Some things are too important to be entrusted to politicians

I just want to moan about last week’s vote in Doha, Qatar which decided not to ban Bluefin Tuna fishing using CITES – the Convention for the Trade in Endangered Species. It is widely accepted that both Atlantic and Pacific stocks of Bluefin Tuna are near extinction, almost entirely due to it being the most highly prized fish for Sushi .

So under recommendation from scientists Monaco proposed a temporary fishing ban adding Atlantic Bluefin Tuna to the endangered and protected species list in an attempt to bring it back from below 15% of it’s natural population size. But of course Japan didn’t like that idea and just like with whaling they have bullied the international community to stop the proposal by offering money to countries in the form of fishing subsidies in return for favourable voting. I should point out that other countries, like Spain, also voted against it as they profit greatly from Tuna exports to Japan.

Votes like this shouldn’t be under the control of politicians, it’s far too important! Sure, some will argue that they have to protect their people, banning fishing would surely put many out of business and possibly ruin local economies. That’s all very sad and best avoided but by not banning it the governments are only putting off the inevitable as stocks will be decimated in less than ten years time leaving no Tuna for anyone.  No-one can deny the scientist’s figures – local fisherman will testify to a huge drop in their catch size, so not taking action is just pure pig-headed selfishness.

Our global community has some very difficult decisions ahead and they have to be made based on the facts. Tax increases are never popular but politicians still do it because it’s necessary and unavoidable, why can’t they realise that pressing matters such as species extinction and global warming, based on scientific evidence and advice, are just as vital and unavoidable.

Make Your Own Slime!

 Ok, so it’s no where near Halloween yet, but this stuff is so much fun, so I couldn’t wait.

What you’ll need:

  • Water
  • PVA glue
  • Borax powder (chemical name: sodium tetraborate)
  • Food colouring
  • An old tub and stirring implements

What to do:

Simply mix an equal volume of water to PVA glue (ie if you have 250ml of PVA glue, then you mix it with 250ml water). Add the food colouring and mix thoroughly.

Next, mix half a teaspoon of Borax with about ¾ of the volume of water used before – the borax won’t dissolve in the cold water, but just make sure it’s mixed thoroughly.


Finally, combine the two mixtures together slowly, once it starts forming a glob you can take this out and knead it… and voila! Slime!

 

So how does it work? Basically, PVA glue is made up of a bunch of single units all chained together, and though a thick, or viscous, liquid, these chains are generally able to slide over and past each other with little problem.

The borax (sodium tetraborate) acts to make links between the chains – this results in a thicker substance as all the PVA units are linked together in to a big mesh that doesn’t allow water around the molecules so much. This process is called crosslinking. But is it a solid, or a liquid? The technical term is a non-newtonian liquid. This means that when a force is acted upon it it will act like a solid and resist that force, and the more force you apply, the more solid-like it acts.

 

A Little Adivce

Borax (Sodium Tetraborate) can be an irritant, so please supervise carefully any children whilst doing this and DO NOT eat the glue, borax or final slime! You can handle the slime, but be sure to wash it off, and it should come off in warm, soapy water if you get it on your clothes. The slime can be stored in a sealed container for a couple of weeks int the fridge.

 

 

If you make some of your own slime, why not send us some photos and how you’ve used it to ask@sciencebrainwaves.com

Cognitive Psychology – Blog 2

The Cognitive Capacities of Young Children

You may wonder why on earth we bother running research projects with young children in the Cognitive Psychology group. I mean, they can’t understand language in the same way that us adults do; they can’t keep their attention focussed on one thing for very long; they can’t resist grabbing things and blurting out answers before they’ve listened to all of the options they have to choose from…yet these are some of the reasons that doing research with young children can be so fascinating. These little people are developing skills day by day that we, as adults, take for granted.

