Bad Science

by Linda Zimmermann

  And don’t even speak to Agassiz about Darwin and the theory of evolution, because he refused to believe that any force but God could create new forms of life. So adamant was Agassiz against evolution, and a few other things, that some of his students at Harvard jokingly formed the Society for the Protection of American Students From Foreign Professors. Agassiz wasn’t laughing, and he had the students removed.

  These little faux pas aside, Agassiz had lifted up the established field of geology and dumped it on its ear. He initiated a new science and changed the way the world looked upon its history. Had he lived for just a few more years (he died in 1873), he would have found that the tide of popular opinion had turned in favor of the Ice Age.

  In his later years, Agassiz wrote that his only true accomplishment had been in his work with fish. Fortunately, he was wrong in that account, too, and will forever be recognized as the champion of the Ice Age.

  Taking Out the Garbage?

  In An Essay on Criticism written by Alexander Pope in 1709, he stated that a little learning was a dangerous thing. How right he was, especially when it applies to scientists who can affect the health of generations of people. As technology places ever-increasing power in the hands of modern scientists, they must be ever vigilant that they do not act too rashly with that “little learning” mankind has acquired.

  Take the case of “junk DNA,” a term coined in 1972 by Susumu Ohno. While most people should at least have some inkling that DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) holds the body’s “blueprints,” few would be capable of accurately describing the intricacies of genes, mRNA, protein coding, base pairs, etc. They shouldn’t feel too bad, however, as until relatively recently, most scientists believed that the majority of DNA was useless garbage. Even as late as 1980, Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953) referred to this alleged junk DNA as having “little specificity and conveys little or no selective advantage to the organism.”

  About only 3% of DNA is known as coding DNA—the active part that produces the building blocks of life. That leaves the other 97% of non-coding DNA, also known as introns (intragenetic regions), that didn’t appear to do anything. Since scientists didn’t see any purpose for all these introns, they labeled them as junk DNA. They were also disparagingly referred to as “excess baggage,” useless “padding,” and “selfish DNA” (as it appeared that their only purpose was to replicate themselves, much like many vacuous Hollywood stars). In fact, when the project to map the entire human genome was proposed, some researchers even argued that they shouldn’t bother mapping the junk portions, as it would only be waste of time.

  Fortunately, molecular biologists didn’t initiate a program for “taking out the garbage,” as in “cleaning up” human DNA by removing all that useless junk.

  That junk that just happened to constitute a whopping 97% of the DNA molecule…

  Didn’t anyone stop to think that if something so critical and basic as DNA contained an overwhelming majority of something known as introns, that these introns might possibly have some purpose?

  And didn’t it even evoke the slightest suspicion when it was found that the more complex the organism, the more introns its DNA contained?

  Just because you don’t understand the purpose of something, it doesn’t mean it has no function. Hell, if that’s the case, since we don’t know what 90% of the human brain does, why don’t we remove all that useless gray matter?

  And, as no one really sees a useful purpose for most politicians, maybe we should just get rid of all of them, too. (Wait, we may actually be on to something here…)

  In any event, genetic light slowly began to dawn when researchers discovered that mice, rats, and humans had large pieces of junk DNA that were identical. If the stuff was so useless, some began to reason, why would it remain intact over 75 million years of divergent evolution among different species? Could it be that it wasn’t all garbage?

  To make sure these common introns were not just a fluke, they decided to see if these rodents and humans shared any introns with sequences of over 200 base pairs—in other words, sections so large that statistically they would be way beyond mere coincidence. To their astonishment, researchers found one. Or more accurately, they found over 480 identical, large introns shared by mice, rats, and humans!

  Hmmmm, they thought. Perhaps if the junk DNA of very different species was carefully replicated and preserved over millions and millions of years, it did have a use after all. Suddenly, this discovery was like the brilliant light of Rudolph’s nose finally dispelling the dark fog of genetic ignorance. Maybe a red-nosed reindeer and all those misfit introns had a purpose in life, too?

  Which isn’t to say we now understand all of this mysterious 97% of DNA, but that’s okay. At least now we admit what we don’t know, and research is currently underway to find out what introns do. So far, it appears as if sections of this not-really-junk DNA may regulate activity of the coding DNA, play a role during embryonic development, and possibly fix critical errors.

  Where all this will ultimately lead is uncertain, but it could very well redefine the origins and development of life. Some have theorized that introns actually contain a complex genetic language just waiting to be translated. Perhaps in the near future, some Champollion of molecular biology will discover the genetic Rosetta Stone amongst the introns and decode nothing less than the meaning of life. And if we might speculate for a moment, what would be that first bit of wisdom that was revealed?

  Could it possibly be, “A little learning is a dangerous thing…”

  “If the double helix was so important, how come you didn't work on it?”

  Ava Pauling to her husband, Linus, when the Nobel Prize was awarded to Crick, Watson, and Wilkins in 1962.

