Designer Darwinism

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Designer Darwinism books and arts and an attempt to identify the lacunae in interesting, but that it is peculiarly impor- existing approaches are revealed in most of tant in biology. Successful adaptationist the chapters, especially those on the govern- Designer darwinism research is explanatory in a way that makes ment’s response, the role of non-governmen- Darwin and Design: Does most mechanistic research look descriptive. tal organizations, community responses in Evolution Have a Purpose? And any big theory about life has to be able Mumbai City, and interventions with gay by Michael Ruse to explain adaptation. men. These chapters demonstrate the com- Harvard University Press: 2003. 384 pp. On this topic, Ruse gives a sympathetic plexity of the issues involved, and contrast $29.95, £19.95 hearing to the critics who, he says, “would with the superficial analysis presented by Mark Ridley raise the objection that adaptation and the Combating AIDS. The negative impact of associated design metaphor have their roots the information, education and communica- Design — what biologists call ‘adaptation’ in British natural theology of the pre- tion strategy in terms of increasing fear and — is an obvious feature of life. People have Darwinian era, and they would ask again stigma is recognized. Living with the AIDS probably been thinking about it for as long why, in the secular world of the twenty- Virus also highlights the limitations of as they have been thinking about anything. first century, we should be bound by this ‘targeted interventions’ as the target groups Classically, it provided the basis of the ‘argu- retro-thinking.” This seems to be close to tend to be stigmatized. Instead, it is better to ment from design’, one of five arguments confusing the contexts of discovery and of address communities at large; for example, put forward for the existence of God. Darwin justification. Adaptationism may have its rather than target truckers, it is better to reach undermined that argument, but it has roots in predarwinian anglican theology, but societies along transport corridors. enjoyed something of a revival in the latest that does not make it false. German textual Both books acknowledge that AIDS- version of creationism, known as ‘intelligent scholarship may have its roots in lutheran control strategies have generated stigma, design creationism’. theology, but that does not reduce the value ignored the creation of capacities for care Michael Ruse is a philosopher of biology, of the texts. and support, and been gender insensitive. and his broad-ranging book covers several I think the strongest argument that the But despite this, both books propose man- themes. He distinguishes the ‘argument to critics can make is not that adaptation is agerial and technocratic solutions that do complexity’ — the factual observation that unimportant, just one problem among not question the existing perspective. If we complex adaptations, such as eyes and many, but that it has been solved. This may do not want to prescribe without a diagnosis, wings, exist in nature — from the ‘argument level the playing field for adaptationist and we need to ask why such measures were from design’, the theological inference from non-adaptationist research now, but it does adopted in the first place. that fact that God exists. Ruse traces the not reduce the conceptual importance of Alternative perspectives with a societal history of these two arguments from their adaptation for understanding life. rather than a programme-oriented approach earliest forms in the hands of Plato and Aris- Research into adaptation often uses have also been articulated since the 1980s. totle, through Galen and Thomas Aquinas, optimality models, or something like them. They integrate the biomedical and social on to David Hume, Immanuel Kant and It might aim to understand the form of an dimensions rather than dichotomizing them, William Paley, followed by Georges Cuvier eye, for instance, on the assumption that and view preventive and curative measures and Richard Owen, and then Darwin and eye shape is optimized for forming images. as an integral whole, and means and ends his followers in the modern synthesis. One common interpretation of this research as complementary. However, neither book After the history, Ruse takes a look at is that it aims to understand how, and cites the people’s movement groups and modern research on adaptation, and at its not whether, organisms are adapted. Ruse academics who espouse such perspectives, ‘formalist’ critics, who think that organisms disagrees. “It is fairer to say that a two- and who warned early on of the limitations are shaped by non-adaptive laws of form, way process is at work here. that are now being widely realized. Instead, rather than by adaptation to the environ- We adopt a background the books attribute the positive influence to ment. He ends with two chapters on modern assumption of adapta- international funding agencies or to local theologians, including the intelligent-design tionism and then non-governmental organizations, which