is one that interests me and one that I think is very true. In the film Cobb’s team are tasked with planting an idea so deeply in somebody’s subconscious that they believe it to be their own and they therefore shape their future choices around it; this is described in the film as very hard to achieve because we can identify the root cause of the idea in our mind and recognise it was planted there by someone else. I am not sure this is entirely true.

Many writers have explored in detail the possibility that some major ideas we embrace in our lives, in many cases in the form of strong beliefs that even shape a person’s character, are adopted when we are young due to the influence of our elders (primarily but by no means exclusively our parents and close family). Richard Dawkins has written on this matter with specific reference to people embracing their parent's religion, which likely has some implausible facets to its teaching, without questioning it when they are young. Even as a person grows older such an idea can become so deeply imbedded it cannot easily be changed. Furthermore I think that when challenged people would claim that their choice of religion, for example, was entirely their own idea and a free choice. Could it be possible in cases like these than an 'idea' has been implanted so deeply in somebody's mind that they now recognise it entirely as their own? Practically I am sure that people can recognise the impact of their early upbringing and what they were taught, but I think we often don't recognise how much we are absorbing from others rather than deciding for ourselves. I do not suggest that we cannot overcome this or change our beliefs as we grow older; this undoubtedly happens but in many cases it does not.

It should not be assumed that I place religious beliefs in this category alone. All kinds of ideas could fit into this category, for example political persuasion, attitudes to different social groups, or even a favourite sports team. I may be stretching what should be considered as a person’s idea rather than as a cultural identity of some sort but hopefully this stimulates you to consider this matter to some degree. How many of our ideas, deeply held beliefs or other aspects of our identity can be considered as something that we alone crafted and adopted? There are massive grey areas in this line of thinking and my intention is not to provide answers but to stimulate thought and conversation on the matter.

As I have written this I realise how massive this subject is and how much more I could write about. I have no clear conclusions to draw and there are many authors who have expressed this sentiment with more clarity and eloquence than I have managed. Nonetheless I think it is a fascinating area which I will certainly give more thought.

Many thanks for reading,

Dominic

Thoughts on truth.

I haven’t kept up with my idea of writing smaller and more regular post on here at all. I like doing it but I’m so busy with study that I never make the time.

Anyway here goes one off the top of my head whilst I’m thinking about it. It was celebrated Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa’s 100th birthday last week (or would have been if he hadn’t died in 1998). There were therefore quite a few articles circulating around about him. I knew of him due to ‘The Seven Samurai’ (which to my shame as a film fan I still haven’t seen) but I hadn’t heard of any of his other films directly. When reading an article about his work I was struck by the synopsis of a film called Rashomon. I sought it out and watched it last week.

I wasn’t entirely sure what to make of it in its entirety although many elements of it were certainly outstanding. I liked the concept of the film very much and enjoyed the story. The main issue for me was probably trying to appreciate a Japanese film from the early 1950s as if it was just being shown for the first time – which of course is impossible. Many of the innovative ideas used by Kurosawa would not seem so to me because cinema has moved on since his time – and what’s more, many of my favourite directors have been influenced by Kurosawa so it is natural to be familiar with some of his techniques. Having said that, it was clear that the cinematography and editing were exemplary and they have stood the test of time.

What is best about the film is the idea behind the story. Put simply, four eyewitnesses describe the event of a rape and murder and all of them describe events quite differently. We don’t know who is telling the truth, nor do we know if any of them are deliberately misleading us or if they are recalling events to the best of their ability. In my mind the films asks us to question the nature of truth. What is truth? Is truth absolute or is it subjective?

Certainly when it comes to eyewitness accounts then we can explain anomalies by the imperfect nature of human memory and also by the propensity of those telling a story to be influenced by their past experience and unique understanding of the world. Perhaps we all see things very differently (although we can certainly tell if someone has been killed and by whom if we are watching at the time). However, when we are speaking, the audience that we have, the pressure we are under and the situation we are in will greatly affect what we actually say – whether this is done consciously or at some subconscious level. To get a really good idea of this I suggest you watch “Capturing The Friedmans”. It is a quite brilliant documentary, and although the subject matter may be tough going it is a wonderful film which makes you think about these issues in real detail (see more here - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0342172/).

So where am I going in all this? Well, eyewitness accounts are perhaps more likely to get distorted than other kinds of ‘truths’. So the question can be posed more widely – is there such a thing as ultimate truth? For many people the basic tenets of their religion (whichever it may be) are the absolute truth. But again here we get into subjective truth again; if I speak to a devout Muslim he or she will give me one version of ‘ultimate truth’, but a devout Christian will tell me that this is false and will provide another ‘ultimate truth’. Both cannot be true, and as far as I can tell there is no independent arbiter of the veracity of these beliefs. We can extend this argument to contain hundreds of contradictory belief systems all of which are 100% ‘known’ to be true by its firm followers.

