balancing life

2009 Nobel for telomeres and ribosomes: answering basic questions in life

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:30:15 PDT

It’s fair to say that there were few surprises when the Nobel prizes in Medicine and Chemistry were announced. Chemists might again quibble, since the prize again went to biophysicists/biochemists for their work on a biological problem, but other than that, the prizes deservedly recognize magnificent work in two areas of basic biology that reveal very important ways by which life, literally, goes on.

Also, for the first time, there are three women scientists winning the prize in the sciences. While the prizes themselves are “gender neutral”, it remains a fact that (at least until recently), women have been massively underrepresented in the sciences, and only a handful of women have won Nobel prizes (a reflection of that underrepresentation). If not anything else, these prizes will at least inspire many more women scientists (and the winners have all been great role models, not just for women but all scientists).

Now to the prizes themselves.

The medicine prize went for discovering how one of biology’s most important processes is enabled by a quirky unit called a telomere. People realized early that DNA, which encodes all our genetic information, was packaged into chromosomes inside cells. Later, proteins called DNA polymerases were discovered, and these proteins were responsible for making copies of DNA, which would allow the DNA to replicate and be propagated. Scientists observed very early that there would be trouble with this copying process, cine the polymerase would leave tails of DNA at the ends, and that chromosomes would slowly shorten. But if that happened, how could all the genetic information be passed on correctly over generations? And then, was there a relationship between this chromosome shortening and the lifespan of the organism? Over the years, the winners of the medicine prize, Elizabeth Blackburn, Jack Szostak and Carol Greider went on to show how all of this was made possible by telomeres, the capped ends of chromosomes. Telomeres were shown to stabilize the ends of chromosomes, and proteins called telomerases synthesize chromosome ends inside the cell. The Nobel website has an excellent short summary on the discoveries.

Here are two general comments. The first is that all these discoveries were made in two organisms that seem as different from humans as possible; the humble yeast, and a common fresh water microscopic protozoa called tetrahymena. Though some people often question the purpose or use of studying these organisms, basic biological processes (like chromosome maintenance and telomere function) are perfectly conserved across evolution, from these simple bugs through humans. So the findings that came out of these organisms were directly relevant to human and mammalian cell function. Model organisms have taught us a tremendous amount of biology that has been directly applicable to humans.

The second general comment is that when Blackburn, Szostak or Greider started working on these organisms, there was no “application” for their research. At the time, telomeres weren’t known to cause any disease, nor could any “product” be made from studying them. The work was done in tetrahymena and yeast, and there was no “utility” in studying them. But the researchers followed their noses, pursuing questions in basic biology. Now their discoveries might play key roles in developing new therapeutics for cancer, ageing or hereditary diseases. When chromosomes shorten too much (and the telomeres shorten beyond a point), the cell stops dividing and goes into senescence. Normal cells don’t divide too much, so don’t need too much telomerase activity. Yet cancer cells divide incessantly. But they still preserve their telomeres, and don’t go into senescence. It has now been observed that cancer cells have high telomerase activity, and people now believe cancer can be treated by removing telomerases from cancer cells (and thus forcing the cells to go into senescence). There is a ton of work being done now to develop therapeutics against cancer targeting telomerases. Yet when this process was being studied, none of this was apparent.

The chemistry Nobels have gone to Venki Ramakrishnan, Tom Steitz and Ada Yonath for their pioneering work revealing the structures of yet another of the fundamental enabling units of life, the ribosome. This prize also recognizes the third act by which the process of how DNA encodes the units of life is completed. All three discoveries were seen at the level of the chemical atom using the same technique, called X-ray crystallography. Something that can only be described as an atomic photographic snapshot of biological molecules can be obtained using this technique. In the first Nobel Prize awarded way back when to Watson and Crick, X-ray crystallography revealed the famous double helical structure of DNA, which showed how DNA could be easily copied and replicated. Crick was later able to devise the triplet code, which allowed us to understand how DNA, with just combinations of four nucleic acids, could encode all the information for proteins, the building blocks of all life. This DNA was faithfully copied out to another form of nucleic acid, called (messenger) RNA. mRNA is made by a complex of proteins which form the RNA polymerase units, and the precise molecular details of this process were also largely revealed by X-ray crystallography. This work was recognized in the 2006 Nobel to Roger Kornberg. But there remains the third step, the extremely complex process by which this RNA is made into the actual functional units, the proteins of the cell. This work is done by the massive RNA-protein complex within the cell, called the ribosome. Primarily using X-ray crystallography (with other structural and biophysical methods) Ramakrishnan, Steitz and Yonath revealed the structures of the ribosome, first with different sub-units of the complex, and later with the structures of the entire complex itself. The Nobel website has a good, simple summary of the process here. It is a pity that only three Nobel prizes are awarded at a time for a discovery, because Harry Noller has made just as many pioneering contributions to ribosome structure and function. It is too bad that he missed out (and it must have been a close call between Ramakrishnan and Noller).

Most of the work on ribosomes was also done on the most obscure of organisms, mostly microbes that live in harsh environments, like Geobacillus stearothermophilus or Haloarcula marismortui (which lives in the Dead Sea) or Thermus thermophilus. Much of the basic mechanisms of ribosome function are conserved right from bacteria through eukaryotes (of which humans are also a part of). Yet, there are also many differences between bacteria and eukaryotes (and the microbial yeast, a eukaryote, has ribosomes more similar to humans than to bacteria, a fellow microbe). Yonath, Steitz and Ramakrishnan soon had structures of ribosomes with various antibiotics bound to them, showing how these antibiotics could block the ribosome and hence kill bacteria. Their work now gives us a fantastic snapshot to ribosome function, and provides a platform for chemists to come in and make new antibiotics against harmful bacteria.

All in all, the prizes have gone to recipients without any major surprises, and their work has tremendous impact, and is a celebration of research in basic, fundamental biology.

I’ll leave you with this video of the ribosome from Tom Steitz’s lab. I never thought the ribosome looked like a death star, but with the music playing I see it in a different light.

Book review: The missing manual – Living Green

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 06:44:39 PDT

(Posted on Desicritics)

Over the past few years “sustainable living” has suddenly grown in importance in the more developed and affluent countries of the world, and most people are at least curious about it. Yet it isn’t always easy for people to know if their lifestyles are green or not. An easily readable yet comprehensive and enjoyable resource for green living would be of great value to everyone, from the die hard eco-warrior to the gently curious citizen. Nancy Conner’s Living Green is just that much required reference to fill that void.

A well written book that can be read as a serious reference or a quick pointer for specific questions, this book (from O’reilly’s missing manual series) addresses most questions anyone could have about living green, and what all it involves. Living green isn’t just about replacing a few light bulbs or occasionally bicycling to work, but is about a comprehensive lifestyle change where the consequences of all our actions are considered from an earth perspective. The book also does well in suggesting that we do have choices, and by living green we do not have to abandon all the comforts we have become accustomed to.

This book is organized in chapters that deal with changes we can make in our homes, all the way through green business and getting involved towards sustaining a greener planet. If you are just starting with small changes in your life, and want to see what little things you can easily do around the house, the first section addresses these questions. You will easily be surprised by the number of toxins you are exposed to routinely, from harsh detergents to cleaners and solutions commonly used in bathrooms or kitchens. Importantly, the book provides low cost, simple alternatives that are far less harmful to our own health as well as the health of the planet. Taking just one example, it was most useful to hear that the ultimate all purpose natural cleaner is white vinegar and boric acid powder, which can be used to scour sinks, clean bathtubs, wipe countertops and clean floors. With a few modifications, it can also be used as a garden pesticide. The book then builds towards reducing unnecessary consumption (going for quality over inexpensive quantity is an easy first step), and reusing and recycling. It then goes a level higher, and provides outstanding resources and ideas towards building houses that are green as well as energy saving, talking about everything from simple design solutions to LEED certification for buildings.

The next section talks about a complete lifestyle change, from raising a green family (ever thought about how many landfills a baby’s diapers could fill up?), green eating and cooking, raising kids who are sensitive towards the environment, through responsible shopping, and another big cause of pollution to the earth, daily transportation. The book provides a handy reminder of the different transportation options (from walking and biking to car pooling) to the costs of air travel or hotel stay, and how easy it can be to offset these effects for little or no extra cost. There are excellent resources for example on hotels or automobiles that take their environmental costs seriously, and are trying hard to improve energy efficiency and environmental stewardship. So, given a choice between two hotels or two cars of similar quality, this book makes it easy to choose the one that does a better job in protecting the environment.

The final section goes in depth into green business, and how it is possible to actually make a profit or create substantial savings by actually being green. Much of it is just simple improvements in efficiency. Using less paper or office recycling programs are low cost efforts that result in big “green” savings. There are significant energy savings offices can obtain by simply allowing more natural light in, or opening windows (as opposed to cranking up the air conditioners all the time). There are choices that can be made for the source of energy (and the differences between renewable and non-renewable energy choices, as well as how one can buy and use more renewable energy resources). Finally, the book goes into different ways by which one can be involved, from activism to socially responsible investing.

There is little doubt that the book is comprehensive, and provides information to someone curious about green living at every level. Yet, there are some caveats or limitations in this book.

For one, it is certainly true that many people have tried various eco-friendly/green choices around the house, and it just didn’t “work as well” as the regular choice. This book, while providing excellent choices for green options around the house, does not acknowledge that there can be some limitations with green products. From my own personal example, we’ve tried just about every single green dishwashing solution out there. But none of them work as well as conventional dishwashing gels (which do have phosphates in them) while cleaning dishes that have been used for spicy, sometimes greasy, and often heavily cooked Indian or Thai food, though they do work satisfactorily for more standard “American” cooking. So, after much trial and error, we had to go back to conventional dishwasher detergents, after experimenting with a dozen natural ones that claimed to be just as “hard on dirt” but gentle on the environment. On the other hand, many other green products work satisfactorily (green laundry detergent with a little bit of hydrogen peroxide added to it works fine for lightly soiled clothes, but perhaps not as well for the rare, heavily soiled garment). Future editions of the book would do well to acknowledge some limitations of green products, and perhaps compare the two, saying where the green product is perfectly adequate, but where it might fall short. Acknowledging some limitations of green products is not necessarily a weakness, and makes it easier for the average person to make better choices while stepping towards green living.

Then, there is an extensive (and overall good) chapter on food, which oversimplifies the “organic is good” mantra, unequivocally casting all fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified food as the great evil. However, the argument is far from that simple, since it is a very complex area that is grey and not black or white. Yes, pesticides can be harmful, and overuse of fertilizers has ruined land. But it is also true that careful and controlled use of fertilizer (along with suitable crop rotation and mixed cropping) can yield more food (at no nutritional disadvantage) than simple organic mono-cropping alone. Nor are all genetically modified foods dangerous. It remains a fact that every single food crop we eat today has been modified, over years of crossing and creating “hybrids”, except that the methods used have been different. There certainly are issues with proprietary seeds and over aggressive patents, but casting all genetically modified food as bad is simplistic at best and false at worst. There is no doubt that sustainable (including organic) food practices are excellent for the earth, but by avoiding nuance, this book might put away some people who aren’t blindly gung ho yet about everything green.