In the Cognitive Psychology group at the University of Sheffield we study these developing ways of thinking and behaviours. Finding out how these systems develop and which abilities precede and follow others can give us great insights into the best way to teach children new skills. There is a bit of a blurred boundary between whether these projects are classed as “Developmental Psychology” or “Cognitive Psychology” but as long as we are answering interesting and important questions we don’t really mind what classification the projects are given. Perhaps we’ll just stick with “Cognitive Development”.

Dr Danielle Mathews – Researcher in Cognitive Development

Danielle is a lecturer at Sheffield and is currently working on a number of different projects but her main interest is how children develop their communication skills. Some of the things she is most interested in are:

        How children learn to tell people what they want or what they are thinking about

·        How children learn to understand what other people are talking about

·        What kinds of things parents can do to help children learn to talk

·        How children learn to combine words so they can produce their own sentences


Research in Focus – Blog 2

A research study that Danielle and her colleagues have got ‘in press’ in a journal called Developmental Psychology investigated how children aged 3 – 5 years understand how other people talk about objects. This study will

be published later this year. Here’s a summary of their research paper:

There are often many different ways we can talk about that same thing. For example, if we’re trying to mend my washing machine, we could call one of the parts ‘a silver tube’ or ‘a shiny cylinder’. It wouldn’t make much difference which expression we used, both mean more or less the same thing. But, if I start using one expression, say ‘the silver tube’, you’ll expect me to stick to that term for the rest of our conversation.  So we might have a conversation like this:

 ”Can you pass me the silver tube? OK thanks. Let’s try putting it in here behind the wire. Oh no that doesn’t work. OK take the silver tube out again and pass me the clip.. etc.etc.”

 In the course of this conversation we have built up a ‘referential pact’ – an implicit agreement to use the term ‘silver tube’. If I now asked you to pass me a silver cylinder you might assume I was talking about something else or get confused. The point is that it’s only because we’ve already ‘agreed’ to call something a silver tube that saying ‘a shiny cylinder’ is confusing. If another person came in to the room and said ‘Oh do you need this shiny cylinder?’  we wouldn’t find it surprising if they just happened to talk about our silver tube in that way.

 Studies have shown that adults are slowed down (by about 700 milliseconds) if the person they are talking to creates a ‘referential pact’ like this and then switches terms for no reason.  However adults are not slowed down if one person creates a pact and then a new person comes along and uses a different term. These studies show that adults have very good memory for who has said what to them before and they use this memory to create predications about what people say next on a millisecond by millisecond basis.

Danielle and her colleagues were interested to find out whether young children are also able to keep track of who has said what and generate predictions just like adults. They asked children to move toy objects around on a shelf and measured how long it took them to react to different names for each object. Just like adults, even 3-year-olds could remember who had used which terms before and were slowed down by almost two seconds when a person created a pact and then used new term was used for no reason.

 There were only two differences between adults and children. First children we slowed down for much longer than adults (about 2 second instead of 700 milliseconds). Second, children we’re slowed down a little even when a new person came along and used a new term.

 So although children have excellent memories for who has said what, they might assume that everybody will talk about the same things in the same way, regardless of when they joined a conversation. Learning about why different people might use different expressions just takes a lot of experience!


Comment is free?

Everyone has an opinion and everyone’s entitled to it. Prince Charles is yet again in the press for sticking his nose in where it’s not wanted. He stands accused of using his healthcare charity to wage a war on Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at Exeter University, who is an extremely public critic of the Prince’s views on complementary medicine.

What he is accused of is against the law and I’m not here to discuss that. Reading the article yesterday whilst on the train did however make me wonder who has the right to comment on science and in what capacity? We are all able to express our opinions and are invited to do so on blogs across the net and in papers’ letter sections. Discussion is good and to be encouraged amongst scientists and the public.

