🦑 Disparity and Diversity: A New Way to Think About Evolution

From: Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History by Stephen Jay Gould

1. Two Words That Change Everything

In this subtle yet powerful section, Stephen Jay Gould reframes how we understand the evolutionary past by clarifying a distinction that is often ignored: disparity vs. diversity. These terms may sound similar, but Gould shows how their confusion has distorted our view of life's history.

• Diversity = number of species or individuals
• Disparity = range of anatomical forms or body plans

Gould’s central claim: Disparity arose early, especially during the Cambrian Explosion, and has narrowed over time—even as diversity (the number of species) has increased.

2. A Cambrian Bestiary of Strange Forms

The Burgess Shale shows a world far more anatomically experimental than today. Creatures like Opabinia (with five eyes and a backward-facing proboscis), Anomalocaris (with grasping appendages and radial mouths), and many others defied existing classification.

“We are not the survivors of a steady march of improvement, but the lucky remnants of a massive die-off of creative experimentation.” — Gould

Early life explored a wider range of body plans than those that survived. Today’s animal phyla represent only a subset of these original experiments.

3. Why Disparity Matters More Than Diversity

Gould critiques the idea that life has continuously become more complex or creative. In terms of disparity, the greatest explosion of innovation occurred early in life’s history, not late. The fact that today’s world contains millions of species doesn't mean evolution has become more inventive. Instead, it has specialized and elaborated on existing forms.

For example, insects are incredibly diverse (millions of species), but they share a basic body plan: head, thorax, abdomen. The disparity between an insect and a jellyfish, however, is much greater.

4. Genomics and Evo-Devo Support Gould

Gould wrote *Wonderful Life* just before the explosion of genomics and evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), yet these fields powerfully confirm his insights.

• Hox genes: Shared by most animals, these master regulators control body segmentation and structure. During the Cambrian, their duplication and variation helped generate novel body plans.
• Developmental plasticity: Early animals likely had greater freedom in gene expression and morphological experimentation. Today, developmental constraints limit radical form changes.
• Genomic reuse: Many species reuse ancient genetic toolkits rather than inventing new ones. Morphological innovation slows not because life is done exploring, but because fewer viable paths remain.

This suggests that the evolutionary potential for new body plans was greatest early on, matching the pattern of early disparity followed by later diversity.

5. The Fossil Record Is Not a Ladder

Gould cautions against thinking of life as a march toward complexity. The fossil record is not a ladder—it’s a bush. Most branches were pruned early, and the survivors were often no better than those that vanished. Survival depended more on luck and ecological fit than superiority.

Today’s life forms sit atop the last few surviving branches. That doesn't mean we’re the best—just that our ancestors happened to survive the evolutionary lottery.

6. Final Thoughts

The distinction between disparity and diversity is not just a semantic trick. It forces us to rethink how we teach, visualize, and understand evolution. Gould’s insight—powerfully illustrated through the Burgess Shale—is that life began with an exuberant explosion of form, and what remains is only a shadow of that original creativity.

“Disparity was maximal early and has decreased ever since. We are the heirs of survivors—not the culmination of progress.” — Paraphrased from Gould

Read the full book: Wonderful Life – Full PDF

🔁 Replaying the Tape of Life: Evolution’s Most Provocative What-If

From: Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History by Stephen Jay Gould

1. Gould’s Thought Experiment

In Chapter 1 of Wonderful Life, Stephen Jay Gould presents one of the most profound metaphors in modern biology: “replaying the tape of life.” Suppose we could rewind Earth’s evolutionary history to the Cambrian period, erase all that followed, and let life evolve again. Would the outcome resemble today’s world? Gould’s answer is bold and sobering: almost certainly not.

“If you replay the tape a million times, I doubt that anything like Homo sapiens would ever evolve again.” — Gould

2. Why the Tape Would Play Differently

Gould stresses that evolution is not a directed process aiming for progress or intelligence. It’s shaped by randomness, extinction, and environmental upheavals. Even minute changes in early events can cascade into dramatically different outcomes. He uses the example of Pikaia, a tiny Cambrian chordate that barely survived. Had it gone extinct, the chordate lineage—and by extension, vertebrates like us—might never have existed.

3. Contingency vs. Determinism

This section of the book makes a sharp distinction between two worldviews:

• Deterministic evolution: Life trends toward complexity and intelligence.
• Contingent evolution (Gould’s view): Life is shaped by chance events and historical accidents. There's no inherent direction.

In Gould's model, evolution is more like a vast branching bush than a ladder. What survives does so not because it's "better" but because it happened to be in the right place at the right time.

4. Genomic Insights into Contingency

Modern genomics echoes Gould’s view:

• Random mutations: Many genomic changes have neutral or nearly neutral effects, drifting over generations until they gain new roles—or vanish.
• Gene duplications: Entire gene families exist because of random duplications, like the Hox cluster, which was co-opted for body plan development.
• Mobile elements: Transposable elements reshuffle genomes unpredictably. Some become crucial regulatory elements; others are silenced or lost.
• Rare innovations: Endosymbiosis (mitochondria, chloroplasts) and multicellularity happened only a few times in 4 billion years—highlighting how rare, contingent breakthroughs shape biology.

5. Experimental Support: The E. coli Example

Richard Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE) offers real-world support. All 12 populations began with the same ancestor. Yet only one evolved the ability to metabolize citrate under aerobic conditions — after tens of thousands of generations and a rare “potentiating” mutation. This mirrors Gould’s thesis: the same starting point doesn’t ensure the same outcome.

“Even with identical conditions, evolutionary history unfolds differently due to chance events.” — Modern synthesis of Gould + Lenski

6. Human Evolution: A Lucky Accident?

Gould argues that our own existence is the result of extraordinary contingency. Humans are not the goal of evolution but a quirky, improbable outcome. Replaying the tape might produce intelligent cephalopods—or no intelligence at all. If intelligence is not inevitable, then our sense of cosmic centrality must give way to humility.

7. The Emotional Impact of Contingency

Gould’s message is not cynical. In fact, he sees beauty and wonder in the precariousness of our existence. If life is the result of cascading accidents, then it is more precious, not less. Our uniqueness is not diminished by randomness—it’s made all the more remarkable.

8. Implications for Evolutionary Biology and Genomics

Replaying the tape urges caution in interpreting biological systems:

• Don’t assume current complexity is inevitable.
• Beware of teleological language ("X gene evolved to do Y").
• Accept that much of genome evolution involves dead ends, false starts, and unexpected repurposings.

This resonates with the discovery of non-coding DNA, pseudogenes, lineage-specific innovations, and convergent evolution through different genetic routes.

9. Final Reflection

“Replaying the Tape of Life” is not just a thought experiment. It’s a lens through which to view the fragility and creativity of evolution. For Gould, contingency is not a bug — it's the defining feature of life’s history. And in the age of genomics, we see more than ever how true this is. The future of evolutionary thought lies in embracing unpredictability, not resisting it.

Read the full book: Wonderful Life – Full PDF

The Ladder and the Cone: Rethinking Evolution's Shape

From: Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History by Stephen Jay Gould

1. Dismantling the Evolutionary Ladder

In “The Ladder and the Cone,” Gould tackles one of the most persistent myths in evolutionary thinking: that life is a ladder of progress, with each rung representing a more “advanced” form. In this view, life evolves upward from simple to complex, culminating—unsurprisingly—in humans. But Gould argues that this mental image is both scientifically inaccurate and deeply misleading.

Evolution, he reminds us, does not work toward goals. It doesn’t “aim” for intelligence, symmetry, or complexity. The ladder metaphor imposes a hierarchy where none exists, and reinforces anthropocentric ideas about biology.

