Have you ever read anything by Sean Carroll (Biology version)?  If not, you should.  At least if you are looking for some good writing about the life you share the planet with.  Dr. Carroll is a practicing evolutionary developmental (or “evo-devo”) biologist, who knows quite a bit about the genetic basis of animal development, and the seemingly uncountable ways that evolution can function in the domain of making new, and nifty, creatures.

I have read most of Sean Carroll’s books, but for whatever reason, I had never gotten around to reading “Endless Forms…” (or as I now refer to it in my thinking “It’s the Switches, Stupid!”), which is universally well-regarded, and quite possibly the book that Dr. Carroll is most famous for.  So, when looking for a new science book to read (I always try to keep one science book somewhere on the “actively reading” pile), I figured why not give it a shot.

It took me five days from start to finish.

Part of that is due to my own interest base.  As an AP Biology teacher, a lot of the fundamentals of evolution and genetics that Dr. Carroll puts down at the beginning of the book are nothing new for me, which gave me a bit more alacrity through the first three or four chapters than I would have if the last time I thought biological thoughts was several decades ago.  But my bio-chops are just a piece of what makes this book so easy to read.  When it comes right down to it, the thing is just a good time.  If you have ever wondered why animals look the way they look, and how the processes that change those appearances function, this is the book for you.  Dr. Carroll is a fan of the “tell them three times” approach (wherein he will tell you what he is going to tell you, then tell you, and then tell you what he just told you), which is as good a way of discussing abstract concepts as any that I am aware of.  But he also makes a point of hanging his conceptual framework on real-world examples, pulling them from the most widely-researched bits of evolutionary developmental biology that have been elucidated. You not only learn how evolution drives changes in animal anatomy and physiology, you also get fantastic explanations of the evolution of eyes, wings, colors, limbs, brains, and various other notable animal adaptations.  The result is as close as one can get to an enjoyable romp through animal phylogeny. 

The book does get a bit wonky in parts, but never for too long, and always with the goal of explaining something really interesting.  Similarly, Dr. Carroll builds his case throughout the book, finally culminating in a concluding chapter that serves both to seat evo-devo within the larger evolutionary framework, but also as a plea for increased scientific literacy on the part of the public.  I do wonder how important the last bit is for the audience of this book, most of whom I assume to be pretty much on the same side of the issues discussed as the author.  While I certainly count myself as a fellow-traveller with Dr. Carroll, I don’t know that he was telling me anything particularly new in the last ten pages.  Still, I certainly understand why it’s in there.  

If you want to learn about the evolution of the kingdom you belong to (is there anything more interesting to learn about?), I think you’ll find this one worth your while.

This one is actually a bit overdue.  I finished the book in early December, after it was recommended to me at the end of October, after a discussion about why it is that some people don’t seem willing to accept scientific consensus.  “Merchants of Doubt” does go a ways toward shedding some light on the issue, along with providing the reader with enough evidence of willful and deliberate efforts by industry to confuse the public record on various scientific issues that might result in increased governmental regulation, that by the end of the book you pretty much want to punch someone in the face (like this guy, for instance).

The book starts with the tobacco industry’s various attempts to disrupt the scientific process that lead to the now firmly established consensus that cigarettes cause cancer.  From there, it moves through most of the “controversial” scientific conclusions of the last half-century:  nuclear proliferation, ozone depletion, acid precipitation, second-hand smoke, climate change, and the over-application of pesticides.  It’s a thorough journey through pretty much every awful thing the species is doing to the only planet that we can live on.  The authors provide hundreds of sources per chapter, and the tone is engaging, if not a bit polemical at points (though really, given the subject, if you can’t be polemical here, where can you be?).  

There wasn’t too much that was all that surprising to me.  I did find the notion that most of the scientists who were complicit (perhaps not the best term) in muddying the waters of public perception did so as a direct result of their cold-war thinking to be interesting.  As a child of the last fifth of the 20th century, the Cold War does not loom large in my own mind.  It becomes a bit easier to understand why someone would be stridently anti-regulation when their mental exemplar of a tightly regulated system is the Soviet Union.  I’m not suggesting that the analogy is appropriate (or even sane, given the ongoing degredation of most terrestrial ecosystems), but I can at least see the perspective.  And I was glad to see the authors turn their evidence machine full force on the bizarre (and vehemently anti-factual) backlash to Rachel Carson and Silent Spring that has really come to the fore during the past decade.  Though the notion that once enough time elapses, people will just start making up nonsense to support their arguments is discomforting to say the least. 

If you are interested in the history of the relationship between science and industry, particularly during the past sixty years, this is probably the book for you.  Similarly, if you are interested in how industry goes about mucking up the popular perception of the scientific process, you might start with this book.  If, however, you subscribe to the notion that there really is something to all of that contrarian, denialist, garbage that gets bandied about in the press, this is not a book that will make you feel secure in your sentiments (who am I kidding, if you feel that way, you won’t be reading this book). 

…and how the media destroys public perception of said work.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Watch this.  Meanwhile I will be laboring in my palace of science education.

I’m very angry with the science teachers who had the woman in this clip in their classes.  They really screwed that one up.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Every once in a while I’m reminded just how easy it is to teach biology in the Long Island suburbs.

One of my favorite projects that I give to AP Biology during the course of the year is the “Evolution Misconceptions”, in which students choose one from a list of various misconceptions about the theory of evolution that I feel are demonstrated with regularity in various places.  This is done in follow-up to a larger point that I make about the seeming fact that most folks who disagree with evolutionary theory really don’t understand what the theory (and the associated science) actually means.  

It’s a great project for a bunch of reasons.  

This year, I moved to having students publish the work on the course blog, and I have to say I think this was a great decision.  Giving students the task of writing a post for public consumption forces them to write clearly and make points with efficiency.  I also like how some groups linked to videos as they felt necessary.  

I really don’t know if I would get away with doing an assignment like this in another area of the country.  I’d bet I would at least get some background flack. People are silly, that way.  As it is, I have a room full of super intelligent students who are only too eager to start taking apart the various misconceptions that I give them.  Frankly, I have to umpire a bit to make sure they are writing from a place of reason and not a place of emotion.

Evolution education is alive and well, at least around here.