Teaching botany to physicists

Physicists are pretty bright guys, but they really don't have a clue about biology.  In the USA science curricula do a weird thing.  If you study biology, you generally have both a chemistry requirement, which is sometimes quite substantial, and a physics requirement.  Geology is left out of the equation although in many field geology is more relevant than physics.  Chemistry curricula have their students take physics, but never biology, and this is rather strange considering the broad interface that exists between the two fields.  Physics majors usually take math. This is why biologists in general know more about the physical sciences than they do about biology. In an effort to improve collegiality, biologists are being invited to give an informal lunchtime seminars.  It was pretty strange because they asked a ton of questions, mostly that had nothing to do with my research, they just wanted to hear a biological perspective.  "Are botanists alarmed/worried about global warming?"  Yes.  "What do you think about the denialists?"  It worked well for big tobacco, so the same people are using the same strategy.  It's easier to cast doubt on the science than it is to argue policy.  "What about evolution?"  What about evolution?  It happened, it's happening, we do our best to understand how.  "How do you know if plants are related?"   Shared characters, some external, some internal, some purely molecular. "If a plant grew on the west coast, but could grow on the east coast, how long would it take for it to get there?"  A flight from Portland to New York takes about 4 hours.  "If ginkgo was nearly extinct, how come you now see them all over the place?"  Seeds from a couple of small surviving populations were collected and the tree became a cultivated species and we've, humans, have moved it everywhere.  "So if it can live almost anywhere, why was it nearly extinct, and how come it was once widespread as the fossils show?"  Good question, we don't know, but it lives almost anywhere with our human assistance.  It hasn't escaped into the wild anywhere. While ginkgos were widespread in the fossil record, it wasn't this species, but a whole lineage of ginkgo related plants.   "Why doesn't ginkgo have any diseases?"  Hmm, so physicists have an inordinate interest in ginkgos, why?  Well, when you almost become extinct, the organisms that depend upon you have a very tough if not impossible time surviving.  The population of ginkgos gets to small to support other populations.  "Why do you go to the tropics?"  Tropical food is great, but generally biologists love the tropics because of the diversity, which means lots of interactions, complexity.  In the specific my research is centered around tropical trees in the magnoliid lineage. 
It was an interesting exchange, but many of the questions showed their lack of biological understanding.  So hopefully this was helpful. 

Globalization & international diversity on campus

It's always nice to get new dean-lets and new provostettes; they are like a breath of fresh air. Our new assistant provost is interested in globalization, and she looks nice dressed in our school's colors. “As the world becomes smaller through globalization, we want to be prepared, and we need to continue to internationalize the campus.”
Dear AP, Although personally unaware the globe was shrinking, the Phactor can only say, "It's about time the rest of the campus caught up to biology!" Although you may be unaware of this, international boundaries are human constructs that have little meaning to biological organisms or biologists except as they serve to restrict our activities. Biology is a global field, so when next a legislator wishes to know what benefit is it to the people of Lincolnland that some of us study rain forest, at what they imagine to be state expense (doesn't the Phactor wish they were picking up the tab!) you will be there to say biology was the first field to be truly global and what happens in the tropics actually can have quite an impact here. Rather than taking students on European tours, ours actually go on field trips where they go, and stay, and study rainforest biology learning about dozens and dozens of species. Please understand, the Phactor is not a tour guide. You go on to say the campus needs more international diversity. Great! Biology could not agree more and we already study more species than you can imagine. Why there are probably more than 500 exotic species of plants in our glasshouse alone, and they could use more space. All by his little old self the Phactor has studied and published on more species than the whole rest of the non-biological campus, who more or less total 1, humans. Perhaps yours truly could be considered for the next diversity award for which a species list will be provided demonstrating his committment to diversity. While humans and their institutions have dithered, embracing or fearing, globalization, biologists have been whole heartedly global for at least a century. So should you need any assistance, any advice, any suggestions from people who are leading the way, feel free to call. Oh, and given that biology is achieving our stated goals so well, might you not put in a good word with your boss that letting biology dwindle through loss of positions is counterproductive to globalization and diversity? Good luck with the new position. It's sure to broaden your horizons. All the best, TPP.

