- Email: [email protected]
Closing the culture gap in a digital world
EDITORIAL
Evolution’s great invention The eye is proving to be a prime example of Darwin’s big idea THE eye has long been an evolutionary battleground. Ever since William Paley came up with the watchmaker analogy in 1802 – that something as complex as a watch must have a maker – creationists have used it to make the “argument from design”. Eyes are so intricate, they say, that it strains belief to suggest they evolved through the selection and accumulation of random mutations. Recently, evolutionary biologists have turned this argument on its head. They say that the “inside out” vertebrate retina – curiously structured so that its wiring obscures the light sensors and leaves us with a blind spot – can be described as one of evolution’s “greatest mistakes”. The anatomy of the retina is indeed good evidence that eyes were cobbled together bit by bit. Surely a creator would never have chosen to construct an eye in this way. In return, creationists have argued that the backwards retina clearly has no problems providing vertebrates with excellent vision – and even that its structure enhances vision. This week, a study by (non-creationist) neurophysicists in Israel has found just that (see page 12). Their simulations showed that Müller cells, which support and nourish the neurons overlying the retina’s light-sensitive layer, also collect, filter and refocus light, before delivering it to the light sensors to make images clearer. Of course, findings that coincide with the claims of creationists do not mean they have
a point – although they may well quote this study. Intelligent design proponents have shown themselves to be adept at speciously quoting peer-reviewed studies that appear to support their claims. Sure, sending light through Müller cells enhances vision, but that is not an argument for choosing to put the wiring in front of the sensors. It still creates a blind spot, where the nerves dive through the light-sensitive cells on their way to the brain. It would make much more sense to put Müller-like cells in front of the sensors, with the wiring behind. Rather than provide evidence in support of intelligent design, the
“The findings do not mean the creationists have a point – although they may well quote the study” new work is actually yet another example of evolution’s extraordinary ability to create workaround solutions to problems arising from earlier iterations. Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, and an untiring veteran of the creationevolution wars, calls the Müller cells “a retrofit: a successful and highly functional adaptation made necessary by the original architecture of the retina, but a retrofit”. The eye’s structure, and the blind spot in particular, bears the unmistakable fingerprints of Darwinian evolution. n
Closing the culture gap in a digital world ART and science: putting them together risks conjuring up visions of woolly-minded nonsense involving coloured wheels and pulleys, communing with animals or morphing blobs on computer screens. Does it have to be that way? Starting on page 43 we examine the growth of new neural links – or, some might argue, the regrowth of old ones – between these two cultural giants. The good news is that bringing artists and scientists together doesn’t have to result in vapid nonsense. The bad is that there’s little consensus about how to ensure that the products of these collaborations are greater than the sum of their parts. The digitisation of everyday life looks certain to provide opportunities for new creative networks. What we need now is to temper the uncritical celebration of all things collaborative with a hard look at what lies beneath. Most importantly, we need evidence on how to make this fusion fruitful. What do you make of it all? Are we on the verge of a fundamental change – a second renaissance, as art historian Martin Kemp hopes? Or is collaboration just a convenient buzzword to tap new sources of funding? Take part in our survey at bit.ly/artscipoll to have your say. Breaking down barriers could benefit both sides but we need to go beyond bizarre installations and amusing gizmos. Creating something important will take better data, and a mixture of tough, but open, minds. n
On NewScientist.com environment Biodiversity: try as we might, species keep dying 2010 was the year we were supposed to see the rate of extinctions and ecosystem loss slow down – but despite protection programmes worldwide, it’s not happening tech Rainmaking using laser light Tiny clouds have been created by shooting a powerful laser into the sky over Berlin, Germany. Optimising the technique on a larger scale could result in rain on demand
zoologger Why Japan’s favourite fish is super-sinister The puffer fish – aka the fugu – can blow itself up, and its poison can kill you if you eat it. Now it turns out that baby fugu have their own nasty side: as they grow up, some of them indulge in rampant cannibalism
culturelab Iron Man 2: How science cures Tony Stark’s heartache The declaration near the beginning of Iron Man 2 – “Better living through technology, and better health” – could almost be a tag line for New Scientist. We review the science amid the fiction
bumpology Womb-boxing High-res imaging using MRI reveals our reporter’s fetus – currently the size of a banana but rather more active – in breathtaking detail
New scientist tv May vodcast In this month’s episode, see how technology is creating video-game characters that move realistically in real time,
a machine that could turn your desktop into a factory, and a system that lets you control video games with your eyes alone space Life on Mars may be easy to find New discoveries in terrestrial rocks suggest that a type of rock common on Mars can preserve fossilised microbial life – if it ever existed there, of course For breaking news, video and online debate, visit www.newscientist.com
