Protest of one

The following image is from the Live webcam overlooking parliament hill at about 5:45pm today.


Thousands of Canadians have descended upon the hill at Parliament to protest a man. They have come to protest a man who rose to distinction after a questionable contest which saw weeks and weeks of counts, recounts, after ballot box stuffing and potential voter fraud. The implications of this man on Canada and the world ranks among the concerns of the people gathered in Ottawa today.

Some have called his advocates arrogant, advocates which idolize him and call him fondly by his silly nickname think that his ideas and policies are what’s best for the U.S., Canada and the world, and to disagree would with him might well label you anti-patriotic by his frothing ideologues. This man’s colleagues would have especially deleterous effects on the Canadian economy if we ever allowed them greater influence; trade would slow to a trickle. To top it all off, his closest advocate is a balding man who actually runs the show and has a knack for media manipulation.

I wish that I could be there, to join with my fellow Canadians to protest that recent ballot and a man who rose to the top after all the votes were counted. I would join with them, among their angry chants and we would join as one, for the common good, and exclaim,

“Tommy Douglas isn’t MY Greatest Canadian!”

I sure didn’t vote for him.

Hey hey, ho ho…

Long night in the lab

Tonight, I’m gearing up for one of those long nights in the lab of growin’ it, resolvin’ it and probin’ it. I am, of course, talking about my protein of study which may well help in the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis, inflammation and asthma and whose study may initiate the development of a drug to replace Vioxx and Celebrex.

So, that’s my life right now, outside of harping for Harper, masticating the Martinites and laughing at Layton: I’m growing protein and lovin’ it. Hopefully, I’ll get some sleep tonight before my lab meeting presentation tomorrow.

I thought I’d try my hand at a science related post and share, with you, its lighter side.

Ever since Google Scholar was released in beta earlier this month, I’ve been poking around and testing it out to see what I could find. The website searches through peer-reviewed scientific journals and other literature and reveals the body of knowledge concerning any topic of scientific interest. Between work-related searches, I’ve tried out a few interesting queries and submit them here for your review and amusement.

Some researchers have too much time on their hands and some funding agencies must have bags of money laying around if the Journal of Perception’s 1983 research article titled “On the plausibility of Superman’s x-ray vision” by JB Pittenger is any indication. Pittenger submitted the following abstract to the journal for its review and eventual publication:

Requirements that a vision system must meet to make Superman’s x-ray vision possible are stated, and two solutions are proposed. In one, emitted x-rays carry the information to Superman’s eyes; in the other, emitted rays make objects transparent to a second type of ray. Further subjects lending themselves to this type of research are superhearing , the biomechanics of leaping tall buildings, or being faster than a bullet.

I imagine that the idea for this article was conceived while studying the effects of alcohol or THC. Hey maaaaan, I wonder how Superman’s X-ray vision works. It would be killer to have superpowers, maaaaaan. That would be awesome.

Superman seems to be a popular topic of research as is also evident in this year’s study by Leif Nelson and Michael Norton published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. They present the following abstract:

The present research uses priming techniques to modify commitment to and engagement in future helping behavior. Relative to a control condition, people primed with the exemplar Superman saw themselves as less likely (Studies 1a and 1b), and participants primed with the category superhero saw themselves as more likely (Study 1a), to help in hypothetical situations. Study 2 extended these effects to real-world planned helping behavior, by demonstrating that these primes impacted commitment to future volunteerism. Finally, Study 3 showed that these changes in initial commitment impacted volunteering behavior up to three months after initial exposure. These results demonstrate that fleeting situational primes can impact not only spontaneous behavior, but also future behavior.

So, if people are prompted with the thought of Superman, they are less likely to help others in the future. But, if people are prompted with the thought of superheroes in general, they are more likely to help. David Pescovitz from Boing Boing notes that psychologists propose “that the average person quickly realizes that there’s no way they can compare to the Man of Steel”. Silly.

Superman is also a the name of a gene found in the flowering plant known as Arabidopsis thaliana. Other genes and proteins have been named after other fictional characters and popular culture. Sonic the hedgehog, Hamlet and of course the INDY gene/protein (after the famous line from Monty Python’s Holy Grail: I’m not dead yet!) are just a few examples.

Science can be amusing, rewarding or downright embarrassing. How would you like to work in the laboratory which submitted “Flatulence–causes, relation to diet and remedies” for publication? I may have typed flatulence into Google Scholar on some kind of juvenile whim, yet there are those that dedicate their careers to it. I would guess that these researchers are either a hit or a big miss at parties, depending on the type of gathering of course.

After a late night party you may have returned home and watched some late-night TV (infomercials) before crashing for the night. You may have seen that infomercial for those ‘magical’ ionic bracelets that relieve muscle and joint pain. Turns out that the therapeutic powers of the bracelets may be attributed to the placebo affect.
Nimal and Schwartz detail their findings in a research article named “Are ionized wrist bracelets better than placebo for musculoskeletal pain?”. Turns out that the answer is no. The researchers also state “while the bracelet did not work better than placebo, many patients may experience less pain if they purchase and use it.” Ah, the power of positive thinking.