YEC Chemist tells it like it isn't.

Most physical scientists really don't know hardly anything about biology. Chemists take physics and math, physicists take chemistry and math, but most of them, with the exception of biochemists, take no biology at all, and if they do take biology, it's always at the cellular-molecular level and from a reductionist perspective, so no surprise that few chemists know much about the synthetic parts of biology. Here's a couple of excerpts from an interview with a YEC (young Earth creationist) who's a chemist.
What about the contrary evidence from scientific dating methods?
"There are always assumptions behind dating methods. They're not infallible. They can be made to point to a young Earth, as well as an old Earth.
The evidence is not what people think. For example, people think that carbon 14 dating proves millions of years, but carbon 14 dating itself argues against millions of years."
Wow! Now remember, he's a chemist. First he makes "assumptions" sound like 18 impossible things you have to believe before breakfast, but the assumptions of radioactive dating methods can be and have been tested, i.e., rates of decay and their constancy under different environmental conditions. For a chemist to make that statement about carbon 14 dating they either have to be a really pathetic chemist or a bloody liar. Carbon 14 can only date relatively young things because of its rapid decay rate, so beyond 50,000 years carbon 14 dating just doesn't work, and no credible scientist would claim it did. You want to age charcoal from an archaeological site in North America? Fine. Age of the Earth? Millions of years? Ridiculous!
What do you believe are the chief flaws in the theory?
"First, the origin of first life, chemical evolution, makes no sense at all."
This reminds the Phactor of engaging a similar YEC chemist in a discussion/debate about 20 years ago, and he said almost the same thing, and to demonstrate his case, and what is meant by that sentence, he dumps a hand full of paper clips into a can, shakes it (to add energy), and then dumps out the contents, still just a bunch of paper clips, and declares, "No amount of time or energy can add order or information to these paper clips and it's just like that with chemistry. Elements don't combine at random to make something organized."
In response, the Phactor borrowed his demonstration, and asked him, "Are all atoms, all molecules the same shape and size?" "OK rhetorical question because everyone knows that they are different." "So let's say the basic paper clip is carbon." "Well, we know that life is also composed of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorous, different elements with different properties (an aside - It's on your periodic table.) but our chemist only started out with one element which isn't realistic chemistry at all." And after bending paper clips into different shapes, some at right angles, some straightened into an S, and so on to represent different elements, dumped them back into the can, gave it a few shakes, and out pours a tangle of paper clips. "Now there's some organization." "Nothing awesome but maybe useful in some way, to hang something or to wear as a bracelet." "Now imagine you have thousands of such entities, each a bit different, but now the most useful organizations will produce the most copies of themselves." "That's natural selection, Darwin's contribution to biology, and it's through generations of such reproductin, variation, and selection that more useful organizations appear." "Now the only question to ask our chemist is simple." "Is he really such a poor chemist that he doesn't understand this, or is he deliberately trying to deceive you." He left his demonstration and didn't stay around to answer questions at the end. Even the brief responses in this recent interview demonstrate that nothing at all has changed in the unscientific world of YEC chemists.
HT to Dispatches from the Creation wars.

