Palin and Fruit Flies

Sarah Palin, the Republican nominee for Vice President in a recent speech attacked scientific research into fruit flies. She was discussing earmarks which are congressional mandates to spend money on specific projects. McCain tried to make a big deal of earmarks during the first Debate with Obama.

Palin gave the following example of an earmark that she objected to:

You’ve heard about some of these pet projects, they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good," Palin said. "Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.

The video below shows the relevant part of the speech.



My first reaction to this was that she was talking about research into Drosophila melanogaster. I remember studying Drosphlia in high school biology classes. My recollection was that Drosphlia were important important models in studying the basics of genetics. In particular I remembered that they had just four chromosomes that were very large which made the study of Drosophlia genetics easier that other animals. I expected that Palin was attacking basic "blue sky" research and (possibly) advocating targeted applied research, and so I was preparing to write on the importance of basic (non-targeted) research.

One of the areas of Drosophlia research that I found particularly interesting was the discovery of selector genes that control complex processes, for example in the development of legs and wings in Drosophlia. As a group these selector genes are called Hoc genes. Many other animals, including mammals, have Hox genes, but what was particularly surprising was the similarity between the Hox genes in very different animals. Hox genes in mice are so similar to those in Drosophlia that they still can produce legs when inserted into the insects! For more details on these issues see this site. This type of research is interesting and valuable in itself irrespective of any practical developments flowing from it. An interest in ideas for their own sake is an important part of being human. Basic research though can lead to applied research projects as I found when reading sites here and here .

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Palin's flip comment probably had nothing to do with Drosophlia, but to applied agricultural research on another type of fly.



The only earmark that involves fruit flies and France is research into the olive fruit fly (Bactrocera oleae). (Note is is in a different genus to Drosophlia melanogaster). This fruit fly arrived in California in 1998. It has become a serious pest and threat to the Californian olive industry. This then is very applied, agricultural research, of significant economic value to the US.

Palin's comment that the earmark money went to research in "Paris, France" is significant. She was probably trying to make the point that US money was being sent to France to solve a French problem. The reality is quite different. The money went to a US Department of Agriculture (USDA) research facility (actually at Montpellier) in France. It is important to study invasive animals and plants in their natural environment in order to determine appropriate methods of control. To this end USDA has research facilities in many countries including Australia, where I live. One method of control is to find natural enemies of B oleae and about 6 have been discovered. The next step is to make sure that predators of B oleae don't attack any other insects. For details see this site .

I originally set out to make the point that anyone whose science education was so poor that they did not recognise fruit flies as very important models for basic study, is unfit for public office. In reality Palin has attacked research that is very practical, and carried out in an appropriate location.

What is it with the right and their hatred of science. The only national newspaper in Australia (the Australian) has a similar fixation. Tim Lambert in his blog Deltoid is up to 22 in his series of posts called The Australian's War on Science. The Australian's fixation is with Climate Change Denialism, which is another potential post on the absurdities of Palinism. As an Alaskan, Palin realises that the Arctic is warming, but she denies that the cause is Anthropogenic.

A Week to Go

With one week to go Barack Obama has made his final pitch for the Presidency. It is powerful and stirring stuff contrasting his vision of unity to the Republican's divisiveness.





I first saw the video of Obama's speech in Clanton on the website of an American Conservative, Andrew Sullivan. The site is called The Daily Dish .
Sullivan is a conservative in the Burkean sense, or maybe in the sense of William F Buckley Jn. Sullivan supports the basic traditional conservative aims: economic freedom, smaller government and personal choice, as well as a respect for scholarship, ideas and sober, thoughtful debate.

The majority of Republicans are not of this traditional variety of conservative, they reflect the Bush White House style of "Conservatism": "... big-spending, privacy-busting, debt-ridden, crony-laden, fundamentalist, intolerant, incompetent and arrogant ..."

Sarah Palin is also of this branch of the Republican Party. Sullivan linked to an article by Christopher Hitchins, who has centre - right views (irrespective of his atheism). Hitchins discusses Palin's contempt for knowledge, learning and science. He stated that, this year the Republican Party:

has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. And those who prate of spiritual warfare and demons are not just "people of faith" but theocratic bullies. On Nov. 4, anyone who cares for the Constitution has a clear duty to repudiate this wickedness and stupidity.

Given that they have lost this election, some Republicans have started to consider who will be the Republican candidate for the 2012 election. Many have suggested Palin as the challenger to Obama. This prospect horrifies the moderate Republicans, like Sullivan, and it will be interesting to watch the battle in the Republican Party over the next few years.

Given all the above it is not surprising that Sullivan supports Obama for President. He has provided ten reasons why conservatives should vote for Barack:

10. A body blow to racial identity politics. An end to the era of Jesse Jackson in black America.

9. Less debt. Yes, Obama will raise taxes on those earning over a quarter of a million. And he will spend on healthcare, Iraq, Afghanistan and the environment. But so will McCain. He plans more spending on health, the environment and won't touch defense of entitlements. And his refusal to touch taxes means an extra $4 trillion in debt over the massive increase presided over by Bush. And the CBO estimates that McCain's plans will add more to the debt over four years than Obama's. Fiscal conservatives have a clear choice.