I cannot hold to any religious belief as ultimate truth - but I can take those religious teachings which inspire me and use them, I hope, to lead a better life and to draw strength from. So do I believe there is ultimate truth? Well I do think there are things that are as representative of the truth as it is possible to know as human beings. I have spoken in other blog posts about how the scientific method can help us to determine some things as true, and I hold to that strongly. Although, I would certainly not go as far as saying that science is ultimate truth. Those things I do know as true can be verified against observable evidence (or testable hypotheses). In this way we can have truth without certainty, any scientific fact has to be disprovable and thu is only 99.99999…% true. I have used this quote from Ashley Montagu previously but it sums up what I’m trying to say here:

“The scientist believes in proof without certainty, the bigot in certainty without proof”.

I want to remain as rational and logical about certain truths as possible, but please note that this doesn’t equate to being unemotional or uncreative. I try not to believe what I read in the papers, what I hear in the office, what I see on TV about the new ‘miracle health cure’, what I’m told by politicians or what is preached about in certain literature. I remain open to other people’s point of view and do not hold anybody’s beliefs against them, and I’m very happy to hear why people may disagree with me, but I am careful to evaluate the information I receive before readily adopting it into my worldview. I am training to become a scientist, but I am far from one yet so my understanding still needs much developing. I am willing to learn and to keep investigating my perception of ‘truth’ and I am sure I will continue to enjoy the journey.

I have no idea if any of this makes sense as I wrote it in one go without a planned structure. Anyway, I hope that if anybody does read this then you enjoy it. As always, I’m open to comments.

Thanks for reading – Dominic.

Global warming

I have left it some time since my last blog entry so I should start by saying happy New Year to anyone who might read this blog. I think I’m my own worst enemy when it comes to making time for writing on the blog because I tend to want hours to produce a polished and coherent article. However, this is a blog and not a piece of academic work so I’ll try and take a more relaxed attitude to blogging in 2010.

One thing that has been on my mind in the last few weeks has been the issue of climate change and global warming. In the UK we have had an extremely cold spell of weather which has caused heavy snowfalls, icy roads and travel chaos up and down the country. It’s rare, especially for those of us living in the south of England, to see such consistently cold weather and persistent snow on the ground. I have heard (or read on Facebook) several people making comments along the lines of “So this is global warming is it? I can’t see how the scientists can be telling us that the climate is warming when it’s been freezing cold and snowy for weeks”.

Perhaps this is quite a natural thing to think but I wanted to address it here because I believe that global warming is a huge problem and one that must be dealt with. It’s worth mentioning in advance that I am no scientific expert in this field, although I have studied some areas of climate change, and seen a great deal of robust scientific data, so I do feel able to discuss the topic.

What we should understand about climate change is that scientists look at average surface temperatures taken from monitoring stations in multitudes of locations across the globe. Each area provides data on the local mean (or average) surface temperature and all of these averages are then taken and collated to produce figures for the global mean surface temperature (GMST). I am not going to give references to all of those figures and sets of data here only to say that the measurements are reliable and accurate. Looking at the data it is certain that over the last century the temperature at the Earth’s surface has been warming (if not before).

The key thing to note here is that climate change is evaluated by looking at average (mean) temperatures going back over centuries of data. Isolated periods of unusually cold weather do certainly occur but that is of no direct impact to the question of whether the climate is warming. Furthermore, instances of cold weather in one region of the world may occur whilst other areas in the world see unusually hot weather; whilst people in the UK were shivering in the icy weather the residents of Melbourne in Australia were sweltering in a heat wave. During a year the weather fluctuates and we will see cold weather, hot weather, rainy weather, windy weather but none of these isolated occurrences tell us about the overall picture. That is why we need to look at the wider picture and the average temperatures globally compared to the averages in past years.

It is also very true that over the Earth’s long history the climate has experienced fluctuating high and low average temperatures. What scientists studying climate change do is to work out if the recent rises in GMST are to be expected (looking at the background of continuous climate change) or if the period of current warming is atypical. To do this they evaluate ancient temperature records which can be done through various methods (such as proportions of fossil pollen grains). The consensus is that the rate of warming we see across the globe today is unusually higher than seen in the past.

To go further into this I could now digress in to carbon dioxide levels but I was originally attempting to keep this blog relatively short - something which seems to be extremely difficult for me to achieve. As a budding biologist one of my main concerns regarding this level of warming, which is almost certainly thanks to anthropogenic activity, is the devastating environmental effects it is having. The Earth’s climate has always varied considerably due to natural causes and equally the extinction of species has always been a commonplace occurrence over the vastness of the Earth’s history. But events in recent times are not natural and since we can now understand the potential consequences it seems bizarre that we would choose not to act.

Those people who claim global warming is a huge conspiracy would do well to seek out and evaluate the scientific data for themselves. The scientific facts on this matter have no political or economical agenda; the data speaks for no organisation or pressure group but stands alone as pure factual data that we ignore at our peril. It may not be to the detriment of the current adult population if the trend of warming isn’t tackled but our children will surely suffer. What is more, the ecological and environmental consequences will not be easy to recover from and a great many species will be lost from this Earth never to evolve again.

As always, many thanks for reading.

Dominic (who, whilst writing this, realised that I too am not doing enough to make a small difference to the problems of global warming).