Genghis Khan And Interdisciplinary Research

State of the Planet has quite a readable account of how a period of warm climate in the early 1200's may have produced an abundance of grass and livestock in Mongolia, fueling the expansionist ambitions of Genghis Khan.

Here is an interesting passage from the article:

In 2013, Avery Shinneman, a biologist at the University of Washington, will analyze sediments at selected lakes in order to estimate abundances of livestock over time, using varying levels of fungal spores that live in the dung of grazing animals, and algae fertilized by that dung. The data will be fed into a model developed by Hanqin Tian, an ecologist at Auburn University in Alabama, who studies the weather of modern Mongolia and its relation to grassland productivity. The Mongols left few written records, but Nicola di Cosmo, a historian at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., will look into contemporary accounts from China, Persia and Europe for clues to climate and military events. From all this, the researchers hope to develop a picture of how sun, water, soil and animals might have created an energy system that the Mongols could have tapped into.

Biologists, theoretical ecologists, historians... increasingly big projects like this one become interdisciplinary by necessity.

If you have been following my posts on the controversy over a paper by Giosan et al on the geomorphology of rivers feeding the Harappan civilization..now that was a big project involving geomorphologists, climate experts, paleobotanists, sedimentologists and geochemists. The paper had 15 authors. You could have confused the author citations for the abstract! :)

OF Flies Mice And Men- Francois Jacob 1920 -2013

The great French biologist Francois Jacob died on April 19th 2013. I started this post and left it lingering in draft. I want to post it now.

 Carl Zimmer at The Loom  has an essay which outlines one of the key moments of Jacob's career- when he realized how cells turn genes on and off.  That formed the basis of understanding gene regulation and laid the foundation of the field of developmental biology. For that work he shared the Nobel Prize in 1965 with Andre Lwoff and Jacques Monod.

Francois Jacob also wrote beautifully about evolution. His description of evolution as a tinkerer has become a popular way to think about how evolution builds novelties and puts together complex structures and traits. From his elegant essay on evolution and tinkering published in Science in 1977 :

Natural selection has no analogy with any aspect of human behavior, However, if one wanted to play with a comparision, one would have to say natural selection does not work as an engineer works. It works like a tinkerer - a tinkerer who does not know exactly what he is going to produce but uses whatever he finds around him whether it be pieces of string, fragments or wood, or old cardboards; in short it works like a tinkerer who uses everything at his disposal to produce some kind of workable object. For the engineer, the realization of his task depends on his having the raw materials and the tools that exactly fit his project. The tinkerer, in contrast, always manages with odds and ends. What he ultimately produces is generally related to no special project, and it results from a series of contingent events, of all the opportunities he had to enrich his stock with leftovers. As was discussed by Levi Strauss (5) none of these materials at the tinkerer's disposal has a precise and definite function. Each can be used in a number of different ways. In contrast with the engineers's tools, those of the tinkerer cannot be defined by a project. What these objects have in common is "it might well be of some use". For what? That depends on the opportunities.

I enjoyed reading his books; The Statue Within and Of Flies Mice and Men.

Here is a passage from his book Of Flies Mice and Men where he describes the fear and excitement of changing course midway through his career:

The word "courage" is not too strong. The daily interaction over years with a living organism, however humble, entails a certain familiarity. You could almost say that you acquire a certain tenderness for it. After 15 years of working with a particular colon bacillus, I had accumulated hundreds of mutants. In each of these mutants, one or another of the cellular functions, many of them indispensable to the life and reproduction of the bacteria, had been altered. To abandon this work and all that it offered; to renounce the kind of intimacy that comes with the knowledge of little unwritten quirks, the folklore that surrounds the work of any one organism; to start again from zero with another, unknown organism whose idiosyncrasies I would have to discover - all this was a considerable sacrifice. It was a little like leaving a loved one . But, at the same time, the new project was an exciting one. It would mean entering an unknown world, beginning a new life, becoming young again....

Summer In My Neighborhood

Its been a blazing week with temperatures over 100 deg F. Pune this past few days has been as hot as I can ever recall. Time for ice tea and cool stewed mango drinks. Evenings are very warm too. We are giving our rugby kids water breaks every 10 minutes.

But walking through the small lanes near my house are sights like this one:

Summer can be glorious too. And the alphonso mangoes and cold beer is helping!