Google, of course, is based upon an algorithm and isn’t heavily filtered or edited by actual people. Google News presents the news of the day entirely without an editor by presenting news stories as top stories through a Pagerank system (Yes, there are scientific papers published about the pagerank algorithm). Google Scholar contains a very amusing citation that Jens Thilo Teubner includes in his paper on “Optimization of High Efficiency Thermoelectrics based on Tl5Te3“. This paper outlines the efforts made by Teubner to optimize the thermoelectric properties of thallium/tellurium compounds. On the 18th page of this research article, the Fermi-Dirac distribution function is provided to describe the “the charge carrier distribution in a material” in the “unperturbed equilibrium state with no electric field or temperature gradient”. The author cites none other than Britney Spears’ Guide to Semiconductor Physics (an internet classic) as an example and therefore Google contains the citation from B Spears.

We now conclude our tour of Google’s new search program that is sure to excite, or at lease amuse, the scientific community. Time to get back to work!

Layton seeks validation… again

In what is my 2nd bi-weekly installment of slagging Jack Layton for spamming his NDP membership (and NDP-watchers like me), I post the latest efforts of Wacky Jack to seek validation for his faltering party by pimping, er… rather *ahem* propelling his hero Thomas “Tommy” Douglas into top spot as Greatest Canadian.

As usual I detail my “personal” email from “Jack” (my emphasis in bold, snide comments in italics)

Who’s David Suzuki Voting The Greatest Canadian?

The answer may surprise you

David Suzuki’s voting for Tommy. You should too!

Ok, I lied, the answer won’t surprise you.

Last Sunday on TVOntario’s program Allan Gregg in Conversation with…, Dr. Suzuki said that his vote “is for Tommy Douglas.” And for Dr. Suzuki and all Canadians – there are only a few opportunities left to vote for Tommy Douglas in the CBC contest ‘The Greatest Canadian.’

I’d vote for David Suzuki (a contender for the same contest), if for nothing else but his modesty before I’d vote for a man that will have Jack shamelessly gloating in the House while all of the other MPs roll their eyes before they continue to ignore Layton and sort out the nation’s business.

Voting ends on Sunday, November 28 and the results will be announced on Monday, November 29 – That�s only over a week away – Tommy needs your vote now!

Tommy Douglas is the “father of healthcare” (or so I’m led to believe) but should we be heralding a man for a system that’s not currently sustainable, a system which needs “a fix for a generation”, a “massive overhaul”? Layton ran on a promise of more money for healthcare instead of providing real solutions for keeping costs down and achieving sustainability. Forty cents of every tax dollar goes towards this massively inefficient system. Jack’s solution? Keep it at forty cents but collect more tax dollars. The solution of every other politician with at least a sense of economics? Get that cost down to achieve sustainability.

But I digress…

Tommy? — If you want the respect for him as one of the greatest Canadians and thus a true statesman and ambassador of all things Canadian call the man Thomas! Johnny MacDonald? Petey Trudeau? Give Thomas Douglas at least some respect when it comes to his name! Terry Fox, of course, is the exception: we call him Terry because he was young and died after finishing his selfless act of running his Marathon of Hope for others who would be diagnosed with cancer long after his death. I call him Terry out of the greatest respect for a young man who is the greatest example of sacrifice and heroism in modern Canadian history.

If a 60 year old man introduced himself to me as “Timmy” and told me invented the economy, I’d probably laugh.

When can I vote?

There are only three voting windows left to vote for Tommy as “The Greatest Canadian”.

Window 1: now until Monday 8:00pm

Window 2: Vote between Monday 9:00pm and Wednesday 8:00pm

Window 3: Vote between Wednesday 9:00pm and Sunday Nov 28.

You can vote at any time of the day. You do not have to vote while the show is on or directly after the show airs.

You can vote five times on each phone line that you have access to (including your cell phone) in each of the three voting windows.


So you can vote five times on your home phone, plus five times on your cell phone, plus five times on your work phone = 15 votes. Do this in each of the three voting windows and you’ll get 45 phone votes.

If this is how Jack wants to handle electoral reform, I want no part of it.

If Tommy Douglas wins this contest, he won’t be Greatest Canadian for all Canadians. Instead, he’ll be the Greatest Canadian among overly caffeinated NDPers, who’d vote for a man who created a healthcare system over a man who set out to run across the country on one leg to try and fund it.


You can vote once in each voting window with each e-mail address that you have access to.

So you can vote once from your work e-mail and once from your home e-mail. Do this in each of the three voting windows and you get six more votes!)

I wonder what the NDP webmaster is doing with his unlimited email aliases…


You can vote once in each voting window by using text messaging for each cell phone that you have access to. Just put Tommy’s name in your message!

Some people are just too committed

The competition has heated up in the past two weeks. We can’t coast to the finish line. Every vote counts. Vote now and pass this onto your friends and encourage them to vote for Tommy as many times as permitted!

If Jack had worked so hard during the election… well, he wouldn’t be Prime Minister, but maybe Olivia Chow would be one step closer to thinking SHE is.

If I’ve added up the number of times that NDPers can vote for Tommy Douglas correctly, I get 70 (assuming work, home and spam email addresses). Ironically, if you apply this number votes to a forum in the real-world, say the House of Commons, the NDP would have (70 votes * 19 seats = 133 votes) which is one seat short of the Liberal Party’s ruling minority! (Carolyn Parrish got booted from the Liberal caucus today).

which begs another question… why am I writing about Tommy Douglas?