I think it’s good when a member of the public expresses their opinion on something to do with science, I’m encouraged by the public taking an active interest in the debate, my problem however is it’s often not really their opinion. It’ll really belong to a columnist in the Daily Mail, or Jeremy Clarkson (does he have a column in the Daily Mail?) or some other celebrity who is certainly no expert. Every year the charity Sense About Science publish a leaflet responding to misinformed celebrities who make it their mission to tell the public that kids shouldn’t really drink milk or that Foie Gras causes Alzheimer’s. The public believe what they read and, as I’ve discussed before, don’t always have the ability or even inclination to assess its reliability, so very quickly a comment made on GMTV becomes The Truth that evil scientists don’t want you to know!

So should some people keep their mouths shut? I’m sure Prince Charles knows a lot about alternative medicine, what he lacks are the tools to critically assess what he knows for validity and reliability. That’s what scientists have trained for many years to be able to do and that’s why we need scientists and why the government relies on their expertise. What Charles and other “celebrities “ need to realise is that they wield enormous influence, ridiculously more influence than someone who’s studied a subject for 40 years, at least in the public’s eyes. Some people make their comments out of ignorance of their power and the subject, Prince Charles however knows what he’s doing when he speaks at a conference and pushes his views. He knows what he’s doing when he donates “his” money to charities that lobby for alternative medicine.

An editor of a very well known and respected scientific journal once told me that it was our (scientists) job to get the facts right and a journalist’s job to entertain. That view disgusts me because it is basically renouncing everyone except the scientist from a social responsibility for fairness and accuracy. Personally, I think very carefully about what I write and strive to make sure what I say is true to the best of my knowledge, if I don’t consider myself knowledgeable enough to comment on something then I won’t.  If you have power of any sort then you should use it responsibly, that means ensuring that what you say is accurate and based on fact. Of course you might suffer as a result.

Does it itself nanotechnology

In my first post  I mentioned that one of the key advantages to nanomaterials is that their properties depend directly upon the size and shape of the particles. This becomes important in developing new technologies as the material can be tailored to suit a specific task by changing the size and shape of the nanostructures.

Current manufacturing cuts and stamps things to order. We cut and etch silicon wafers for electronics and we mould plastics for casings. In some ways this is like trying to make a house out of a cave. To a large extent it works, you can drill and dig new chambers to make new rooms and put in plumbing for hot showers etc. However, you are always limited by the tools you have to cut and dig with, and the size of the cave. People have always found it easier to build houses from the ground up and changing the size and shape to fit the future occupants (two bedrooms and one bathroom for a one-child family, sixteen rooms for several generations under one roof).

In a very general sense, this is what nanotechnology promises, the means to put molecules together into larger structures or grow particles to specific sizes fit to our needs. The key to achieving this is to understand the processes of self-assembly. This is exactly what it sounds like, putting molecules together in the right conditions so that they may spontaneously arrange themselves into a larger structure or pattern that we can use for various purposes. A larger structure made when individual molecules are put together like building blocks is called a “supramolecular structure.”

A key element of such a structure is that the smaller molecules are NOT chemically bonded together. If you picture a jig-saw puzzle, the pieces all fit together to make your picture of (let’s say) the Houses of Parliament. You’ll notice it is not necessary to glue the pieces together but that the notches and bumps one the sides of each piece allows them to stay connected when fit correctly. In nature, molecules and atoms experience all sorts of interactions and attractions that make them want to stick together without the need for the more extreme process (the transfer of electrons) of forming a chemical bond.

One example of such a connection is the hydrogen “bond“. This is best explained if we take a look at a water molecule as in the image below (original source here).


Most of science can be described by the fact that Mother Nature is lazy. Atoms and molecules always want to be in the state or position of lowest energy. They don’t like to be bouncing off the walls or doing stuff, they don’t want to be promoted at work and have more stress and responsibilities, they want to be chilled out on the couch and doing as little as possible.  They will also do anything to try and get into this lowest energy state, which scientists often call the most stable state, maybe because the ‘couch potato state’ sounded bad. In general, atoms form chemical bonds because they find that together they have to do less i.e. have lower energy than on their own.