have creationists. been influential in shaping the response in There is no central argument to unify the first place. AIDS control has been led the book, but Ruse holds a consistently more by emotion, instinct and international darwinian position against all its critics. I. ARNDT/NATUREPL.COM politics than by scientific evidence or Adaptation exists, he says; it matters; it is contextual needs. Denying this ‘politics of not explained by God; it is explained, and knowledge’ can only allow the suffering with exemplary scientific propriety, by nat- caused by AIDS to continue unabated. ural selection; and it is a legitimate topic for Combating AIDS is slickly written using scientific research. The various people who communicators’ theories, taking the reader have argued otherwise are making various step-by-step through various arguments, kinds of mistake. and using repetition to ingrain them in the The book is written for philosophers reader’s mind. It is likely to interest local and theologians as well as scientists. Indeed, programme managers, as it provides exam- the book will help to broaden the minds ples of a wide range of interventions that of most scientific readers. I doubt whether comply with the homilies of current AIDS- anyone else has read up on quite the range of control thinking. Living with the AIDS Virus, authors that Ruse has, and he writes about although less elegantly written, provides them clearly and non-technically. An eye for more food for thought for policy-makers, Ruse also advances certain theses along design? The researchers and programme managers. Both the way that will particularly interest Nature complexity of a books should interest the general reader. I readers, and I’ll concentrate on them. One chameleon’s eyes Ritu Priya is at the Centre of Social Medicine and question concerns adaptationist research. doesn’t imply a Community Health, Jawaharlal Nehru University, The biologists who do this research often role for God. New Delhi 110067, India. argue not only that they find adaptation 686 © 2003 Nature Publishing Group NATURE | VOL 423 | 12 JUNE 2003 | www.nature.com/nature books and arts we test specific models. Inasmuch as things do not work, then we worry more about our adaptationist background as well as our model.” I do not agree with Ruse on this point, but his position is undoubtedly defensible. The only place I had a deep disagreement was in the history of ideas, with what Ruse has to say about Motoo Kimura and the neutral theory of molecular evolution — the idea that most molecular evolution proceeds by random genetic drift. Kimura’s ideas receive only a brief mention before being dismissed. I favour the view that Kimura’s idea led to something of a paradigm shift in the late 1980s. Most biologists who work on molecular evolution nowadays assume that they are mainly studying the effects of random drift. This contrasts with earlier biologists who worked with non-molecular characters. Kimura’s ideas seriously chal- lenged, or at least restricted the scope of, adaptationism. If adaptationism could carry on much as before, it was for reasons that needed further attention. So Kimura deserves more than a passing gesture in a survey as admirably thorough and sensible as Darwin and Design. I Mark Ridley is in the Department of Zoology, István Hargittai has interviewed many of the most influential chemists of the past sixty years, including Oxford University, Oxford OX1 3RS, UK. Glenn Seaborg (top left), Ad Bax (second row, right) and Jean-Marie Lehn (third row, second left). happily describes the history of the discovery an organic chemist and, in fact, a natural of element 106, which was named in his products chemist.” The interviewer’s follow- honour in 1997. up was: “Now you are also a very conceptual Chemical The youngest interviewee, born in 1956, chemist. Not every organic chemist devel- is Ad Bax, who runs the US National Insti- ops general concepts the way you do.” Well, conversations tutes of Health’s section of NMR (nuclear bien sur. Not many chemists of any stripe Candid Science III: More magnetic resonance) spectroscopy. From develop concepts like Lehn does. Conversations with Famous 1981 to 1997, the ISI logged 21,655 citations In contrast, an interview two years later Chemists of his work, 50% more than the second- with another Nobel laureate, Bruce Merri- by István Hargittai, edited by Magdolna most-cited chemist, Nobel laureate John A. field, is more thoughtful and leads to some Hargittai Pople. This emphasizes the amazing evo- interesting insights. In discussing his early World Scientific/Imperial College Press: 2003. lution over the past half-century of NMR life in California during the Depression, 520 pp. £48, $78 (hbk); £21, $34 (pbk) spectroscopy from a physics experiment to Merrifield, who was seven years old when Arthur Greenberg a routine technique for structural proof, the stock market crashed, describes his and finally to a method for solving protein family’s economic condition: “So we scraped This book is the latest in a continuing series structures in solution and for magnetic along, and that affected me all my life.
