Category: Hillbilly Biotech

Improvised Microbiology and Biotechnology, accessible to folks without specialized equipment or supplies.

I was going to call this “Redneck Biotech” but that’s got an almost “hip-hop” cadence to it – totally inappropriate for the concept of “Redneck”. “Hillbilly Biotech”, on the other hand, has a cadence that for some reason reminds me of banjos. The poetic match was too good to pass up.

All this week: A topic important to secular and religious people alike

It’s not midnight here yet, I’m still on time!

Hello, “Just Science 2008” subscribers and everyone else. My life is insane at the moment but dagnabbit I’m going to do my best to get at least one post up on a scientific topic every day from today (Monday, February 4th) until Friday…

Today’s post is in the form of a gedanken experiment.

First, imagine the following:

  • Some “entities” existing somewhere

    • It doesn’t matter what “entities” you are imagining, whether they are products in a market setting, or data structures in a computer program, or topics of discussion on a news broadcast. All that matters is that there can be more than one of them.

  • A mechanism by which these “entities” are copied (and, optionally, also sometimes removed)

    • Products are manufactured or recalled, data structures can be copied or deleted, additional news anchors can be added to comment on a topic or conversely may shut up about them…

  • At least one mechanism by which changes can occur between or during copies

    • Product designs can be changed, a computer program may consult a “random number” generator and use it to make small changes in the data structure, scriptwriters may alter the news anchor’s teleprompter messages…

  • Some aspect of the “entities” that affects the rate at which they are copied (and/or, optionally, removed).

    • Demand by buyers in the market results in ramping-up of production, a computer program may perform some test or comparison of a data structure and use the result to determine how many copies of it to make (or whether or not to delete it), news topics that result in more people watching are repeated more often while those that people tune out from are dropped from the schedule…

What happens to this group of “entities” over time should be obvious. Taking the example of products in a market, producers introduce a variety of products (the group of “entities” in this example) and buyers examine their characteristics and, based on which ones they like, buy some of them. The producers observe which kinds of products are selling more and make more of those, while reducing or outright eliminating the production of those that aren’t selling well. Over time, a few of the kinds of products in this group which best fit the preferences of the buyers and the ability of the producers to make them. These products will dominate the market until the preferences of the buyers or the ability of the producers to produce them change [example: a shortage in the price of a particular material needed for a popular product].

You have most likely observed this process in the “news topic” context yourself, where it tends to happen much faster as “cheap and easy” news stories are happily picked up by news agencies to broadcast until people get sick of them and tune out.

This can all, hopefully, be understood as a purely logical outcome – a conclusion that universally and necessarily follows from the premises given. There should be nothing supernatural or even surprising here, is there?

So, now that you understand why and how evolution works (if you didn’t before), I can move on. (Incidentally, the part of the example above that describes a computerized system is actually referred to as a “genetic algorithm”.)

My purpose in starting with this is because it really and truly is fundamental to the topic that I expect to spend most of this week posting about, and which has been of vital importance to human culture and intellectual development for thousands of years. This most important subject involves such notable figures as Charles Darwin,St. Thomas Aquinas, Noted American Science-guy Benjamin Franklin, New England Puritan Cotton Mather and Quaker William Penn ,Hardcore Catholics like Pope John Paul II, Hardcore Athiests like PZ Myers, even famous religious figures like Jesus.

I refer, of course, to wine (and beer and other examples of ethanol production).

Okay, here’s the background: I just graduated with my B.S. in Microbiology, and I’ve got this whole “Hillbilly Biotech”/”Do-it-yourself”/”Practical Science” kind of thing going on in my interests. That being the case, I wondered what it would take to isolate, culture, and maintain my own yeast (and bacteria – more on that later) stocks from the environment rather than buying “canned” cultures – or at least play with the “canned” yeasts to create my own stocks. As I was poking around, though, I kept running into the same attitudes – namely that it’s “too hard” to do this, and although there are a number of people who advocate re-culturing canned commercial yeasts for a short time to save money, none of them think it’s feasible to do this for more than a couple of generations, at which point we are assured that you have to go buy it again or else “mutations” will inevitably appear and scary and mysterious “off-flavors” will result and the brewing police will come and throw you in jail for deviating from the archetype of whatever pre-defined style of wine or beer you’re trying to make. Or something like that. In any case, it’s because of this fear of “mutations” that I am starting out with this “evolution”-related post: in biological evolution, various forms of alterations in the genetic material are the “changes before or during copying” in the gedanken experiment above.