In the water molecule an oxygen atoms has determined its best chance for stability is to hook up with two hydrogen atoms (hence the chemical name H2O). When the bond is formed the hydrogen atoms share their electrons with the oxygen atoms and this combined pool of electrons are now buzzing about all three atoms like a cloud of bees. However, the negatively charged electrons are attracted to positively charged protons in each atom. The much larger oxygen atom has 8 protons and the hydrogens atoms only one each, in other words the oxygen atom has most of the honey and more bees (electrons) will swarms around the oxygen atoms than the hydrogen atoms. This effect makes the region surrounding the oxygen atom more negative due to the greater number of swarming electrons, and the end where the hydrogen atoms are more positive due to the lack of electrons. The difference is small, but enough to have effects on how the molecules behave, and is shown in the diagram where blue = negative and green = positively charged regions of the cloud.

Hydrogen bonding occurs when several of molecule with this subtle charge imbalance are put close together. Positive attracts negative and so the negatively charged ends of a molecules will be attracted to the positive ends of a neighbouring molecule. In some cases, depending on how fast the molecules are moving and how strong the charge difference is, this attraction may be enough to let the ends of molecules stick to each despite not actually forming a chemical bond the way that the atoms did in forming the molecule. For example the hydrogen ends of a water molecule can ‘stick’ to the oxygen end of another water molecule but not in the same way that the hydrogen atoms are attached to the oxygen atoms within each molecule. In fact, this is what happens when water becomes ice and it determines the shape of ice crystals such a snow flake.

Back the the nanotechnology, the image below is from the website of the nanoscience group at the University of Nottingham. This shows a Scanning Tunnelling Microscope image (another technique that allows scientists to take pictures of individual atoms) of a hexagonal network made from hydrogen-bonded self-assembly. The scientist, Dr Luis Perdigao, put a rod-shaped molecule (the grey ovals) and a triangular molecule onto a flat surface (just visible as darker edges to the grey molecules). He then heated the molecules to give them the energy to skim around the surface and mix themselves up then let it cool. As the molecules cooled they began to get slower and started to feel this hydrogen bonding effect start to stick the molecules together. The end of the rods were attracted to the edges of the triangle to make a joint that was similarly shaped to the letter Y. When lots of these joints stick together they make a pattern resembling a honeycomb (back to the bees again!) . You can try it yourself by drawing a Y and then drawing another one, the same size, next to it with the arms touching. Then draw a third Y, this time with the two arms touching the leg of each of the previous Ys. You should have a hexagonal space in the middle and if you keep going with that pattern, you’ll end up with a honeycomb.

This is a very simple example of self-assembly, which is still some way from being developed into a new technology. However, you can already see the next step which is to use the honeycomb pattern as a template or mould to arrange other molecules. In this case Dr Perdigao used the open spaces to arrange clusters of Buckminster Fullerene molecules (buckyballs, the white spheres in the image). It is possible that patterns of fullerenes like this could be sued to develop new computers. However, it demonstrates the potential for self-assembly. Self-assembled patterns like this can be seen as a foundation allowing us to put other molecules into precise arrangements suited for specific functions. These devices would built layer-by-layer from the ground up, using single molecules as building blocks much like the houses built to fit different families mentioned earlier. This vision of future manufacturing is called ‘bottom-up’ processing.

I hope that provides an adequate introduction to the concept of self-assembly. I hope to add some posts about other possible applications of self-assembled nanostructures, how they can be used in new technologies now and not in 20 years time and how biology got there first.

At the Big Bang

 

So apparently it was everywhere – on TV, on the radio, in the newspapers, so as the name may describe quite aptly, it was BIG. And it drew a big crowd – 22,545 people came along, joined by nine robots, a lemur, a coffee-powered car, and an Olympic gold medallist. No, not THE big bang, the start of the universe as we know it and everything… so what drew everyone in?

The Big Bang fair in Manchester’s Central Exhibition centre boasted a broad range of organisations who were showing off tech and exhibitions, some of which allowed participants to take part in interactive activities; such as extracting iron from corn flakes and chocolate welding! Added to this the casts of BBC’s Bang Goes the Theory, Punk Science and Braniac putting on live shows to wow, and you have yourself an excellent and educational day out.