Recommended publications
  • Date: To: September 22, 1 997 Mr Ian Johnston©
    22-SEP-1997 16:36 NOBELSTIFTELSEN 4& 8 6603847 SID 01 NOBELSTIFTELSEN The Nobel Foundation TELEFAX Date: September 22, 1 997 To: Mr Ian Johnston© Company: Executive Office of the Secretary-General Fax no: 0091-2129633511 From: The Nobel Foundation Total number of pages: olO MESSAGE DearMrJohnstone, With reference to your fax and to our telephone conversation, I am enclosing the address list of all Nobel Prize laureates. Yours sincerely, Ingr BergstrSm Mailing address: Bos StU S-102 45 Stockholm. Sweden Strat itddrtSMi Suircfatan 14 Teleptelrtts: (-MB S) 663 » 20 Fsuc (*-«>!) «W Jg 47 22-SEP-1997 16:36 NOBELSTIFTELSEN 46 B S603847 SID 02 22-SEP-1997 16:35 NOBELSTIFTELSEN 46 8 6603847 SID 03 Professor Willis E, Lamb Jr Prof. Aleksandre M. Prokhorov Dr. Leo EsaJki 848 North Norris Avenue Russian Academy of Sciences University of Tsukuba TUCSON, AZ 857 19 Leninskii Prospect 14 Tsukuba USA MSOCOWV71 Ibaraki Ru s s I a 305 Japan 59* c>io Dr. Tsung Dao Lee Professor Hans A. Bethe Professor Antony Hewlsh Department of Physics Cornell University Cavendish Laboratory Columbia University ITHACA, NY 14853 University of Cambridge 538 West I20th Street USA CAMBRIDGE CB3 OHE NEW YORK, NY 10027 England USA S96 014 S ' Dr. Chen Ning Yang Professor Murray Gell-Mann ^ Professor Aage Bohr The Institute for Department of Physics Niels Bohr Institutet Theoretical Physics California Institute of Technology Blegdamsvej 17 State University of New York PASADENA, CA91125 DK-2100 KOPENHAMN 0 STONY BROOK, NY 11794 USA D anni ark USA 595 600 613 Professor Owen Chamberlain Professor Louis Neel ' Professor Ben Mottelson 6068 Margarldo Drive Membre de rinstitute Nordita OAKLAND, CA 946 IS 15 Rue Marcel-Allegot Blegdamsvej 17 USA F-92190 MEUDON-BELLEVUE DK-2100 KOPENHAMN 0 Frankrike D an m ar k 599 615 Professor Donald A.
    [Show full text]
  • Appeal from the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity (2003)………………………………………..……...26
    Relevant Appeals against War and for Nuclear Disarmament from Scientific Networks 1945- 2010 Reiner Braun/ Manuel Müller/ Magdalena Polakowski Russell-Einstein-Manifesto (1955)……………..…..1 The first Pugwash Conferenec (1957)………..……4 The Letter from Bertrand Russell to Joseph Rotblat (1956)………………………………..……...6 „Göttinger 18“ (1957)…………………………..…..8 Hiroshima Appeal (1959)………………………..…9 Linus Pauling (1961)…………………………..…..10 The Call to Halt the Nuclear Arms Race (1980)………………..…..11 The Göttingen Draft Treaty to Ban Space Weapons (1984)…………………………………………….....15 Appeal by American Scientists to Ban Space Weapons (1985)………………………………..…..16 The Hamburg Disarmament Proposals (1986)…………………………………………..…...17 Hans A. Bethe to Mr. President (1997)………..…18 Appeal from Scientists in Japan (1998)……….....20 U.S.Nobel laureates object to preventive attack on Iraq (2003)……………………………………...….25 Appeal from the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity (2003)………………………………………..……...26 Appeal to support an International Einstein Year (2004)……………………………………………….28 Scientists for a Nuclear Weapons Free World, INES (2009)…………………………..……………31 Milan Document on Nuclear Disarmament (2010)……………………..34 Russell-Einstein-Manifesto (1955) 1 Russell-Einstein-Manifesto (1955) In the tragic situation which confronts humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble in conference to appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss a resolution in the spirit of the appended draft. We are speaking on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent, or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. The world is full of conflicts; and, overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between Communism and anti-Communism.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF File, 2.06 MB
    Introduction Have you ever seen those little About the International Year of Crystallography pictures of a molecule of your The United Nations declares 2014 as the official International Year of prescribed medication? …or a drawing Crystallography. It commemorates not only the centennial of X-ray of DNA showing two strands winding Amoxicillin diffraction, which allowed the detailed study of crystalline material, but also the 400th anniversary of Kepler’s observation in 1611 of the What do around each other? symmetrical form of ice crystals, which began the wider study of the role Molecules are too small to be seen by of symmetry in matter. New Drug Design, normal microscopy. Learn more at http://iycr2014.org X-ray crystallography is one of the DNA Studies few techniques that can visualize them About IUCr The International Union of Crystallography is a not-for- and was used to determine the first Schematic picture profit, scientific organization that aims to: and molecular structures ever known. of DNA • promote international cooperation in crystallography • contribute to all aspects of crystallography X-rays X-rays & X-ray Crystallography • promote international publication of crystallographic research have in common? How They Work • facilitate standardization of methods, units, nomenclatures and symbols • form a focus for the relations of crystallography to other sciences • X-ray beams are shot through • We calculate how the diffracted a crystal composed of the X-rays would look, if they The IUCr fulfils these objectives by publishing