I didn’t buy it when people were telling me that it was “too hard” to learn how my computer works so that I could run Linux and should instead leave deciding what my computer should do to the “professionals”, and I’m not buying the same argument about commercial yeasts, either. If I felt that way, I might as well leave the rest of the complex technology of brewing to the “professionals” too, and consign myself to “Lite Beer” and “Thunderbird” for the rest of my life.

I’ve been spending much of the last few weeks perusing books, online articles, and scientific papers on subjects related to brewing in general and brewing yeasts in particular, and this should form the bulk of this week’s post topics, of not well beyond this week. Tomorrow I intend to start in on the actual process of culturing yeasts. Meanwhile, feel free to correct my no doubt horribly over-simplified explanation of evolutionary processes in the comments.

I should be getting more done…

Im Name des Nudelmonster! It’s been over a week since my last post!

“Someone” seems to have located a replacement original disk of a game I had many years ago (but lost when I loaned it to someone) and bought it for me. Now, in addition to a variety of issues I need to deal with related to moving over the next few months, I have this delightfully surreal old computer game beckoning at me. ARGH! MAKE IT STOP!

Meanwhile, I’ve been trying to put together topics for next week’s “Just Science 2008”. We’ll find out who, besides me, is interested in fermentation once it starts. I think I’ll have to start off the series with a post on evolution, however, since it really does play a fundamental role when it comes to yeast culture. I also think I may be able to work JellO® into at least one of the posts, too…

Internet connection will be spotty the rest of this week as we travel towards the area that is to be our New Home, but I should have posts assembled in time for next week.

If I get a chance, there will hopefully be at least one more Geostrings post, possibly with a sample mp3 and/or Ogg/Vorbis audio file.

’tis the season to be greedy

Members of my immediate family start asking around this time of year about what kinds of things I’d like for Christmas presents this year.

This strikes me as a good way to break the week-long bout of blogstipation I’ve been having. Here, then, is what I want for Christmas, Xmas, Hannukah, Kwanzaa, Cephalopodmas, or whatever gift-giving winter holiday you prefer (each category is sorted roughly in order of desire at the moment):

Ridiculously Expensive Stuff

Which I only list on the off-chance that someone wins the lottery or happens to find an amazing bargain on “e-bay®” or something.

Relatively Expensive Books

Other kinda-expensive-but-maybe-you-can-find-it-at-reasonable-price stuff

Relatively Cheap Stuff (but still spiffy)

I know there was more, but my brain seems to have gone on break right now…

More Search Amusements. (p.s. I Ain’t Dead Yet.)

A bit longer of a delay between posts than I’d like, but here you go:

+ =?????

I am often amused (and regularly baffled) by the kinds of search queries that lead people to this blog.

I wrote a sloppy little script to parse the server’s access logs and figure out who’s searching for what, where. Since I added the ability to recognize Google Image Searches, it’s gotten even stranger.

I do get a lot of perfectly understandable hits – people looking for information about “heat-fixing slides”, expired jello, and looking for pictures of lactic-acid bacteria or whatnot. Some of them are pretty interesting questions…but first, some oddities.

At the top of my current wierd-o-meter: “carbonated leprechaun”…what??? What’s funnier is that this was a Google Image search – someone doesn’t just want information ABOUT carbonation of leprechauns, they want pictures. Now I can’t stop imagining a mash-up of “Darkman” and Leprechaun. Thanks a lot, whoever you are…”I needs me gold! ARGH! SUNLIGHT! [bubblebubblebubble…]”

Another recent one was just a search for the phrase “new england sucks”. As another Image search. Somebody not only doesn’t like New England, but they want pictures of “new england sucks”?…

Less risible but still kind of funny are searches influenced by unfamiliarity with the English language. I have no idea what the search for pictures related to “useful of DNA” was hoping to find. (Uses of DNA? How to “use” [work with] DNA? Diagrams of genetic processes?). I also see a number of searches just based on the name of the blog – people looking for information about furnishing “big rooms”. I have no idea what the search for “name of thing in room” was expected to turn up. This one’s another language issue, but even taking that into account I’m still baffled about this one. I wouldn’t expect google.de to return any useful information for “Sache im Zimmer” (the original search was actually from a Spanish-speaking area, but No Entiendo Espanol, so I’ll use a German analogy instead.)