On top of this there were stands from some of the finalists of the CREST and National Science and Engineering awards showing off their projects  - the winners of which were presented with their prizes at the fair by Lord Mandelson. It was incredible the kind of things that the students, aged 11-18, were getting involved with; some of them looked a lot like 3rd year undergraduate lab projects! So it’s good to know that these sorts of projects are indeed inspiring and enthusing young people to get involved with science. Related to this, the stands had scientists and engineers from the companies, not only to explain what they do – but to talk to young people about their careers. Very handy.

So why were we there? Well I and Beki went along to do some science busking at the British Science Association stand. Science busking… What on earth is that? In short, it’s a way of getting across scientific ideas succinctly and in a fun and interesting manner. Not only were we talking to kids about what sounds were with glove-o-phones, explaining visual illusions, letting them shoot us with air-bazookas, using Styrofoam cups to explain lift, etc, but we took our toys to a pub afterwards. Have a look at the pictures from the day:

 

(Also, look at the pictures from the BBC)

It was an interesting experience, definitely a lot of fun. Also, quite challenging in a lot of ways – ever thought how you could explain what vibrations are to a seven year old?

The stand also included some mice and creepy crawlies to link in with their theme for National Science and Engineering Week:  What on Earth? The kids loved that, too.

The Big Bang fair has more regional counterparts, so keep a look out for those.

Twitter

I am on twitter. @timcdlucas. I will try and let people know on twitter when I write a new post. Might be easier than RSS for some people. Who knows.

Science Brainwaves are also on twitter. @SciBrainwaves. They are doing good regular updates of interesting bits of science news. 

The Evolution of Cooperation 3: Mutualism

“By virtue of exchange, one man’s prosperity is beneficial to all others.”
Frederic Bastiat

Mutualism is quite an alien concept to us humans. In evolutionary terms it is not a good-for-group idea. Nor is it a “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” arrangement (I will discuss this in the next post). Surprisingly, it is also completely selfish.

Mutualism is any process or behaviour where both parties make gains which immediately outweigh the costs. Sometimes this is because the costs are virtually nothing. I am struggling to think of more than one example of mutualism in human society, but it is in fact so common it is hard to see it in this light. Trade in humans is nearly always mutualistic. If it is not mutualistic we think of it as either a con or charity, depending on who benefits. So, how is trade mutualistic? The fact that both parties benefit instantly means they must have different needs and assign different value to whatever service or good is being traded. So, a shopkeeper buys chocolate bars in bulk. Lets say they cost £10 for 100 at a cash-and-carry, bulk buy type place. So the bars cost 10p each and the shop keeper sells them for 50p. As the consumer, 50p isn’t much to pay for a chocolate bar. You want a snack and it would be more expensive to buy 100 bars from the cash-and-carry even though they are cheaper per bar. So you are getting a good deal, you would probably pay 60p for the chocolate bar, but it is only 50p. The shopkeeper paid 10p for the chocolate bar so is also getting a good deal. For both parties the benefits (50p to the shopkeeper or a chocolate bar to the consumer) immediately outweigh the costs (10p to the shopkeeper or 50p to the consumer). This then is a true mutualism.

Mutualism then is actually an extremely simple idea. Both parties benefit instantly. Easy. However, the situations in which it occur are harder to understand. There are other mutualisms in human society. When bands play together, especially at smaller gigs, often a out of town headliner will play with a local support band. The support band get to play with a more famous band and get more exposure in their own town. The headliner gets a guaranteed crowd due to the fans of the local band. Everyone wins.

HornbillMycorhizza 

Above: (left) A hornbill eating some fruit and so dispersing the seeds. (right) Mycorhizzal fungi on a plant root.