The book has been written from the perspective of a person living green. So, perhaps, the tone does not fully reach out to people across the aisle. Living in Texas has taught me that direct confrontation (about lifestyle) rarely works. In a place where say people often leave their lawn sprinklers on during three hour thunderstorms, or where cities still don’t have recycling programs (and where one has to collect and cart recyclables to a recycling center oneself), finding middle ground is a starting first step. Perhaps this book can do more to address that.

However, overall the book is superbly written, and provides a single stop for the reader to find out anything about living green. A more than useful manual, it should be the book of choice should one want any reference towards green living. It is a worthy addition to any household, and lets you start making those small steps towards green living.

Living Green: the missing manual

The bat and the moth, and the ant and the butterfly

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:54:53 PDT

What better way to resume blogging after a break than with a couple of fascinating stories from the natural world, about predator and prey, defensive arms races and survival cues?

Bats invoke a variety of emotions from people, ranging from disgust and (unfounded) fear to “they’re cool”. At least the Batman sometimes did some good in helping kids get rid of their fear or paranoia of bats. But while bats might look like silly rats with wings, they are indeed supremely efficient hunting machines. While some bats eat fruit, a majority of them hunt flying insects in the dark, and eat vast quantities of moths, locusts, flies, mosquitoes and any other bug that flies. In order to do this efficiently in the dark, they have a fabulously developed system of “echolocation”, a better sonar system than most battleships. This is great for the bat, and allows them to locate flying insects with pin-point accuracy. But what about the insects? Obviously, they have a pressing need to survive and need to escape bats. Therefore many insects have evolved remarkable ways to evade their hunters.

Some insects have developed evasive flying maneuvers, others just taste bad and the bats learn to avoid them, while others yet have evolved a neuronal auditory system that can detect the bat sonar frequency and allow them to escape. So there is this constant fight between bat and insect in evolving better sonar or ways to evade it. But, taking a cue from standard defense technology, do any insects actually jam or disrupt bat sonar? It appears that a certain species of tiger moth can do precisely this.

The tiger moth is a perfectly edible snack for the echolocating bat. But some tiger moths emit specific ultrasonic clicks in the presence of attacking bats. These clicks could potentially serve as a warning sound, or perhaps be used to startle bats (thus giving the moth time to escape), or perhaps affect the bat sonar. A group of researchers decided to investigate this phenomenon in a tiger moth species called B. trigona, and used an ingenious test to determine what role these ultrasonic clicks were playing. They pitted moths against bats in a closed chamber and precisely observed what the bats did. If the click was a warning sound (for say a poisonous or distasteful insect), the bat would at first attack the insect, but drop it or spit it out, and then learn to avoid the insect. If it was a startling sound, the bat would at first be startled, but would learn to avoid it. If the click was indeed a sonar jamming sound, the bats would continue to be confused by the clicking over time. In their experiments, the researchers used a bunch of juvenile or adult bats and presented them with either the clicking moths, or other moths of the same size that didn’t click, or just a different type of edible, non-clicking moth. What they found was fascinating. The bats indeed did eat the clicking moths. However, the bats were 400% more likely to eat a non-clicking moth than the clicking B. trigona. But what if these clicking moths just tasted worse? To make sure that this wasn’t the case, the researchers disrupted the clicking mechanisms of these moths, and then let them out with the bats. This time, the bats hunted them down as well as the other non-clicking moths. It became very apparent that the moths used the clicking sound in order to disrupt the bat sonar.

As far as the moths go, the evolutionary race for survival is pretty simple. Out in the wild, they don’t need to develop a fantastic sonar jamming device to completely disrupt the bat sonar. All they need to do to get a huge survival edge is to be able to disrupt the bat echolocator just a little bit (but more than any other insect around), so that they can get away and the other insect gets eaten. To do this, they only needed to develop a simple tymbal structure, and this structure is now widespread amongst some tiger moth species. And by doing that, they haven’t evolved to escape all bats, but have just enough to gain that much needed survival edge over other bat prey.

(Original reference: Corcoran, A., Barber, J., & Conner, W. (2009). Tiger Moth Jams Bat Sonar Science, 325 (5938), 325-327 DOI: 10.1126/science.1174096)

**********

This next story is just as fascinating, though more incomplete and raising more questions. Plants obviously are under constant risk of being eaten by some herbivore or the other. So some plants have a very effective defense strategy. They secrete sugars onto their stem or leaves so that they can attract ants. These ants then stay on the plant, and serve as a nice, natural defense against other plant eating insects or animals. Butterflies, on the other hand, are insects that plants share a love-hate relationship with. On one hand, the butterfly pollinates the flowers, allowing the transfer of genetic material from one plant to the other, thus enabling reproduction. On the other hand, butterflies lay their eggs on plant leaves and the caterpillars then devour the leaves. And for the butterfly itself, the last place it wants to lay eggs on is a leaf full of predatory ants which would eat up the eggs or caterpillars.

But can a butterfly, a mere non-thinking insect, know not to lay eggs on leaves with ants? The answer, surprisingly, is yes. In this little paper in The American Naturalist, some researchers devised ingenious experiments to see if butterflies would distinguish between leaves that had ants, or didn’t have ants on them, in order to decide which leaves to lay their eggs on. In their experiment, the researchers took dead specimens of three species of ants, two of which were predatory (and would eat the eggs/caterpillars) and one of which was a bug of a similar size and shape, but a harmless herbivores. Then, they pinned these ants on different leaves, and let the butterflies decide where they laid their eggs. What they saw was surprising, to say the least. The butterflies not only avoided the leaves with the predatory ants, but also didn’t mind laying eggs on the leaves which had the harmless bug on them. So it wasn’t as if the butterfly was just laying eggs on leaves with no ants on them, but actually seemed to know that laying eggs on leaves with the herbivorous bug wouldn’t hurt their eggs and so ignored the innocuous bug. Clearly, it appears that butterflies can use visual clues and decide where to lay their eggs.

What is particularly fascinating to me though is not the fact that butterflies can distinguish between predatory and non-predatory ants, but the fact that they know how to do so without any prior “training”. After all, butterflies are far away from animals or birds which care for their young and potentially teach them about predators or food. Butterflies aren’t even social insects, to have groups to collectively “learn” from. So what is the internal wiring they are born with that tells them some ants are dangerous, while others aren’t? What neuronal and signaling pathways do visual cues of predatory ants activate, while those of innocuous bugs do not? And how does that happen? Do other things, like smell, also influence the butterflies? There is a whole world of questions out there, waiting to be answered.

Original reference: Sendoya, S., Freitas, A., & Oliveira, P. (2009). Egg‐Laying Butterflies Distinguish Predaceous Ants by Sight The American Naturalist, 174 (1), 134-140 DOI: 10.1086/599302)

Graduate junction

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:01:18 PDT

I recently found out about yet another "social network", with a difference. For all the readers of this blog who might be graduate students or post docs, here's a new resource for you.

The graduate junction is a networking resource for early stage researchers, who might be doing their masters, Ph.D. or post doctoral research work in Mount Doom (or whatever else you call your research group). It seems to be a nice, focused resource, with sharing of resources,a good discussion forum, indexing by category of your research, a database of conferences around the world, useful resources (particularly useful writing resources), some fun (a crossword), and much more.

If you are a young researcher still working on your thesis or a postdoctoral fellowship, you might find this useful. It is still work in evolution, but I think it does serve a specific need, and there aren't too many resources for young researchers out there. So go check it out.

Iran on my mind

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:33:21 PDT

I've been trying to follow all the incredible happenings in Iran right now on blogs and twitter, with all those protests, rallies and much more. These are chilling times in Iran, and though I don't think anything will change there, I'm sincerely hoping it does. Good luck to all of them.

Meanwhile, since Iran is on my mind, I couldn't help but remembering my old room mate. So, its time to revisit an old post of mine about my friend and Iranophile Brian.

I wonder what he's upto now, and hope he is well. Where ever he is, he must be following Iran closely, wearing green, and hoping his friends there are safe. And if he cares to know, I've taken great care of his movie collection, and enjoyed watching all those movies.

A peace corps for India?

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:59:57 PDT

One of the most remarkable organizations in America that is rarely talked about is the Peace corps. Many of my friends have actually never heard of it. But it has perhaps done more for America’s image abroad, in some of the poorest, most underdeveloped regions of the world, than most other organizations or groups. So what is the Peace Corps? Reading from their website, the organization has volunteers who “…..serve in 74 countries in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Central and South America, Europe, and the Middle East. Collaborating with local community members, Volunteers work in areas like education, youth outreach and community development, the environment, and information technology.” Effectively, they are agents of change, education and empowerment in distant parts of the globe, and a part of America’s tremendous soft power. I don’t know if JFK actually visualized the impact the Peace Corps would have around the world, but in my opinion, forming the Corps was one of his greatest and most lasting achievements.

I’ve been fortunate to hear about the work the Peace Corps does from friends who have served in the Corps. So, these are the kinds of things the Corps volunteers do. One friend, immediately after graduating college, joined the Peace Corps and went off to Tanzania. There she lived in a medium sized village, and taught the local school kids Chemistry and English, and also found time to make some great friends, learn about Tanzanian culture, share her ideas of American culture with Tanzanians, climb Kilimanjaro, and meet her (now) husband who was another Corps volunteer teaching science and something else to some other kids in Tanzania. After two years and a fabulous experience, she came back to do her PhD in the molecular biosciences. Another friend worked in my former lab as an undergraduate, and once she graduated joined the Corps and headed out to Gautemala to work with village communities, on health, natural resource management and other issues. The way the program works is simple. It recruits mostly from fresh college graduates (or sometimes even current students, who are allowed and even encouraged to take “a year off”). These kids then express their areas of interest, and the region of the world they’d like to go to. And then, they are sent there (almost on a “paid” work/vacation), and work there for a year, or two, or more. What, you might ask, do they get out of it apart from the experience? Isn’t the experience itself everything? No, they get much more, including tangible benefits that help their own careers. They get college credit, a big boost if they want to come back and join masters or PhD programs, they learn new languages, student loan deferments, and also become a part of a network that now has thousands of successful people in all walks of life. They are extremely valuable to corporations who would love to have people with these diverse experiences. The learning is also a two way process, and they learn a tremendous lot while, at a ridiculously low cost, act as informal ambassadors of the United States in places where people have only fuzzy ideas on what the country is about. More often than not, all parties (the Corps volunteers as well as the communities they work with) benefit and learn a lot from this.

So where am I going with this? Well, the concept of “volunteerism” on a larger scale in India is still nascent, and it is rare to find people, especially young people, volunteering for too many community activities. Their lives are understandably busy, with getting through school, and then getting admission into a program in college that will lead to a “good job” (engineering, medicine or the like), and then getting on with lives. And then, every now and then, there will be some story in the media wondering why the educated youth never go and serve in rural, deprived areas, and why much of the country remains underdeveloped. It is well known that few (if any) college graduates in India would even consider starting up enterprises or serving in rural, remote and/or underdeveloped areas. The government, it its typical heavy-handed approach, has occasionally mandated things like requiring medical students to serve for a year in rural areas (where doctors are much needed). Most of these efforts have flopped miserably. One big reason why these schemes don’t work is because they are coercive, and the student perceives little or no benefit from this. So this is where I think the government could spend a small amount, set up something like the Peace Corps, and gain a huge return on that investment.