    [Show full text]
  • Public Perceptions of S&T in Brazil, Funding Crisis and the Future
    Public perceptions of S&T in Brazil, funding crisis and the future Interest in science and technology The interest in science and technology increased 15% in Brazil between the first and the more recent survey CGEE, 2015 Interest in science and technology European Union (2013) x Brazil (2015) 26% of the Brazilians are very interested in S&T, against 13% of the people interviewed in the European Union European Union 2013 Brazil 2015 Not interested Low interested Interested Very interested DK DA CGEE, 2015 Who is interested? DA DN Very interested Interested Not very interested Not interested Illiterate Elementary school Elementary High school University (incomplete) school (complete) degree (complete) CGEE, 2015 Those who have more formal education have more interest in S&T Do you remember... Do you know any Brazilian institution dedicated to scientific research? Do you remember the name of a Brazilian scientist? No Yes DA CGEE, 2015 50% of Brazilians think scientists are smart people who do useful things for humanity Science brings only benefits: 1987–12% 2006–29% 2010–38% 2015–54% What inspires the scientists? Helping humanity (34%), contributing to the advancement of knowledge (17%), contributing to the scientific and technological development of the country (15%) People in the government should follow guidelines developed by scientists Partially agree - 41% Completely agree - 18% Scientific and technological developments will lead to less social inequalities Partially agree - 35% Completely agree - 17% Considering the surveys... - People
    [Show full text]
  • Letter from Nobel Laureates
    May 19, 2015 The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson Ranking Minority Member Committee on Science, Space and Technology U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Ms. Johnson: We, the undersigned American Nobel laureates in Physics, Chemistry, Medicine and Physiology, urge the House of Representatives to eliminate the separate appropriations authorizations for each directorate in the National Science Foundation when it considers H.R. 1806, The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015. If the separate authorizations for each directorate are not eliminated, we urge the House to restore the budgets for the Geosciences and Social, Behavioral and Economic Directorates. For the first time in the history of the National Science Foundation, H.R. 1806, as approved by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology establishes a separate appropriations authorization for each of the Foundation’s directorates. The bill authorizes the appropriation of $1.2 billion annually for the Foundation’s Geosciences Directorate in the next two fiscal years, over $100 million less than this year. The bill authorizes $150 million annually for the Foundation’s Social, Behavioral and Economic Directorate in the next two fiscal years, which is $100 million less than this year. The allocation of funds among the Foundation’s directorates requires a broad understanding of the scientific and engineering opportunities that hold the most promise of advancing scientific and technical knowledge and thus benefiting the nation. The Foundation’s leadership and the scientific and technical experts who advise them are in the best position to make these allocations. The reductions in support for the geosciences and the social sciences contained in H.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Missions for Nuclear Weapons After the Cold War
