Hooke 2017 Editors’ Note Science is inexorably marching forward. The past year has seen us dig ever-deeper into natural phenomena, almost as far as we have pushed the boundaries in manipulating them. Groundbreaking new immunological cancer treatments have been discovered, the quantum Internet of the future seems to be a real possibility, and fossils are rapidly being unearthed that overhaul what we thought we knew about who we are and where we came from. It appears that there’s no shortage of discovery nowadays to excite and humble us. Yet the uncertainty of post-truth politics hangs over science. Donald Trump’s recently published R&D priorities co-opt scientific research into an insular, retrospective vision to “make America great again”, describing it as playing a key role in the development of American military superiority, security, prosperity, energy dominance, and health. The environment, of course, is not mentioned. Trump thus sets a dangerous precedent for other countries by lauding “beautiful, clean coal” instead – sidestepping questions about the link between climate change and the devastating Hurricanes Irma and Harvey, from which around 200 people are thought to have been killed. So, as global warming paces onwards, the possibility of not exceeding the 1.5°C increase limit set in the Paris Agreement seems to wane. UK science is similarly under threat from Brexit. While it would seem fortunate for both sides to maintain a positive working relationship, leaving the EU will inevitably mean that the UK will have to sacrifice some of its power in important EU projects such as Horizon 2020, the European Defence Research Programme, and nuclear R&D. Our future as a global science superpower, alongside so much else, is now cast under the shadow of the unknown Brexit repercussions. Despite all this anxiety, science insists on relentless progress and innovation - as can be seen within Westminster itself. The previously scattered science societies have now been integrated into one, cross- disciplinary Huxley Society, named after the OW Sir Andrew Huxley. Better still, 2017 marks the 25th anniversary of the magazine. As editors, we knew right from the outset that this issue couldn’t disappoint. This edition of Hooke is the longest ever – testament to the magnificent quality and depth of research of all the article submissions and a fitting tribute to mark 25 years of great scientific journalism. Finally, the new seventh floor of the Hooke building is now complete, along with a roof observatory – featured, in fact, on our cover. New heights are still being achieved; hope is not yet unreasonable. We hope you enjoy reading this edition of Hooke as much we did compiling it. The Editors October 2017 Editors: Lorna Bo, Ryan Kang, Navyaa Mathur, Raghav Nayak, Brandon Tang & Hannah Virji The editors would like to express their immense gratitude to Matthew Bradshaw, Abigail Farr, Charles Ullathorne, and of course all the writers, without whom the publication of this magazine would not have been possible. Submissions for next issue of Hooke are warmly invited: please email [email protected] for more information. Hooke|October 2017|Issue 48|25th Anniversary Edition|Page 1 Hooke 2017 Contents Cloning a Mammoth: When or Why? Tavleen Wasan ................................................................................... 3 The Significance of the Conscious Mind in Quantum Physics Hannah Virji ............................................. 7 Let's Get It On: Music's Potential Role in Evolution Tomás Pfeffer ................................................... 12 The Influence of CO2 Fertilisation on World Vegetation Lorna Bo ........................................................... 14 The Origins of Alchemy James Stirling & Rock Bell ................................................................................. 19 The Neuroscience of Déjà Vu Jay Chitnavis .................................................................................................. 23 The Cheerios Effect Rae Zhao ......................................................................................................................... 26 The Effectiveness of Hypnosis and Past-Life Regression as Therapeutic Treatments Charles Fruitman ... 31 NMR Ring Currents: what are they and why are they useful? Navyaa Mathur ........................................ 34 Science Picture Competition Winners ............................................................................................................... 39 An Exploration of Evolutionary Psychology Chloé Pitts ............................................................................. 45 Lavoisier: Father of Modern Chemistry? Beatrice Shah Scott .................................................................... 50 Taking to the Skies: Bird Flight and its Impact on Aeronautical Engineering Senkai Hsia .................... 53 Parasites: A Re-Evaluation? Jonathan Guo ..................................................................................................... 58 Where is the Cure for Cancer? Hein Mante ................................................................................................... 62 Reducing Rising Economic Inequality Hemant Krishna Kotta .................................................................. 67 The Varying Forms of Intelligence in Birds Constantine Holle ................................................................. 70 Computational Biology: From Boids to Phyllotaxis Isky Matthews .......................................................... 72 A Mammoth Decision Brandon Tang ............................................................................................................ 76 Hooke|October 2017|Issue 48|25th Anniversary Edition|Page 2 Cloning a Mammoth: When or Why? Tavleen Wasan Cloning a Mammoth: When or Why? Tavleen Wasan If asked to clone a mammoth, would “When?” or “Why?” be the right response? When I first read this question, it wasn’t just the cloning aspect that intrigued me; I felt that ‘when or why’ raises many interesting questions about the purpose of science. Why do we, as scientists, have an unquenchable thirst to push the limits of our knowledge, even though we may never have practical applications for it? When do we, as scientists, draw the line between doing something because it’s useful and doing something just because we can? Both ‘when’ and ‘why’ are very valid responses. ‘When’ raises many issues about the nature of the experiments and the advances in technology that need to be made before cloning a mammoth becomes a reality. The question in hand is worded such that the cloning of mammoths appears to be a matter of ‘when’, not ‘if’, suggesting that the de-extinction of the mammoth is an inevitability, not just a possibility. Scientists then need to work out how long it would take for this process to occur, which would also raise questions about the current technology available, and what advances would need to occur to make this a reality. De-extinction is not new. Perhaps one of the most famous examples of bringing an extinct species back to life was in 2003, when a Pyrenean Ibex, or bucardo, was born—3 years after the last of its species had died. However, it was far from a success. There were 57 attempts at implanting the embryo containing the bucardo DNA into surrogate mothers, of which 7 became pregnant but only 1 gave birth to a live bucardo. Moreover, this newborn survived less than 10 minutes because of a severe lung defect. So even when we have the technical capability to carry out the process of cloning the mammoth, it will not guarantee instant victory as it is highly unlikely that the first of the cloned mammoths will be a success. This makes the question ‘when’ even more interesting; it makes it very hard for teams of scientists to say exactly when mammoths will walk the earth again. The actual definition of a clone is an organism that is completely genetically identical to another. Because it is highly improbable—if not impossible—that scientists will find a completely intact cell of a mammoth with a complete set of chromosomes and undamaged DNA, one could argue that this therefore means that we will never be able to create a clone of a mammoth. However, gene editing technology will allow us to create an elephant-mammoth hybrid, popularly called a mammophant, and whilst this animal will not be the same as a mammoth, it is as close as we are likely to come within the next few years, and still brings us much closer to having mammoths roam the earth once again. This hybrid can be achieved by using gene editing techniques such as the CRISPR-Cas9 system. This revolutionary technology was inspired by a natural defence mechanism in bacteria to protect them from viruses. A synthetic guide RNA and the endonuclease enzyme Cas9 allow scientists to cut out sections of DNA (and add new sections as well). This technology will allow genes to be inserted into the nucleus of an elephant cell, which, once inserted into an enucleated embryonic cell, will hopefully give rise to an elephant with mammoth features. The genomes of 3 Asian elephants and 2 woolly mammoths Hooke|October 2017|Issue 48|25th Anniversary Edition|Page 3 Cloning a Mammoth: When or Why? Tavleen Wasan have already been sequenced to a high degree of accuracy and coverage by Vincent Lynch, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Chicago in Illinois, and his team. They found that the main functional genetic differences were those that were related to ‘circadian