Here’s how it could work. The organization can provide streamlined avenues for freshly graduated college students to go and stay/work in some rural/underdeveloped area of their choice, in a subject of their choice. This could range from working with government schools (with poor teachers, often absent), to rural health centers, to the forest or agriculture departments and so on. This provides an avenue for students of different backgrounds to work in. This can come with “official” recognition (say from the education department or the science and technology department), and a significant stipend (I’m thinking of something like rupees eight thousand/$150 per month), as well as options for local accommodation (there is no shortage of government places to stay across the country). As additional, significant incentives, the experience of the students can be considered credit to apply for masters/MBA/MD programs, with the provision of educational/college scholarships for these kids if they decide to continue their education at the end of their fellowship term. In particular, if this program can give significant credit to doctors for admission to specialization/MD programs (say a 20% bonus on their entrance tests or direct admission into certain specialties), this can serve as a serious incentive for doctors to serve in rural health centers. For students who work on engineering projects, projects in agriculture, environment, social issues, water issues and so on, thy could similarly get credit for education. Undoubtedly, this work experience would be very valuable indeed to corporations looking to recruit individuals with diverse experiences, as well as to business schools for their MBA students. In addition, it is possible that students who do take this up realize that there are tremendous economic possibilities in rural India, and perhaps they might themselves then go on to start their own organizations that work in these areas.

Of course, most of this has been about incentives for students to join such a program. The reason the government should/could do this is because it is the only entity that has its reach in every corner of the country, and the authority/ability to implement such a program. But the potential problem is that even if the government does this, it might do this in a typical heavy-handed, bureaucratic, top-down approach, and that will fail. So what they need to do is to support the concept, but leave the complete implementation and execution to a board with people who are good at putting grassroots organizations together, and promise never to interfere in that work. All they should do is provide unconditional grants. Given how Indian governments work, with their maai baap attitude, this is bordering on fantasy. But such a concept can work (and has worked, remarkably well, with the Peace Corps). So now, does any one have the drive and will and reach to put this together and get the government to do something like this?

How gardening helps scientists

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:03:34 PDT

(Sorry for a long absence. Numerous reasons have kept me away from the blog, but now it should be back to weekly essays on Balancing life).

Arabidopsis thaliana is a distinctively unremarkable plant. It is small, scraggy, has few leaves and very modest flowers. It has no dietary value, nor does it look particularly pretty on a bouquet. It is possible that even goats don’t care much for it.

Yet the plant has served mankind over the past few dozen years like no other. It is the chosen plant genetic model for hundreds of researchers around the world, who take advantage of its short lifespan, relatively easy growth, adaptability and small size and do wonderful research. It also has one of the smallest genomes any plant has, and research from Arabidopsis has not only revealed much of the working mechanisms in plants (of profound use in agriculture and whatnot) but also in general biology. Many findings from Arabidopsis has applied to all living cells, from bacteria to mammals.

But when I say “model plant organism of choice”, I don’t mean it is as easy to do experiments with Arabidopsis as it is say with fruit flies or yeast or bacteria. It is much harder, and graduate students pursuing their PhD with Arabidopsis on average have to work 6-7 years before they’ve done enough to get that PhD.

So I was stunned when a Chinese colleague of mine told me about his friend and old university mate. His friend had worked with Arabidopsis for his PhD, and had produced a prodigious amount of work, finishing his PhD in a mere three years. This was a record almost unheard off in the Arabidopsis community. My friend was just as surprised when his friend told him this story. So he asked his friend what the secret to his success was.

His friend grinned and said “Most researchers are pretty smart and know a lot about biochemistry or genetics or development, but they don’t know plants. I’m smart and I know plants. I’m from a family of peasant farmers, and my family used to grow vegetables back in China. I know more about growing and caring for plants than the rest of my lab put together. They spend their time learning how to grow the plants, and I spent all my time just designing and doing experiments.”

Now you tell me there isn’t value in rustic wisdom.

************

That said, there’s something more in this story. I’ve met lots of Chinese researchers who have come from very humble backgrounds. Many of them grew up in rural areas, and were from families of farmers. But they all got to go to school, and those who shone academically got scholarships to study in top colleges in Beijing or Shanghai or other cities. While there is much that I don’t like about China (particularly politically), I think they’ve done very well in educating a massive population. India and China had similar class conscious, massively illiterate populations some 50 years ago, and China has done far better in educating its people, and giving more chances to the “underprivileged”. Many of my Indian friends here in the US are researchers. But they all come from urban, middle class, “white collar” backgrounds. I don’t know a peasant yet who has done a PhD in an elite institution, or pursued a career in research. Some food for thought, this.

Urban wetlands

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:43:20 PDT

In a fairly recent post, I had mentioned how many of Bangalore’s lakes are being killed. But nature is extremely resilient, and given the slightest chance it will bounce back. And some of Bangalore’s lakes are wonderful examples of urban wetlands that are priceless treasures.

I’d recently visited the Hulimavu lake, a fairly large lake just half a kilometre from Bannerghatta road, one of the busiest roads in the city. This road is filled with apartment complexes and office blocks, with traffic that usually moves at 5 miles an hour on good days. Not surprisingly, this lake is under severe stress. There is plenty of legal and illegal construction all around the lake, and much of the lakebed has been encroached. Many of the other construction sites nearby use the lake as a convenient dumping ground for excavated earth. Along one channel, untreated sewage is slowly being discharged into the lake. A whole lot of people seem to use parts of the lakebed like a public toilet. And there are roads running all around the lake, on what clearly was the lake’s spillover bed. As is sadly the case in most Indian cities, the local residents are either unaware or unable or unwilling to do anything about this.

In spite of this, there remains an incredible diversity of life in and around the lake. We decided to take our binoculars and see what birds still inhabit the lake. I was more than pleasantly surprised at what we saw. There were plenty of brown pariah kites, and a few magnificient copper and white brahminy kites (and we were also able to follow a couple of them to their nest, on a nearby eucalyptus tree). There were also plenty of cattle and little egrets all around the lake. In addition, we saw a couple of grey herons in statuesque stillness, waiting for their next fish or frog to swim by, and a good number of moorhen pottering around the wetland. In the lake itself there were a good number of Eurasian coots swimming around, as well as a few snake-necked darters out hunting. These were just the confirmed sightings in a span of about 15 minutes of standing by the lake with Salim Ali’s indispensible handbook, which makes it more than likely that many more waterfowl inhabit the lake.

Urban wetland management unfortunately is not much of a concept in most of India. Yet this lake is just one example of the kind of diversity and richness of life in lakes around the city. It is also a fine example of a lake that could easily be made into a city nature park. To do that, only a little needs to be done to protect the wetland. Obviously, preventing encroachment around the lake would be a priority, as would be stopping the flow of untreated sewage that is choking the lake would be an obvious other step. In addition, the usual mismanagement of “lake development” that most city authorities eagerly embrace should be avoided. Usually, the city decides to build a big “garden” around lakes, which means manicured lawns, paved paths, lots of flowers and trees that don’t usually grow in wetlands, and a complete destruction of the wetland around lakes. This usually ends up slowly killing the lake. Most of these birds live and nest amidst the reeds that grow in lake wetlands, nurturing a rich ecosystem that supports frogs, breeding fish, small reptiles and small insects. Unfortunately, “beautifying” or “developing” lakes by building parks only breeds mosquitoes (by killing off fish and dragonflies that eat them, and breed in the reeds). The Yediyur lake in Jayanagar was a thriving lake that was killed off by just this effort of “development”. First came some lawns, and then there were motor boats and motor scooters, and now it is just a little swamp that breeds mosquitoes.

Instead, if the city could declare some of the lakes of Bangalore protected wetlands, and then spend a pittance on preserving the wetlands, we would be left with wonderful city parks where children and adults alike could spend evenings or weekends observing a diversity of birdlife and plant life (in addition to perhaps small amounts of regulated recreational fishing). It would be a chance to educate and enrich our own lives, and reconnect with nature in the heart of a stressful urban environment. A fond memory of mine is the environment around Lake Washington, in Seattle, right by the magnificent Husky Stadium. The wetlands around the lake are now carefully protected, and there is a beautiful little nature trail, with a description of the flora and fauna around the lake, as well as the importance of wetlands for human survival. People relax here now on weekends, paddle in little canoes, or walk around the unpaved nature trails, or spend lazy sunday afternoons trying to fish (with a permit). Yet this wasn’t always so, and the lake and wetland had nearly been killed in the sixties, and a massive restoration effort of over twenty years revived it. Here, we have wonderful living lakes in the midst of a massive metropolis. Do we need to sacrifice them in the name of “development”, or can we learn to live with them, and allow them to make our lives so much better?

A scientific temper

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 03:55:15 PST

Jawaharlal Nehru, for all his numerous follies, strongly believed in two wonderful concepts; freedom of speech, and a concept he had coined, a nation with a “scientific temper”. That term, a “scientific temper” is a wonderfully succinct way to describe a broad concept. By speaking of a nation with a “scientific temper”, he wanted to speak of the people of a nation who would be able to think independently, understand and practice the scientific method in their daily lives, analyse and not take statements at their face value, and avoid simplistic reasoning. Of course, it has been easier said than done to create that atmosphere in a nation where superstition, religion, rumor, myth and innumerable beliefs abound. Interestingly, I was reminded of the concept of a “scientific temper” by an unlikely source.

One of the pioneering biochemists, science advocates and science policy advisors of our time, Bruce Alberts talked about this concept in a talk of his recently. While talking about science policy, research and much more, he also talked a bit about some of his efforts with City Science, an effort to improve science education in schools in San Francisco, which he hoped would not just improve science education, but would get kids to think about everything. Now, this effort isn’t just about getting kids to learn their science books better, but it is about bringing about a fundamental change in their way of thinking, enabling them to question, analyse and reason better in all aspects of their everyday lives, making the scientific method a part of it. He used a simple example of just one of the types of lessons that the kids learnt which illustrated the concept beautifully. I thought it would be just the kind of story to share on this blog.