2. Enter the Cone: A Better Model of History

As an alternative, Gould offers the image of a cone of increasing diversity. At the base, early in life’s history, we find a relatively small number of body plans and genetic lineages. Over time, these radiate outward, producing a burst of new forms and configurations. Importantly, most of those branches eventually die off—leaving only a few survivors.

This model helps explain the pattern seen in the Burgess Shale: a remarkable explosion of anatomical diversity, much of which did not persist. But rather than seeing extinction as failure, Gould sees it as an inevitable consequence of history’s branching randomness.

3. Genomic Parallels to the Cone Model

Modern genomics provides strong support for Gould’s cone. Consider the following parallels:

• Gene family diversification: Early life started with a limited toolkit. Over time, gene duplication led to families of related genes—e.g., the globins, Hox genes, or MADS-box genes—used in increasingly diverse ways.
• Lineage-specific innovation: Some genes are universal, but many innovations are lineage-specific—just like many early Cambrian creatures had unique anatomies. The genetic “tree” is full of orphan genes and divergent regulatory elements.
• Extinct gene architectures: Some ancient genes and their functions have disappeared, like the creatures of the Burgess Shale. Their loss is not due to inferiority, but to the randomness of history—drift, extinction, or ecological change.

4. Misinterpreting the Fossil Record and the Genome

Gould notes that we often mistake survivors for exemplars. In both fossils and genomes, what we see today is shaped by what endured—not by what was most representative. A genome filled with surviving gene families does not reveal how many potential paths were lost to history.

This echoes how we view evolutionary “success” in hindsight. But the cone model forces us to acknowledge a sobering truth: if we replayed the tape of life, the outcome would likely be radically different.

5. The Cone and Contingency

Gould’s cone is not just about structure—it’s about philosophy. It makes room for contingency, for chance, for the weird and wonderful events that shape biology. The model resists teleology. It embraces plurality, unpredictability, and the fragile path by which any organism—including ourselves—came to be.

“Life is not a predictable climb up a ladder. It is an explosion of possibilities, most of which have disappeared forever.” — Paraphrasing Gould

6. Final Thoughts

“The Ladder and the Cone” reshapes how we view both fossils and genomes. The idea that evolution has a direction, or that complexity is inevitable, falls apart under scrutiny. Instead, Gould teaches us to see history not as a straight line, but as a burst of potential — a cone that begins narrow and radiates unpredictably outward.

Genomics confirms this: our DNA carries the scars of contingency, the evidence of experiments lost, and the echoes of ancient possibilities. Gould's cone is not just a metaphor — it is a blueprint for understanding life’s true nature.

Next up: Stay tuned for a deep dive into “The Burgess Shale: History and Setting,” where Gould sets the stage for his exploration of one of the most astonishing fossil sites in the world.

Read the full book: Wonderful Life – Full PDF

A Prologue in Pictures: Evolution’s Twisted Canvas

From: Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History by Stephen Jay Gould

🎞️ 1. When Pictures Tell Bigger Lies

Stephen Jay Gould begins his classic with a powerful idea: the pictures we draw of evolution shape how we think about it. Textbooks often show an evolutionary ladder—simple creatures giving way to more complex ones, with humans triumphantly perched at the top. This “iconography of expectation” reflects a bias toward progress. But nature, as Gould shows us, never agreed to that plotline.

👁️ 2. Enter Opabinia: The Star of the Prologue

Meet Opabinia: five eyes, a backward-facing mouth, and a long proboscis with a claw. Found in the Burgess Shale, this surreal creature is an evolutionary wild card. Gould uses it not only to captivate but to challenge assumptions. This was not a “failed experiment”—it was simply one of evolution’s many roads, most of which didn’t lead to us.

📊 3. The Shape of Evolution: Not a Ladder, but a Cone

Zhuravlev, A.Y., Wood, R.A. The two phases of the Cambrian Explosion. Sci Rep 8, 16656 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34962-y

Gould argues that rather than a ladder, we should imagine evolution as a cone. At the base, organisms radiate into wildly different forms. Only a few lineages survive, creating the illusion of steady progress. The Burgess Shale snapshot reveals not ancestors of modern phyla—but mostly extinct forms, evolutionary side-streets that never rejoined the highway.

🌍 4. A Cambrian Carnival: Experimental Life at Its Peak

During the Cambrian Explosion (~505 million years ago), evolution went wild. Body plans multiplied. Limbs, eyes, and exoskeletons burst into existence. The fossils of the Burgess Shale are like a snapshot of a mad design competition. Genetically, this implies early toolkits (like Hox genes) were being reused and repurposed at lightning speed.

🧬 5. Genomic Echoes of Opabinia

Though we can't sequence Opabinia's genome, genomics gives us hints about its logic:

• Stem-group heritage: Opabinia likely shared ancestral genes with early arthropods—perhaps early uses of Pax genes for eye development, or conserved motor neuron systems for its lobed limbs.
• De novo structures: The proboscis may reflect genes expressed in new spatial patterns—an example of regulatory innovation rather than new protein-coding genes.
• Lost complexity: Its lineage may have gone extinct, taking unique genes and regulatory networks with it—just as hundreds of gene families have blinked out across time.

📚 6. Rethinking Evolution Through Fossils and Genes

“History is a tale of massive disparity and merciless winnowing, not a steady climb toward us.” – Stephen Jay Gould

Gould’s visual prologue is not just dramatic—it’s transformative. He invites readers to think about life differently: not as a march of improvement, but as a series of experiments, most of which failed. Modern genomics echoes this. Genomes, like fossils, record contingency, surprise, and erasure. What survives is not what's best—just what was lucky enough to persist.

🧠 Final Thought

By beginning with Opabinia and a handful of strange images, Gould sets up one of the boldest arguments in evolutionary thinking. It's not the fossils that are weird—it’s our expectations. And through the lens of genomics, that weirdness makes even more sense.

Want to explore how modern gene networks reflect ancient body plans? Or how extinct lineages left ghostly traces in today's genomes? Stay tuned for deeper dives into Gould’s brilliant narrative!

---

Image credits: Wikimedia Commons (Creative Commons)

Book: Read the full book here (PDF)

Book Review: Wonderful Life by Stephen Jay Gould

📘 Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History

Author: Stephen Jay Gould
Published: 1989 by W. W. Norton & Co.

👨‍🔬 About the Author

Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002) was a renowned paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and one of the 20th century’s most influential science communicators. A professor at Harvard, he was known for his accessible and poetic essays on science and history. Gould is best remembered for his theory of punctuated equilibrium and for books that straddle science and storytelling, such as Ever Since Darwin and The Mismeasure of Man.

🌀 Book Overview

Wonderful Life is not just a book about fossils—it’s a compelling examination of how life evolved in ways that were not inevitable. Gould uses the Burgess Shale, a 500-million-year-old fossil bed in British Columbia, to show that evolution is far more contingent and unpredictable than we assume. The creatures found there were bizarre, diverse, and unlike anything alive today. If we rewound the tape of life and played it again, he argues, humans—or anything like us—might never have evolved.

📖 What’s in the Preface?

Gould opens with a deeply personal explanation of his aims. He wants to reconstruct how the scientific community came to understand the Burgess Shale—not merely as a fossil site, but as a turning point in how we interpret evolutionary history. He blends philosophical inquiry with the history of science and paleontology.

In his own words, the book is an attempt “to study the nature of history itself,” using this fossil bed as a case study. He commits to writing in a “narrative, almost dramatic” style, describing the unraveling of old ideas and the arrival of a new understanding led by Harry Whittington and his students.

🗂️ Book Structure at a Glance

The book is structured like a five-act drama, mirroring Gould’s narrative goals.