Or from Sweden: “Aerobic Oxygen fraud”. Somebody’s figured out that we don’t actually need to breathe and that it’s all a ploy by the Oxygen Lobby to enslave us, I guess.

Maybe just because “chemicals” get mentioned here from time to time, I get the occasional hit from someone looking for illegal drug information (either technical or just news of drug busts or whatever). Note to “HILLBILLY METH” searcher: Hillbillies do moonshine. Meth comes from Rednecks. Jeez, doesn’t everyone have to do a semester of Rural Population Stereotype Taxonomy in college anymore?

There are some more relevant and interesting questions that show up here, too.

Oreo CookieI guess someone in southern California used an interesting analogy in their microbiology class, because I recently got a couple of searches from there looking for why the cell membrane is not like an Oreo® cookie. The answer: There’s no “creme” filling. No seriously – the membrane is two layers of the same kind of molecule stuck together. The phrase you’re looking for is “Phospholipid bilayer”. In a way, the molecules are a lot like detergents – they’ve got one end that “likes” water, and a long tail at the other end that doesn’t (much as oil doesn’t). Since the cell is surrounded by and full of water, you end up with one layer with all its hydrophilic ends touching the water outside the cell, and the other layer with its hydrophilic ends on the inside of the membrane touching the water inside the cell, and the hydrophobic ends of both layers all tangled up together in the middle – without anything between them. See? Not like an oreo cookie at all. Aside from this, cell membranes are also squishier and not chocolate flavored most of the time.

I’ll deal with “does beer and ice cream make gas” in another post later…

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day…

…but teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat and drink beer all day.

-== We interrupt this blog post to bring you this important announcement: Happy Birthday, Dad!==-

(His birthday was actually yesterday, but this week of school has been grinding me pretty hard and I’d forgotten all about it. He must be so proud – his son can handle a couple of semesters of biochemistry, complex microbial science, working with dangerous chemicals in a lab…but doesn’t seem to know how to use a simple calendar…I am filled with shame.)

We now return you to your regularly scheduled blog post:

This here critter is our resident fish. “He” is a classic specimen of real, old-fashioned, Honest-to-Aquaman Carassius auratus auratus – the Goldfish. And not one of those poor mutant freaks who can barely swim, either. No this here fish was rescued from the overcrowded “feeder goldfish” tank of a local Wal-Mart®. Handsome, ain’t he? I had a tough time getting even this good of a picture – every time I get near the tank he swims back and forth in front of me frantically, perhaps worshipping me as the magical fishfood god. He’s been here for about three years now, so I think he’s having a much longer life than most of them.

I’ve had no time to get into it, but part of the reason for having a fish is that I have a casual interest in aquaculture. That is, while I don’t currently have any intention of becoming a professional full-scale fish-farmer, the subject is interesting and, I think, very important in the near future. Once we figure out where we’re going to end up living next year and get settled in somewhere, I have considered trying to do the aquaculture equivalent of a backyard garden, though.

I think aquaculture is going to become extremely important in the relatively near future, as we run into the combination of overfishing of natural stocks, water shortages, contamination of natural waters with pollutants that build up in naturally-existing populations of fish, and the overall effects of climate change. I think understanding how to raise healthy and nutritious aquatic food without wasting water or causing environmental problems is going to be a useful set of knowledge to have. (There, see, not only do I love kittens and puppies and want to make the world a better place, but I’m also interested in Sustainable Environmental Practices™. While feeding the hungry. [Uphill. In the snow. With no shoes…]).

You may be wondering what interest an ex-professional-computer-nerd microbiologist would have in tending a pond full of eukaryotes. Well, aside from the obvious “Hey, I can have more than one interest, you know”, there actually is a lot of microbiological activity involved in the natural processes of the fishes’ homes. Plus, of course, the aforementioned beer doesn’t ferment and bottle itself, you know.

