Another fish to tetrapod transitional

Tiktaalik, found exactly where a tetrapod transitional was predicted in the fossil record, in exactly the geological formation predicted, was a spectacular find of a fish to tetrapod transitional.

Now comes another earlier find and the first of a tetrapod transitional in Australia. Dated to 380 million years ago, Gogonasus is fantastically well preserved in 3-D, and the team have used X-ray tomography and other new techniques to reveal fine detail of the skeletal anatomy. While still a fish, it shows some characters that begin to show a transition to the tetrapod form, particularly in the ears and in the limbs.

Gogonasus lies quite early in the fish to tetrapod transition. Fish that are more derived, ie closer to tetrapods are known from Europe and America (Pandericthys and Tiktaalik) but none are known from the Godwana supercontinent. However, early tetrapods are known from Godwana. The authors therefore predict that fossils of fish closer to tetrapods than Gogonasus will be found in Australia to parallel Tiktaalik from Eurasia. They have set off to test this prediction by exploring Devonian formations – who said that palaeontology makes no predictions?

Correction thirteen years on

Scientists are rightly proud of the self-correcting and self-policing that the scientific community applies to itself. This is exemplified by the brouhaha surrounding a correction published last week by the authors (from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee) of a paper published thirteen years ago in Nature. The paper is widely acknowledged to represent a major contribution to the technique of very high resolution compositional analysis with a scanning electron microscope, and its claims are not in doubt, having been confirmed many times over since then.

The problem is that the authors claimed, and assured the referees, that some data had been analysed in a way which it turns out they had not, for reasons that are not now entirely clear. The authors have publicly eaten humble pie and apologised, but the paper has not been retracted and its conclusions still stand. The reason for this focus on truth and accuracy in a refereed paper, even where the errors do not affect the central claims of the paper, is that other workers often rely on reported methods and the community is as anxious to protect the integrity of subsequent work as it is to ensure that the central claims are properly supported by the evidence.

Is the process perfect? Of course not. Would Nature have forced this corrigendum if the paper was less prominent? I think probably not – errors in methods in a little cited paper in a less prestigious journal would be much less likely to be uncovered and much less likely to be publicly corrected. Nevertheless, this incident illustrates the ability and determination of the community to police itself and to ensure integrity.

Contrast the almost paranoid care demonstrated here with the appalling contempt for the truth demonstrated by creationists in their interminable repetition of false claims long after their errors have been pointed out to them.

AIDS medics - open letter to Colonel Gaddafi

Many bloggers, the scientific community and Nature journal have all been campaigning recently for a fair trial for the six foreign medical workers accused of deliberately infecting 400 children with AIDS. If found guilty they face the firing squad. Their trial is complete and the verdict is due in mid December. The disturbing fact is the 'shocking lack of scientific evidence' to link them to their alleged crime.

Go here for more information from Nature's web focus in support of the Tripoli six.

Here is the text of the open letter signed by 114 Nobel Laureates to Colonel Gaddafi:

Dear Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi:

We, Nobel Laureates in the sciences, are gravely concerned about the ongoing trial of five Bulgarian nurses, Valya Chervenyashka, Snezhana Dimitrova, Nasya Nenova, Valentina Siropulo, Kristiana Valcheva, and a Palestinian doctor, Ashraf Ahmad Jum'a, in Tripoli. The six face death-penalty charges of deliberately infecting 426 children with HIV at al-Fateh Children's Hospital in Benghazi in 1998. Strong scientific evidence is needed to establish the cause of this infection. However, independent science-based evidence from international experts has so far not been permitted in court.

Libya is currently making efforts to join the community of peaceful nations by renouncing weapons of mass destruction and adhering to international standards regarding the rule of law. This trial is another opportunity for Libya to demonstrate its commitment to recognized values and norms. But so far Libya has failed to follow the norms of international justice in the case of the charged medical workers.

We appreciate the agony and the sadness of the parents of these children and we sympathize with the difficult situation of the Libyan authorities in trying to deal with this matter. However, we feel that if justice is to be served it is essential that the defence should be permitted to present its case.

Among the disallowed scientific evidence is a 2003 report, which Libya requested, and which was provided by Luc Montagnier, a co-discoverer of the virus that causes AIDS, and Italian microbiologist Vittorio Colizzi. The report concluded that the infection at the hospital resulted from poor hygiene and reuse of syringes, and also that the infections began before the arrival of the nurses and doctor in 1998.

On 29 August 2006, a Libyan prosecutor reiterated the call for the six to be given the death penalty. The next, and probably last, court hearing is scheduled for the 4 November, with a verdict expected shortly thereafter. A miscarriage of justice will take place without proper consideration of scientific evidence. We urge the appropriate authorities to take the necessary steps to permit such evidence to be used in this case.

To uphold justice, and ensure a fair trial, we affirm the need for:

• Defence lawyers to have the right to call and examine witnesses on the health workers' behalf under the same conditions as witnesses called against them, and
• The appropriate authorities to call upon internationally recognized experts in AIDS research to examine and testify on the evidence as to the cause of the HIV infections in the children.

Yours sincerely,

Richard J. Roberts and 113 fellow Nobel Laureates

More explanations for why we believe in gods

Todd Tremlin of Central Michigan Umiversity has written a book on why human beings are predisposed to believe in gods (Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion). The recent review in Nature (by Kruger and Konner) points out that there is much to admire in the book, in particular its explanation that human minds are predisposed by evolutionary considerations to detect agents everywhere and that human minds have a Theory of Mind Module that is very adroit, and unique in the animal kingdom. I find that explanation compelling but, like the reviewers yearn for a more complex explanation that illuminates the powerful emotions that belief in god(s) elicits.


Pascal Boyer's 'Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought' is still for me one of the most insightful books on this topic. As time passes, we will, of course, come to understand more clearly the things in human evolution history that predispose us to believe in god(s).