V.K Gaur On Earthquake Research, Jaitapur Seismic Risk And Role Of Scientists

The Hindu carried an interview with Vinod Kumar Gaur, seismologist with the Centre for Mathematical Modelling and Computer Simulation. His work on the seisimic risk at Jaitapur southern Maharashtra where a nuclear power plant has been proposed was criticized by the Indian government and his colleague Roger Bilham denied entry into India on the grounds that he violated the terms of his tourist visa. I share the suspicion of many that the Indian government is too sensitive and insecure about anyone raising questions about nuclear safety and reacted pettily by banning Dr. Bilham.

Some excerpts:

You have been vocal in your scepticism of Jaitapur as the location for a proposed 10,000 MW nuclear power plant...

Not for the construction of the plant, which can be designed with safety features. But India’s western coast, a well-recognised zone of potential seismic vulnerabilities, is likely laced with ancient faultlines buried under sediments and waiting to spring back like a piano accordion under continental compression. It is intriguing that Jaitapur [on the Maharashtra coast], the chosen site for the world’s biggest nuclear power plant, should have been declared seismically safe without refuting these possibilities.

My concern is that the various geological proxies of faultlines around Jaitapur and their possible implications on the plant and public safety have been neither adequately studied nor communicated. A clear picture of Jaitapur’s vulnerabilities and their quantification, needed in order to calculate the level of safety measures to be incorporated, is missing from the earthquake hazard assessment of the site. 

What, in your opinion, prevents a more thorough safety analysis of Jaitapur?

We have every technological possibility to exhaustively investigate the subsurface geology of Jaitapur including high resolution seismic imaging that can be carried out at a fraction of the project cost.

Scientists tend to downplay earthquake risks. It is convenient to do so. You keep everybody happy when you maintain status quo. But science only grows by addressing challenges, by considering alternative views and designing incisive experiments to prove or refute conjectures.

 and he has some harsh words about the lack of outreach role played by Indian scientists.

....Sadly, our scientific culture lacks responsibility and rigour towards public safety, and so denies society the advantage of information, and consequently resilience, against the natural disaster.

Read the full interview here.

My previous posts on this topic:

1) Politics And Pettiness In Indian Seismology
2) Note To Indian Govt: It Is Pointless Banning Seismologist Roger Bilham

My Criticism Of K.S Valdiya's Paper Published In Current Science

and Valdiya's reply was not satisfactory at all..

To those unfamiliar with the sequence of events:

1) Giosan et al publish a paper in the May 2012 issue of PNAS on fluvial geomorphology of rivers around the Harappan civilization and conclude amongst other things that the Sutlej and Yamuna rivers got diverted from the channels now occupied by the river Ghaggar (Haryana Punjab plains) to their present day course by Late Pleistocene. This meant that the Harappan civilization along the river named Ghaggar -also identified as the Vedic Saraswati by many- was watered by a monsoonal river and not a glacially connected river.,

2) I write a blog post of this paper on June 15 2012. I comment that some Indian geologists working on this problem accepted the scenario of a glacial Ghaggar /Saraswati during Harappan times without critically assessing the evidence.

3) My blog post appears on the Indo-Archaeology forum.  In the confusion due to many cross links my comments about the role of Indian geologists are misattributed to Giosan et al.  Giosan tries to set the record straight. K.S. Valdiya based on his correspondence with S. Kalyanaraman also confuses the source of those comments and misattributes them to Giosan et al in his article in Current Science. Valdiya accuses Giosan et al of diminishing the research of  Indian geologists partly because he misidentifies Giosan et al as the authors of those comments and partly because of Giosan's comment on the Indo Archaeology forum  that they have only referred to 'papers and authors presenting reliable data and facts’. S. Kalyanaraman forwarded this comment to Valdiya who then regarded it as a slight on the work of Indian geologists.
 
These below are my words that got misattributed to Giosan et al:

A geological narrative constructed without rigorous evidence has been promoted to support a theory of cultural evolution in northwest India.

and

..  now be revised or at the very least these geologists  need to admit that their theory has been seriously challenged.


4) I write a blog post on the geological problems in Valdiya's Current Science article.

5) Giosan et al protest the misattribution in the Correspondence section of February 10 issue of Current Science.

6) My comments and Valdiya's reply to Giosan et al and my comment published in the April 25 issue of  Current Science.

phew... I didn't know writing a nerdy geology blog will land me in such a controversy! :)

Moving on to Valdiya's reply to my comment I want to elaborate on Valdiya's denial that he misrepresented the work of other authors.