Scientific Literacy Redefined

Researchers could become better at engaging in public discourse by more fully considering the social and cultural contexts of their work.

By Cynthia Brandenburg | February 1, 2016

Excerpt:

…any truly productive conversation about why their fears are scientifically unfounded must be predicated upon an understanding of what caused those fears in the first place.

My comment: “A Fear of Pheromones” led many researchers to ignore the fact that metabolic networks must be linked to genetic networks before linking energy-dependent  hydrogen-atom transfer in DNA base pairs in solution to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in species from microbes to humans.

Indeed, rarely does anyone learn from the serious scientists who are not afraid to report what is known about the conserved molecular mechanisms that link physics and chemistry to biologically-based cause and effect. Pseudoscientists simply link mutations to evolution.

Here is another example of what some people may learn from a forthcoming AAAS symposium. See: From Toxins to Culture: How Environment Shapes the Infant Brain

Moshe Szyf, McGill University
Nurture Alters Nature through Epigenetic Modifications of DNA

The modifications are nutrient-dependent and controlled by the physiology of nutrient-dependent reproduction in all living genera. Every level of examination by serious scientists has link the epigenetically-effected modifications from atoms to ecosystems without the pseudoscientific nonsense touted by neo-Darwinian theorists.

See also: All About that Base (Meghan Trainor Parody) and Weekend Evolution.

See also: John Dupré Interview: Deeper into the Royal Society Evolution Paradigm Shift Meeting

Excerpt:

I think the idea of theories as falsifiable is a very limited view. Philosophers of biology tend to be very suspicious of the whole idea of theories as being rather a physics-based conception of how science works and tend to think much more in terms of models than theories. Theories suggest something systematically formalized around universal generalization, whereas models are more like tools for solving specific kinds of problems.

See also: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model

Excerpt: 

THIS MODEL DETAILS HOW CHEMICAL ECOLOGY DRIVES ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION VIA: (1) ecological niche construction, (2) social niche construction, (3) neurogenic niche construction, and (4) socio-cognitive niche construction. This model exemplifies the epigenetic effects of olfactory/pheromonal conditioning, which alters genetically predisposed, nutrient-dependent, hormone-driven mammalian behavior and choices for pheromones that control reproduction via their effects on luteinizing hormone (LH) and systems biology.

My comment: Your fear of pheromones will probably determine whether or not you like my model.

John Dupré Interview: Deeper into the Royal Society Evolution Paradigm Shift Meeting (revisted)

Suzan Mazur: I think your conference could fall flat if you’re leaving out the biggest part of the biosphere — viruses and microbes.

John Dupré: I certainly hope they’re not going to be left out of the discussion.

Suzan Mazur: But you won’t have the virus experts presenting.

Conclusion:

…evolutionary theory, as I understand it, tells us is that we are enormously flexible beings, capable of reshaping ourselves to a very substantial degree. That is, of course, a somewhat risky view, but I find it a much more exciting one.

My comment: Evolutionary theory does not link atoms to ecosystems via a model of biologically-based cause and effect. John Dupré seems to have reversed his position on the fact that “…models are more like tools for solving specific kinds of problems.”

He probably knows that only nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled RNA-mediated events can be linked from DNA repair via microRNAs, amino acid substitutions, adhesion proteins and supercoiled DNA.  If he does not, other serious scientists know it.

The supercoiled DNA protects organized genomes from virus-driven entropy. That means the Zika virus cannot be linked from pathology to biodiversity via evolution.

Everyone who presents at the forthcoming Royal Society Evolution Paradigm Shift Meeting will need to continue to ignore the AAAS symposium presentations: From Toxins to Culture: How Environment Shapes the Infant Brain.

A conference that is organized to ignore what is known about the molecular epigenetics of biologically-based nutrient-dependent top-down causation is a waste of any efforts. Fortunately, the efforts that continue to be made by serious scientists have enabled the progress exemplifies in the context of the “Precision Medicine Initative.” Clearly, all other initiatives require researchers to link  atoms to ecosystems via energy-dependent base pair changes and the RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all individuals of all living genera by protecting their organized genomes from virus-driven energy theft and genomic entropy.

Keep Reading