The biology of Marriage

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council claims scientific validation for one-man-one-woman marriage. "Marriage is a natural institution—rooted in the order of nature itself.
The reason marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman is because it takes precisely one man and one woman to create a new human life. Marriage is treated as a public institution because it is in the public interest (not just in the private interest of particular couples) for the human race to reproduce and continue into future generations."
Sure, that's why different human cultures have viewed marriage in so many different ways. Clearly this fellow knows very little about biology. Mating just isn't so simple out there, why plants have something like 16 different sex expressions of which just one is "male and female" plants. Harems the norm among many animals, so a sultan's harem can claim the same; it's a natural institution. Pair bonding is in no way the norm, and promiscuity is everywhere! Does Peter wish us to castigate celibates or childless couples because they choose not to reproduce? And when a burgeoning human population can be found contributing to so many of our problems, indeed, is it in the best interests of future generations for the human race to reproduce quite so much? Of course, we all know that none of this actually matters; science doesn't support his position. It's all about religion and religious bigotry aimed at homosexual marriage, but rather than say "my religion makes me a bigot" they try to suggest science supports their position. In the small minds of such people as Peter, the only religious freedom is their religious freedom, and everyone else had better conform. Think carefully about political candidates who proclaim a religious motivation for seeking public office, especially those who say god told them to do it. Fortunately just enough legislators in New York State saw the issue clearly enough, without a religious bias, that our USA democracy took a small step forward. The rest of them would happily endorse their version of the Taliban.

Bio-geek party food

Bio-geek party food is celebrated over at the Science Punk, and it's pretty funny stuff. Here's a nice bacto-jello plate! This is what happens when students have too much time on their hands. These examples are definitely on the animal-cellular-microbiological side of biology, so the Phactor wonders, what Earthly delights would be featured at a botano-geek party? And please, no smoking allowed, so take that bowl of "oregano" and those JOB rolling papers outside, preferably into the neighbor's yard.

Beer - The Natural Selection

Nothing quite like a nice cold beer, and one nice thing about the microbrewery revolution (prior to this the USA was down to just 37 breweries), is that naming and labelling all these different beers has generated a great deal of creativity, e.g., Coal Porter (Atlantic Brewing Co.), Polygamy Porter (Wasatch Brewery), Druid Fluid (Middle Ages Brewery), and so on, but frankly the Phactor is not an expert having sampled no more than a couple of hundred microbrews (over the years - with the data to prove it). But still you know you've made it scientifically when someone brews one especially for you. And what better to celebrate Darwin Day and guest lecturer Richard Dawkins than Evolution Ale from the Darwin Brewery of course (Is it located in Downs? No, in Sunderland near Mowbray Gardens. Planners of botanical geek tours take note.). The recipe comes from a long line of beer recipes, with modification. HT to Pharyngula.

Why don't students want to study plants?

Others have wondered the same thing? Why is it that plants capable of fascinating the Phactor for so many years are of so little interest to students? There is no one answer, but several factors do come into play, but before outlining these for you, some smallish percent of our biology students do like studying plants, about 10% on average.
Firstly, and most importantly, it takes a certain mental and emotional maturity and sophistication to apprectiate something a subtle as plants. This certainly explains the attitudes of many of my zoological colleagues. Flower children versus colleagues red in tooth and claw. They're just like most of our students, but grown up. Secondly, you have to know something about plants to appreciate them, and today's biology, especially in the USA, has a heavy human biomedical emphasis that even ignores non-vertebrate animals. A student complained about our animal behavior course as being about "insects" rather than animals. Wow! Unfortunately biology students who think biology is about baby zoo animals is all too are all too prevalent, and they become high school teachers. So thirdly, high school teachers educated in this system perpetuate the cycle by treating plants as uninteresting items forced into the curriculum. When the Phactor complained once to a chair that botanists weren't being considered for many jobs, he said, "You won't be happy until half the department are botanists (at the time it was 8 out of 34), but what will they all teach?" Genetics, cell biology, ecology, evolution, physiology, etc. was my answer, but of course, "real" biology is animal biology, so this could not be tolerated. He was dick about lots of other things too, so no big surprise in his attitude. To a great extent generally held preconceived notions about plants (and fungi) color people's attitudes, and even many gardeners revolt, or get revolting, when you try to learn them something about plants, sort of a don't muddle my poor head with knowledge, and never ever use a scientific name (which is why the Phactor blogs every now and them about knowing your genera; oh, it's been that long?). Fortunately the master garden programs are reversing this for many. Even worse, higher education, which should be a bastion of biological diversity, is run by pin-headed "bean" counters so if your area of expertise is on the short end of the stick, well, too bad. No one needs all of biology, just enough to get people into medical school, and so it goes with no real regard for the discipline. It''s like a conspiracy.

