Last year, the Lotos Club invited Jesse Ausubel to give a short dinner address at their celebration of Earth. The little essay, Why are flowers beautiful?, draws on ideas about truth and beauty (and mathematics) of mentor Cesare Marchetti.
News
Biology in Art
The Leonardo Da Vinci DNA Project opened our eyes to the possibilities (inevitability!) of exciting new discoveries by integrating new tools of genetics, molecular biology, and microbiology into studies of art history and practices in conservation of cultural heritage. We were able to help arrange support for a joint project of the NYU Institute of Fine Arts and the research lab of the Metropolitan Museum of Art:
ART BIO MATTERS 2018 aims to assemble, for the first time, scientists, curators/art historians, and conservators for a stimulating forum to explore new directions in the study of biological materials in works of art. Through guided and balanced discussions, participants will identify connections between advanced DNA, mass-spectrometric, and antibody-based approaches and their own research questions, thereby, facilitating focused and mutually beneficial collaborations.
By many accounts, the conference 8-10 November 2018 was thrilling. The website has lots of great materials and leads. Congratulations to Julie Arslanoglu, Peggy Ellis, Matthew Teasdale, and the emerging community at the interface of biology and art!
Thomas Bailey, new president of Teacher’s College
In 1996 while working with Ralph Gomory, then President of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Jesse Ausubel helped Sloan develop initiatives in higher education. These included the first university simulator (Virtual U.), professional science master’s degrees (championed by Sheila Tobias), and research on community colleges. A great success was (is) the Community College Research Center (CCRC) at Teacher’s College (TC). The CCRC was partly inspired by insights of TC faculty member Thomas Bailey, an expert on the high-performance workplace and school-to-work transitions. Bailey became the founding director of the CCRC and led it until this autumn, when he became President of Teacher’s College. Congratulations to Tom and to TC. Read Tom’s excellent inaugural address and about his pathfinding career, which includes kind mentions of Sloan and Jesse.
Deep Life reports from Deep Carbon Observatory
The Deep Life Community shared its progress over the past decade in the Deep Carbon Observatory at the December 2018 meeting of the American Geophysical Union in Washington DC. Jesse Ausubel helped found the DCO in 2009.
Articles include: Life in deep Earth totals 15 to 23 billion tons of carbon—hundreds of … Phys.Org–Dec 10, 2018Deep Life scientists say about 70% of Earth’s bacteria and archaea …. says Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller University, a founder of the DCO.
The Daily Galaxy –Great Discoveries Channel–Dec 10, 2018
GoFish
Our “GoFish” paper is published in PLOS ONE (Stoeckle MY, Mishu MD, Charlop-Powers Z. GoFish: a versatile nested PCR strategy for environmental DNA assays for marine vertebrates). From water collection to Sanger sequencing results, the assay can be carried out in three days. This approach will be a useful addition to current eDNA methods when analyzing presence/absence of known species, when turnaround time is important, and in educational settings.
GoFish for Environmental DNA!
Our “GoFish” paper is published in PLOS ONE (Stoeckle MY, Mishu MD, Charlop-Powers Z. GoFish: a versatile nested PCR strategy for environmental DNA assays for marine vertebrates). Excerpt from the abstract:
“GoFish assays amplify a mitochondrial 12S rDNA segment with vertebrate metabarcoding primers, followed by nested PCR with M13-tailed, species-specific primers. Sanger sequencing confirms positives detected by gel electrophoresis.
Unlike quantitative PCR (qPCR), GoFish does not require tissues of target and related species for assay development and a basic thermal cycler is sufficient. Unlike Illumina metabarcoding, indexing and batching samples are unnecessary and advanced bioinformatics expertise is not needed. From water collection to Sanger sequencing results, the assay can be carried out in three days.
The main limitations to this approach, which employs metabarcoding primers, are the same as for metabarcoding, namely, inability to distinguish species with shared target sequences and inconsistent amplification of rarer eDNA.
This approach will be a useful addition to current eDNA methods when analyzing presence/absence of known species, when turnaround time is important, and in educational settings.”
DNA barcodes and Darwin
Our paper, “Why should mitochondria define species?“, is published open access in Human Evolution 2018; 33:1-40. It recently received a lot popular press attention claiming our work supports creationist views. This interpretation of our work is wrongheaded.
National Geographic on eDNA
An article by Steve Leahy for National Geographic about our National Conference on Marine Environmental DNA
New DNA tool ‘changes everything in marine science’
Also in the news net:
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Newsletter
Leading Practitioners Of eDNA Science Gather To Discuss New Tool’s Possibilities
Thanks to every one of the 100 participants. It was thrilling for all!
Also a good story in the Martha’s Vineyard Times about Linda Fairstein’s new book in which kids collect eDNA on Martha’s Vineyard.
And in the Martha’s Vineyard Gazette: Swimming With the Fishes, Naming Them Too, Monday, December 3, 2018 – 1:58pm.
National Conference on Marine eDNA
Today begins our National Conference on Marine Environmental DNA.
A press release describes the purposes and previews some findings.
The meeting is part of the continuing Monmouth University-Rockefeller University Marine Science and Policy Initiative.
Mt paper supports Darwinian evolution
The article Why should mitochondria define species?
Stoeckle M.Y., Thaler D.S.
is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution, including the understanding all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years.
The study follows mainstream views of human evolution. We do not propose there was a single “Adam” or “Eve”. We do not propose any catastrophic events.