    FEDERATION of ofAAMERICANMERICANSCIENTISTSSCIENTISTS Missions for Nuclear Weapons after the Cold War Ivan Oelrich Occasional Paper No. 3 January 2005 About the Federation of American Scientists For almost sixty years, the Federation of American Scientists and our members have played a critical role both in identifying opportunities and risks resulting from advances in science and technology. Our efforts are focused on research and advocacy on science and policy issues to ensure that advances in science and technology make America more secure, our economy more sustainable, and our society more just. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) was founded in 1945 by Manhattan Project scientists who recognized that atomic weapons had irreversibly changed the role of scientists in national affairs. Our members are united by the conviction that scientists and engineers have a unique opportunity — and responsibility — to help America seize the benefits of their discoveries and inventions and avoid their potential dangers. Our current work is focused on some of our country’s most critical policy challenges: strategic security, information technologies, science policy, housing and energy. Our work is funded by membership dues, philanthropic foundations, corporate and individual gifts, and government grants. FAS is a 501(c)3 organization. Donations and gifts are tax-deductible. Join or donate online at http://www.fas.org/join.html, or contact us at 202.546.3300. The Occasional Paper Series is a publication of the Federation of American Scientists. The purpose of the series is to stimulate and inform debate on current science and security policy issues. Copies of this and previous papers can be obtained by contacting the FAS at 202-546-3300 or by visiting our website: www.fas.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Letter to the American People
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 18, 2016 AN OPEN LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE The coming Presidential election will have profound consequences for the future of our country and the world. To preserve our freedoms, protect our constitutional government, safeguard our national security, and ensure that all members of our nation will be able to work together for a better future, it is imperative that Hillary Clinton be elected as the next President of the United States. Some of the most pressing problems that the new President will face — the devastating effects of debilitating diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and cancer, the need for alternative sources of energy, and climate change and its consequences — require vigorous support for science and technology and the assurance that scientific knowledge will inform public policy. Such support is essential to this country’s economic future, its health, its security, and its prestige. Strong advocacy for science agencies, initiatives to promote innovation, and sensible immigration and education policies are crucial to the continued preeminence of the U.S. scientific work force. We need a President who will support and advance policies that will enable science and technology to flourish in our country and to provide the basis of important policy decisions. For these reasons and others, we, as U.S. Nobel Laureates concerned about the future of our nation, strongly and fully support Hillary Clinton to be the President of the United States. Peter Agre, Chemistry 2003 Carol W. Greider, Medicine 2009 Sidney Altman, Chemistry 1989 David J. Gross, Physics 2004 Philip W. Anderson, Physics 1977 Roger Guillemin, Medicine 1977 Kenneth J.
    [Show full text]
  • OLC Denies FOIA Request for Opinion on Executive Orders
    FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS Board of Sponsors 1725 DeSales Street NW, 6th floor [email protected] (Partial List) Washington, DC 20036 www.fas.org *Sidney Altman Phone: (202) 546-3300 Fax: (202) 675-1010 Bruce Ames F.A.S. *Philip W. Anderson *Kenneth J. Arrow *Julius Axelrod *David Baltimore Frank von Hippel Hal Feiveson Henry C. Kelly Paul Beeson Chairman Secretary-Treasurer President *Baruj Benacerraf *Hans A. Bethe *J. Michael Bishop *Nicolaas Bloembergen *Norman Borlaug *Paul Boyer March 11, 2008 *Owen Chamberlain (202)454-4691 Morris Cohen *Stanley Cohen [email protected] Mildred Cohn *Leon N. Cooper Elizabeth Farris *E. .J. Corey Paul B. Cornely Office of Legal Counsel *James Cronin *Johann Deisenhofer Room 5515, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Carl Djerassi Ann Druyan Department of Justice *Renato Dulbecco John T. Edsall Washington, DC 20530-0001 Paul R. Ehrlich By fax: 202-514-0563 George Field *Val L. Fitch Jerome D. Frank *Jerome I. Friedman Dear Ms. Farris: *John Kenneth Galbraith *Walter Gilbert *Donald Glaser *Sheldon L. Glashow This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Marvin L. Goldberger *Joseph L. Goldstein *Roger C. L. Guillemin We request a copy of an Office of Legal Counsel opinion from the George *Dudley R. Herschbach *Roald Hoffmann W. Bush Administration pertaining in part to the efficacy of executive John P. Holdren *David H. Hubel orders. *Jerome Karle Nathan Keyfitz *H. Gobind Khorana *Arthur Kornberg In particular, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse stated on the Senate floor on *Edwin G. Krebs *Willis E. Lamb December 7 that he had examined an OLC opinion which included, *Leon Lederman *Edward Lewis according to his notes, the following statement or something resembling it: *William N.