Naked, miserable, and hungry

A student has asked the Phytophactor's academic alter ego, “Why should I study botany?” To answer a question with a question, “What is it that makes you think plants are uninteresting and unimportant?” Let us take the most obvious point first. Without plants, specifically flowering plants, you would be naked, miserable, and hungry. The vast majority of our material needs are supplied by plants (pause for a sip of coffee), so isn’t it a good idea that people in general, and biology students in particular, should know something about plants?
Plants are not just a static background, a green scenery upon which animal players perform. Plants do all the things animals do except they do not bite or defecate (Some plants can sting.). They sense without sensory organs, they move without muscles, they react without nerves, and with a few rare exceptions, not a single animal anywhere can live without plants providing either directly or indirectly some of the solar energy they have captured and locked into chemical bonds to provide for their own growth and reproduction. Look at that sugar bowl on the table; those crystals are a molecular form of sunlight made by sugar cane (or a beet); no wonder a little candy can light up your day. Fortunately plants err on the conservative side, capturing more light energy than they actually need, so the rest of the biosphere can survive on their excess. Knowing how they do all these things is a very worthwhile endeavor, and something that will change your perspective; it will help cure your plant blindness.
Unfortunately as animals many of us have a strong bias against plants, or a strong preference for things more like ourselves. Actually our society is so removed from its "roots" that knowledge and interest in plants has diminished in recent decades, and some glimmers from interest in sustainability and sources of food give some hope. Biology in the USA reflects this bias and the human-biomedicine tail wags the biological dog (Browse through "science" blogs and look for a botanical one; good luck.). A very few people overcome this bias transforming themselves into botanists, a higher calling, and those few thousand of us spend our lives and careers in the worthwhile pursuit of these fascinating organisms. Curiously, more than any other group of plants, flowering plants have employed animals to do their bidding, bribing, and sometimes fooling animals into dispersing their spores. But they can’t get humans to get more interested in botany, and strangely enough this includes many gardeners who want to grow plants and look at plants, but not learn too much about them. And for this reason the Phytophactor dons his cape and dispenses botany in carefully controlled doses in the guise of gardening. But surely you knew this.
So heed this call to action. Go to your local institution of higher learning and demand more classes, more opportunities, and more facilities to study plants. Adopt a botanist. Why just $10,000 a year would keep my local field research clicking along, and most of the money would be used to hire deserving students who have an interest in plants.

Beer and Biology Travel Quiz

When traveling abroad the Phytophactor has an odd penchant for photographing food and beverages. Consider this image of liquid loveliness and then tell me what famous biologist was next on my travel itinerary?

Green side up

Language is a funny thing, especially English as it is a linguistic conglomerate which makes for lots of potential fun. And for botanists and horticulturalists, nothing is more fun that when someone tries to make sense out of soil versus dirt.

Here I will pass along neither dictionary nor professorial opinion, but the New England yankee wisdom dispensed by my Father, the gardener. If anyone referred to the material in his garden as dirt, he'd reply, "It's soil." "Dirt is something you find under your finger nails and in certain kinds of books and movies." No one ever has been accused of using soily language, so this distinction always made a certain sense to me.

Of course as a biologist I know that soil is a complex substance, part inorganic and part organic. A cubic centimeter of soil, a volume about the size of a sugar cube for those of you somewhat metrically challenged, could harbor some 8-20 million organisms. Even the smell of soil, that earthy odor, comes from the metabolic activities of certain bacteria.

So something might start out as dirt, but if composted correctly, it can become soil. And in this I note that for years I have used two layers of newspaper covered with straw to mulch my kitchen garden. Although the data is not publishable, I'm quite certain that the opinion pages of our local newspaper compost the most quickly and thoroughly.