This was a lesson for five year old kids in kindergarden, showing how this concept can be inculcated in kids very early in life. A bunch of five year olds were allowed to run around and play in their schoolyards wearing clean white socks. When they returned, each kid was told to collect all the little black and brown bits of dirt, grass, seeds and whatever else from their socks. The kids were then asked to sort out the dirt, separating the seeds from the dirt. At this age of course, the kids knew that seeds were something plants grew from, but couldn’t easily tell seeds from just regular, largish specks of dirt. But they were allowed to come up with their own ideas of what would be a seed and what would be dirt, and they created their own little piles of “seed” or “dirt”. Now, at this stage, you would think the teacher would just come in and correct the kids. But no, the exercise was taken further. First, the kids were asked to look at their seeds and dirt under a 5$ “microscope”, where they could get a clear idea of the shape and dimensions of their dirt or seeds. Then they could draw out the different patterns they saw, making their own guesses for dirt or seed from this, and perhaps intuitively looking for a regular pattern into which all seeds could fall into. Finally, in order to prove their hypothesis, the kids were asked to plant their “seeds” or “dirt” in seed free earth, keeping a record of what they planted, with a small drawing of what each speck planted looked like. If their separation was correct, the dirt would never grow into grass or a plant, but a majority of the seeds would grow in a few days into grass or sprouting plants. Then, the kids could see for themselves which specks were dirt, and which were seeds. So, with this fun little experiment, the kids were introduced to the concept of forming a hypothesis, and then testing the hypothesis. They could easily have just been shown seeds, and dirt, and told which was what, ending the lesson. But by allowing them to go through this process, it enabled them to understand that just an idea, however appealing it might sound, wasn’t necessarily true. It inculcated the idea of the “testability” of a hypothesis, and the concept that a statement that couldn’t be verified or tested wouldn’t fall under the scientific domain. It also showed them something about “falsifiability”, the fact that if something convincingly failed the test (say all pieces of dirt classified as “seed” not growing into plants) could suggest then that the idea could be false. Of course, this didn’t go into the limits of falsifiability and suchlike, but this is pretty good for five year olds isn’t it?

The broader idea here is that by doing this early in a child’s life, it would enable the child to understand the scientific method better, better enable the child to question simplistic statements or “theories” (thereby differentiating scientific theories from popular “theories”), and would help the child grow up into someone more rational and someone less likely to be swayed purely by emotion or passion.

So, coming back to Nehru’s scientific temper, I think these are the type of initiatives that we need, starting with kids at a very young age. There certainly are small efforts here and there, by wonderful NGOs or other organizations, but most of the efforts are few and far between. With education in India itself, most of the effort (or argument) appears to be for better colleges or research institutes or more IITs, but the biggest hole lies in our schools. It is a white elephant no one wants to touch. But only when that hole is plugged will terms like a nation with a scientific temper mean anything.

Only a memory

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 06:56:10 PST

The first time I heard about “urban planning” was from some friends at the School of Architecture and Planning in Chennai, when I was still in college. That was what some of them were planning to study when they went to the US for their masters degrees. I wondered aloud if that was something ever practiced in India, and was greeted with a unanimous laugh, and a witty quip about urban non-planning. Anyway, now that I’ve visited Bangalore after nearly four years, I can only nod in agreement. That the city has changed rapidly over the past ten years, there is no doubt. But the callousness and utter mismanagement of what should have been good urban planning has only left me deeply saddened.

The mismanagement has been at every level, resulting in the chaos that is now almost descriptive of the city. The city has, expectedly, grown rapidly. Unfortunately, it has grown with common-sense defying haphazardness, and has massively misused or mismanaged resources. The most important resource completely mismanaged has been water. There has understandably been a proliferation of new layouts, and an explosion of apartment complexes. Interestingly, some of the biggest growth has come in areas like HSR layout and Whitefield. These areas are apparently close to major technology centers, hence the growth. However, while the apartments have come up, promising ultra-luxurious living, the single most important thing you need for survival has been overlooked. Water. These areas have precious little of it. These areas have the lowest water table in the entire region, and try as you will, it is hard to strike any ground water here even at depths of 300 feet. Which then makes one wonder why or how such large residential complexes have been sanctioned in these areas. Typically, residents here shell out in the range of rupees five thousand every month for just their water needs, provided in part by tankers supplying water, and in part by depleting the little ground water that is left. How exactly this is sustainable eludes me. The presence of consecutive weak, apathetic governments in the states hasn’t helped. I cannot but help comparing the city to Chennai, which also had acute water problems. Years ago, they started enforcing rainwater harvesting, made it mandatory, and actually enforced the rule. The water situation in Chennai dramatically improved over the years. In stark contrast, the city of Bangalore “recommended” rainwater harvesting at least in large apartment complexes years ago. This was poorly implemented, with only a fraction of the larger complexes setting up rainwater harvesting systems (which don’t really cost much), and fewer actually utilizing them. In some belated form of realization, the city now plans to enforce a rule they passed four years ago.

Given the fact that Bangalore lies in a dry region, one would imagine that the administration would at least want to preserve the few sources of water around the city. Yet, instead of making the few lakes that still remain into city or state parks, they are now viewed as prime sources of real estate for buildings. Here’s how the system apparently works. There is plenty of construction happening all around town. There is obviously a lot of earth that construction digs up. Obviously, the easiest way to get rid of that earth is to take it to the nearest lake and dump it in there. If you visit some lakes like the Gottigere, Hulimavu or even Madiwala lakes (to name just three), you’ll see this happening all around them. Soon, a few acres of lake will disappear, and then in a year or two, the local authorities (or a local politician) will announce the creation of a new layout in that very former lake bed. The next thing you know, there will be a new “ultra-luxury American style” condominium complex coming right up. If this scheme doesn’t work, there’s an easier one. Just build a small temple in that reclaimed lakebed. Illegal or not, within a few months, crowds will start thronging to the temple, thereby forcing the temple to expand. Before you know what’s happening, a few acres of former wetland would have disappeared, all in the name of god.

A third strategy seems to be to cut off all sources of water for the lake, by allowing construction (residential and commercial, there isn’t much of a difference between the two) on all sides of the lake, up to the very lakebed itself. In a few years, all rainwater that should have fed the lake won’t make it there anymore, and then you’ll have a few feet a year of new construction land.

Finally, the greedy administrators in collusion with the land mafia seem to have another trump card to acquire lake land for buildings. Bring up the bogey of development. Clearly, if you want an “international” city, the best places to build a new technology park with an associated residential layout have to be on a reclaimed lakebed. And anyone who raises an objection to this is naturally anti-development.

The city (that once apparently had over 300 lakes in it) is being ruined by masterful mismanagement. For all the glitzy technology complexes with gleaming glass facades, a city can’t live without water. It remains unfortunate that the residents of the city don’t care too much about the issue, but when faced with water shortages clamor to the government to get more water from the Cauvery (miles away, passing through Mysore), potentially stroking inter-state disputes. To top the utterly callous mismanagement of water, the proliferation of residential and commercial buildings has been random, haphazard and mostly unregulated. A number of buildings have exceeded the number of floors they are legally allowed (on the specified area), or have come up without any parking space, or else commercial complexes have come up in ostensibly residential neighborhoods.

What is now left is a city that is monstrously large, and in utter chaos. Any changes the administration would now want to make can only be cosmetic. In comparison, Delhi and Chennai have also grown, but the authorities have at least managed to maintain a semblance of logic in this growth, resulting in cities which are, if not admirable, at least functional. Bangalore used to be one of the most attractive cities in India, because of the lovely climate, tree-lined avenues, quiet, organized suburbs and a cosmopolitan population. Now only the cosmopolitan population remains, under immense regional chauvinistic pressure. I think I can safely say that the city of my growing years can only be a memory.

Muddling through chaos

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:37:10 PST

For the past few weeks, I've been getting used to the chaos that is India. Our return to the US has been temporarily delayed, but we hope that issue is taken care of soon enough. Till then though, I'm having as much fun here as possible, while shuttling between Bangalore and Chennai. It has been a few years since I last visited India, and all I can say is that years of pathetic administration continue to run down Bangalore. Chennai, while also bursting in its seams, seems to have better order within the madness. Exchange the bus drivers and climate of Bangalore with Chennai, and you end up with a city that wins hands down over Bangalore. It is amazing how quickly weak administrations can ruin something that is good.

******

While I try to get back to regular blogging (with perhaps some observations from India) here's a story I'll leave you with.

I happened to sit in an autorickshaw in Chennai that was being driven by an extremely chatty driver. Never someone to resist conversation, I probed him on with questions, which he was only too happy to answer. Now, there are thousands of autorickshaws in Chennai ferrying passengers across town, and fleecing them without ever bothering to turn on that meter. I usually consider them to be rogues and thieves. But there are stories behind their lives as well. Only some of the autodrivers actually own the auto that they drive, with most of them renting the auto from auto owners for a large sum. The ones that do own their own autos though don't have it easy. This driver was particularly happy that day because he had just finished paying the entire cost for the auto, and was now an independent auto owner. To prove it, he showed me his freshly minted receipt of payment.

So I asked him how he could afford to buy me an auto, and he told me his tale. He used to be a vegetable seller (as proof we whizzed past some vegetable vendors, he yahooed them, and then told me that was his brother-in-law and family, who still continued the family trade), and then decided to buy an auto. He first wanted a bank loan, so opened a savings account in the bank. He had some 5000 rupees in it, and thought that was good enough to get a loan. But the bank wanted collateral (or at least a minimum savings balance of rupees 60000). So he said goodbye to the bank, and found a money lender, who willingly gave him the money (with the auto itself taken as collateral). Now this poor guy has to pay some ridiculous amount as interest. He didn't know the exact percentage, but said that his total loan was about rupees 120000, and he would have to pay around rupees 175000 back to the money lender, over a period of some 5 years. That was his scratchpad calculation, though if he didn't pay that up in 5 years, even that sum would skyrocket.

No wonder, he said with a smile, that he would never ever put that meter, but charge me whatever he thought I could pay (which, apparently, was quite a bit). I wonder though, can't there be any better way for someone like him to raise capital to buy an auto? I understand the banks have a need for collateral, but if money lenders can lend the money (and I'm sure they are more careful with their money than banks are), can't banks do it? Economic gurus, what ideas do you have?

That said, auto drivers in Chennai remain thieves, and I curse them all with a lifetime of indigestion for their dishonesty.

Empowering educators to improve education Part II

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:58:13 PST

In the previous post, we talked about Sikshana’s efforts in empowering teachers and educators, thus enabling them to improve school performance in India.

But all this is of course, anecdotal, and we only had Mr. Ramamurthy’s words for it. Does Sikshana have concrete, quantitative results to show for this? Indeed they do. At the end of each year, Sikshana again carries out tests for all students in the school (using the Premji foundation tests), and evaluates them. This then gives them a very concrete metric to measure improvement. The results thus far have been very encouraging, with anything between 10 – 50% improvement in the scores of kids in just one year. And more interestingly, a majority of the schools have met their own self-defined target for improvement. When asked how, the teachers usually say that they really appreciate the freedom Sikshana gives, and the trust it places in them, so feel obliged to work hard.

A lot, in Mr. Ramamurthy’s words, can be done with very little.