Part	Focus
I. Iconographies of Expectation	How we visualize progress, and why it's often misleading.
II. The Burgess Drama	The chronological story of the fossils’ reinterpretation, from discovery to revolution.
III. Walcott’s Legacy	A look into how earlier scientists missed the fossils' uniqueness due to conventional thinking.
IV. Contingency	The philosophical heart of the book: life is not inevitable; it is full of chance.
Epilogue: Pikaia and Possibility	A poetic reflection on the possible ancestor of all vertebrates—and what it means for us.

💡 Themes from the Preface

• Scientific Heroism: Gould praises the meticulous work of Whittington and colleagues, calling it a model of how science should be done.
• Reconstruction and Revision: Science is not linear. Old models often collapse suddenly when new data are seen in a different light.
• Contingency: One of the strongest themes. The Burgess creatures show us that what survives is not necessarily the best—just the lucky.
• Passion for Narrative: Gould wants the book to be as much a human story of discovery as a scientific one.

🙏 Acknowledgments and Inspirations

Gould acknowledges not just colleagues and editors but also personal influences—friends, historians, and teachers—who shaped his thinking. He honors the people behind the science and highlights how cross-disciplinary conversations enriched this book.

“History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” – Gould, channeling Mark Twain’s spirit through fossils and philosophy.

🎯 Final Thoughts

Wonderful Life challenges the comforting narrative of inevitable human progress. It reminds us that we are not the pinnacle of evolution, but rather one peculiar outcome among many that might have been. With a scientist’s rigor and a poet’s pen, Gould builds a case for embracing the strangeness of life and the unpredictability of history.

If you’re interested in evolution, history, or how science works behind the scenes, this book is a must-read. It's as much about how we know as about what we know.

📎 Read the full book here:

Download PDF of *Wonderful Life*

The Curious History of April Fools' Day — And When the Joke Was On the World

Every year, as March tiptoes out and April tiptoes in, the world holds its breath — not for the changing of the seasons, but for something sneakier: April Fools’ Day. On April 1st, pranksters across the globe unleash their creativity, media outlets play along with fake headlines, and even governments and corporations sometimes can’t resist joining the mischief. But where did this strange day of mass deception come from, and how has it fooled not just friends and family, but entire nations?

Let’s trace the roots of April Fools' Day and revisit some of the most jaw-dropping moments when the line between humor and reality disappeared in plain sight.

---

🎭 The Origins: From Calendar Confusion to Courtly Laughs

The exact origins of April Fools' Day remain unclear, but theories abound:

1. Calendar Chaos:
The most cited theory dates back to 1582, when France switched from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar, following the decree of Pope Gregory XIII. The new calendar moved New Year’s Day from April 1 to January 1. Not everyone got the memo right away — especially in rural areas — and those who continued to celebrate the new year in spring were mocked as fools. Paper fish (known as “poisson d’avril” in French) were even stuck to their backs to symbolize gullibility.

2. Roman Festivals & Spring Mischief:
Historians also draw links to older Roman festivals like Hilaria, celebrated around March 25th, where people would dress up in disguises and mock fellow citizens and even officials.

3. British Literary Footprints:
The first direct reference to April Fools' Day in English appeared in 1561 in a poem by Flemish poet Eduard de Dene, and later, Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (1392) may have alluded to it, though scholars argue about whether this was an intentional prank or a misinterpretation.

---

😲 When April Fools’ Jokes Went Too Far — Or Too Brilliant

While most April Fools' Day pranks are light-hearted, some have been so clever or outrageous that they fooled masses — sometimes with real-world consequences.

---

📺 The Great Spaghetti Harvest – BBC (1957)

In one of the most legendary media pranks, the BBC aired a segment on how Swiss farmers were harvesting spaghetti from trees due to a mild winter and the disappearance of the "spaghetti weevil."
Viewers flooded the station with calls — some asking how they could grow their own spaghetti trees.

Why it worked: In 1957, spaghetti was still exotic in Britain. The calm narration by respected broadcaster Richard Dimbleby gave the prank an air of authority.

---

🐧 Flying Penguins – BBC Again! (2008)

The BBC did it again decades later. As part of a mockumentary for April 1st, they released footage of Adélie penguins taking flight and migrating from Antarctica to the Amazon rainforest. The footage was digitally altered but looked real enough to baffle many.

Moral of the story: If the BBC says penguins can fly, a part of you wants to believe.

---

🛰️ Taco Liberty Bell – Taco Bell (1996)

The fast-food chain took out full-page ads in major newspapers declaring they had purchased the Liberty Bell and were renaming it the “Taco Liberty Bell.”
Outrage ensued — calls poured into the National Park Service. Taco Bell later revealed it was a hoax and donated $50,000 to the actual Liberty Bell’s preservation.

Bonus twist: When asked about the stunt, the White House Press Secretary quipped that the Lincoln Memorial had been sold to Ford Motors and would now be called the Ford Lincoln Mercury Memorial.

---

🧪 Google’s Prank Legacy

Google has built a tradition of clever April Fools' Day pranks, from the launch of Google Nose (a search engine for smells) to Gmail Motion, which purportedly let users control Gmail using body movements.
Their 2014 Pokémon Challenge even inspired the future development of Pokémon Go.

---

💻 YouTube Shutdown (2013)

YouTube claimed it was just a long-running contest and would shut down to pick the best video ever uploaded. With a deadpan video featuring top YouTube stars and dramatic music, it actually made some users worry — if only for a moment.

---

🤯 When April Fools’ Day Met Real-World Tension

Not every prank ends in laughter. Sometimes, the joke hits too close to reality or unfolds amid fragile geopolitical climates.

🛬 An Airline’s Prank Causes Panic (1989)

Virgin Atlantic claimed it had flown a UFO into London on April 1. It was actually a custom-built hot air balloon shaped like a flying saucer. Local authorities were not amused — police and the army were mobilized.

🗞️ Fake News in Dangerous Times

In the age of misinformation, the line between satire and serious news has blurred. On April 1, 2021, with the COVID-19 pandemic still active, many media outlets chose not to run pranks to avoid spreading confusion.

---

🧠 Why We Keep Falling for April Fools

Psychologists suggest that April Fools’ Day works because it plays on the brain’s expectations. We trust social norms, familiar sources, and official-looking formats. The best pranks aren’t absurd — they are just barely believable.

There’s also something bonding about shared laughter. A prank that’s clever, harmless, and timely becomes folklore — passed down like urban legends.

---

✨ The Future of Foolery

With deepfakes and AI-generated content growing more realistic, April Fools' Day might soon become indistinguishable from digital manipulation. The challenge now? Ensuring pranks remain creative, responsible, and light-hearted — not just deceptive for clicks.

But for now, April 1 remains a rare cultural moment when absurdity is sanctioned, gullibility is expected, and humor briefly rules the world.

So next time someone tells you spaghetti grows on trees, penguins can fly, or Google can smell your dog — check the date.

---

🕳️ TL;DR:
April Fools' Day has murky origins but a rich global tradition of hoaxes — from BBC's spaghetti harvest to corporate pranks by Taco Bell and Google. While often hilarious, the day occasionally flirts with misinformation in risky ways. As technology advances, April 1 may soon test our sense of reality more than ever before.

---

Have a favorite April Fools' Day memory or prank? Share it in the comments! And remember: trust no one on April 1st — not even your toaster. 🥸🔥

Lost and Found in the Bird Genome

🐦 Lost and Found in the Bird Genome: A Deep Dive into Nature’s Natural Knockouts

Topic: Evolutionary Genomics | Avian Biology | Gene Loss
Paper: Lovell et al., Genome Biology (2014)

❝What if birds were born missing hundreds of genes… and still managed to fly, thrive, and diversify?❞

Welcome to one of the most fascinating stories in comparative genomics.