8 May 2010 | NewScientist | 3
Evolution’s great invention The eye is proving to be a prime example of Darwin’s big idea THE eye has long been an evolutionary battleground. Ever since William Paley came up with the watchmaker analogy in 1802 – that something as complex as a watch must have a maker – creationists have used it to make the “argument from design”. Eyes are so intricate, they say, that it strains belief to suggest they evolved through the selection and accumulation of random mutations. Recently, evolutionary biologists have turned this argument on its head. They say that the “inside out” vertebrate retina – curiously structured so that its wiring obscures the light sensors and leaves us with a blind spot – can be described as one of evolution’s “greatest mistakes”. The anatomy of the retina is indeed good evidence that eyes were cobbled together bit by bit. Surely a creator would never have chosen to construct an eye in this way. In return, creationists have argued that the backwards retina clearly has no problems providing vertebrates with excellent vision – and even that its structure enhances vision. This week, a study by (non-creationist) neurophysicists in Israel has found just that (see page 12). Their simulations showed that Müller cells, which support and nourish the neurons overlying the retina’s light-sensitive layer, also collect, filter and refocus light, before delivering it to the light sensors to make images clearer. Of course, findings that coincide with the claims of creationists do not mean they have
a point – although they may well quote this study. Intelligent design proponents have shown themselves to be adept at speciously quoting peer-reviewed studies that appear to support their claims. Sure, sending light through Müller cells enhances vision, but that is not an argument for choosing to put the wiring in front of the sensors. It still creates a blind spot, where the nerves dive through the light-sensitive cells on their way to the brain. It would make much more sense to put Müller-like cells in front of the sensors, with the wiring behind. Rather than provide evidence in support of intelligent design, the
“The findings do not mean the creationists have a point – although they may well quote the study” new work is actually yet another example of evolution’s extraordinary ability to create workaround solutions to problems arising from earlier iterations. Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, and an untiring veteran of the creationevolution wars, calls the Müller cells “a retrofit: a successful and highly functional adaptation made necessary by the original architecture of the retina, but a retrofit”. The eye’s structure, and the blind spot in particular, bears the unmistakable fingerprints of Darwinian evolution. n
Closing the culture gap in a digital world ART and science: putting them together risks conjuring up visions of woolly-minded nonsense involving coloured wheels and pulleys, communing with animals or morphing blobs on computer screens. Does it have to be that way? Starting on page 43 we examine the growth of new neural links – or, some might argue, the regrowth of old ones – between these two cultural giants. The good news is that bringing artists and scientists together doesn’t have to result in vapid nonsense. The bad is that there’s little consensus about how to ensure that the products of these collaborations are greater than the sum of their parts. The digitisation of everyday life looks certain to provide opportunities for new creative networks. What we need now is to temper the uncritical celebration of all things collaborative with a hard look at what lies beneath. Most importantly, we need evidence on how to make this fusion fruitful. What do you make of it all? Are we on the verge of a fundamental change – a second renaissance, as art historian Martin Kemp hopes? Or is collaboration just a convenient buzzword to tap new sources of funding? Take part in our survey at bit.ly/artscipoll to have your say. Breaking down barriers could benefit both sides but we need to go beyond bizarre installations and amusing gizmos. Creating something important will take better data, and a mixture of tough, but open, minds. n
On NewScientist.com environment Biodiversity: try as we might, species keep dying 2010 was the year we were supposed to see the rate of extinctions and ecosystem loss slow down – but despite protection programmes worldwide, it’s not happening tech Rainmaking using laser light Tiny clouds have been created by shooting a powerful laser into the sky over Berlin, Germany. Optimising the technique on a larger scale could result in rain on demand
zoologger Why Japan’s favourite fish is super-sinister The puffer fish – aka the fugu – can blow itself up, and its poison can kill you if you eat it. Now it turns out that baby fugu have their own nasty side: as they grow up, some of them indulge in rampant cannibalism
culturelab Iron Man 2: How science cures Tony Stark’s heartache The declaration near the beginning of Iron Man 2 – “Better living through technology, and better health” – could almost be a tag line for New Scientist. We review the science amid the fiction
bumpology Womb-boxing High-res imaging using MRI reveals our reporter’s fetus – currently the size of a banana but rather more active – in breathtaking detail
New scientist tv May vodcast In this month’s episode, see how technology is creating video-game characters that move realistically in real time,
a machine that could turn your desktop into a factory, and a system that lets you control video games with your eyes alone space Life on Mars may be easy to find New discoveries in terrestrial rocks suggest that a type of rock common on Mars can preserve fossilised microbial life – if it ever existed there, of course For breaking news, video and online debate, visit www.newscientist.com
8 May 2010 | NewScientist | 3