Since one of my interests in this context is water conservation, my main interest is in figuring out how to maintain a healthy “closed” system. In an aquaculture context, a “closed” system is one that you don’t normally add substantial amounts of water to. (An example of an “open” system might include raising fish in pens floating in a natural lake, or having a constant stream of fresh ground or river water pumping through your tanks). This poses certain problems, since you have to feed the fish, and this adds an ever-increasing load of potentially uneaten fishfood and especially of eaten fishfood – that is, fish wastes.

Fishfood being digested by either fish or bacteria ends up adding ammonia to the water, which is poisonous to the fish (and crawdads and whatever else is in there). Also excreted is carbon dioxide, which makes the water more acidic, and unused food also dumps sulfur and phosphorous into the system.

If you’ve ever had a fishtank, you may know about the ammonia. Certain kinds of Oxygen-using bacteria can actually get some of their biochemical energy from turning reduced nitrogen into oxidized nitrogen, ultimately turning the ammonia (NH3) into much less poisonous nitrate (NO3). These bacteria tend to colonize the tank’s filter, where they do their thing using the oxygen in the water that flows through. Even nitrate is dangerous if it builds up too much, though. In an aquarium, they usually recommend just taking out some of the tank’s water and replacing it with fresh water every week or two to get rid of the build-up. I’d show you pictures of the bacteria, but I still can’t afford a decent microscope. (sniffle.)

Anyway, I want to build a denitrification column one of these days. There are bacteria that can “breathe” nitrate in place of oxygen, and in the process they can reduce the nitrate back down to plain old harmless nitrogen gas, which just bubbles out of the water. If you build a long, tall tube full of something like gravel that bacteria can grow on, and then pump the water through it slowly, oxygen-breathing bacteria near the bottom of the tube rapidly use up the oxygen in the water, leaving the nitrate. With no oxygen further up the tube, bacteria that can breathe the nitrate instead can grow like crazy, and exhale the extra nitrogen out of the system.

That’s one way of avoiding the need to use up as much fresh water as you’d need if you relied only on replacing the water to get rid of the nitrate.

I’ll save the sulfur and phosphorous parts for another day. Meanwhile, I think the next podcast or two will deal with MRSA, since it’s been in the news so much lately. I normally find the neglected non-medical microbiology more interesting, but the biochemistry and genetics involved with Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (not to mention S. aureus itself) is pretty interesting, and I find the media discussions of it unsatisfying.

Stay tuned…

Poor-boy science: should I build my own electrophoresis platform?

I want to build my own little electrophoresis gizmo to play with.

I did pick up a small tube of powdered graphite and some liquid tape. With this, I should be able to make a waterproof electrically-conducting glue that I can use for the electrodes. I’ve got numerous old “wall-wart”-type power adapters that I ought to be able to use for power supply.

The main thing I’m trying to work out in my head before I start trying to actually put this together is exactly how I’m going to arrange it so that I can have either a thin gel or a piece of paper or other fibrous material in between the electrodes so that I can best separate things.

I suppose it’s kind of bizarre, but this is actually part of the ongoing Expired JellO® projects. I was wondering to myself what actual changes might possibly occur in a packet of dry gelatin mix over time, and how would I be able to tell?  My previous experiments have shown no indication that there are any easily detectable differences (no obvious changes in taste or texture, no strange eerie glow, no acquisition of superpowers upon eating it…) so I’ll have to look more closely.

It occurred to me that just maybe over time the strands of protein that make up gelatin might get damaged by oxidation from the air in the pouch (or do they seal the pouch in a relatively inert gas, like argon or nitrogen?). This isn’t something one can really tell just by looking, obviously. One MIGHT be able to tell indirectly by making fresh and “expired” packets of gelatin with the same precisely-measured amount of water, poured on at the same precisely-measured temperature, and ideally with the same amount of mixing. Believe it or not, there are actually special scientific devices for measuring the firmness of gels like this. The hypothesis would be that expired gelatin might end up “degraded” into smaller strands of protein than a fresh packet, and that this would be reflected in a reduced firmness of the gel, or perhaps reduced water-holding capacity.