🧬 A Question Hidden in the Genome

Birds are extraordinary. They fly, sing, build nests with architecture rivaling that of engineers, and some migrate across hemispheres. But as it turns out, they’re not just remarkable in behavior — their genomes are quite special too.

In this remarkable study, Lovell et al. explored a counterintuitive question:

What genes are missing in birds, that are otherwise conserved across mammals, reptiles, and even fish?

274 protein-coding genes are consistently absent in birds — many of them linked to lethality in mice, human diseases, and important developmental processes.

🔍 The Method in the Genomic Madness

This wasn't a simple BLAST search. The authors identified genes missing in their usual chromosomal context — in syntenic blocks — across 60 bird genomes. They compared these to human, lizard, crocodile, and turtle genomes.

🧠 Result: A carefully curated list of 274 protein-coding genes confidently classified as missing in birds, validated by cross-species synteny and database searches.

📦 What is a Syntenic Cluster?
Think of synteny like a neighborhood. In most animals, certain genes live close to each other — same street, same orientation. In birds, entire neighborhoods are gone. Not one house moved — the whole block vanished.

💥 A Genomic Vanishing Act: But Why?

These genes aren’t missing randomly. They cluster in “deletion hotspots” — especially on human chromosome 19 and lizard chromosome 2.

Feature	Insight
✅ Present in Crocodilians	Loss likely occurred after divergence from dinosaurs
⚠️ Associated with lethal mouse knockouts	Yet birds survive without them
🧬 Linked to immunity, reproduction, development	Birds may use alternate adaptations

This leads to a fascinating concept:

Birds are natural knockouts — organisms that naturally lack genes that scientists knock out in mice to study disease.

💡 Story from the Lab: “We found the SYN1 gene missing in birds”

SYN1 (synapsin-1) is vital for neural transmission. Knock it out in mice, and they suffer seizures.

In birds? It’s simply not there. Yet they sing, learn, and remember.

Are other genes compensating? Is bird brain wiring just different? This opens up new evolutionary and biomedical questions.

🎯 Functional Compensation: Ghosts in the Genome

The authors asked: Are birds compensating for these losses?

• Yes — in some cases, paralogs step in
• Other genes might have evolved new functions
• Entire pathways are rewired — especially in immunity and metabolism

Evolution isn’t just about adding new things — sometimes, it’s about removing parts and finding workarounds.

🧪 Relevance Beyond Birds

This study has wide-reaching implications:

• Biomedical research: Birds as natural models for human gene loss
• Evolutionary biology: Gene loss as a mechanism for adaptation
• Genomics: Rethinking what it means for a gene to be “essential”

If gene loss is tolerated in birds, it challenges our assumptions about “essential genes.”

📣 Journal Club Discussion Starters

• How do birds thrive without these “essential” genes?
• What evolutionary pressures drove this genome reduction?
• Could this approach uncover hidden gene losses in other lineages?
• What compensatory mechanisms exist — and can we learn from them?

📘 Writing & Presentation Review

• 🔹 Clear, logical structure with strong evidence
• 🔹 Figures are rich but require careful reading
• 🔹 Methodology is meticulous and reproducible
• 🔹 Some figure legends could be more self-contained

💬 Quote to Remember:
“Birds can be considered ‘natural knockouts’ that may become invaluable model organisms for several human diseases.” — Lovell et al., 2014

🐣 Final Thoughts: Birds, the Genomic Paradox

Birds lost hundreds of genes. Some linked to vital traits in mammals. Yet they evolved feathers, flight, complex behaviors, and global success.

This paper challenges the assumption that gene loss equals dysfunction. Sometimes, gene loss is a blueprint for innovation.

Nature didn’t just edit the bird genome — it streamlined it for the skies.

Liberia: A Century of Transformation and the Road Ahead

Tucked along the West African coast, Liberia is a country with a deeply unique history—one that sets it apart from most African nations. Known for its foundational ties to the transatlantic slave trade, its journey from a 19th-century settlement for freed American slaves to a modern African republic has been both inspirational and turbulent. Over the past hundred years, Liberia has undergone monumental shifts: politically, socially, and economically. Today, as it confronts the challenges of the 21st century, Liberia stands at a pivotal crossroads.

---

Historical Origins: A Nation of Freedmen

Liberia’s story begins in the early 19th century, with the efforts of the American Colonization Society (ACS). Founded in 1816, the ACS sought to resettle free African Americans who, despite their freedom, faced deep racial discrimination in the United States. Between 1822 and 1861, thousands of freed Black Americans migrated to West Africa and established a colony that would eventually become Liberia.

In 1847, Liberia declared its independence, making it Africa’s first and oldest modern republic. Its founding elite, known as Americo-Liberians, modeled the country’s government, education, and legal systems closely on those of the United States. For more than a century, these settlers maintained a political and cultural dominance over the indigenous population, forming an oligarchy that governed the nation.

---

The Past 100 Years: From Oligarchy to Open Wounds

The True Whig Era (1878–1980)

For over a century, the True Whig Party ruled Liberia unchallenged. The political dominance of Americo-Liberians created a state that excluded the majority of indigenous Liberians from political and economic power. While Liberia was internationally recognized and maintained diplomatic relations with the West, its social fabric remained fragile.

1980 Coup and the Descent into Conflict

Everything changed in 1980 when Master Sergeant Samuel Doe, a member of the indigenous Krahn ethnic group, led a military coup that ended Americo-Liberian dominance. The coup was initially popular, but Doe's authoritarian rule soon gave way to ethnic favoritism, corruption, and repression.

By 1989, Liberia descended into a brutal civil war led by warlord Charles Taylor. The first Liberian Civil War (1989–1997) left the country devastated, with over 200,000 people dead. A second civil war erupted in 1999, further fracturing the country and displacing nearly a third of the population.

Post-War Recovery and a Historic Presidency

Peace was finally restored in 2003. In 2005, Liberia made headlines with the election of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Africa’s first female head of state. Her presidency was marked by international goodwill, economic recovery programs, and efforts to combat corruption. However, progress was uneven, and many of the systemic issues remained.

The Ebola outbreak of 2014–2016 further tested Liberia’s fragile health system, killing thousands and revealing the country's institutional weaknesses. Yet, Liberia’s response also showed resilience and strong community leadership, gaining praise from global health authorities.

---

The Present and Future: Liberia in the 21st Century

Today, Liberia continues its journey toward stability. President Joseph Boakai, elected in 2023, has emphasized anti-corruption measures, infrastructure development, and youth empowerment. Yet, challenges remain:

1. Economic Struggles

Liberia's economy is still heavily dependent on exports like rubber, iron ore, and gold. The lack of industrialization, high unemployment (especially among the youth), and reliance on foreign aid hinder long-term growth.

2. Education and Healthcare

After years of underinvestment and war-related destruction, Liberia’s education and healthcare systems remain fragile. Many schools and clinics are under-resourced, especially in rural areas. However, international partnerships are helping to rebuild capacity.

3. Political Accountability

Democratic institutions have matured significantly, but concerns about transparency, governance, and political inclusivity still loom large. Civil society is active, but requires stronger protections to flourish freely.

4. Youth and Innovation

Over 60% of Liberia’s population is under the age of 25. This youth bulge presents both a risk and an opportunity. Investment in education, digital infrastructure, and entrepreneurship could transform Liberia into a regional innovation hub.

---

The Road Ahead: What Could Liberia Become?

Liberia's future hinges on a few critical levers:

• Institutional Strengthening: Good governance, rule of law, and anti-corruption reforms must take center stage.

• Agricultural Transformation: Liberia has fertile land and water. Modernizing agriculture could improve food security and provide millions of jobs.

• Diaspora Engagement: The Liberian diaspora, especially in the U.S., remains a vital source of remittances, skills, and political influence. Engaging them more effectively could catalyze growth.