    [Show full text]
  • Federation of American Scientists
    FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS T: 202/546-3300 1717 K Street NW #209 Washington, DC 20036 www.fas.org F: 202/675-1010 [email protected] Board of Sponsors (Partial List) November 12, 2001 *Sidney Altman *Philip W. Anderson Hon Tom Daschle Hon J. Dennis Hastert *Kenneth J. Arrow *Julius Axelrod Senate Majority Leader Speaker of the House *David Baltimore *Baruj Benacerraf *Hans A. Bethe *J. Michael Bishop Hon Trent Lott Hon Richard Gephardt *Nicolaas Bloembergen *Norman Borlaug Senate Minority Leader House Minority Leader *Paul Boyer Ann Pitts Carter *Owen Chamberlain In the interest of national security we urge you to deny funding for any program, project, or Morris Cohen *Stanley Cohen activity that is inconsistent with the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. The tragic events Mildred Cohn *Leon N. Cooper of September 11 eliminated any doubt that America faces security needs far more substantial *E. J. Corey *James Cronin than a technically improbable defense against a strategically improbable Third World *Johann Deisenhofer ballistic missile attack. Ann Druyan *Renato Dulbecco John T. Edsall Paul R. Ehrlich Regarding the probable threat, the September 11 attacks have dramatized what has been George Field obvious for years: A primitive ICBM, with its dubious accuracy and reliability and bearing *Val L. Fitch *Jerome I. Friedman a clear return address, is unattractive to a terrorist and a most improbable delivery system for John Kenneth Galbraith *Walter Gilbert a terrorist weapon. Devoting massive effort and expense to countering the least probable *Donald Glaser and least effective threat would be unwise. *Sheldon L. Glashow Marvin L. Goldberger *Joseph L.
    [Show full text]
  • Declaration Accepted by the Plenary Meeting of the Nobel Laureates at the PETRA IV Meeting on 19 June 2008 and Released by the Elie Wiesel Foundation
    Declaration accepted by the Plenary Meeting of the Nobel Laureates at the PETRA IV Meeting on 19 June 2008 and released by the Elie Wiesel Foundation We, undersigned Nobel Laureates, commend the remarkable progress made in creating the SESAME Synchrotron Light Source. It will provide a major center for scientific research, with ownership shared by many nations of the Middle East. Thereby, SESAME, as well as producing educational and economic benefits, will serve as a beacon, demonstrating how shared scientific initiatives can help light the way towards peace. We urge all friends of science and peace to lend their encouragement and support to this exemplary project. Signed by 44 Laureates (see list below) Kenneth J. Arrow Economics 1972 Günter Blobel Physiology or Medicine 1999 Paul D. Boyer Chemistry 1997 Aaron Ciechanover Chemistry 2004 Claude Cohen-Tannoudji Physics 1997 Elias James Corey Chemistry 1990 Paul J. Crutzen Chemistry 1995 Frederik W. de Klerk Peace 1993 Johann Deisenhofer Chemistry 1988 Sir Martin J. Evans Physiology or Medicine 2007 John B. Fenn Chemistry 2002 Edmond H. Fischer Physiology or Medicine 1992 Jerome I. Friedman Physics 1990 Donald A. Glaser Physics 1960 Clive W.J. Granger Economics 2003 Paul Greengard Physiology or Medicine 2000 David J. Gross Physics 2004 Roger Guillemin Physiology or Medicine 1977 Dudley R. Herschbach Chemistry 1986 Avram Hershko Chemistry 2004 Roald Hoffmann Chemistry 1981 John Hume Peace 1998 Eric R. Kandel Physiology or Medicine 2000 Roger D. Kornberg Chemistry 2006 Finn E. Kydland Economics 2004 Yuan T. Lee Chemistry 1986 Jean-Marie Lehn Chemistry 1987 Rudolph A. Marcus Chemistry 1992 Craig C.