These seemingly simple interventions appear to have had a major effect in improving education in these schools. Yet, this method may not work everywhere. When asked for examples where this method doesn’t work as well, Mr. Ramamurthy unhesitatingly said this system didn’t work as well for them in urban schools in Bangalore. This is why they thought it didn’t work as well in urban schools. This system works a lot on faith in the teacher, and his general observation that in Indian rural areas, communities still work substantially on trust and honor. And “loss of face” by failing to make a commitment is still looked down upon in the local community. Rural school teachers are usually a close and highly respected part of the rural community. They are a part of the village elite, who are looked up to. With this status, they usually also feel obliged to work hard when trusted with resources, since they are praised and valued for work done well. So this system has worked in over a 100 schools in rural Karnataka. However, this seems to be lost in the anonymity of an urban setting. Teachers in urban schools are not really integrated into the school community. In fact, there isn’t really a school community, since kids come from different neighborhoods, economic backgrounds and communities. The teacher is just another anonymous person in a city of millions. So, teachers and staff (with exceptions of course) usually treat teaching as just a job that gives them a salary, and they usually want to get the best out of the job that they can. Only a few rare, dedicated urban teachers want to really improve the condition of their students. The local communities and parents of students will never feel that the school belongs to them, and is an integral part of their daily lives. In Bangalore, there is sometimes a second reason as well. An occasional problem of plenty.

A number of companies based in Bangalore now try to do their bit for the community, by supporting schools. Some of them do so by giving grants to schools, sometimes as a once in a year thingy, and with little expected in return. For example, to get some good PR, a company might donate a hundred thousand rupees, or send in some computers. But most of these companies do not ask the teachers/principal if they need it, what they would do with it, and how they will ensure that the children improve their performance. This means some urban schools have access to funds which they can spend, but without the expectations that the Sikshana model sets. So, in cases where Sikshana has approached some urban schools in Bangalore, and offered to provide (the limited) resources, with expectations set at the start, the teachers/staff are hostile, and say “there are other people giving us a few lakh rupees and they don’t ask questions, why do you want to set expectations, and then expect us to meet them?”. So, Sikshana largely burnt its hands with its forays in urban Bangalore, and now keeps most of its focus in rural/semi-rural schools.

Aniket, in a comment in the previous post, asked pertinently, “what happens when Sikshana goes away”. The beauty of this type of model though is that many of the improvements are carried out with very little monetary investment (their costs right now are about $1000 per school, and they cover over a 100 schools). A major emphasis has been on building the confidence of the teachers, and getting the community involved. With greater community involvement, there automatically are significant improvements at least in the basic functioning of the school. This is partly independently sustainable. Long term though, this type of system can become sustainable only through policy action of the government. One problem with the government though (particularly in India, but true mostly) is that it is a rigid, top-down approach, mandating specifics from teachers and staff (for example, requiring 30 students/year to take the board exam), as opposed to this model, expecting results, but giving the teachers the freedom to use resources as they see fit. Also, government policy will not make teachers owners of the resources, and thus teachers will not be inclined to responsibly utilize it. So, it is a bit of a chicken and egg question, and the answer (after all this hand waving) is that I don’t know. Sikshana though wants to collaborate with the state government (which does support it significantly here) and expand this program across the state (as well as take this model to other states which have expressed interest, such as Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu).

Finally, I’ll touch upon a topic that is an elephant in the room that every one pretends doesn’t exist. Education in India is a lucrative business, backed by powerful patrons. Everything from setting up a school to obtaining a license to growing costs money, and lots of money greases the wheels. Which means there may be almost a subtle incentive for governments to keep government school standards modest at best, and encourage (or at least wink at) the proliferation of private schools (which charge fees). Any attempt at government school reform will be at best half-hearted, with roadblocks along the way. Do I see a solution through this? Nope. Do you?

And yes, Sikshana does have a blog, reasonably well updated, and is great to read. So do check it out.

(I’m headed the India way next week, for a few busy days, so there may be a few travel posts from a bedazzled almost-tourist visiting the cities he grew up in, but will probably not recognize anymore. Enjoy the festival season and a happy new year to you).

Empowering educators to improve education (Part I)

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:58:13 PST

Let’s talk about education in India for a bit.

Most of us will agree that while some of us have received an excellent (mostly private school) education, the overall condition of the government run state schools are a mess. Educational standards remain abysmal and students go through classes barely learning to read, write or count, and drop out to go and work in their fields or graze cattle (or worse, work in stone quarries or textile mills). Many of us look at the problem superficially, declare that government schools suck, and then state that the solution lies in privatizing education. Yet, that argument is at best simplistic (and at worst dangerous). While there are tens of thousands of private schools in India, from schools run in a backyard to outstanding elite, exclusive, expensive private entities, the vast majority of children in India (particularly rural and semi-rural India) still study in government schools. This number is in the hundreds of millions of children (think the entire population of the United States). A majority of these children are poor, and their parents will struggle to afford private schools (some of you may now say the solution is in education vouchers, and that is a whole different story we won’t talk about here), so the primary educator will remain the government of India.

So, here’s the status quo. All of us will readily agree that a majority of government schools suck. However, the reasons we attribute this to varies, from teacher absenteeism to social structures to lack of motivation to whatever else. Most solutions to “fix” or improve these schools have largely been some top heavy, one size fit all approaches that have mostly failed. But there are some wonderful examples of government schools that have shown dramatic improvements. Often this has been enabled by the efforts of some Non-governmental organization (NGO) or the other. I thought I’d talk a little about one such group, Sikshana, and what they have achieved. A couple of weeks ago, I got to meet and hear the founder of the group, Mr. Ramamurthy, talk about Sikshana.

Their goal is to empower educators and bring about quality education. The group wants to create sustainable models to improve government schools across the country, and ensure that government schools do a decent job in providing a sound basic education to kids. This of course sounds cliché, and is easier said than done. Sikshana realized early on that the usual top-heavy approach requiring schools to enforce some standards hasn’t worked too well. Instead, Sikshana decided to use a mostly carrot, little stick approach, implicitly believing that most people want to do something well as long as they are not forced to do it and do it on their own, and that small incentives can be a strong motivator to do this. So their model seems almost laughably simple, yet when you look at it closely is brilliant. So here is their multi-pronged strategy to improve schools.

Sikshana has currently adopted about 100 schools in the Kanakapura district (which is a semi-rural district not too far from Bangalore). This they did with the full support of the government. But by adopting the school, they did not take up all running responsibilities (that responsibility still lies with the government, which should not be allowed to wash its hands of all responsibility). So the government continues to run the schools, provide the basic mid-day food, employ and pay the teachers, provide the school building etc. Sikshana steps in though and only acts as a facilitator or provider for small things. But even this they decided not to thrust upon the school in a typical charitable organization fashion. Here’s what they do (and they do it slightly differently in each school, based on the nature of that school). They first get together and meet the school principal, teachers and staff, and sit down for a chat, to get an idea about the school. They find out if the teachers are really keen on improving the school (and try hard to get an honest feedback). Then they conduct a test for all the students in the school (using material from the Premji foundation), in order to gauge the level of comprehension of all students. After that, they discuss the results with the school staff. Usually, levels are abysmal (and usually the staff, when shown the results, are rather apologetic in typical rural Indian fashion). At this stage, Sikshana asks them if they think things can be improved with small investments, and if so, how much of an improvement the staff think they can guarantee. Here’s the clincher, Sikshana doesn’t ask the schools for a laundry list of equipment or needs (which is the usual procedure followed by charities or NGOs), but says they will provide a small amount of resources to the school, and the school staff have full control over those resources, to be used as they feel fit. Usually this elicits a startled response, since the teachers are usually only told to do something, but are rarely given any discretionary authority. But now, they are given the full power to do whatever they think is necessary to improve things. Different schools and teachers now react differently, and do different things with it. Sikshana usually knows that all teachers usually do only a few things (from their studies and data), but don’t insist that the teachers do it, instead allowing the teachers to come up with ideas themselves. This, it seems, is a strong motivating factor for the teachers/principal to put in a serious effort. After all, it is almost as if they will be spending their own money for something and not just use a hand-me-down. They implicitly accept personal responsibility, and surprisingly take it up as a challenge to improve performance. So the teachers often jump in and tell Sikshana they’ll make sure that things improve by 10% or 20% in a year!

Thus, the resources the school gets are used for a wide variety of things. Here are some examples. Some schools spend all the money to organize an annual day celebration. While they do this, Sikshana encourages the school to involve the local community (the parents of the kids). Initially, for some schools, this was a challenge since the parents had never been involved with the school before. But over a few years, this changed. The first annual day celebration might have attracted only a handful of parents, but the next few showed increased participation. Slowly, as the parents saw their kids win prizes at the event, or saw them perform (in a dance or play or sporting event), they became more enthusiastic supporters of the school. So much so, that in some schools now, the entire annual day celebration has become some kind of a community event, with some parents now putting up tents for the event, others sponsoring mikes or loudspeakers, and others organizing food or treats for the kids. With greater parental enthusiasm about the school, the kids themselves start becoming more enthusiastic, and the attraction of winning a prize in front of the entire village during the annual day function starts becoming a big incentive to excel in school. Sikshana then started another little program. It started to conduct some annual quizzes and other such events and selected one or two students from each school it supports, to take them on a field trip to Delhi. Now, Bangalore itself remains a dream for most of these kids, and Delhi might as well be Mars to them. So the kids who make it to these trips become some kind of village heroes or celebrities. In some cases, the entire village comes together to send off the kid on the trip, or collects a few hundred rupees for the kid to spend “when you go to Delhi and see the red fort”. These kinds of things again become huge incentives not just for the children, but for the teachers as well, as it becomes a question of pride as to which school sends more kids on the field trip.

That is community involvement. Sikshana provides (or “enables” as they put it) more concrete educational aids as well. For example, some schools asked for some computers for the kids, which they got. Sikshana keeps costs of computing software low by using open source software (Ubuntu/Red Hat etc), so they are able to meet many of these requests on their budget. But then, additionally, Sikshana then provided the kids of the schools with USB thumb memory drives. This enables the kids not just to play with the computer but to store their work, something that almost all schools completely overlook. The kids were given full, unrestricted access to the computers, and were allowed to just figure things out on their own. The results have been startling and amazing. Some kids, on their own (and with no computer training) have come up with fantastic little projects, using flash and animation in their creations. Many of these kids don’t speak a word of English, and some of them had paid little attention in class ever. But something in the computer (and the freedom they had with it) sparked something in the kids, and soon, they even started showing more involvement in class, as their confidence grew, and their work on the computer was appreciated.

In the next part of the post (which I’ll post in a day or two), we’ll talk a bit about success measures, and what didn’t work.

The hardest, most satisfying thing I’ve ever done

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:47:35 PST

Regular programming should hopefully resume now at Balancing Life. The past few weeks have been hectic, and quite eventful. I ran and completed my first marathon this Sunday, when I survived the Dallas White Rock Marathon.

Why did I do it? Well, I really wanted to run this marathon for a great charity, and wanted to raise ~2000$ for them. To do that, I had to do something challenging, and believe me, the marathon was more than that. But by doing this I’ve learnt so many lessons.