• Climate Resilience: As a coastal country, Liberia is vulnerable to climate change. Sustainable land management, renewable energy, and urban planning must be prioritized.

---

Conclusion: A Country of Firsts, and of Futures

Liberia has often been a symbol—of hope, of tragedy, and of resilience. Its history is uniquely bound to both the African continent and the African American experience. A century ago, it was governed by an elite class of settlers. Today, it is a democracy struggling with its past, yet ambitious for its future.

Liberia’s road has not been easy, but it remains a country with extraordinary potential. Its youth, its peace, and its enduring spirit suggest that, given the right investments and reforms, Liberia could rise again—not as a symbol of its past, but as a beacon for what African nations can achieve when they overcome adversity.

---

Tags: Liberia, African History, Post-Conflict Recovery, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Charles Taylor, West Africa, Youth Development, Future of Africa

🔍 “The Power of the Right Question”: Why Science Advances on Curiosity, Not Just Correctness

 “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.”

— Albert Einstein

Science is often portrayed as a grand search for correct answers — answers that solve mysteries, cure diseases, or unlock new technologies. But behind every major discovery lies a more subtle force: the art of asking the right question.

It is easy to forget that a correct answer to a poorly framed question can be irrelevant, or even misleading. In contrast, the right question can open entire new worlds, shift paradigms, and challenge deeply held assumptions. History is full of such examples.

---

🔬 1. Einstein and the Elevator Question

Einstein’s breakthrough theory of General Relativity began not with equations, but with a question about falling.

“What would it feel like to be in free fall?”

This deceptively simple thought — now called the equivalence principle — led Einstein to realize that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable from the inside of a falling elevator. That single question redirected the course of 20th-century physics, culminating in a theory that replaced Newton’s and predicted black holes, gravitational waves, and the warping of spacetime.

Had Einstein focused only on refining Newton’s equations, we may have missed an entire new framework.

---

🧫 2. Pasteur’s Paradigm Shift: What Causes Disease?

In the 19th century, the dominant view was that diseases were caused by “bad air” or spontaneous generation. Scientists tried to answer how diseases spread, but the real breakthrough came when Louis Pasteur asked a different question:

“Could invisible organisms be responsible for disease?”

This shift in the question led to germ theory, transforming medicine, surgery, and hygiene. Suddenly, everything from sterilization to vaccination made sense. It wasn’t the answers that had changed — it was the lens through which people viewed the problem.

---

🌌 3. Hubble's Reframing: Is the Universe Static?

For centuries, astronomers assumed the universe was eternal and unchanging. But Edwin Hubble began asking something few others had seriously considered:

“What if the universe is expanding?”

Through meticulous observation of distant galaxies, Hubble provided evidence that galaxies are moving away from us — a discovery that laid the foundation for the Big Bang theory. It wasn’t just new data, it was a new question that made sense of the old data in a radically different way.

---

🧠 4. Turing and the Machine: What Is Intelligence?

In the 1940s, while most mathematicians were busy solving logistical problems during WWII, Alan Turing posed a question that seemed almost whimsical:

“Can machines think?”

This led to the birth of computer science, artificial intelligence, and the Turing Test. Today, that question underpins every conversation about chatbots, ethics in AI, and the future of human-machine interaction.

It wasn’t that he found all the answers — it’s that he taught us what was worth asking.

---

🔁 A Scientific Shift: From Data to Questions

Today, we live in an age of big data, deep learning, and automated discovery. Answers are cheap, plentiful, and instantaneous. But the questions remain priceless.

As Peter Drucker warned:

“The most serious mistakes are not being made as a result of wrong answers. The truly dangerous thing is asking the wrong questions.”

Whether it’s climate change, gene editing, or consciousness, science doesn't just need new answers — it needs people bold enough to ask the right questions.

---

🧭 The Takeaway: Questions as Scientific Compass

• A good question defines the boundaries of inquiry.

• It shapes what we consider important.

• It determines what data we collect and what methods we use.

• It exposes the limits of current paradigms.

A correct answer is a destination.
But the right question is a compass.

So the next time you encounter a complex scientific problem, pause. Don’t rush to solve it. Ask yourself first:
Am I asking the right question?

🧠 How to Write a PhD Thesis That Matters (and Lands You a Job!)

Writing a PhD thesis isn’t just about ticking off a box to get your doctorate. In today’s fast-moving world, it’s your first major opportunity to demonstrate that your research, thinking, and communication matter—not just to your committee, but to a broader world that needs expertise. Whether you aim for academia, industry, policy, or entrepreneurship, your thesis can be more than a dusty tome. It can be your launchpad.

Here’s how to write a PhD thesis that’s useful, visible, and valuable—in your field and beyond.

---

📌 1. Start With the End in Mind

Ask yourself:

• What do I want people to take away from my thesis in 10 years?

• Can parts of this be used in job talks, portfolios, or even products?

Your thesis shouldn’t just be a record of what you did. It should be an argument for why it matters—and how it connects to real-world questions or future directions. Consider including:

• A chapter on future implications

• A summary for non-specialists (more on this below)

• Appendices with reusable tools, code, or protocols

---

✍️ 2. Structure for Humans, Not Just Academics

Most thesis guides say: “Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion.” But think about your audience. Even if 95% of readers are your committee, structure it like a compelling story:

• What was the big problem?

• What was unknown?

• What did you do differently?

• What did you discover?

• How does the world look different now?

Use:

• Section headers that guide the reader (“Why Current Models Fail,” “How Our Approach Changes the Game”)

• Clear topic sentences in every paragraph

• Visuals, infographics, and flowcharts to break up text

---

🧰 3. Make It Modular and Reusable

You’re producing original knowledge—but also useful components that others (or future you!) can benefit from:

• Code? Put it on GitHub.

• Protocols or checklists? Upload to protocols.io or a lab website.

• Visual summaries? Turn them into blog posts or presentation slides.

By writing with modularity in mind, you make it easy to repurpose your work:

• A methods chapter → A tutorial

• A literature review → A journal article

• Your thesis figures → A conference poster

---

📢 4. Write With a Public Voice

Include a lay summary in your thesis, and go beyond:

• Write a Medium post or a Twitter/X thread on your findings.

• Make a short video or animation explaining your work.

• Host a webinar or share findings in a professional LinkedIn post.

It not only boosts visibility but helps you distill your message—crucial for job talks, interviews, or pitching your skills to non-specialists.

---

💼 5. Align With the Job Market

If you’re targeting industry, policy, or alt-ac roles:

• Emphasize transferable skills: data analysis, project management, grant writing, technical writing, team collaboration.

• Write a chapter or appendix on real-world applications.

• Frame your research question as a problem-solving case relevant to sectors (e.g., biotech, education, energy, social change).

Make sure your abstract and conclusion read like a portfolio piece, not just academic closure.

---

🎯 6. Don’t Just Defend It—Promote It

Once you submit:

• Create a personal website or a section of your LinkedIn with your thesis highlights.

• Submit chapters for publication.

• Turn your results into tools: plugins, databases, dashboards, datasets.

• Reach out to journalists or science communicators if it’s newsworthy.

A well-communicated thesis can open doors long after the viva is over.

---

💬 Final Thought: A Thesis Is a Bridge, Not an Endpoint

Your PhD thesis is a culmination, but more importantly, it's a bridge:

• From trainee to expert

• From student to contributor

• From ideas to impact

Write it like you mean to shape the conversation—because you can.

---

🛠️ Bonus: Quick Checklist for a Job-Ready Thesis

✅ Clear problem framing and broader context
✅ Modular sections (code, tools, data, implications)
✅ Lay summary and public-friendly visuals
✅ Attention to transferable skills
✅ Highlights real-world applications
✅ Post-thesis promotion plan (blogs, talks, LinkedIn, GitHub)

The Ideological Brain: How Our Minds Shape—and Are Shaped By—Our Beliefs

What if the way we think—not just what we think—determines the ideologies we adopt? What if our brains are not just passive observers of politics and religion, but active participants—wired in ways that make some of us more susceptible to extreme beliefs than others?

