Freethinkers are a happy and generous people

Last night, I attended talks by Katha Pollitt and Julia Sweeney here at the Freedom from Religion Convention, and I learned that the godless are a happy, humorous, good-natured group — even if I weren’t philosophically inclined this way myself, I’d want to be a member of this community.

Then this morning, I checked in on my DonorsChoose challenge and discover that you’re all generous and charitable, and that you care about kids and education. I’m having a grinch moment right here…my heart is growing a few sizes larger, and I’m pretty sure it’s not a symptom of congestive heart failure. We met my initial challenge to raise $10,000, and then some.

So then, because this particular atheist is a cruel taskmaster, I simply bumped up the challenge amount to $20,000, and added a bunch of new grant requests, including some that asked for tools to do developmental biology in the lab, and some on fossils. So if you haven’t yet kicked in, you’ve still got an opportunity.

If that isn’t enough for you, or if you’d rather not have your donations going to a group labeled “freethinkers”, check out the Scienceblogs leaderboard — there are lots of unfunded proposals in those other guys spaces. I told them they should have tapped into the charitable goodness of the godless if they really wanted to draw in donations.

Oh, and many thanks to Phil for drawing in the astronomy crowd. Even people who stare into the cold, unfeeling void for fun are glad to help a good cause.

And thanks to all of you!

Lua’s thoughts on the Soul Made Flesh reading

While I was reading the assigned chapters of the book Soul Made Flesh (Zimmer, 2004) for class this past week, I came upon the story of the physician Thomas Sydenham. He was particularly good at making careful bedside observations while he was treating patients. In fact, he made the observation that diseases acted the same in everyone, and they were not unique to an individual. He made careful notes on disease symptoms, and even suggested that perhaps diseases should be treated as if they are individual species.

Sydenham’s work turned out to be controversial, because when prescribing a treatment, sometimes he would not use the traditional one, but instead would experiment with different treatments. Other physicians wanted to get his license revoked because his experimentation outraged them, even though Sydenham documented which treatments seemed to work better. We discussed this a bit in class, but I want to know why his new treatments were so controversial. If he devised his treatments in a manner that seemed logical, and he had experimental evidence to back it up, why was there such resistance? Is it perhaps that people could not accept that traditional treatments really did not work, and that they may now be responsible for the deaths of many people that could have been saved? Or is it simply a matter of people not being able to accept that things change?

Freethinkers for education

Now you must donate to my DonorsChoose challenge. For the honor of the godless.

One of those pathetic appeasers has made this an issue of the charity of atheists, has accused us of being “cheap bastards”, and claims that his weak-kneed, wobbly camp of wooly-headed apologists for delusion are more generous than we are, and more interested in promoting science education. We know he’s wrong, of course, but hey, when they let theologians use them for a doormat, it’s understandable that they might be burdened with lots of foolish ideas.

I gave them a 10 day head start. Now this means we have to fire up and give him a good kick in the ass as we pass him by.

Let’s donate now. Every penny sent to these teachers is now a symbol of the moral superiority of freethinkers.

By the way, you can also win prizes, like an iPod and Seed subscriptions for your donations. But we don’t care. We’re going to donate simply because we’re good people.

Help the kids with DonorsChoose

I must be the last one to hop on this bandwagon — only because I had to give everyone else a chance first, you know, I wouldn’t want to drain all the donors* — but now it’s about time I joined in. Scienceblogs is working to raise money for teachers, and we need you all to chip in and donate to DonorsChoose. Go ahead and donate to any of the projects on the Scienceblogs leaderboard, or you can donate to the
specific projects in the Pharyngula challenge. It’s all a good deal, because Seed will match funds, up to $15000.

So come on, dig into your pockets, and hand over a little cash to the deserving cause of science education.

*Actual reason: because I suck. But you all knew that.

To my students: a question for the neurobiology exam

My students are getting their first take-home exam in neurobiology tomorrow, and I’m using this entry to give them a convenient link to a paper they’re expected to analyze. The rest of you people can just ignore this.

1. We’ve discussed the ionic basis of the action potential and had an overview of channel properties. I’d like you to read the following paper from a recent issue of Nature, which neatly combines several subjects we’ve discussed:

Binshtok AM, Bean BP, Woolf CJ (2007) Inhibition of nociceptors by TRPV1-mediated entry of impermeant sodium channel blockers. Nature 449, 607-610.

There is also a News and Views summary in the same issue, A local route to pain relief, that will give you a digested version of the article.