  Linus Pauling had already won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1954, and also won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1962

  The Unkindest Cut of All

  In Romania in 2004, 34-year-old Nelu Radonescu finally scheduled surgery to correct a testicular abnormality. Wanting the best surgeon available for the delicate procedure, he chose 56-year-old Dr. Naum Ciomu. It appeared to be an excellent choice, as Ciomu was a professor of anatomy, as well as being the urology hospital’s senior surgeon with years of experience.

  Unfortunately, Dr. Ciomu was having a bad day, as he was admittedly “under stress” due to “personal problems.”

  (We interrupt this story to deliver a public service announcement: Gentlemen, if a surgeon is going anywhere near your genitals with a scalpel, make sure he is in a really good mood! And if you start to feel faint during the next paragraph, lay down with your feet elevated and skip to the next story.)

  During the surgery, he accidentally cut Radonescu’s urinary channel. Rather than correct his mistake and continue with the procedure, Dr. Ciomu flew into a rage, grabbed a scalpel and sliced off Radonescu’s penis. To add insult to this monstrous injury, he then cut the severed penis “into three pieces before storming out of the operating theater.”

  Radonescu was rushed to another hospital where a plastic surgeon took tissue from his arm to rebuild something resembling a penis, and was at least able to restore the poor man’s urinary function. Obviously, Radonescu—and his enraged wife—filed a lawsuit. The case was clear cut, so to speak, and they were granted $40,000 for penis reconstruction surgery. Additionally, Dr. Ciomu was ordered to personally pay $200,000.

  That amount seems a mere pittance compared to the willful destruction of a man’s penis, but even that amount brought outspoken criticism from Romanian doctors. By making Ciomu pay the settlement out of his own pocket, the doctors felt this case would “set a dangerous precedent” and that “doctors would in future avoid any cases where they could end up in court having to pay damages.”

  Hello, reality check here! What part of intentionally cutting off a man’s penis and then chopping it into pieces because you’re in a bad mood don’t these doctors get? This was not some honest mistake, and Dr. Ciomu should be grateful
Romanian courts don’t impose the old “eye for an eye” punishment.

  And what of the poor victim here, Nelu Radonescu? Sadly, his own words say it all.

  “It will never be the same, but if I am even a quarter of the man I was, I will still be very content.”

  It is doubtful that his wife will ever be content.

  Breathtaking Inanity

  Personally, there isn’t anything that enrages me more than being falsely accused of something I didn’t do, or being subjected to a similar form of injustice. However, acts of Bad Science are a very close second in their ability to make my blood pressure rise, as you may have repeatedly noticed throughout the pages of this book.

  In this light, I have saved for last one of the most egregious and persistent acts of Bad Science that has ever slithered across the hearts and minds of humanity, with its grasping tentacles engulfing, enslaving, and blinding its ignorant and uneducated victims. (I know, why don’t I just come out and say how I really feel about it.)

  The war against the Theory of Evolution might be considered laughable if battles over it were not still being waged in the 21st century. With all the knowledge that modern science has provided us as to the age of the Earth, the long and detailed fossil record of life on this planet, and the genetic mechanisms that demonstrate how change occurs, it should all be about as close to a scientific slam dunk as you can get.

  Yet remarkably, unbelievably, incredibly, there are way too many people who still think that the Earth is only about 10,000 years old, and life just suddenly popped into existence by a divine act. First presented as Creationism (actually an old belief, renamed to combat evolution), it has been repackaged and relabeled again as “Intelligent Design” (there’s a misnomer if I ever saw one), and there are those today, who are still trying to force feed it down the throats of America’s children.

  But let me pause for a moment to calm down and get to the beginning of this story…

  “As far as I can judge of myself I worked to the utmost during the voyage from the mere pleasure of investigation, and from my strong desire to add a few facts to the great mass of facts in natural science.” -- Charles Darwin

  This was how the shy and unassuming naturalist described his five years aboard the British ship, Beagle, as it sailed to South America, the Galapagos Islands, Tahiti, and Australia from 1831 to 1836. Those “few facts” he hoped to gather on the voyage turned out to be a treasure-trove of specimens and observations that would set Darwin’s mind on a subsequent twenty-year journey that would culminate in 1859 in the publication of one of the most important books in history, Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. It was in this book that Darwin set forth the Theory of Evolution, and the best and worst of science and human nature was then set on a collision course. And it wouldn’t take long for it all to hit the fan…

  There was no indication in Darwin’s early years that he would become one of the most admired and reviled figures of his age. Born in 1809, it appeared as though he would follow in his father’s footsteps and become a physician. However, shying away from the medical profession which appeared to be somewhat barbaric (which it was in those days, and probably still is, now that I think of it), he became interested in marine biology. His father then sent him to Cambridge to study to become a clergyman—as several of the clergy in England were also naturalists, this seemed to be a good way to earn a living from the church, and in your free time, poke around the countryside examining the flora, fauna, and geology.