At the Royal Society’s Summer Science Exhibition, political neuroscientist Dr. Leor Zmigrod delivered a spellbinding talk that explored exactly that. Drawing from her new book The Ideological Brain, Zmigrod took the audience on a journey through love, legacy, extremism, and the neural architecture of belief.

Darwin’s Silent Struggle with Ideology

Zmigrod began with a surprising protagonist: Charles Darwin.

Most know Darwin as the father of evolutionary biology, not as a thinker on ideology. But Zmigrod revealed a personal and poignant story. Darwin, in love with his devoutly religious fiancée Emma, faced a profound ideological divide. Emma believed deeply in God. Darwin didn’t. She told him that unless he could cure his skepticism, there would be "a painful void" in their marriage. And so Darwin, ever the empiricist, relented—for love.

But the ideological tension never disappeared. It smoldered beneath the surface for decades, until finally surfacing in Darwin’s unpublished autobiography. There, he speculated that the inculcation of religious belief in children could have long-lasting biological effects on their developing brains—making the belief as hard to shed as a monkey’s fear of a snake. Emma was horrified. She successfully campaigned to have the sentence removed before publication.

It wasn’t until years later, when Darwin’s granddaughter Nora Barlow restored the missing passage, that the world got a glimpse of Darwin’s radical idea: ideology isn’t just social or intellectual—it may be biological.

And this is exactly where Zmigrod’s research picks up.

Political Neuroscience: Where Biology Meets Belief

Zmigrod coined the field she works in as political neuroscience—a fledgling discipline that explores how our biology, psychology, and cognitive styles predispose us to certain ideologies. Her central question: Why are some people more likely to embrace extreme beliefs than others?

To understand this, Zmigrod designs experiments that test how people think—especially how flexible or rigid their thinking is. Take, for example, the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test—a deceptively simple task where participants must match cards based on unknown rules that change mid-game. Some people adapt quickly. Others stubbornly stick to outdated rules, failing to adjust. That’s cognitive rigidity.

In another test, participants are asked to think of alternative uses for a mug. The rigid thinkers stick to the obvious: tea, coffee, maybe water. The flexible ones say toothbrush holder, flower pot, or mini-golf club. The difference? One group sees the world through narrow categories; the other is open to creative reinterpretation.

Ideological Rigidity and the U-Curve of Extremism

Here’s the punchline: the more cognitively rigid someone is, the more likely they are to support ideological violence.

Zmigrod’s research shows a striking U-shaped curve when it comes to politics: people on both the far right and far left tend to be the most cognitively rigid, while moderates and independents score higher on flexibility, creativity, and nuance. In short, ideological extremism may have less to do with specific beliefs and more to do with thinking style.

But her findings go deeper—into the biology itself. Brain scans show structural and functional differences between people with rigid versus flexible ideologies. Even genetics play a role. This isn’t to say ideology is destiny—but rather that it interacts powerfully with our environments, experiences, and stressors.

From ISIS to Instagram: Why Some Brains Are More Susceptible

Zmigrod was drawn to this field during a wave of youth radicalization in Western democracies—young people, often educated and seemingly well-integrated, joining extremist groups like ISIS. Traditional explanations—poverty, demographics, youthfulness—felt incomplete.

She asked instead: Could these individuals be neurobiologically more vulnerable to ideological dogmas?

Her answer: yes. And this susceptibility isn’t confined to the headlines. It’s in all of us, on a spectrum. Some are more resilient, requiring extreme circumstances to radicalize. Others are just one push away from being swept up by dogma.

This raises urgent questions about education, media, and online environments where ideological inculcation happens daily, sometimes invisibly.

Is Extremism Ever Good?

During the Q&A, a member of the audience raised a provocative point: some forms of extremism—like the fight for women's suffrage or the abolition of slavery—have advanced human rights. Isn’t extremism sometimes necessary?

Zmigrod acknowledged the historical truth in that. But her concern lies with the individual cost of extremism. While radical ideas can propel societies forward, the people who carry them often suffer. Ideological dogmatism can narrow empathy, numb experience, and reduce cognitive flexibility.

So perhaps the challenge is not to eliminate all strong beliefs, but to cultivate flexible strength—convictions held with curiosity, not rigidity.

Beyond Labels: A New Way to Study Belief

Zmigrod’s approach departs from traditional political science. She isn’t interested in what people believe—right, left, liberal, conservative—but how they believe. Are they open to evidence? Do they separate ideas from identity? Can they tolerate ambiguity?

This shift has profound implications. It means we can study extremism not through partisan labels, but through measurable cognitive traits. It opens the door to interventions—not to change someone's politics, but to enhance their flexibility, resilience, and openness.

Darwin Was Right—And Hopeful

In the final moments of her talk, Zmigrod circled back to Darwin. His suppressed sentence may have shocked Victorian sensibilities, but in 2025, it reads like a prescient hypothesis in a neuroscience lab.

Ideologies, Zmigrod argues, can reshape our brains. But they are not destiny. “It’s difficult to throw off,” Darwin wrote, “but not impossible.”

And therein lies hope. Our flexibility is itself flexible. Through education, reflection, and choice, we can loosen the grip of harmful dogmas, resist radicalizing forces, and cultivate minds more open to nuance and empathy.

In a polarized world, that may be the most radical idea of all.

---

#SummerScience | #TheIdeologicalBrain | #PoliticalNeuroscience

Want to learn more? Watch Dr. Zmigrod's full talk on the Royal Society’s YouTube channel or read her book “The Ideological Brain.” It might just change the way you think—about how you think.

When Power Speaks, Truth Follows: How Authority Shapes What We Believe

"Truth isn't truth."
When former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani uttered these infamous words in 2018, it was easy to laugh. But beneath the absurdity lies a deeper question that philosophers, scientists, and political theorists have grappled with for centuries: Is truth an objective reality, or is it shaped—perhaps even created—by power?

Today, we explore this idea through the lens of science—where we’re taught to believe that truth is objective, neutral, and self-evident. But history tells a murkier, more political tale.

---

Science as a Stage for Power

We often regard science as the ultimate truth-discovery mechanism—an unbiased enterprise built on evidence, experiment, and peer review. But look closely, and you'll find that the “truths” science reveals often emerge not just from data, but from who gets to speak, what gets funded, and whose questions matter.

---

1. Galileo vs. the Church: The Politics of the Solar System

In the 17th century, Galileo Galilei peered through a telescope and found strong evidence that Earth revolved around the sun. But this heliocentric model contradicted the Catholic Church’s geocentric worldview—a view deeply entwined with its theological and political authority.

Galileo was tried for heresy and forced to recant his findings. At that moment, it didn’t matter what the stars showed. The truth, as society understood it, was dictated by religious power. For decades after, the heliocentric model remained suppressed—not because it was untrue, but because it was unauthorized.

---

2. The Rise and Fall of Eugenics: Scientific Racism as State Policy

In the early 20th century, the pseudoscience of eugenics flourished in the US and Europe. With state support, scientists claimed that intelligence, criminality, and poverty were inherited—and worse, that these traits were disproportionately found in certain racial and ethnic groups.

This "scientific truth" justified forced sterilizations, immigration restrictions, and genocidal policies. Only after World War II, when the horrors of Nazi ideology were exposed, did eugenics fall out of favor. The science hadn’t suddenly changed—the power structures had.

