Hey! Carl Zimmer is giving away free copies of his brand new book, Microcosm: E. coli and the New Science of Life(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll) — all you have to do is ask a good question in a comment to stand a chance of winning one.
I don’t need to enter; my copy is sitting on my desk right now, begging me to read it. I keep barking back at it that I want to, but I’ve got 3 exams to give in the next week, and there is no time right now. And then it reproaches me with those big gentle puppy-dog eyes and weeps sloppy proteoglycan tears and threatens to adhere permanently to my shower tiles. It’s persistent and ubiquitous, so everyone better read it soon.
You shouldn’t have ordered the F’ version.
Those pilli make ’em tenacious.
I am waiting for the bird flu chronicles.
I want, I want, but I just can’t think of a good question
I’ll give it a go anyway, though
Hey! I had an email from Carl (as did, I presume, several hundred thousand of his other close friends) that the book has launched. But from Amazon.uk, where I pre-ordered weeks ago, nary a peep. I hope this isn’t a rerun of the Neil Shubin Inner Fish fiasco, where people in America were happily curled up with the book whilst we in Europe had to wait a full two weeks to get our webbed little hands on it…
Here’s a good question: Is this contest open to non-US residents as well, or are you giving us furriners false hope?
Here’s another good question: Being Canadian and from not too far away, when I think of e. coli, I think of the Walkerton incident that killed nine people and sickened 2000 others. One of the persistent problems we seem to have here with e. coli is sewage runoff from factory farm cesspools getting into our vegetable crops and groundwater. What if any technologies exist for dealing with the sludge, and/or for eliminating pathogens from it?
(My idea is to turn the answer to this question into specific policy proposals and political activism, as I’m getting tired of having to be paranoid about eating raw vegetables, which make up a substantial portion of my diet.)
(.)(.)
Your desk is in your shower?
or, your desk has a shower-tile back-splash? ;-)
…my copy is sitting on my desk right now, begging me to read it. I keep barking back at it that I want to…
Uh oh. PZ is talking back to inanimate objects which speak to him. That can only lead to madness, dementia and Catholicism. :-)
Well, whatever works. Although if the book starts saying all women are whores and need to be punished, it might be time for an intervention. Or heavy lithium doses. Whichever.
OK – the book contest has lured me out of my long-held lurker stance. So here’s a question:
Is it really a good idea to combat every absurd little creationist fallacy with a good, reasoned scientific response?
Here’s what started me thinking about this. I recently heard someone on NPR Science Friday sum up the scientific method in a wonderfully succinct way. She said something like: ‘Science looks at the evidence, forms a hypothesis, and then gathers data to test that hypothesis. You don’t argue with science by saying you don’t like it. You examine the evidence, form an alternative hypothesis, and then test that hypothesis.’
ID proponents seem to enjoy the first two steps (Evidence: eyes look complex; Hypothesis: there must be a designer,) but they never seem to get around to the third step of actually testing their hypothesis. So why humor them with scientific responses? Doesn’t the appearance of a debate give their nonsense the veneer of scientific truthiness? Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply say, ‘sorry, until you can show that you’ve tested your hypothesis, what you’ve got isn’t science, it’s just an idea. Come back when you’ve done the work — then we can talk.’
Does that count as a question?
flaq @9,
ID proponents seem to enjoy the first two steps (Evidence: eyes look complex; Hypothesis: there must be a designer,) but they never seem to get around to the third step of actually testing their hypothesis
They do, though! They test the hypothesis by asking their Lord, who assures them it must be true. What better test could you ask for?
@#9 flaq —
Or even better: “Sorry, until you have a hypothesis that’s actually testable, what you’ve got isn’t science, it’s just a bad idea. Come back when you’ve started thinking scientifically — then we can talk.”
While this would probably be the best defense, seeing their pitiful “proofs” against evolution is just so painful that one feels compelled to refute them (at least, I do). And I have learned a lot about evolutionary theory (and abiogenesis, due to the frequent confusion…) that I probably wouldn’t have learned otherwise.
Because they’re trying to destroy science in any way they can, and we need to let them know we’re going to fight for the truth. We don’t do it because we’re going to change anyone’s mind, we’re doing it because we need to make them look stupid in the eyes of other people so they don’t gain any more followers.
My question: I would like to know if there is any evidence or hypotheses that suggest that viruses may have evolved from single cell creatures rather than the other way around.
I’m reading a evolutionary genetics book by Sean Carroll that you recommended last year. Since my background is liberal arts, I am having trouble understanding how exactly the sonic hedgehog gene affects polydactyly. Can you or anyone else help?
Maybe the answer to this question is in the book. In which case I doubly deserve a free copy.
Here’s my question:
If there’s lots of e coli in our guts already, not making us sick, then how does e coli-infected meat or water make us sick?
I understand that not all bacteria make us sick, and that harmless e coli in meat or water is more an indicator of general contamination, which includes other strains of bacteria that actually do make us sick. Fine. But where do the other dangerous strains of bacteria come from then, if not from fecal contamination? If dangerous bacteria are not in our gut, and the e coli in our gut are not dangerous, then why do we worry about fecal contamination at all?
Seems that meat & water contamination tests are misdirected, and that neighborhood coprophilia parties might actually be recommended now and then, particularly after a course of antibiotics.
I think you have to ask the questions over at Zimmer’s to win the book…
Dave, I think the “fecal contamination” we’re worried about is contamination by (in the case of beef) cattle feces. Very different strains of E. coli to which our immune systems are not normally exposed.
But even geographically different human strains can sicken you; I believe that exposure to other peoples’ bacteria is a major cause of traveler’s diarrhea (the Revenge).