    [Show full text]
  • August 6Th, 2009 SCIENTISTS for a NUCLEAR WEAPONS-FREE WORLD Scientists and Engineers Bear a Heavy Burden of Responsibility to S
    Schützenstr. 6a 10117 Berlin, Germany Phone: +49 (0) 30-20 65 38 31 Fax: +49 (0) 30- 21234057 [email protected] www.inesglobal.com August 6th, 2009 SCIENTISTS FOR A NUCLEAR WEAPONS-FREE WORLD Scientists and engineers bear a heavy burden of responsibility to society for the creation of nuclear weapons. The immense destructive power of these weapons was demonstrated on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and in over 2,000 atmospheric and underground nuclear tests on the lands of indigenous peoples. Thermonuclear weapons are capable of destroying cities, countries and civilization. They could end intelligent life on Earth. Humanity has been warned again and again of the perils of nuclear weapons and nuclear war. We recall the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, issued on July 9, 1955. The Manifesto warned, “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?” Human fallibility and nuclear weapons are a dangerous and unacceptable mix. We rely upon human theories concerning nuclear weapons, such as the theory of nuclear deterrence, at our peril. Since Nagasaki, humankind has been spared nuclear war far more by good fortune than by sound planning. This good fortune will not be possible to maintain indefinitely – particularly, as is foreseeable, if nuclear weapons continue to proliferate and fall into the hands of non-state extremist groups. Nuclear weapons were created by humans, and it is our responsibility to eliminate them before they eliminate us and much of the life on our planet.
    [Show full text]
  • On the 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Awarded to Dan Shechtman
    DISTINGUISHED LECTURES CONTRIBUTIONS to SCIENCE 9 (2013) 17-23 Institut d’Estudis Catalans, Barcelona, Catalonia doi: 10.2436/20.7010.01.159 ISSN: 1575-6343 www.cat-science.cat OPENA ACCESS The Nobel Prizes of 2011 Crystallography and the Nobel Prizes: On the 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, awarded to Dan Shechtman Joan F. Piniella Department of Geology, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia Based on the lecture given by the Summary. Crystallography has a considerable presence among Nobel Prize laureates. In- author at the IEC, Barcelona, on 13 deed, 48 of them have close links to crystallography. The 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry December 2011 for the Nobel Prizes was awarded to Dan Shechtman for his discovery of quasicrystals. In addition to the scien- of 2011 Sessions. tific merit of the work, the Prize is a personal recognition of Dan Shechtman, whose ideas Correspondence: were initially rejected by the international scientific community. Yet, reason prevailed in the Departament de Geologia end, supported by arguments that arrived from seemingly unrelated directions, such as the Facultat de Ciències Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona study of Arab building tiles and the mathematical concept of tessellation. Concepts of a 08193 Bellaterra, Catalonia more crystallographic nature, such as twinned crystals and modulated and incommensu- Tel. +34-935813088 rate crystal structures, also played an important role. Finally, in 1992, the International Fax +34-935811263 Union of Crystallography modified the definition of “crystal” to include quasicrystals. E-mail: [email protected] Received: 24.10.13 Keywords: crystal structure · electron diffraction · quasicrystals · tessellations Accepted: 25.11.13 Resum.
    [Show full text]