However, I don’t have access to precise devices for measuring things like that, and in any case since I suspect the difference would be pretty minimal, I’m not sure any difference in firmness would really be detectable with any kind of instrument I could cobble together on my own. What to do?…

I thought that if I had a way to subject a sample of dissolved gelatin to electrophoresis, I could then use a protein-staining substance to see how broad of a range of protein-fragment sizes were existent, or perhaps even spot distinct fragments if oxidative damage tended to happen at the juncture between particular amino acids or something.

I’m not quite sure why, but I have a strong desire to do this experiment from scratch as a “hillbilly biotech” exercise (including building the equipment and obtaining my supplies from grocery or hardware stores rather than specialty scientific supply places).

There are special protein staining compounds I can use at the end to see where my bits of protein ended up after electrophoresis. “Coomassie Brilliant Blue“, for example, but they don’t have that down at the grocery store. (And if you think that’s a funny name for a dye, consider “Light Green SF Yellowish”…)

Then, I ran into a post indirectly about henna over on scienceblogs.com. It seems the natural orange-staining ingredient in henna, called lawsone, may be specifically a protein-staining substance. I’m not certain about this, but a dark-orange protein-staining dye would work for my purposes I think. If so, that solves my need to get a protein stain from an ordinary store.

It’ll be a little while before I can try to put this plan into action, but I think I’ll be able to get to it in the next month or two.

In other news, I think I’ll try to post my “Microbial fuel cells in 90 seconds” audio sometime tomorrow. Then I can work on more. Anybody want to hear me attempting to explain something in 90 seconds? So far I’ve considered MRSA, and perhaps how cow flatulence threatens the world’s climate (which is also a microbiological topic). I’m sure there must be plenty of other possible topics. Any suggestions?

P.S. Who wants audio in Ogg Vorbis format in addition to mp3?

Environmental Chemistry Field Trip – Day 1, part 3

Overview of Narrow Gauge Spring
Our final destination of the day was Narrow Gauge Spring, which is on the backside of the Mammoth Terraces area. Apparently, there’s only one other place in the entire world – somewhere in China – that has exactly the same kind of conditions as this place.

The process of making this kind of formation requires rainwater, healthy microbe-supporting soil, limestone, and heat. It goes something like this: rainwater seeps down through the soil, where lots of healthy microbial activity uses up the oxygen in it and excretes plenty of extra carbon dioxide into it, making it more acidic. The water sinks into the ground and runs into the limestone, which is Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3). Calcium Carbonate doesn’t dissolve well in plain water at all, but there are two things that make it dissolve better: acid and heat. The heat from the magma under the park and the acidity of the water combine to dissolve a whole lot of the limestone. Then, somewhere, the heated water gets forced back up to the surface through a crack.

Where the water comes back in contact with the air, it can let off the extra carbon dioxide and heat. This doesn’t happen very fast in a deep pool, since this can only happen in a thin area near the top. Where the water overflows, though, it’s very shallow, and the carbon dioxide and heat can escape very quickly into the air. This makes the water suddenly become less acidic and less hot, and all that extra calcium carbonate can no longer stay dissolved. It crystallizes, making a hard calcium carbonate “shell” along the edge of the pool. The edge can end up growing some much over time that it forms an overhang with stalactite-like formations underneath it:

Another view of Narrow Gauge Spring

You can just make out an overhanging area in the upper-left of the photograph.

It was fun taking measurements of the water here. Water freshly removed from a pool initially showed up off the scale on our “Total Dissolved Solids” meters, but if you waited a few seconds the reading would drop down to where the meters could read it, and keep falling. Out of the pool, the water was cooling off quickly enough that the extra dissolved Calcium Carbonate was un-dissolving out of the water in tiny bits even as we stood there.

The water appeared to be about 56°C at the top of the pool where it was initially emerging. If you want an idea of not only that I am a nerd but what kind of nerd I am, I will mention that I think of this as “stewpot temperature”, and often wonder if there is any useful or tasty effects to be discovered in the microbial processes done by thermophilic microbes that live in these conditions. I’ll find out one of these days…

Oh, and a couple of bits of trivia about the Apollinaris Spring area from a couple of posts ago. Firstly, it was apparently named after a spring in Germany with the same name. Secondly, we briefly discussed the chemistry of carbon dioxide in water in class this week, and it turns out that the pH of 5.9 that Apollinaris Spring has is probably more basic than plain distilled water would be.