Dealing with ecological rejection

I firmly believe in sabbatical leaves, and it is my great good fortune to have been allowed to take four of them. The academic world of science is difficult and it takes a concerted effort to try or explore new things, to learn new areas of science, and while taking a break from the week to week routine. As this is being written my fourth and last sabbatical leave is winding to a close. I'm taking a week to visit friends, a week to attend national scientific meetings, and that leaves two weeks to prepare for classes. Already I have people clamoring for a laboratory guide.

As part of this leave's exploration into new topics, I collaborated with an old friend and colleague. I dragged him to the rain forest to study insects that consume flowers, but aren't involved in pollination (my usual tropical topic). These insects had never been studied before, and in fact no one even knew these flowers were their brood substrate, or that they had two broods, a smaller one that produced bigger adults, and a larger one that produced smaller adults, or that they had a female biased population, and a number of other things. And we had fun doing it.

Oh, but science isn't science until its published, and our manuscript was just rejected. And the reason was it was too much natural history and not enough ecology. This means we didn't conduct an experiment aimed at determining some ecological principle, but just figured out a previously unknown biology. In the eyes of ecological snobs, ecological studies trump natural history. But ecological study is impossible until you know enough about the system to manipulate it.

Ecology is coming of age. It's getting snobby. Long treated as an inferior, less than demanding, descriptive field of science, barely divorced from Victorian natural history, ecology is now asserting itself by dumping on the very field that gave rise to ecology. This is because biology is done by people, and many people have need of a pecking order and having someone lower down to peck at to feel good about themselves. And this is nothing but someone inforcing their personal belief that ecology, as they define it, is better, more important, higher quality science than natural history.

Fortunately I know how to deal with such rejection. My lapsed membership in the organization will now be on permanent hold. Another publishing venue will be found, and our natural history will become part of biological knowledge, and then some stinking ecologist will use our study to do some "real science" that can get published in a top ranked journal, well, top ranked for ecology.

Field work - snapshots in ecological time

Only other field biologists can appreciate and sympathize with this problem. Studies done in the field cannot control for all the variations in nature, in particular normal variations in weather patterns, and so each study is actually a snapshot in ecological time. The trouble is that we try to extrapolate from these snapshots, and sometimes that doesn't work. And even worse you worry that the effects of weather can overwhelm your treatments.

The effort involved in field work makes the situation even worse. The steadfast effort involved in maintaining long term field studies is beyond most of us. For this reason I really admire Deborah and David Clark whose quarter century survey of tropical forest tree growth in Costa Rica is laudable just for its longevity, its contribution to understanding changes that may accompany global warming notwithstanding (Tropical rain forest tree growth and atmospheric
carbon dynamics linked to interannual temperature variation during 1984–2000. D. A. Clark, S. C. Piper, C. D. Keeling, and D. B. Clark. 2003. PNAS 100:5852-5857.). If you haven't read this paper and want to see good evidence of changes that accompany increases in carbon dioxide and temperature, I recommend it.

In just the 3d year of our field study on the effects of hemiparasitic plants on the prairie community, and already the year to year variation seems destined to swamp any treatment effects. Last year our plots had so many hemiparasite seedlings that we wondered if eradication was a feasible treatment. They just kept sprouting, and we just kept weeding. Those seeds were the product of the 2006 season. The spring of 2008 was very different. It was cold and wet, and this affected the number and/or activities of bumblebees because seeds of our hemiparasite are scarce even though it flowered like crazy. Last year I could collect seeds in huge numbers, nearly 250,000 in about 20 mins. But this year a similar investment in collecting produced a very small volume in comparison. Guess we won't have so many seedlings to remove next year.

But that's not all. Last year produced a bumper crop of seeds, but so far they have not been germinating like last year at all. In 2007 we could find hundreds per square meter, and this year when we decide to monitor seedling mortality, seedlings are hard to find. It makes for easier eradication, but is messing with out demographic study.

That's just how field work goes. And it's why those rare long term studies are so valuable. If we monitored pollination, and seed production, and seed germination for 25 or so years, we would probably understand many of the variables. But when something gives you a significant result, well, dang, you just know it's important and real because everything was working against you getting any results at all.