The marathon itself was an incredible experience. There were nearly 20000 runners of all ages, shapes and sizes who ran either the full, half or relay marathon. I thought the weather was good, since it had suddenly become warmer. But there were very strong head winds and a humidity of nearly 85%. At the start we felt fine running, but as the miles wore on, the conditions began to take their toll. I had trained hard over the past 2-3 months, and hoped to run at a 9 – 9:15 min/mile pace, which I kept up for the first 17 miles. But as we reached the lake, the wind became increasingly nasty, and though I kept hydrating at all water stations, I was beginning to feel the effect of the humidity. We had some hills to run at mile 19-20, and soon after I negotiated them, my left leg started cramping. A friend of mine (who wasn’t running the marathon) met me at mile 20 and decided to run the last 6 miles with me. As the cramps got worse, I had to slow down dramatically, but he kept talking to me, encouraging me to keep moving. I did, and finally we saw that finish line and the huge crowd that was there. Running across that finish line was amongst the most exhilarating moments of my life. I was so exhausted at the finish, and could barely walk up to where they were handing out the finisher medals, but boy, was I happy to grab that! Along the way, as I ran, I saw so many incredibly inspiring sights.

There was an old woman (in her eighties, the oldest runner in the race) running a half marathon. Her T-shirt read “a model in 1932, and still running”. There was another man who ran the half marathon. He had no legs, but ran with prosthetic limbs. There was a small group of 5 people, mom, dad and 3 teenaged kids, running the half marathon with T-shirts saying “A family tradition for 10 years”. Up to mile 19, a gentleman in his early 60s kept pace with me, and then, as he couldn’t keep up any more said “you’re not too bad, are you”. And I am a good thirty years younger than him! The crowds that came by to cheer the runners as we ran around Dallas were fantastic, and made every runner feel special. And of course there were those elite international runners from Kenya and various other African countries running up in front at blinding speed. One can only look at them in awe and wonderment.

All this running has also brought so much discipline in my life. Long runs take a lot of time out of the day, so one has to be more efficient and organized with all other work. Of course, I’m incredibly sore after the race, but overall this running has dramatically improved my health (and helped me get rid of that little paunch that was embarrassing me). My diet has subconsciously changed, and I can’t bear even the sight of fried food any more. There are lots of carbs and protein in my diet now, and lots of fruits and vegetables as well. While I still indulge in some sweets, my body now demands only good, wholesome food. The only occasionally acceptable alcohol any more is a rare glass of red wine. And the best part of it all is that after a long run I can pretty much eat whatever I want to (each mile run burns about 100 calories), but only want to eat healthy stuff.

Most important of all, thanks to incredible support from friends and family, I was (more or less) able to reach my charity fundraising goal, and know that it has made a small contribution in helping a bunch of kids read (and I know the money goes there, because I make it a point to visit and spend time in those projects ever time I visit India). If this doesn’t give a sense of satisfaction, nothing will.

Impossible to categorize?

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:25:42 PST

While a bookstore might be a favorite place for me to “hang out”, a constant grouse remains that in many bookstores far too many books are mischaracterized, and live on shelves they have no business being on. And that can make navigation around the bookstore a little inconvenient, to say the least. I’m never sure how books are categorized in different sections, and who does the categorizing, but far too often it just doesn’t make sense.

Science books are often a serious casualty. The science sections in many bookstores are poorly organized, and some books that should actually be there end up in other sections. I remember once looking for The Selfish Gene in a bookstore, and it wasn’t in the popular science section, or the biology section. Now this book is as good a book on genes and natural selection as can ever be found. Puzzled, I asked the person at the counter, and he finally tracked it down…..in the religion section. Dawkins has certainly written other books (like The God delusion) that could, conceivably, end up in the religion section, but The Selfish Gene? On the other hand, some exceptional science books end up in the “gardening” or “fishes and aquariums” section, so go figure.

The casualties very often spill over to some of my favorite authors. It doesn’t help much that many of them are British, and some of them are now dead. In a blink-and-you-are-a-forgotten-author American world, ambiguously delightful, dead British authors are bound to cause confusion. A particular favorite author of mine remains Gerald Durrell. Now, I can understand Durrell being hard to categorize. He wrote hilariously insightful autobiographical books, non-fiction and some fiction, with animals and natural history forming a backdrop. But to classify My family and other animals under “pets” does a grave and severe injustice to the author. In a bookstore we recently visited, his books were scattered across “pets”, “birds”, “animals”, “dogs”, “cats”, “animal psychology” (yes, honestly) and more. This we discovered, but only after a futile search through literature, autobiographies and natural history. It is so much easier to find the far more boring books of his brother, Lawrence, right under literature. But my very first encounter with bookstore cluelessness started with another favorite author of mine, that old master of English prose and humor, P.G. Wodehouse. Now, Wodehouse remains extremely popular in India (through some strange colonial legacy), and you can walk into any bookstore there, go straight to the literature/fiction section, and find a few dozen of his books neatly arranged. Assuming it would be the same here, I walked into a half-price bookstore years ago, strode confidently to literature, made my way down to “Woolfe”, and….no Wodehouse. A little disturbed but still calm, I shimmied like Jeeves would have down to the “fiction” shelves, and it wasn’t there either. Worried, I went up to the counter and asked. A bored clerk told me to go look for Wodehouse in the comics/humor section, and indeed I found a bunch of them there, resting unhappily between Bill Watterson’s Calvin and Hobbes collections.
At least another favorite British author of mine is easier to find, though (in my opition) grossly miscategorized. James Herriot wrote some fantastic semi-autobiographical books on his life as a vet. They really can only be classified as literature. But, while most bookstores here don’t do that, at least the books are easy to find if you walk to “veterinary science” and “animal behavior”. Finally, there is yet another fantastic author who is actually impossible to categorize. Terry Pratchett, the author of (in his own words) a series of inexplicably successful books, is usually categorized in different bookstores in these parts under “fantasy” (very reasonable), “fiction” (for want of anything better), “science fiction” (o.k, maybe), “literature” (I’ll go with that) or “comics and humor” (what can I say). While making it hard to search for his books, it at least ensures that I spend an hour in the bookstore, going from aisle to aisle. (And for those of you who don’t know, Terry Pratchett was recently diagnosed with early stage Alzheimer’s. Do read what he has to say about it in his own hilariously inimitable way, here).

But then, the very best authors are indeed hard (if not impossible) to classify. They do not remain within crudely drawn lines, but always flow across boundaries. This is why I miss the little independent but superbly stocked used bookstores that were almost as common as Starbucks coffee shops in Seattle, with Twice Sold Tales a perpetual favorite. Yes, there might be cats around, but you couldn’t ask for more knowledgeable bibliophiles at the counter, who loved the books they had, knew about them, and always ready to chat about books, authors, and how they could (or couldn’t) be categorized.

Goodbye, Anil

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 09:06:46 PST

One of my all time favorite cricketers retired yesterday.

Goodbye Anil, and thanks for all those memories. For all those years in the '90s, and then the 2000s, you defined the best that was possible from an Indian cricketer. Polite, gentle, confident, untiring, committed, competitive, resolute, determined, and finally, magnificent.

I had written an article about Kumble a couple of years ago. Here it is again, for you to read. It still reads well, except now he retires with 619 wickets. Phenomenal.

Life in the center of the earth (almost)

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:58:57 PDT

It really is remarkable how little we know about life on earth, even with scientific data pouring in constantly. This is particularly true for the smallest forms of life; microbes and organisms that are only a little bigger than microbes. But since we are used to seeing and hearing things, we rarely even think of life that is smaller than say an insect. Yet over 90% of all life is microbial, and we don’t even know how many species of mammals there are on earth, leave alone microbes.

Microbes though couldn’t care less. They have always ruled earth (though we would love to think we rule this planet) and will, in all probability, continue to do so. It is easy to forget that the earliest forms of life were microbial, single-celled organisms capable of only the simplest functions: survival and reproduction. And it is in these two functions that microbes have excelled. In places where you would think life would be impossible, you are more likely than not to find some microbes chugging along. Put it this way, if there was a hell, there probably wouldn’t be any humans there, but there would be plenty of extremophiles having an orgy. It is always fascinating to see what creature can survive where no other can, and every now and then there is a discovery of yet another creature (usually a bacteria or archaea) that defies all probability of life and thrives.

So, let us say there was a world without light, where the temperature was over 60 degrees centigrade (140F), where the pH was over 9 (an extremely alkaline environment), and there was little or no oxygen. Would you think there would be life possible? Apparently, if you literally dig deep enough, the answer to that is yes. So what kind of life is it?

Some researchers collected fracture fluid from a depth of almost 3 kilometers within the earth’s surface, from a South African gold mine. Within it, they surprisingly found a single dominant species of bacteria, which they called Candidatus Desulforudis audaxviator (link). Now, it looked like these bacteria were perfectly happy living all alone in a vent where there was no light, and therefore no photosynthesis, as well as next to no oxygen, and an extremely alkaline and hot environment. Everything about its life seems wrong. Yet it lives, doing all things that living things need to do. It fixes nitrogen and carbon. It divides (albeit all so slowly, taking a few hundred years to divide). All life needs energy to drive it. Yet there is no light here, so this bacterium actually gets energy from the radioactive decay of uranium. This allows the generation of an electrochemical gradient from hydrogen to sulfate. It was thought that for all life you need a diverse ecosystem (which provides nutrients for each other, or helps break down compounds and so on). And here we have this bacteria happily being an ecosystem of one, in true US Army style. Yet, this bacterium is not all that different from other bacteria, or just all other living cells in general, and has all the genes used to make amino acids, or metabolizing carbon and nitrogen, with a few tweaks here and there.

This story is probably best told by one of the people who discovered it and then analyzed its genome, in this absolutely fascinating podcast. If life fascinates you, this podcast will amaze you.

Hear here.

If we do some day travel in space, and explore new worlds, we probably will not see any four eyed green web-fingered aliens. If we do find something, it will probably be closer to this bacterium.

Run Forest, run

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:50:44 PDT

Side note: As you all have no doubt noticed, posts here have been rather infrequent recently. I have a good reason for that. It is because a lot of my free, do-anything-you-want time is being spent on my latest passion, running. A few months ago, I decided to train for and run the Dallas marathon, with a mission to raise money for my favorite charity. There is much more about that (and what you could do to support that effort) here. Rest assured that if you wanted to pick an excellent charity to contribute to, this would be one of them.

I’m a newbie runner, and started running only about six months ago. But these six months have been a fantastic learning experience (thanks largely to some friends I run with, and the Dallas running club). Before I started training, my idea of distance and endurance running (and endurance athletics in general) was quite like the idea many, many people in India still have today. So this post is a little bit about running, my own running efforts, and some thoughts on attitudes towards running in India.

Running is not much of a sport in India. The last time someone from India won an Olympic running event was way back when India was a British colony, in 1900, by a British-Indian gentleman by the name of Norman Pritchard. Even that was in a sprint, and he wasn’t even brown. Indians don’t run. They become computer engineers or doctors or run motels. And on an athletic field I was what can only be described as average. Recognizing that, I never bothered to understand the finer nuances of endurance running. Running marathons was something my crazy white friends and colleagues here did. But then white people also liked getting burnt in the sun. They’re crazy. A marathon is 26.2 miles. In my book that’s called a road-trip. I had done some jogging on a treadmill before, and 3 miles was about my limit. So for a number of years I had decided that it was just one of those things white people did to make us brown people look bad. (Ok…just ignore all those Moroccans and Algerians and whatnot winning bagfuls of Olympic running medals. They live in the Sahara desert, so they don’t count). That feeling was reinforced by none other than Tom Hanks. Someone yelled “Run Forest, run”, and he set out to run all across the United States of America. And he was on crutches, goddamit. On the other hand, if you saw some random Indian on crutches and yelled “run Raju, run”, he’d probably turn to you and ask why he should run, was there a fire/communal riot/flood in the area, would his child get admission in college if he ran, and if not, would he get free electricity if he ran. It wouldn’t work.