What about the natural world then? There are many, many examples of mutualisms in the natural world. Humans generally need the same things. Food, money, a house. As organisms are all so different, with different food sources and different needs, mutualism is more common. For example, plants need their seeds to be dispersed (but often have plenty of food, as they make it from carbon dioxide and sunlight). Animals on the other hand often need food. So plants and animals have a form of mutualistic trade. Plants produce fruit, a good food supply for animals. When the animal eats the fruit the seeds get carried around and dispersed. Plants have plenty of food and animals move around anyway, so the costs are minimal. The benefits to both (food for the animal and seed dispersal for the plant) are enough to instantly outweigh the costs.

Many plants have mycorrhizal fungi attached to their roots. Again, plants have plenty of food because they make it themselves. The fungi are particularly good at absorbing water. Plant growth is often limited by the amount of water they can get while fungi are often limted by the amount of sugar. So they trade. The fungi live on the plant roots and give up some of the water that they absorb. In return they get some of the sugar that the plant makes. The cost of water is low to a fungus and high to a plant while the cost of sugar is low to a plant and high to fungus. Because they have different needs, the trade is beneficial to both parties.

We humans also have mutualisms. The bacteria in our gut (the ones that yoghurt adverts insist on calling “friendly bacteria”… pah!) can digest cellulose. Cellulose is the carbohydrate that makes up most of the structure of plants and human cells can’t digest it. We provide the bacteria with a warm, wet place to live. In return the bacteria digest our cellulose for us. Once again, everyone wins.

So that is mutualism. I’ve said that science is made interesting by paradoxes. Mutualism is not a paradox, and so is not the most exciting thing in the world. It is however all around us and some of the most important groups of organism have got where they are due to mutualisms. Animals and bacteria, plants and fungus, termites and digestive fungus, coral and algae. Wherever you look mutualisms abound. However, in the next post I will discuss another paradox. How does evolution evolve when the benefits don’t immediately outweigh the costs, when some individuals can cheat or when the quest for quick gains disrupts long term cooperation.

Science may be the door to a better future, but who holds the key?


Scientists have a strange reputation: they’re both saviours and villains, usually depending on who you talk to. And it’s true, science has saved countless lives but of course made it possible to destroy countless more. So are scientists going to save humanity or bring forward doomsday?

Science is a powerful weapon. If global warming exists and we’re going to try to stop it, that will surely be achieved with technological advances. However, there are several steps that need to be completed before we decide on how to solve the problem. And like with so many of Man’s ills, the first step is acceptance.

It was about 30 years ago that scientists first claimed that CFCs were making a hole in the ozone layer, they were finally banned in the mid 90s and we are now starting to see stabilisation of the problem. The regulation imposed to solve the problem was pretty much inconsequential to the public and yet it still took that long to implement it. 

Most scientists agree that the public need to be engaged more, especially over controversial issues. Since politicians apparently listen to the public is it that which is the key to science being allowed to create a better future?

A Science and Trust Expert Group Report – Starting a National Conversation about Good Science – highlights the complicated view the public have of science and scientists. We are losing their trust is the main message. High-profile “controversies” such as BSE, MMR and climate change have confused the public with polarised arguments that only result in polarisation of the audience which in turn closes people’s minds to further evidence and debate.

Even when you present sound, clear evidence the public will probably not be inclined to agree with you.  In fact you can debunk a story and it only serves to strengthen the opposition. In one study summarised here by the Washington Post, 34% of conservatives who were told about the Bush government’s claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction were inclined to believe them. But among those who were shown that the government’s claims were later comprehensively refuted by the Duelfer report, 64% ended up believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

It seems an impossible situation. The scientific community can’t effect change without politicians and politicians won’t do anything without public backing. Throw into the mix an awkward media who put their own spin on the science that they don’t understand just to sell more papers and you’ve got stagnant policy. What should be a rational debate about a serious problem becomes a self perpetuating frenzy of hyperbole from all sides.   