Now, anyone who’s had basic chemistry is probably a little baffled by this – after all, isn’t a pH of 7 that of pure water by definition? The answer is yes, but we’re not talking about pure water, we’re talking about water exposed to the air, where carbon dioxide can dissolve into the water. Working through the mathematics involved showed that distilled water should end up with a pH of about 5.6-5.7, at least at “standard temperature and pressure” (roughly sea-level air pressure and a temperature of around 72°F.). I have a suspicion as to why the Apollinaris Spring water seems less acidic than I might have expected, though.

They actually took our Apollinaris Spring water and ran it through an analytical instrument of some kind (I wasn’t there for it, but the description of the results made it sound like it was a “liquid chromatography” type of device). They found NO nitrates or nitrites in it. Since we’re talking about spring water percolating through healthy soil, I would have expected some nitrogen. I noticed, though, that although they checked for nitrite and nitrate, they didn’t check for reduced nitrogen – that is, ammonia.

I managed to score a tiny vial of the water during lab last Wednesday. When I get a chance to hit the pet store for some ammonia testing supplies, I’ll check that. If it’s there, it might explain the possibly slightly higher than expected pH. Similar to what happens to carbon dioxide and water, when ammonia (NH3) is dissolved into water(H2O), there tends to be some recombination of the atoms to make “ammonium hydroxide” (NH4OH), which is basic.

I don’t know if that’s what’s going on, but I intend to check.

There’s one more post worth of Field Trip stuff, and then I’ll be back onto other topics. Here’s a hint of what might come up, though: can anybody tell me what the effective pore size of pectin and cornstarch gels might be?…

If I Win It…

One topic that I have hoped to emphasize much more on this blog is amateur science, and in particular (given my educational background) amateur Microbiology.

Don’t be dissuaded by my use of the word “amateur” here. I don’t mean “not really” science (i.e. the microbiological equivalent of the “baking soda volcano”). Rather, here I’m using “amateur” in its proper etymological sense – science done for the love of it. I don’t just mean my brief series of experiments on the toxicology of expired JellO®. I mean actual microbiology with potential practical application as well as educational value. Unfortunately, there are a few bits of equipment for this that I can’t reasonably cobble together out of spare parts or repurposed household appliances. A microscope, for instance. Or a dry-ice maker.

Being a full-time college student, I’m poor, and can’t afford a microscope. A decent ordinary “brightfield” microscope appears to cost about $400. Bonus materials like a “darkfield” condensor are extra, unless I think I can rig up an equivalent on my own. A nicer digital camera to take pictures with to share with you, my loyal reader(s) would add some more to the cost. Even in the case of equipment and supplies improvised from more ordinary and readily-available materials (pressure-cooker=”autoclave”), there is still a cost. Woe unto me, what shall I do?!?!?

For the moment, I shall revert to the time-honored traditions of “begging” and “hoping”…

You see, there appears to be a scholarship available for bloggers who are full-time college students. Why, what a coincidence! I blog…and I’m a full-time college student! What luck!

There appears to be a US$10,000 (that’s almost 10000 CANADIAN dollars!). It’s not explicitly stated but last year they also had $1,000 “runner-up” awards as well. Here, then, is my pledge to you all.

Should I be selected as a finalist for this scholarship competition, I will eat 2-year-old JellO! Furthermore, if I were to actually be selected to win a $1000 scholarship, I will buy a real microscope and be able to blog my microbiology experiments and studies much more vividly. I will also blog the design and construction of my own amateur microbiology lab, to the extent that I can afford. (Well, I was ALSO going to do this anyway, but with a scholarship I’d actually be able to start doing it…)

Were I to be selected to win the full $10,000 scholarship I propose to go absolutely Nucking Futs, with a microscope, a nice new digital camera, dry-ice maker and plenty of CO2, perhaps some dedicated hosting for this blog, and a complete collection of useful microbiology equipment (mostly improvised still, but that’s half of the education right there…). Furthermore, should my readers demand it, I might even be persuaded to drink a cup of fresh Lysogeny Broth!