And then I discovered that brown people ran as well, but were mostly closet-runners. In fact, a bunch of my Indian friends turned out to be closet-runners (particularly back in Seattle). Oh the shame! To top things, they ran marathons for charity, and were doing more to do good on earth than I was by just using grocery bags for shopping, avoiding plastic and feeling smug. There almost seemed to be some underground movement of Indians actually running. Finally, apparently one didn’t have to be born with running ability. Running is an art and a science, and just about anyone can do it. So, six months ago, I started running. I’m still surprised at how quickly I have transformed into one of those Gatorade sipping, technical T-shirt wearing runners who will never run in street shoes again. This brings me to running in India.

Recently, the fine Indian city of Chennai hosted a half-marathon. Apparently, it was a huge success, and lots of celebrities and politicians showed up for photo-ops. Their intentions were excellent, with the proceeds going to some charity. And in all that excitement, people forgot about the running part of it. In almost true Indian style, amidst the inevitable chaos thanks to the crowd (all Indian events, even sporting ones, have crowds associated with them), one of the runners died of exhaustion.

It is a terrible shame. What is also a shame is that most people in India think about marathons the same way I used to a couple of years ago. Comments from various people varied from "What better way to get fit and run for a cause (assuming that one just woke up one day, ran a marathon and miraculously became fit) to “Many believe it underscores the need for participants to check their levels of fitness before taking up such strenuous exercises.” If you are missing the irony here, let me explain. You can go to a doctor and check your fitness level and be declared perfectly fit. A fit person might be able to climb a flight of stairs. Or even ten flights of stairs. But he or she is unlikely to be in shape for a marathon. Nor is it as simple as running every day, and increasing your distance constantly. You might finally make it through a marathon that way, but it won’t be easy, and it might end up hurting your body permanently.

Distance running requires a combination of many things: speed, endurance and strength (both physical and mental). Miss any of these, and you are in trouble. So, in order to build speed, you train using track workouts (running distances of say 800 meters, in sets) and interval running (where you run in fast bursts during sections of a run). To build endurance, you train on long distance runs regularly. And for strength, you combine running on hills with active cross training and strengthening exercises in the gym. As your strength and endurance increase, so does your mental strength. Finally, during and before the run, a runner needs to think of hydration and salt balance (which is why runners drink Gatorade. And I thought it was just an American aversion to water), and eating a sensible diet (particularly the night before a run) rich in carbs (with some protein thrown in), without too much fat or sugar. During the process of training, your body metabolism itself changes (becomes more efficient, and burns more calories, even while resting). Now throw in proper running form (running with your head held up, hands unclenched, without crouching your shoulders and with your back straight, leaning slightly forward) and good running footwear (no, regular sneakers don’t do the job), and finally you’ll be on your way towards becoming a runner.

There was a time, long ago when I was still in high school, when I did a little bit of running. During our annual sports day, the school would also organize a 5k “road-race”. It used to be great fun, and a bunch of us would show up and run. Here’s how it went. We’d all show up, wearing the stipulated stiff white cotton shorts and white vest, and white canvas shoes (terrible for running). The whistle would blow and we’d be off, tearing down the route. In about two kilometers, a bunch of us would be out of steam, while others would soldier on. The few really fit students (mostly boarders who spent their time playing soccer, hockey and basketball) would then soldier on and win the race. There was some potential there, with many of them (particularly those students from the North Eastern states, or Nepal, or the Himalayan states, used to higher altitudes) being natural runners. Most of that potential was wasted. Imagine the possibilities if the physical education instructor had even the slightest idea about distance running (instead of just yelling “run up, run up”), or if the kids had used proper running shoes instead of the thin soled canvas shoes (which always left your feet in pain after hard exercise). All these kids were from affluent families, and could easily afford good running gear. Most of them though would never even think of becoming runners.

For the few who actually discover running in a scientific way, it is usually too late. They are by then in their late teens or much older, and far too old to take up athletics seriously. And of course, competitive running is one thing. But running for fun (which can be a fantastic way of being fit) itself will take a long while to catch on in India. I cringe when I see people heading out for a fast walk/jog in the mornings, with the best intentions of getting fit, wearing sandals and thick cotton clothing. Or heavy sneakers that might look nice, but do nothing to support the feet (or the heavy impact on the body that running brings with it). But there’s potential there, and I’m dreaming of the day when the Mumbai (and other) marathons become a serious event with thousands of Indians running it, because they are passionate about running.

Opportunities lost

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:15:50 PDT

My introduction to the American education system was only at the graduate school level. That still exposed me to some of the systems in place for undergraduate education, and the university system in general, and I marveled at the choices and sheer flexibility that the students had during their education. So, even though I had no exposure to the school system here, I made the assumption that the school system would be as flexible and innovative and accommodating as the university system. I thought a school student here in the US would have as many choices, options and variety that a college student had.

It turns out though that while the university system here remains the envy of the rest of the world, the school system is a far cry from the university system. It is as bureaucratic, static, dogmatic, rigid, uninspiring or banal as any other system anywhere else. This is a story I recently heard from an acquaintance I run with. She studied in one of the (better) public schools in the Dallas area. Now, my friend was a pretty good student, and what is quite atypical is that she really liked math. She wasn’t exceptional at it or anything. She just liked it. It was her favorite subject. Usually, in most schools (especially in the US) it isn’t cool to actually like math or science. She did, and so did another friend of hers.

Anyway, somewhere in 7th or 8th grade, they had to take some tests, which would determine if they took some more advanced math classes, which would then introduce them to calculus and high school AP math. Both she and her friend did only modestly in that test, and were marginally below the required score to be allowed to progress to AP math in high school. But they both liked math so much that they wanted to take those advanced courses over the next few years, including AP math.

They actually wanted to take those courses.

So it seems perfectly reasonable (to me) that they should have been encouraged to take those courses, or at least been given some option to retake that 7th or 8th grade test (to see if they could qualify for AP math later on). Usually, students are forced to learn something. Here they wanted to learn something themselves. Anyway, her then math teacher flatly told the two of them that since they hadn’t made the required grade in that standardized test (which they had missed by a whisker), they would not be allowed to go on and take calculus in high school. These two begged and pleaded, and even had their parents write to request that they be allowed to take those math courses and study more, or at least be retested in order to see if they could qualify for those courses.

Close, but no cigar. The teacher stuck to her guns (and rules) and declared that they would not be allowed to take those math courses in high school, since that is what the rules said. So finally the two of them had to go sleepwalk through “simpler” high school math curriculum without calculus, which were too boring and too easy for them, and did not challenge or inspire them in anyway.

Finally, when this girl ended up in college, she thought she’d try to take more advanced math courses. Because she hadn’t taken AP math and science, she didn’t get into her first choice colleges, and had to settle for a “lesser” state university (which was a good one though, in my opinion). But still, she thought she could now take some more interesting math courses. She registered for a few, only to find that the college curricula assumed substantial prior knowledge of lots of math that she’d never had (and not for lack of interest). She also found that most of the other students in that course had taken AP math/calculus in high school. So she spent a frantic semester trying to work twice as hard to learn things that the rest of them found quite basic. In the end, it turned out to be too hard to catch up. She didn’t want to take a big hit on her GPA. So instead of finally majoring in chemistry/biochemistry with a math minor (what she wanted to do, and which required quite a bit of math and calculus), she ended up with a developmental biology major. The story of her friend from school is a little different. He also struggled with some math courses in college, but he was more resolute (and loved math more), so stuck it through some very tough courses. After a few tough semesters, he finally became good at it, and eventually majored in mathematics. He loved math so much that he even went on to get a masters in math, and now works as an analyst for some company.

So the decision of a bureaucratic, uninspired teacher from 7th or 8th grade possibly changed the entire career of this girl, who now feels bitter at being denied the opportunity to learn and do what she wanted to and liked to do. Had she just been encouraged to retake a test in 7th or 8th grade, or had been allowed to take calculus in high school, it is quite possible that she would have gone on to a college of her choice, or at least majored in the subjects she wanted to, and liked the most. One single decision not made by her potentially changed her life.

And while this is a story of one particular teacher, it apparently is quite reflective of a lot of the school system here. An excessively bureaucratic, rule-obsessed system, with a huge amount of pressure on teachers to make sure the maximum number of students go through high school and get their diplomas, even if they do not learn as much. What this is doing though is two things. (i) It produces a number of students who go on to college (and are interested in college), but are ill equipped to handle a lot of college courses (which they might be interested in) and (ii) it also potentially produces an even larger number of students who, thanks to diluted educational standards, will never be able to go through college at all.

It is a shame though that a university system that is exceptional overall has to be fed by a school system that really leaves so much to be desired. The university system (particularly advanced or graduate education) is therefore partly forced to rely too much on imported foreign students (the school system alone isn’t responsible for so many foreign students, but I believe it does play a big part in it). Secondly, it isn’t fair to burden the university system (which by definition should strive for excellence) with teaching students basic subject concepts that should have been handled in high school or earlier.

And if we flash to the current presidential election, both candidates have only given lip-service to the educational system, and promoting “science and math”. Look deeper, and both of them have no ideas or real desire to really try to fix anything (or perhaps Barak does, but then focuses too much of his plan on hiring more teachers, and very little on educational standards and educational choices themselves).

Remembering Zion

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:56:09 PDT

The Zion national park in Utah is breathtaking, by every definition of the word. The red cliffs and mountains rise rapidly all around you, and the Virgin river looks placid enough, but was in fact responsible for those massive canyons and “narrows”. The place is absolutely perfect for some spectacular hikes, on trails that cling tightly to one side of a mountain, while on the other side there is a few thousand foot vertical drop. This place is not for those with an uncontrollable fear of heights.

The hikes were fantastic, the river was wonderful, the water icy cold, the rocks were picturesquely jagged, and the wildlife plentiful. And the place is far out in the southwest, with the nearest decent airports hours away in Vegas or Salt Lake City. So it was a little surprising to find the place filled with visitors. Sure, it was Labor day, and there were plenty of Americans, and plenty of adventure seeking foreign nationals who live in America (such as yours truly). But what really surprised me were the number of European and Japanese tourists in the park. On the trails, the languages most frequently heard were German, German, German, English, Japanese, more German, Italian and Spanish. The Germans (and I’m including the Austrians, Swiss and sundry here) were everywhere. Break out a few kegs, and you could have early Oktoberfest.

Why Zion National Park, and why not any place else? Is there some tourism agency somewhere in Berlin or Munich or Frankfurt telling all Germans to head out to America, and while there, to make it a point to get to Zion national park?