  Charles Darwin, however, had other ideas about joining the clergy, and when the opportunity came to sail around the world, it was like inviting a kid into a candy store. If fate had ever placed the right man in the right place, it was Darwin on the Beagle. His astute powers of observation and sharp mind saw deep below the surface of the numerous fossils, bizarre plants and animals, and remarkable cultures he encountered. While he was not the first person to conceive of evolution, he was exposed to enough evidence to create a detailed and plausible model for it. (He was apparently also exposed to some disease on the voyage which severely affected his health the rest of his life, making the price he had to pay for his work even higher.)

  One of the many satirical

  cartoons to which

  Darwin was subjected.

  But Darwin was hesitant to share his theory with the world, as he knew the scientific community was still dominated by religion. Even his own fiancé was afraid that her future husband would “burn” for his heretical belief that life on Earth had evolved from earlier forms that were millions of years old. It would be twenty years before Darwin could finally be persuaded to publish his findings in Origin of the Species, but it only took months before the critical backlash began.

  In June of 1860, at the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at Oxford University, the evolutionists and creationists conducted a famous verbal duel. The highlight was undoubtedly the legendary response of pro-Darwin Thomas Huxley to Bishop Samuel Wilberforce’s mischaracterization that Darwin believed that mankind was descended from the apes. Huxley allegedly stated something to the effect that he would personally rather be descended from an ape than from a bishop!

  The heated debate devolved into all-out war that raged decade after decade. No matter how much new evidence came to light supporting Darwin, the creationists always managed to sidestep the facts. As the years rolled into a new century, the battles continued and the opposing sides were destined to meet on a stage even greater than that in the hallowed halls of Oxford. They were to meet in a small town in Tennessee in 1925, under the glaring light of the American press.

  Thomas Scopes was a high school teacher who told his students about Darwin and the theory of evolution. The problem was, it was illegal to teach evolution in Tennessee, as well as in Arkansas and Mississippi. Yes, remarkable but true, it was actually against the law to teach a fundamental concept of science in the year 1925! (Of course, when one considers that women had only recently earned the right to vote, it reinforces the fact that American society was painfully primitive. And now that I think of it, it probably still is…)

  The case went to trial, and like Wilberforce and Huxley sixty-five years earlier, two titans were about to clash. The fanatically religious William Jennings Bryan would lock horns with the shrewd and cunning defense attorney Clarence Darrow (who, in arguably the most amazing aspect of the trial, actually provided his services for free!). But Darrow and Scopes had two strikes against them from the start, as the very religious judge denied the defense the right to call any expert witnesses!

  Darrow finally called Bryan, himself, to the stand, where the self-righteous prosecutor proceeded to make a fool of himself with his closed-minded and ignorant pronouncements. Then, in order to stop the trial on a winning note, Darrow pleaded guilty on behalf of his client. A fine of $100 was imposed upon Scopes, but not one penny had to be paid as the Tennessee Supreme Court eventually threw out the case. It had been an embarrassing national mess for the creationists, but it did not actually become legal to teach evolution in Tennessee until 1967!

  But hold on to your evolved eohippus, the story does not end there, and indeed stretches into the new century. In 2004, in the Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania, the school board voted to make Intelligent Design part of the science curriculum. What that meant was, that the children would be taught that plants and animals were so complex that they could not have evolved on their own over the course of millions of years, that it had to be some “higher force” that created them. In other words, Intelligent Design basically says that because science is too complex for us to understand, let’s fall back on religion. It’s sooo much easier not to have to think…

  Outraged parents cried foul and the case went to court. In December of 2005, Judge John Jones strongly ruled against Intelligent Design, stating it was clearly a thinly-veiled attempt at imposing religious beliefs, and i
t violated the separation of church and state. But he didn’t stop there. In one of this author’s favorite quotable quotes, the judge further characterized the nature of the school board’s decision as being one of “breathtaking inanity.”

  Case closed.

  Bravo!

  Yet, sadly, the fight still continues as other school boards consider attempting the same maneuver. And there are still gullible audiences for numerous publications, cable television shows, and websites that practice the most unnatural selection—picking and choosing assorted “facts” that “prove” Creationism. I would love to think that all of this nonsense will fade and become extinct by the next century, but I have witnessed too much human ignorance to hold out much hope.

  At least we have reached an age where scientists are no longer burned at the stake, but false ideas can still be very dangerous. If only religion would get the hell out of science and stay out—along with intolerance, jealousy, fraud, greed, and ego trips.

  But alas, I must be dreaming. But what a fine dream it is, to pursue science for the sake of knowledge that can benefit all mankind and finally slay the dragon of ignorance!

  Yeah, right.

  I had better start putting together the material for the next volume of Bad Science…

  Our descendants will marvel at our ignorance.

  Seneca, c. 1 BC-65 AD

  * * *

  Table of Contents

  Unnamed