Come on, who needs this money and attention more – me, or some wealthy (compared to me) graduate student over on scienceblogs.com? I bet none of them would eat 2-year-old JellO or drink E.coli Chow for it, would they?

10 Finalists are to be announced October 7th, from what I understand…wish me [good] luck…
UPDATE: I made the finals, though my fame doesn’t seem to be carrying along a rose-petal-strewn path to victory yet…

A Government “War on Science” is GREAT for this country!

They say that politics and controversial statements are ways to encourage traffic on a blog, so here’s some. Comments welcome, of course.

I have cause to celebrate the future potential for science in the U.S. Here’s a bit of simple history (Update – added the “War on Poverty” to the list 20070810):

1964: Lyndon Baines Johnson declares a “War on Poverty” Today: the gap between the Rich and the Poor in the US is widening and economic mobility is stagnant.

1971: President Nixon declares a “War on Drugs”. Today: “Drugs” are widely used, even among kids, who appear to be losing their fear of drugs. Market innovations (blatantly illegal and of questionable morality, but innovations nonetheless) such as crack cocaine, MDMA (“ecstasy”), and “ice” (crystal meth) seem to be in the news a lot. People growing illegal plants in their closets and basements or brewing up complex chemical stimulants in the backs of minivans seems to be an almost daily topic of the news.

2001: President George W. Bush declares a “War on Terror”. Today: A majority of Americans feel that there is a greater threat of terrorism than before, which seems to be true, at least as far as “Jihadist” terrorists go, if the declassified portions of the government report paint an accurate picture of the situation. Heck, when the president invaded Iraq in 2003, major terrorist organizations didn’t even seem to be there. And now, it seems like EVERYONE we’re fighting in Iraq is Al Qaeda, and we’re treated to frequent vague but earnest-sounding warnings of impending terroristic doom.

Given these historical precedents, if there really is a government-run War on Science, then we’re in for a huge increase in scientific activity here.

I’m picturing a virtual underground Scientific Renaissance, where, like much of the late 1700’s and 1800’s, “citizen science” becomes a fashionable pursuit. People secretly building science labs in their basements and attics and performing legitimate, useful scientific research in them. Kids hanging out in abandoned parking lots at night, doing complex calculus problems in chalk on the ground and experimenting with broadcast power. Anonymous rebel scientists developing methods to cheaply and effectively convert lawn clippings into fuel ethanol and plastic grocery bags and soda bottles into biodiesel. Ignorant politicians assume home biology labs are marijuana-growing operations, that home chemistry labs are making methamphetamines, and that home physics labs are building radioactive “dirty bombs”. A multibillion-dollar new agency, the Science Enforcement Agency is hastily assembled and laws are badly written to restrict scientific activity to carefully-regulated government-controlled settings only.

Public science devolves into (when Republicans are in control) attempts to “debunk” global warming and evolution, “cure” homosexuality, develop ridiculously expensive military-grade weaponry, and silly projects that just plain won’t work but happen to be run by buddies of a senator or (when Democrats are in control) multimillion dollar projects to study “self-esteem”, research on “psychic powers”, development of homeopathic “medicine”, and silly projects that just plain won’t work but happen to be run by buddies of a senator. Disgusted underground scientists are only egged on by this state of affairs.

Within a few years, a cautious exchange of money in a public restroom will buy disease-curing doses of novel, effective, but non-FDA-approved antibiotics that cure drug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or Tuberculosis. A backyard moonshiner-like biotech lab somewhere in the rural west secretly sets aside part of their flock of chickens, genetically engineering them to produce HIV vaccines with billions of dollars in “street” value. Someone with a closet chemistry lab develops an illicit catalyst that facilitates hydrolysis of water to produce hydrogen with no more energy input than ordinary body heat, while another develops an illegal strain of cyanobacteria that turns atmospheric carbon dioxide into a plastic substance which can either be used for building or is easily converted to biodiesel at such a rate that the developer has to rapidly build a huge, secret underground complex to hide the vast quantities of material produced overnight….