Here’s a good question, though not having anything to do with E.Coli as far as I know. If belief in stuff like invisible sky spirits evolved as the human brain evolved in order to propose answers to questions he couldn’t understand then why is it that since that time it hasn’t been evolved away? Is the current upward trend of non-belief a consequence of evolution ridding the human genome of traits that aren’t useful to passing on genes? How will this process be affected by ‘quiverfull’ families who believe it is God’s will to out breed the rest of us?
#5 “One of the persistent problems we seem to have here with e. coli is sewage runoff from factory farm cesspools …(My idea is to turn the answer to this question into specific policy proposals and political activism, …”
There is an error in assuming that your garden’s e.coli is of course from the evil factroy farm miles up the road, and not the wildlife strolling (& other things) in your garden.
Perhaps this question is driven by a political activism goal.
“So why humor them with scientific responses?”
For a couple of reasons. One, because they’ll think we have something to hide if we don’t answer them. They have their little rhetorical barbs for everything. Engage them, and they say “OHHHH we must SCARE them if they get so ANGRY!”, don’t engage them, and they say, “OHHHH they got something to HIDE!” Personally, I’d rather have everything on the table, for the second reason…
Second, it’s good for any onlookers. With any luck, they’ll realize that we have much more to say than the IDiots; that we have facts, and all they have is rhetoric.
Third, sharing knowledge is pretty much always a good thing.
Another question, maybe not smart but certainly one I’d like to know: Does severe e. coli infection change the chemistry of the gut in such a fashion as to make subsequent infections more likely?
#5: Was in same neck of the woods during the Walkerton crisis – E. coli gone mad with the power of Shigella, coupled with criminally stupid behaviour on the part of the local water operators and managers who underchlorinated the water then covered up lab evidence of contamination for a ridiculous amount of time (days instead of the minutes it would take to look at a report, think “!!!” and sound the alarm). The possibility of contamination into the affected well from agricultural runoff was known before the problem. The stupidity of municipalities has to be experienced to be believed sometimes – as a kids on the South Shore near Montreal we used to only find out that water should be boiled because they would close the drinking fountains at the schools. Informing the general public was not done.
Gut-dwelling “normal” E. coli is your friend. Shigella-like strains of E.coli are not your friend and neither is Cryptosporidium (North Battleford, Saskatchewan in 2001). That evil nasty reactive unnatural oxidizing agent, chlorine, IS your friend when correctly diluted because good ol’ mother nature really is out to get you (though it isn’t personal.. or anthropomorphic).
(#16) I think you have to ask the questions over at Zimmer’s to win the book…
right. duh.
I just happened to have an E. coli question I’ve been carrying around for a while now — I posted it there and I’ve already gotten an answer. Those people seem to know an awful lot about colons over there.
ellazimm, @ 13,
Actually, that is the prevailing hypothesis at the moment, that viruses may have evolved from self replicating “cells.” We don’t have the data at the moment to determine if they are descended from bacteria like cells, or from just barely post-biotic replicators, but at some point in their history, they must have been able to replicate themselves. The question is a matter of when. They can’t replicate on their own at the moment, so the thought is that there had to have been something for them to hijack before they could have evolved into the lifestyle they now have.
Were they really, really early replicators whose lineage didn’t manage to become a “cell” or are they “degenerate”, like many other parasites?
Unfortunately, viruses as a whole have such a reduced genome that they very rarely share genes across groups, so there is no universal molecular target that we can go after. With the bacteria and archea, there is the 16s ribosomal gene (and others, but that one is traditional) that we can amplify by PCR and sequence in order to compare groups. All bacteria and all archea have that gene. All eukaryotes (anything with a nucleus, like us, mushrooms, plants, insects etc.) have an extremely similar gene that codes for pretty much the same protein (ours is 18s, it’s a size measure). The ribosome is the construct of proteins that translates the mRNA into protein.
So without some universal target, it’s really hard to construct a phylogeny from genetic evidence. There are people trying to construct a phylogeny of viruses, but it’s really hard when they don’t share much, if anything, of their genetic code.
OK, that was rambling and nerdy, so if I have not made myself clear, ask more questions.
Microbiologists are not well known as a whole for being jargon-free.
Warning: tangential fluff
PZ, its not going to permanently adhere to your shower tiles unless you buck the capitalistic system by refusing to buy and then clean your bathroom with _____ (insert your own preferred bathroom cleaner here)and one also makes sure that your shower tiles are a nice, cozy mammalian body temp & moisture & nutrient supply always. Yes, alright, you knew that & were jes’ playin’, but this is just in case any of your readers didn’t, & so wondered ….
And your topic comment inspires creative, pseudo-poetic fun: what is the flow from each of the following to the next?
– E. coli
– Ebola
– Ayatollah
– original Coca Cola
(please, anyone much more creative than me: improve & expand this: supe it up)
Hi–Carl Zimmer here. I just noticed that people have been asking some great questions here. But to get into the running for a signed copy of Microcosm, you’ll need to post them over at the contest post on my blog. Thanks.
Sven @16:
If it’s all immune system experience, this predicts that initial exposure will always make one sick. But what about the initial inoculation of the gut in newborns? Shouldn’t every baby have horrible GI problems? I think something else must be going on, or I’m missing something about immune system development.
I want an answer more than any signed copy of anything. I’d previously been put off asking it on your old blog, ie at the point I first got the defective copy of your book (and there was no point trying to get Amazon to exchange it if the whole batch was defective mutants).
While i realise Amazon isn’t the sole bookstore on the planet nor necessarily the most important one, it’s a bit disappointing to see but one review of “Microcosm” displayed on its site.
Where are your colleagues, students, friends on this most important and true gem of a book?
the bunyip