8. A return to realism and prudence in foreign policy. Obama has consistently cited the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush as his inspiration. McCain's knee-jerk reaction to the Georgian conflict, his commitment to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and his brinksmanship over Iran's nuclear ambitions make him a far riskier choice for conservatives. The choice between Obama and McCain is like the choice between George H.W. Bush's first term and George W.'s.

7. An ability to understand the difference between listening to generals and delegating foreign policy to them.

6. Temperament. Obama has the coolest, calmest demeanor of any president since Eisenhower. Conservatism values that kind of constancy, especially compared with the hot-headed, irrational impulsiveness of McCain.

5. Faith. Obama's fusion of Christianity and reason, his non-fundamentalist faith, is a critical bridge between the new atheism and the new Christianism.

4. A truce in the culture war. Obama takes us past the debilitating boomer warfare that has raged since the 1960s. Nothing has distorted our politics so gravely; nothing has made a rational politics more elusive.

3. Two words: President Palin.

2. Conservative reform. Until conservatism can get a distance from the big-spending, privacy-busting, debt-ridden, crony-laden, fundamentalist, intolerant, incompetent and arrogant faux conservatism of the Bush-Cheney years, it will never regain a coherent message to actually govern this country again. The survival of conservatism requires a temporary eclipse of today's Republicanism. Losing would be the best thing to happen to conservatism since 1964. Back then, conservatives lost in a landslide for the right reasons. Now, Republicans are losing in a landslide for the wrong reasons.

1. The War Against Islamist terror. The strategy deployed by Bush and Cheney has failed. It has failed to destroy al Qaeda, except in a country, Iraq, where their presence was minimal before the US invasion. It has failed to bring any of the terrorists to justice, instead creating the excrescence of Gitmo, torture, secret sites, and the collapse of America's reputation abroad. It has empowered Iran, allowed al Qaeda to regroup in Pakistan, made the next vast generation of Muslims loathe America, and imperiled our alliances. We need smarter leadership of the war: balancing force with diplomacy, hard power with better p.r., deploying strategy rather than mere tactics, and self-confidence rather than a bunker mentality.

Those conservatives who remain convinced, as I do, that Islamist terror remains the greatest threat to the West cannot risk a perpetuation of the failed Manichean worldview of the past eight years, and cannot risk the possibility of McCain making rash decisions in the middle of a potentially catastrophic global conflict. If you are serious about the war on terror and believe it is a war we have to win, the only serious candidate is Barack Obama.

Powell and Obama

Last Sunday Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama for US President.

He set our a series of reasons for favouring Obama, and I can't see how any honest person, who isn't ideologically motivated could disagree with the points Powell makes.

McCain:
* uncertain about how to react to economic crisis, without a complete grasp of economic problems
* Palin not ready to be President which is job of VP - raising doubts about McCain's judgement
* approach to campaign narrower and narrower
* emphasising issues that are not central to American problems - eg Bill Ayres

Obama:
* Steadiness, intellectual curiosity, depth of knowledge, intellectual vigour
* Biden a VP that could be President on day one, indicating Obama's good judgement
* broader and more inclusive approach crossing ethnic, racial and generational lines

This endorsement wasn't a great surprise as many press reports over the last few weeks have indicated that it was likely.

The interview can be viewed in the video below:


The most important (and surprising) part of the interview starts at the 4 minute 28 second mark, when Powell starts discussing the Republicans claims that Obama is a Muslim. Powell's response is powerful and telling:

The correct answer is that he is a Christian, he has always been a Christian, but the really right answer is, "What if he is?" Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no, that is not America. Is there something wrong with some seven year old Muslim American kid believing he could be President. Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop this suggestion, ... "he is a Muslim and might be associated with terrorists". This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

Powell then described the photo below from NewYorker online magazine.



It is a powerful image and in the interview Powell describes how he was moved by this photograph of the headstone of a Muslim American who was killed in Iraq.

Sadly, Obama has not been able to tell this truth, and it required a Republican to call the McCain / Republican campaign on their deceitful tactics.

Obama has very carefully avoided Islamic people, probably because of the dishonest use that the McCain campaign would make of such a move. I hope that Obama's election will be as transformational as Powell states, and that he will be able to start the healing process that is desperately required in the US - and around the world.

It is also a great pity that no Australian political leader has been able to tackle head on the dislike of Muslims in the way that Powell did last Sunday.

It is hardly surprising that right-wing commentators have suggested that the endorsement by Powell was because Obama is also African-American. The American right-wing seem to be quite shameless.