It’s a clever experiment to generate a very specific analgesia. I want you to do two things in an essay:

  1. Half the essay should be a short description of the TRPV1 ion channel: specificity, permeability, gating, pharmacology, and structure. You’ll need to do some research beyond this one paper to answer the question adequately.

  2. The rest should be a critical analysis of the voltage-clamp method used in the Binshtok et al. paper. Don’t try to explain every result in the paper: focus on a key result and show me that you understand how to interpret the experiment and can explain the meaning of the data.


Oh, also! Let’s plan on meeting in the Turtle Mountain Cafe tomorrow morning instead of the classroom, again — I’ll need my coffee while we discuss chapters 10 and 11 of Soul Made Flesh.

Lazowska on the politicization of science and our uninspiring educational system

This is an excellent brief overview of the crucial problems in American education by Ed Lazowska, a computer scientist and engineer at the University of Washington who also served on an advisory committee under GW Bush. From his first hand view, he does not seem kindly disposed towards Republican policies in science.

[Read more…]

Help Shelley pay for her education—she’s a poor graduate student

Shelley Batts of Retrospectacle is up for scholarship for bloggers, and she needs your vote. You must vote for Shelley. She once gave me a special cookie in her bed. None of the others have ever given me or you a cookie of any kind, and we aren’t going to get anywhere near their beds, so the choice is clear.

Vote Shelley Batts. The one with the cookies. And the parrot. And the nice blog about neuroscience.

Student Report: Fatigue in running

Hello again! It’s been a little while since my last post and I need to post for this week or I’ll be docked points from Dr. Myers. I’ve been a little bit behind on things as I’ve been preparing for my upcoming senior seminar, but I did have time to check out at least one cool article I found on different energy systems used while running.

I had a race today and I noticed that every time I do an 8k (5 miles), about three miles in I hit a wall of fatigue. I get dizzy, it’s hard to focus on the guy in front of me, driving my knee up feels next to impossible, and the only thing I care about is eventually getting to the finish line. I know that much of this is probably because I’ve depleted a good portion of my glycogen stores and have worn out my muscles fairly well. But how does this tie in with my nervous system?

According to the article, a good portion of my glycogen stores are found in my liver. If too much of the glycogen is used hypoglycaemia can occur resulting in brain damage. Other bodily harm such as myocardial ischaemia, heat stroke, and severe ATP depletion from my muscles can occur too if my body is allowed to be pushed far enough.

Luckily for me, my muscles have a built in negative feedback to stop me from killing myself out there. My muscles somehow know to send a signal up to the brain for a release of serotonin and inhibition of dopamine secretion, which results in a further lack of ability to move, which results in a slower time, which puts Morris on the backburner in terms of our men’s cross country team. I’m still wondering though, how do my muscles know when to signal my brain to cut back on the neurotransmitters? And how much does mentality (a positive attitude towards the race, or the expectation of a good run) play a role in the regulation of my muscles (do I release more ACh and endorphins by simply having a good attitude, or is the causality the other way around?)? Either way, if you haven’t moved in a while, get out and enjoy this great October weather while it lasts. Or you can check out this pretty funny link of a band I found on youtube.

There is a difference

Josh talks about the difference between teaching about ID and teaching ID. There is a huge difference that the Discovery Institute does not seem to understand.

I am opposed to teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom. It’s an absurd idea that is unsupported by any evidence — it has not earned a place in the curriculum as a legitimate scientific hypothesis. The propaganda novels that the DI has tried to peddle in the past, Of Pandas and People and their new one, Explore Evolution, do not belong in the classroom. They are badly written, and incompetently push completely false ideas as valid. They should be rejected on their low merit.

On the other hand, I do teach about ID … in fact, this next week is the week I’ve set aside to specifically address creationism in my introductory biology course. I’ve prepared them with some of the history of evolution, and maybe a little bit more of the evidence for the idea than was easily digestible, and now I’m going to cover the fallacies of interpretation of the theory, which will include social Darwinism as well as creationism. Students are bombarded with these bad ideas, and I don’t think we can afford to pretend they don’t exist — we have to confront them head-on.

The strategy I’m using is to ask the students themselves what arguments they’ve heard against evolution. They wrote some lists down this week, and this weekend I’m putting together a lecture where I specifically take these misconceptions and answer them. It was rather fun reading their lists: the arguments are very familiar, everything from “if evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?” to “there are no transitional fossils” to “organisms are too complex to have evolved.”

I also encouraged the students to go to our local creationist tent revival meeting, which was very conveniently timed. We’ll also be discussing how to refute his arguments in class next week.

That’s teaching about creationism. I’m all for it. It’s how we prepare students to criticize lies after they leave the classroom.