In the end, as always, government goes utterly insane and bankrupts themselves (more, I mean) trying to stamp out Illegal Science, but in the meantime, anyone who’s scientifically inclined ends up making a fortune. On the other hand, the efforts drive a lot of the science out of the country and Mexico becomes the new world superpower with their fleet of antigravity flying armored space cars, zap death ray guns, and clusters of quantum-supercomputers. (Note to self: get back to learning to speak Spanish!). This doesn’t really slow the flow of science into the US, though, and “science tourists” can sneak to Mexico to undergo age-reversing and/or intelligence-boosting medical treatments or to obtain cures for cancer or obesity that actually work. People end up in jail for recovering from leukemia or losing weight.

Meanwhile, on a more personal note, people like me who actually think doing science is fun get a few publications in underground science-journal ‘zines, spend a few years developing something useful, make a huge pile of money, and then retire before The Man catches up to us, to live a life of luxury somewhere. Maybe living in a giant mansion in Mexico between stints as lab techs for Mexican scientists once in a while, done just for fun and extra pocket-money…

It’ll be glorious. So – write your legislators today, and tell them we NEED the “War on Science”. For the Children.

(My political opinion? Lets just say that my political fantasy right now is that the 2008 presidential race will come down to a run-off between a Bloomberg/Paul ticket and a Gravel/Kucinich ticket….)

There, is THAT enough controversy to get some new traffic here?…



Okay then…

My summer classes are finally over. Got an “A” in immunology (go, me). Now I just need to make sure everything’s done next semester. I’ve already signed up for the last two Underwater-Basket-Weaving-type “General education” classes required at this college: Intro to Philosophy and “History of Western Art”. I also went ahead and signed up for Environmental Chemistry, too – it’s not required, but it’s one of the last “not required but useful if I have time for it” classes on my list.

Meanwhile – is it just me, or is DNA some obnoxiously fragile stuff when you don’t want it to be? Sure, leave a few flakes of skin or hair follicles at a crime scene and they’ll nail you weeks or months later, but try to “gel purify” some DNA and it just falls apart…

The samples from my last post, about the colony PCR of my Lactic Acid beer-bacteria, I cut the bright bands of presumably-16s rDNA out of the gel and ran them through one of those canned “gel purification kit” processes. Then I froze them until I had a chance to finish my classes and play with them.

Yes, I was wearing gloves. No, I didn’t lick the gel. I think I must have looked at them too closely or something and they just disintegrated out of spite. In any case, my attempt at a restriction enzyme digest turned up NOTHING (other than the “ladder” lanes) on the gel.

I’m beginning to really distrust canned kits. On the upside, that means I get to learn some more in the process of developing my own replacement protocols.

I will probably try re-amplifying DNA from the frozen samples and see if there’s anything at all left in there that can be saved. Otherwise, I’ll also check and see if the plates I made a few days ago still grew okay.

In other news – I’m toying with the idea of literally begging for my own microscope and home-microbiology lab equipment. As in, actually putting on a lab coat, taking an old hat, and sitting outside of scientific meetings and such with a cardboard sign saying “want my own microscope – please help”. Of course, I’d have to report any donations as “income” for tax purposes – I doubt they’d let me form a 501(c)(3) corporation dedicated to just buying me toystools for my own microbiological amusement.

I haven’t decided, but it’s under active consideration. It’d make for some interesting blogging (and I promise in return that I’d account on the blog for any money donated, and blog all uses of the equipment under Creative Commons terms so everyone can use it). It’d presumably take a while for this to get anywhere if it ever did – it seems it’ll cost about $400-$500 just for a (good) basic light microscope, plus another few hundred for a darkfield condenser and related upgrades. Plus, of course, me wanting to build some LED-based lighting for fluorescence microscopy ($500 canned commercial upgrade? Bah!). Incidentally, it seems Green Fluorescent Protein fluoresces best right around the wavelength of a typical, inexpensive, off-the-shelf ultraviolet LED…

And then of course I need a pressure cooker and one or more incubator setups and some petri dishes and trips to the grocery store for growth media and staining supplies and slides and… well, anyway, as much stuff as I can arrange to get. But the microscope is the one component that is unavoidably expensive.

Oh, yeah, and some space to keep cheese and beer culture organisms and such for later use…

Comments, anyone? Suggestions?