---

3. The Tobacco Industry’s Manufactured Doubt

In the 1950s, independent researchers began linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer. The tobacco industry responded not by disproving the evidence, but by funding research designed to confuse the truth. For decades, they shaped public perception and policy by asserting “more research is needed,” despite overwhelming evidence of harm.

Here, truth was not determined by what was known, but by who could fund the loudest voices. Science was used as a smokescreen—literally.

---

Foucault Was Right: Power Produces Truth

French philosopher Michel Foucault argued that truth is not some objective reality “out there,” waiting to be discovered. Instead, truth is produced by systems of power. The university, the lab, the court, the church—these are institutions that don’t just discover truths, they declare them.

Scientific paradigms, Foucault wrote, are supported by networks of authority. What counts as “evidence,” what is “worth knowing,” and who gets to be a “knower”—all are dictated by systems of power.

---

Modern Science Still Isn't Immune

Even today, research agendas are shaped by funding bodies—many with ties to governments or private corporations. Climate science was ignored for decades because fossil fuel interests held the reins. Women’s health issues have been historically under-researched because patriarchal structures decided what mattered.

COVID-19 vaccines were developed at record speed—but which diseases still lack funding because they affect the global poor? What scientific truths remain hidden, not because they’re unknowable, but because they’re unprofitable?

---

So, Is All Truth Relative?

Not quite. The argument isn’t that there is no truth—bodies still fall under gravity, and pathogens still cause disease. But which truths get discovered, which get amplified, and which get buried—that’s often a function of power.

---

What Can We Do About It?

• Diversify who does science: Broader representation means broader questions and better scrutiny.

• Decentralize funding: More equitable funding structures reduce monopolies on “acceptable” knowledge.

• Stay skeptical of dominant narratives: Especially when they serve entrenched interests.

• Reclaim science as a public good: Not a corporate asset or national weapon.

---

In conclusion, if we want science to be a vessel of truth, we must also recognize how truth is forged in the fires of power. Only then can we begin to build systems that serve reality—not the rulers.

Because sometimes, the Earth does move—even if the Church says otherwise.

---

Author's Note: This post is not an indictment of science, but a call to understand its social scaffolding. Only when we confront the politics behind our truths can we make them truly our own. 

The Tomorrow War and the Loneliness of Fighting a Future That Forgets You

I didn’t expect The Tomorrow War to hit me like it did.

I watched it on a rainy Saturday night, the kind where you’re curled up with a blanket and a sense that you’re not quite anchored to reality. I was just looking for some popcorn sci-fi—alien mayhem, heroic slow-motion shots, maybe Chris Pratt flexing a few dad muscles. And sure, I got all that. But I also walked away with a weird, melancholic echo in my chest. That kind of ache you feel when you think about time—what it takes, what it gives back, and who gets remembered.

And oddly enough, it all began with a tuberculosis cure.

Vaccines, Antibiotics, and Unintentional Foreshadowing

There’s a brief but fascinating mention early on in The Tomorrow War about tuberculosis, in a moment that blends science education with childlike wonder. During a quiet flashback, young Muri Forester, watching soccer with her father Dan, asks:

“Do you know who Selman Waksman is?”

She then proudly explains that he discovered a cure for tuberculosis — from dirt and poop. It's gross, funny, and surprisingly accurate.

Selman Waksman was a Ukrainian-born American microbiologist who, in 1943, discovered streptomycin, the first antibiotic that effectively treated Mycobacterium tuberculosis — the bacterium responsible for tuberculosis. The antibiotic was isolated from a species of soil bacteria, Streptomyces griseus. This groundbreaking discovery earned Waksman the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1952.

So while kids may summarize it as "poop and dirt," the real miracle was born from earth — from the invisible microbial world beneath our feet. And in The Tomorrow War, that line becomes beautiful foreshadowing: the future might depend on our understanding of the past.

The scene also shows Muri’s early passion for science and reverence for discovery — a seed that blossoms into her adult identity as a molecular biologist fighting to save humanity. She doesn’t just inherit her father’s stubbornness; she inherits Waksman’s wonder.

Colonel Muri Forester and the Legacy of Immunity

As the story unfolds, Dan Forester is drafted into a future war where he meets his daughter, Colonel Muri Forester, now a brilliant military scientist. She's not just fighting aliens—she's trying to rewrite the future by engineering a toxin that can target the alien reproductive queens.

This is where the connection deepens. Much like Waksman harnessed the power of soil microbes to fight disease, Muri and her team use biochemistry to find a way to kill the Whitespikes from within. The solution isn't brute force—it's molecular. It's microscopic. It's rooted in understanding biology deeply and creatively.

Her toxin acts like a tailored antibiotic for an alien species — a weapon born not from technology, but from cellular understanding. It’s a powerful tribute to how science, often underestimated, can shift the balance of survival.

Time Travel as Trauma

Unlike Back to the Future, where time travel is whimsical and slightly incest-adjacent, or Looper, where it’s gritty and wrapped up in philosophical questions about fate and identity, The Tomorrow War uses time travel as a trauma delivery mechanism.

There’s no real joy in jumping through time here. No hoverboards or charming paradoxes. Just dread. The future comes screaming into the present like a wound, like a warning. Draft notices for people who’ve never held a gun. Mothers leaving children. Scientists dragged into battlefields instead of labs.

It reminded me, more than anything, of Edge of Tomorrow—that underrated gem where Tom Cruise dies over and over again. But even there, there was the dark comedy of repetition, the joy of gaming the system. In The Tomorrow War, once you leave, there’s no checkpoint. No redo. Just pain.

And yet, like in Edge of Tomorrow, knowledge is power. Rewriting the ending depends not on brute force but on understanding. In both films, science saves the day—not bullets.

The Haunting Beauty of a Forgotten Future

What lingered with me the most, long after the aliens were vaporized and the timelines resolved, was the emotional undercurrent: What if your child becomes a stranger? What if the future forgets you, even as it depends on you?

Chris Pratt’s character isn’t just a soldier or scientist; he’s a father. When he travels forward, he meets the grown-up version of his daughter, hardened by loss, scarred by absence. That moment—when your legacy looks back at you not with gratitude, but with pain—is devastating.

Where Back to the Future treats parental encounters as charming surprises, and Looper weaponizes them into violent confrontations, The Tomorrow War offers something rarer: a grieving reconciliation. It’s not about changing the past or saving your younger self. It’s about realizing that who you become might hurt the people you love, even if you had the best intentions.

What Tomorrow Asks of Us Today

I don’t know why Muri’s line about Waksman got to me so much. Maybe because, post-pandemic, we’ve all become amateur microbiologists. Or maybe because it was a reminder that no technology—no matter how advanced—can replace human resilience and memory.

In the end, The Tomorrow War isn’t about aliens or explosions or even time travel. It’s about the burdens we pass down and the choices we make to break the cycle.

It’s about showing up—for your future, for your daughter, for your planet—even if no one in the future remembers your name.

Because some wars aren’t about winning. They’re about remembering who you are when everything around you wants you to forget.

---

Have you watched The Tomorrow War? Did the Selman Waksman reference catch your eye too? Or did it slip past you like time itself? Leave a comment and tell me how your future is holding up.

Tags: sci-fi, time travel, movie review, The Tomorrow War, Selman Waksman, streptomycin, tuberculosis, Chris Pratt, Back to the Future, Edge of Tomorrow, Looper, science in film

Reference: Wikipedia – Selman Waksman

Why the Future of Science Depends on Reviving Scientific Societies

In a world overflowing with information but increasingly low on trust, where do scientists find community, mentorship, and a shared sense of purpose?

That’s the question Peter R. Ryan and colleagues explore in their powerful editorial, “Strengthening the Future of Science”, published in the Plant Biotechnology Journal. The full article is open access and can be read here: https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.70145.

