INCREMENTAL PROGRESS

Mountaineering expedition to Artist's Point

 

Judging from the beard, the late 1980s

 

 

I am home now, in Bellingham.  I spent several enjoyable days with Carolyn, Linda’s sister in Eureka, California.  Eureka is a beautiful place, with all sorts of outdoor recreational activities, ranging from salt water to mountain peaks.  I urge any of you thinking of moving to Bellingham to try Eureka first.  Housing is cheaper in Eureka, the climate is no worse.   There is a world-class used bookstore there, as well as several world-class dives**.  Besides, Bellingham is too big already.  I spent a full three minutes trying to turn left a short time ago.  That would never have happened 30 years ago; hell, we didn’t even bother to look when we turned left in those days.  The main streets were cobblestone, with grass growing between the cobbles.  Well, that’s the way I remember it, anyway.

About a year ago I wrote a blog comparing the IRS to the Inquisition.  I have no energy to rail against them this year; the tax code has beaten me into submission.  I got quite a bit of money back last year.  This year I am giving it all back.  Plus a fine.

I want to write about some research brought to my attention by Joan McManus (she is the in other lady in the picture accompanying my blog for January 31^st;  thanks you, Joan).  She sent me a clipping from the LA Times, containing an article entitled “Study links new DNA regions to 3 cancers.  The three cancers are breast, ovarian and prostate.  It appears that a colossal international study has been going on for some time.  It is called the Collaborative Oncological Gene-environment Study, or COGS.  The study involved roughly 250,000 people and enough scientists to publish 13 papers simultaneously (last week),  in four different journals*.  The results seem to offer hope of early detection in some cases, as well as – I hope – increased insight into the cancer problem as a whole.  More specific I cannot be: I found an article in Nature Genetics purporting to explain the work to the biologically challenged; I didn’t really understand it.  Suffice it to say that there are things called SNPs, which stands for single nucleotide polymorphisms.  These are point changes in the DNA sequence:  an A where a T should be, for instance.  If the T causes the protein “coded for” by the gene in question to fold wrong and thus assume the wrong shape, all sorts of havoc may ensue.  They found three regions where SNPs influence the likelihood of contracting ovarian cancer.  I hope they are scrutinizing these regions very closely.

That’s almost enough biology.  However, I am going to introduce a new feature to this blog.  I guess you could call it “Biology Vocabulary Builder”.  In it I will share with you what I learned from – mainly – Wikipedia.  You will be fascinated.  So here goes:

        Pleiotrophy.  This is the case when a single gene affects more than one phenotype.  Thus, to invent an example, gene HTn might be necessary to grow hair, and but also contributes to rotten teeth.  Thus, you might “knock out” HTn to improve dental health, but create a race of bald people.  As you might guess there is a bit more to it than this, but this probably is more than enough.

*Studies like these would be impossible in geology.  Geologists instinctively distrust the motives of anybody messing around in their particular research area, hence large cooperative investigations almost never happen.  Partly this is the result of the cut-throat competition for funding, but mainly it is because geologists tend to be misanthropic loners.  To be honest that’s not actually true – except much of the time. 

** It also is the pot capital of North America.