This is only my second post on the US election. My lack of posting on this event does not reflect any lack of interest in this great contest. I have been watching developments in the election for the last year. The choice the Americans make is not only important for them, but for us as well, which is amply demonstrated by the Bush presidency.

My previous post on the election (called Yes We Can ) was last February, after McCain had secured the Republican nomination but while Obama and Clinton were still slugging it out during the Democratic primaries. In that post I indicated my support for Obama and made some predictions:
* "Obama will make minced meat of that old goat come November"
* the "Republicans will unleash their attack dogs" but that the attacks on Obama would be unsuccessful.

It is hardly surprising that the second prediction came true, after all that is the approach that the modern Republicans always fall back on. One shocking example is the false rumor that the Bush team put around during the 2000 Primaries that McCain had fathered a black love child.

Back in February I could not have expected that my first prediction would come true in such a stunning way. Obama will win on the 4th of November and possibly by a huge margin. If current polls are any guide Obama could win with more that 100 Electoral College Votes (EVs) to spare - it could be as high as 375 EVs. As well the Democrats will have control of both Houses of Congress.

The two months between Election Day and Inauguration Day are always interesting, but this time it will be fascinating to watch developments as a discredited, incompetent and lame duck Republican administration faces off with a charismatic Democrat during a time of financial crisis.

Ninety

Recently we saw Joanna Murray-Smoth's play Ninety at the Fairfax. We have seen her wonderful Bombshells starring the incomperable Carolyn O'Connor, which we enjoyed wonderfully, so we had high expectations for this play.

When we entered the theatre, it was obvious that this was a presentation in the round, with a circular stage and seats behind the stage. We sat in the front row.

The publicity photo

I didn't notice, Isabel (Melinda Butel) enter the stage and start working at an easel - during the play we learned that she is a restored of paintings. William (Kim Gyngell) entered from the centre aisle and the play began. The stage started turning very slowly.

William and Isabel are a separated couple, and Isabel has asked William to give her ninety minutes to make her pitch that they still have a relationship that is worth saving. This is an interesting theatrical device, giving a finite time for the action to take place, but in the real world this seems a contrived and unlikely scenario. William has made it big in Hollywood as an actor and is engaged to a beautiful, younger woman, who he will soon marry.

The play becomes a vehicle to tell their story in flashback. These were handled very will, signaled by lighting changes, and by subtle changes in the actors demeanour.

Half way through the play William almost leaves but Isabel persuades him to stay the full length of time that he had promised. Soon after it is revealed that they had a child that had died. In the end it seemed to me that this was the main link between the couple. If this is true then there is not much in the marriage worth saving, but William becomes more emotionally involved in the process after the revelation and when Isabel announces that time is up, William looks up in surprise - maybe even shock.

Do they get back together - naturally that is left unresolved. The photo frames that I had barely noticed during the play, were now suddenly filled with memories. Does that signify success for Isabel or just the fact that they has discussed many aspects of their former life in the last ninety minutes?

The Birthday Boy

We saw this play as one of the options of Probus Rendezvous at the Court theatre in Christchurch.

It was very interesting to see a Kiwi play in New Zealand.






The author of this review summarises the play as follows.

Unclouded joy prevails at the first. It is David Williams' 40th and all is right in his world. To cap it off, he and his wife Kathy, an author on the rise, announce to their best friends Stuart Marshall and Elizabeth Marshall- Clarke, that the next generation is on its way. Ecstatic determination that the "baby will fit in" finds a knowing response from the audience. As so often happens, the grandmother steps in to keep the domestic scene intact, but bringing too another decided voice, another complication.

Little by little, tensions build up. From the perspective of the onlooker they are mostly deliciously funny. Basically well intentioned and rational human beings find themselves behaving and speaking in desperate ways. Some of the best moments of the play ignite when people are trying to say the right thing but inadvertently choose the worst. The audience is constantly amused and sometimes startled as a seemingly innocuous remark triggers a flare of resentment or anger.

Thus the years rattle by, pace flagging a little before the breather of the interval (too much talking), but picking up again in the second half as lives unravel and the implications of choice arrive before us.

The structure of the play is unusual as described by the Court Theatre website:

Rather than starting in the past and “catching up”, THE BIRTHDAY BOY begins in present-day Christchurch and moves into a future that includes video-phone walls and Afghanistan as a tourist destination. The design team relished the opportunity to incorporate new technology into the show, including a video projection system used for the first time at The Court Theatre.

With a futuristic set and clever structure, (Stephen)Ray (the director) believes THE BIRTHDAY BOY remains at heart a comedy about “families – how friends become your family, and how families can fall apart.” ... an entertaining look at how life never turns out according to plan ...

Although the play was generally well performed, there was an occasional stumble over the words. The set had an interesting, severe perspective, with back projection indicating the different locations.

This is the first play we have seen by Carl Nixon, who is a writer to watch.

All in all, a very pleasant way to spend an evening in beautiful Christchurch.