What We’re Losing

The decline of scientific society membership is not just a footnote in the story of modern academia—it’s a red flag. Once the lifeblood of scholarly interaction, societies are seeing dwindling attendance, fading student interest, and vanishing institutional support.

Between Zoom fatigue, career insecurity, and the flood of online academic content, many early-career researchers now ask: Why bother joining a society?

Ryan et al. argue that deeper structural changes—technological disruption, the fragmentation of biology, and the failure to communicate the value of societies—are at play.

Societies Offer More Than Journals and Conferences

The article emphasizes that scientific societies are far more than vehicles for journals or conferences. They are:

• Mentorship networks for early-career researchers
• Platforms for recognition and academic validation
• Training grounds for leadership in science
• Safe spaces for discussion and constructive critique

While the digital age has democratized access to research, it has also eroded the community and continuity that societies once ensured. And yet, societies that have adapted—through more flexible events and better outreach—are now witnessing membership rebounds.

Rethinking the Role of Societies

The authors call for a bold reinvention of societies as agents of public engagement and science advocacy. They suggest:

• Better advertising of society benefits to students
• University and funder subsidies for membership fees
• More focused, smaller workshops instead of large, generic conferences
• Active contributions to science policy and public debate

Examples cited include the American Society of Plant Biologists lobbying Congress, the French Academy of Agriculture advising national policy, and the Global Plant Council promoting plant science worldwide.

Our Suggestions for the Future

Building on the editorial, here are a few additional ideas for how societies—and society—can move forward:

• Micro-communities: Slack or Discord groups for niche networking
• Wellness support: Partnering with mental health services for early-career researchers
• Cross-disciplinary bridges: Co-hosted events with other fields
• Public tiers of membership: Including teachers, students, and citizen scientists
• Tech-forward engagement: Using AI, VR, and interactive platforms for outreach

Final Thought

If you're a student or researcher deciding whether to renew that society membership—this is your sign.

If you're an administrator, now is the time to fund society memberships as a vital part of training and academic infrastructure.

If you're a citizen, support the institutions that keep science credible, connected, and inclusive.

“Scientific societies must mean more to members than simply the source of a journal or a meeting.”
— Schwartz et al., 2008 (quoted in the article)

The future of science doesn’t just depend on more funding or better tools. It depends on community. For that, scientific societies are indispensable.

---

🔗 Read the original article: https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.70145
✍️ Written by: Peter R. Ryan, Liana G. Acevedo-Siaca, Geraint Parry, and Kailash Chander Bansal
📖 Published in: Plant Biotechnology Journal, 2025

🚀 Rebooting the PhD: A Bold Blueprint for the Future of Knowledge-Making

What if the PhD — the world’s most advanced academic degree — is no longer fit for purpose?

What if the model we inherited from 19th-century Germany, built for a world of slow-moving institutions, chalkboards, and disciplinary silos, is no longer serving the intellectual, ethical, and planetary needs of our time?

And what if we didn’t just reform the PhD — but reinvented it?

Let’s dare to imagine a radically different kind of doctorate: a living, dynamic, collaborative, and future-ready path of advanced human formation. One that embraces the world as it is, and as it might be.

---

🔄 From “Doctor of Philosophy” to “Architect of Futures”

Let’s begin by reframing the very purpose of a PhD.

No longer a credential to enter a shrinking professoriate. No longer a test of scholarly endurance. Instead:

The PhD becomes a guided transformation of a person into a “Futuric,” someone capable of imagining, designing, and ethically shaping new worlds.

This new doctorate is not awarded for knowing more — but for seeing deeper, connecting wider, and building better.

---

🧭 Core Philosophy of the Future PhD

This radical new doctorate is built around five meta-competencies:

1. Synthesis across systems (integrating data, disciplines, worldviews)

2. Narrative visioning (imagining futures, telling stories that matter)

3. Ethical navigation (acting with responsibility across cultures, species, and generations)

4. Embodied creativity (not just analysis, but making — tangible, digital, biological, civic)

5. Relational leadership (facilitating dialogue, conflict, and transformation at scale)

Knowledge here is not an end, but a tool for meaning-making, world-building, and co-flourishing.

---

🧪 Structure of the Future PhD

Let’s replace the traditional 3- to 8-year dissertation marathon with a modular, spiral, multi-output journey — something that adapts to both the learner and the world.

🌀 Phase 1: Orientation to Complexity

• Global residency (virtual or physical): interdisciplinary bootcamp with peers from every continent.

• Immersion in climate science, AI ethics, post-capitalist economies, indigenous cosmologies, neurodiversity.

• Outcome: a public-facing Complexity Map — a visual story of how you see the world now.

🛠️ Phase 2: Creation Pods

• You join (or found) a small team working on a grand challenge: de-extinction ethics, planetary urbanism, universal language design, AI–human co-governance, or something unheard of.

• Each team is transdisciplinary and includes artists, coders, historians, farmers, philosophers.

• You prototype, fail, rebuild, and produce tangible, world-facing creations.

📣 Phase 3: Narrative Thesis

• Instead of a 300-page technical tome, you craft a multi-format thesis:

  • A visual documentary or immersive VR experience.

  • A public field experiment.

  • A policy simulator or playable model.

  • A short, philosophical novella.

It’s not about how many papers you publish. It’s about how deeply you help others see, feel, and act.

🌱 Phase 4: Reciprocity Cycle

• You return to mentor new cohorts.

• You embed your learning in your community — be it a city, ecosystem, lab, or village.

• You host public learning rituals: walking seminars, moonlight salons, data-and-dance nights.

This PhD never really ends. You become part of an epistemic ecosystem that evolves with time.

---

🧑‍🏫 Who Are the Mentors?

In this future, you’re not guided only by professors. Your mentors might include:

• A bioengineer and a Buddhist monk.

• An Amazonian shaman and a blockchain architect.

• A planetary scientist, a climate refugee, and an autistic child with a genius for patterns.

This new PhD recognizes that expertise exists everywhere, not just in faculty offices and indexed journals.

---

🏛️ What Becomes of Universities?

Universities evolve into knowledge biomes:

• Hybrid spaces — part archive, part maker-lab, part sanctuary.

• Places to unlearn and rewild the mind.

• Hubs for cosmopolitan imagination and civic transformation.

They’re no longer degree-granting bureaucracies — they become crucibles for shared becoming.

---

🌐 A Glimpse into a Future PhD Project

Cohort: 2040 | Doctoral Candidate: Kiara Das | Affiliation: Distributed School for Earthly Futures

Project Title: The Rights of Rivers: A Legal Prototype and Augmented Reality Archive for Non-Human Jurisprudence

• Method: Combine indigenous legal traditions from the Ganges delta with AI-generated legal simulations to explore granting rivers legal personhood.

• Outputs:

  • A VR courtroom trial experience.

  • An open-source policy toolkit.

  • A symphonic performance of the river's voice, trained on flow data and poetry.

This is the new scholarship. Equal parts science, story, spirit, and systems.

---

✨ Why This Radical Shift Is Necessary

Because:

• We no longer live in a world of slow problems and linear solutions.

• The next generation must become weavers of meaning, not just miners of facts.

• The world needs scholars who are also healers, designers, diplomats, and futurists.

The old PhD is a badge. The new PhD is a calling.

---

🧬 Final Thought: From Authority to Authenticity

In the end, the radically reimagined PhD isn’t just about knowledge.
It’s about becoming a different kind of person — someone who can:

• Sit with paradox

• Collaborate across boundaries

• Design new realities

• And carry knowledge like a lantern in the dark

This is not utopian fantasy.

It is an invitation.

To scholars. To students. To institutions.
To shed the skin of the old doctorate — and become something bold, generative, and profoundly human.

---

Welcome to the next PhD. Not just a Doctor of Philosophy — but a Doctor of Possibility.