What it comes down to is how we choose to use science, if we use it at all. If a problem needs solving and the will is there, we’ve proved time and time again that we can come up with a solution. It’s just whether our leaders can decide on what that solution should be. My question however is: are they qualified to make that choice? If not, who is?

 

 

 

The Evolution of Cooperation 2: Group Selection

“Do you live for the good of the tribe, Stilgar?”
“There is no other way.”
“And for the good of the tribe would you let me stab this knife into your heart?”

Frank Herbert – Dune
Normally I wouldn’t bother writing about group selection because as an idea it is dead and gone as far as I, and most evolutionary biologists are concerned. However, I started reading this blog about group selection. I thought I would write about group selection for a few reasons. Firstly, it’s on my mind at the moment so hopefully the post will be quite good. Secondly, the link provides a good “other side of the story”, so hopefully a couple of readers might immerse themselves in the debate. Finally, many members of the public might intuitively see group selection as plausible. This is not something to be ashamed of. A certain Charles Darwin thought it was the best explanation for some social behaviour. Do a biology degree however, and group selection is blasphemy. Because of this it is easy for biologists to lose sight of what an intuitive idea it is.

Two groups of people go into two shops. One of the groups are well versed in the wonderful British institution that is queuing. People politely accept their position in the queue for the tills and everyone gets served quickly and efficiently. In the other shop it is a free-for-all (you might have experienced this in France/Italy. It is very disconcerting.) and because of all the scrummage everyone actually takes longer to pay. However, if anyone in the free-for-all shop tried to form a queue, they would be the last to pay. In the polite shop, if someone skipped the queue they would get their goods quicker than if they joined the queue, but this would increase the time it takes for everyone else to do their shopping. This is the crux of group selection. Group selection says that a group with a behaviour that is for the common good will reproduce faster than those without this behaviour. As long as the selection between groups is stronger than the selection within groups the cooperative behaviour will spread through the population, even though anyone who behaves selfishly will do better than the rest of their group.

The great, British queue

The counter argument is that whenever an individual is selfish in a non-selfish group (pushing to the front of the queue), this selfish behaviour will spread through the group. Soon there will be no cooperative groups to even compete with the selfish groups. The selection within groups is stronger than the selection between groups.

Despite what some might say, there is an issue of semantics now. Originally, group selection was supposed to work in the same way as individual selection. Instead of the best individuals surviving and reproducing, the best groups survived and reproduced. Now however, the thinking goes that genes are the unit of selection but if group living allows a social behaviour to evolve, this is also group selection. In other words, group selection can only work when gene level selection says it can work anyway. Some say this is group selection and a highly useful scientific advance. Others say, whats the point in worrying about group selection when gene level selection tells you exactly the same thing? The important addition to this is that gene level selection will never give you the wrong answer. If you make a model and gene level selection says something can evolve, it can evolve. With group level selection however, a model might give you the wrong answer. The only times it will give the right answer in fact, is when you arrive at the gene level selection model, but from a different standpoint.

Furthermore, the “group” is a very fuzzy concept. Since the 60s the idea of an individual has been very carefully scrutinised to the point where an individual or even a cell counts as group. What used to be a group is now a lose nit group. Bigger units, all the way up to the entire earth, can be considered losely bound groups. Everything down to chromosomes can also be considered a group, albeit a tightly nit one. The gene on the other hand has a quite precise, consistant definition. This just leads to more mistakes and fuzzy thinking. Most group selection models consider selection between groups and compare it to selection between individuals. If selection between groups is stronger than selection between individuals group selection can occur. But individuals are now another type of group. So we need to consider individuals as groups as well as our original group (as kin selection essentially does). Eventually you end up considering genes to be “individuals” and everything else a group. Then you have a gene level selection model, albeit in an interesting social setting. Why not start with the gene level model? The maths ends up being easier and you can’t make mistakes.

I intend to write more on the definition of an individual soon. Until then I hope you read DS Wilsons blog and see what you think. The section on Dawkins is an interesting insight into the slightly more personal side of science.