Science has a problem with jargon.
Mostly, it’s necessary- describing our inherently complex world requires a high degree of precision. But communication around science shouldn’t be so exclusively complex. Communications is, after all, the bridging of two disparate groups, the connections across a divide.
A vast bulk of research that is focused on things like climate change, cancer, agriculture, space, etc. is being paid for by you, the taxpayer. And yet for your pretty penny you are not provided the tools to decipher the results – and that is absolutely not your fault. You deserve to be able to understand the research that you contribute to as a tax payer. You should be equipped to understand the information you’re paying for, and to use it to make real, intelligent decisions in your every day life.
I started this blog because my understanding of ‘science’ has changed my consumption habits, who I vote for, and the vast majority of every day decisions in my life, small and large. And however you consume or vote or decide, you deserve to be informed.
I want to be a part of the movement that reduces the opacity of jargon-riddled science communications. I think we are not that far away from science-enriched lives and clear, objective thinking, and that maybe I can help.
I want people to be curious, because the world is fascinating. I REALLY want to eliminate the hazy, blank stare that so many people fall to when I say things like “I was reading this article about the role of male bravado in the social structure of banana slugs and GUESS WHAT” (“They’re slugs and they don’t do things like that” is what I would say, given the opportunity, but I never get that far because most people quickly remember all the cats they have to go feed).
With that preface, and in honour of the pets that bored conversationalists remember they have to go feed: here is my first blog post on ugly dogs.
Ugly Dogs
No dogs are ugly, let’s set that straight.
However, like all things with DNA, some dogs have a lot of mutations.
And, despite the weird cultural interpretations of mutations (Ninja Turtles, X-Men), most mutations result in either horrible, deleterious (BAD) effects, or (more commonly) no perceptible change at all. Since the moment that little ‘egg-you’ first divided and conquered Mom’s womb, your DNA has been under constant attack from chemical mutagens, radiation, and sloppy assembly-line work. The vast majority of this damage is repaired – your little cellular helpers stitch up 10 billion mistakes for every one that gets through. Of the 100-200 that don’t get repaired and accumulate during your life time, the majority will a) never affect you, and b) not affect your children/grandchildren etc etc.
HOWEVER: some mutations result in weird and cool traits. For instance: a spontaneous change in the FOX13 gene in dogs results in patchy baldness, awkward teeth development and a 1st place win at the ugliest dog in the world contest.
‘Mutation’ just means a change in the DNA- a red molecule where a blue one should be, or a note played where a pause was written in. Any serious molecular mix-ups beyond this hasten the arrival a group of large, angry molecules with leather jackets and pool cues (think Road House). It’s a very tightly controlled operation, but some small errors get through.
This is actually pretty horrible. Evolutionarily speaking, Sam and other big mutation suffers would have a hell of a time finding a girl dog to love him in the wild, and catching food would be pretty tough. Instead, because of our tremendous, powerful, advanced, intelligent society, he’s basking in attention from weird ‘ugly-dog-aficionados’ and pounding back ugly-dog-treats. There really is no take-home message here, I’m afraid- your genetic information is determined long before your birth and there’s naught to be done about it.
On a final note: using fantastic examples in arguing a point dangerous, and generally thought of as a scientifically-scummy thing to do. The true answer to any question is determined by looking at the entire scope of data available. Most of mutations aren’t cool or weird or notable. However, I’m working my way through how I want to approach this cultural problem of science ignorance and I DO know that throwing numbers and statistics at my 4 readers isn’t going to make progress. I hope that out-of-the-ordinary topics can garner me some interest, and I’ll try to back it up as thoroughly as possible with the correct etiquette of objectivity.
Thanks for reading, friends 🙂