And not surprisingly, at the more scenic view points at Bryce and at Zion, away from the harder hikes, there were plenty of Indians around, as we discerned voices in Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Bengali and Punjabi as cameras clicked away.

***********
Zion and Bryce canyon were very contrasting in many ways. Sure, Bryce had some more impressive geological formations that ice and water (and some wind) had carved out, not least the abundance of hoodoos and natural bridges, but to me Zion had a more “intimate” feel to it. Hiking up steep peaks or wading through the river towards the narrows seems like a timeless pleasure. But after a while of looking at gargantuan grand natural amphitheaters or massive canyons, you can actually tire of them. I love the Grand Canyon, and was suitably impressed by it, but have tired of it after a couple of visits. Bryce gave me the same feeling. But I cannot say the same of Zion. It is a place well worth visiting repeatedly, with something new to discover each time.

***********
The National Park Service was at its best at Zion. The park was as well maintained as could be (given the sizeable number of tourists), and the shuttle service around the park was great. I can only imagine the nightmare the cars that crisscrossed the park before the shuttle service was established must have caused. Now all you need to do to get around the park is to hop on a shuttle and head out towards the next sight or hike. But what was really impressive was the design of the visitor center. It blended perfectly with the mountains all around. Importantly, it had been designed to minimize its energy requirements and consumption. The building had large cooling towers on all sides, which would cool air as it brought the air in, hence keeping the building cool (and it can get pretty hot down there). For heating during the cold winters, the long, south facing roof panels could trap solar heat, and warm the inner rooms. And the building maximized natural lighting as well. The landscaping around the park avoided lawns and water-pools and instead used only native plants. That meant that most of the landscaping around the visitor center needed little or no care or watering, but the plants thrived in the unique climate of the region. “Appropriate” can be used as a dull and boring adjective. But in this case, the visitor center was appropriate, and anything but dull. Since conservation is at the core of the park service, it was gladdening to see the message being implemented, and so elegantly at that.

***********
We discovered that great pizza can indeed be found in pizzerias in the unlikeliest of small towns, even if they are not called Papa Del’s or aren’t located in Urbana, Illinois. The little town of Springdale, right outsize the park entrance, is about as touristy as it can get. There are some delightfully eclectic stores or historic inns amidst a mix of outrageously overpriced restaurants and souvenir stores. While wandering around looking for some decent and affordable food, we came across the uninspiringly named Pizza & Noodles (a pizza and pasta bar), and entered it expecting pizza mediocrity. Instead, we found an outstanding assortment of gourmet pizzas, and our taste buds exploded as the crust and toppings touched our tongues. The pizzas were superb, and there were more vegetarian options here than I had ever seen (perhaps catering to those eco-conscious vegetarian Germans?). It was well worth our time and money (cash and check only, no credit cards please).

***********
This is more a general observation than anything else, but why are national parks filled with people who are mostly white or Japanese (with a smattering of Indian or Chinese visitors)? In most national parks I’ve visited across the country, there seem to be a few Hispanic visitors, and fewer African-American visitors. Any conspiracy theories out there?

Book review: Illustrated Guide to Home Chemistry Experiments: All Lab, No Lecture

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:44:25 PDT

Warning: This book might be dangerous. It has the capacity to make the reader think.

When I was a kid growing up in India, it was some sort of dream of mine to have my own little secret chemistry lab. There were all these stories in books about kids having their secret dens in their basement, where they made fascinating discoveries or invented cool compounds. Except there were two small problems; we didn’t have a basement (or too many extra rooms) and, more importantly, there was no such thing as a “home chemistry set” to be found in any store in India. So it was with absolute wonder that I imagined every smart or curious kid in the US to be working away into the night in his or her own little lab.

Of course, I learnt that it wasn’t really true. But it certainly was true that at least till the eighties many, many kids in the States got a home chemistry set as a Christmas or birthday present sometime in their lives. And many of them had the time of their lives creating colorful solutions, horrible stinks or flashing explosions, even as they learnt the scientific method and gained a love for chemistry. Somehow, this love for “do-it-yourself” science died in the US in more recent times. Perhaps it was because companies became too worried about liability issues that could come from some kid getting injured. Perhaps it was because the state became a big nanny, and people live in constant fear about the next potential chemical weapons attack. Perhaps because of this it became harder to get chemicals. Or perhaps it was because of all these reasons and more. Anyway, the concept of home chemistry kits was slowly lost, and that sadly might have killed the potential scientist in many a kid.

But it looks like there have remained some die hard enthusiasts of home chemistry experiments, and Robert Thomson, the author of the “Illustrated Guide to Home Chemistry Experiments: All Lab, No Lecture” must be amongst the foremost enthusiasts of those. In writing this book, he has thought through every little detail to help anyone, from a high school student to the adult diehard, in establishing a complete, very effective home chemistry lab.

In a world where everything comes in a nicely over-wrapped package, Thomson doesn’t expect you to rely on any kit. On the contrary, he points out how most of the kits out in the market presently have been dumbed down to ridiculous proportions, and also avoid selling any chemical that could be slightly toxic or dangerous (which pretty much leaves only salt and sugar to sell). The book starts with the very basics; the equipment you need, the space you’ll need, and the source for chemicals, and goes through seventeen comprehensive chapters of chemistry. There are simple chapters on making and separating solutions, chapters covering important chemistry basics like redox reactions or acid-base reactions, chapters on chemical stoichiometry and then electro and photochemistry, qualitative and quantitative analysis and finally even a pure fun chapter on forensic chemistry. In all of these chapters, Thomson has been very meticulous in explaining basic chemistry concepts (using simple definitions and very effective examples), providing details on the equipment, and finally, some excellent experimental details. The first chapter draws you right into the book, as Thomson explains how he became interested in home chemistry. He describes how to convert anything, from a kitchen to a garage, into a suitably safe and convenient chemistry lab. And then he provides plenty of information on obtaining equipment and reagents that are surprisingly extremely cheap. I was very surprised not just at how many chemicals I could get at the local pharmacy or hardware store, but at how pure many of them were. Many of them were an order of magnitude cheaper than the stuff my own lab buys from Fisher and Sigma-Aldrich, but just about as pure. Perhaps I should tell our lab manager to get our stuff from the retail market. Home chemistry can be very effective and very cheap. And he also makes sure to tell you how you can get stuff that is safe, and will not get you into trouble with paranoid agents. Importantly, Thomson tells you how to avoid serious trouble by avoiding any discussion of making stuff that could blow up (which is a little bit of a pity, since some of the most fun science experiments start or end with a pop and some nasty smells sure to amuse kids).

Thomson also is very clear in telling you how easy it is to hurt yourself (or someone else) by not taking the right precautions at home, and then goes on to tell you the precautions you should take for a safe working environment. Home science is a serious pursuit, but while you have to be careful, you can and should have fun doing it. Thomson remembers that throughout the book. I was particularly pleased with his emphasis on good book keeping, and the importance of a record notebook. Without carefully recording experimental detail and results, science quickly deteriorates from reproducibility and substance to entertaining but irreproducible anecdote.

This book is almost a must have for a high school chemistry enthusiast (any AP Chemistry major), but will work just as well for any kid with a love for experiments, or the adult who has time for a hobby and a passion for science. There’s a lot of learning to be had by doing experiments yourself. This is a book that should be whole-heartedly recommended, and is something I hope many high school chemistry teachers will adopt enthusiastically in their classes. It is also my dearest hope that this book reaches India, and at least some school teachers there get their hand on it. It is a book that can actually make you think.

If you are one of those closet home chemists, this is the book for you. Go get it. Meanwhile, I’m off to observe some copper turning turquoise blue due to oxidation.

Postdoc personalities

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:50:17 PDT

Life in science isn’t a bed of roses, and being a postdoc is hard enough as it is. So it is important to keep one’s spirit up, particularly during the long phases of hard work without successful (read “publishable”) results. As in any other workplace though, your general contentment level is influenced by the people around you, especially your peers. Postdocs come in all shapes, sizes and characters, but there are a few character types you want to avoid hanging out with (even if you are one of them), in order to remain sane and content. Surprisingly, like most normal people, postdocs too fit into some characteristic groups (including those you want to avoid). So here are some of the classes of postdocs whom I do my best to avoid (and hope never to become).

The arrogant prick: Unfortunately, this class of postdoc isn’t too uncommon.
This class has two subtypes, (a) the “publication snob” and (b) the “research snob”. The publication snob is the person who thinks anything published in journals other than Cell, Science or Nature is worthless, and tells you exactly how worthless it is every time you see them. This is even if you have just published a very nice piece of work in a “lesser” journal, and (s)he knows about it. Yet, worse than journal snobs are research snobs. These people think the only interesting/important/cool/spectacular research in the world is being done in their lab, and more importantly is being done by them. Everyone else is just wasting taxpayer resources and chemicals. The research snob talks to you with a condescending sneer, and feigns politeness when you talk to him/her about your work, pretending to listen, and then shrugging in a knowing manner while asking you what the big deal is. There is only one person worse than a research snob. That person is a journal AND research snob, and, unfortunately, there are plenty of those as well.

The radiator of negativity™: This class of postdoc must be avoided at all costs. If you see one of them, turn and run the other way. If they see you turning and running, pretend you have forgotten something or have to get back to an experiment (use a timer), and still run. Because, if you spend any time conversing with them, they will effortlessly leave you suicidal. These people ooze out negativity, making everything around them miserable even if you’ve been feeling perfectly happy before seeing them. Here’s a hypothetical sample conversation with a radiator of negativity™.

“Hey, what’s up? Things going well? How’s research and the job search?”

“Not really. I’m stuck working on some papers for publication”

“Isn’t that good?”

“No. They aren’t going to be Cell papers, which means they won’t get me a job, which means I’ve wasted the past five years. This area of research has no future.”

Now you get defensive and worried and say “That’s not really true, is it? You can do good work that isn’t published in Cell and still find a job”, and wonder about that postdoc’s area of research (which you think is pretty hot).

“Not really. Even if the work is good, it doesn’t matter. The system sucks, and there aren’t any jobs out there. Anyway, no one here helps you get a job. What’s the use of working for a famous PI if I can’t find a job. But they don’t help you find a job at all.” moans Negativity, thus in one single stroke making you feel your work is useless, hate your chosen job, your research area, your boss, your institution and also filling your mind with dark thoughts for the future. You are convinced that there is no future and you should have become that doctor your parents always wanted you to be. Meanwhile, Mr/Ms. Negativity walks away without the slightest hint that those words have left your mind in a maelstrom.

The irrevocably depressed: This class of postdoc is only a little better than the radiator of negativity. This person has a naturally depressive personality, and is him/herself easily depressed. It hasn’t helped his/her cause that the past 3 years of ceaseless toil have yielded poor rewards. Which means this person is perennially suicidal. A conversation with this person will be something like this:

“Hey, what’s up? How’s work?”

Deep sigh. “It’s tough. This project isn’t going anywhere. But the boss wants this work done right now. But what’s the use of doing this? It’ll get me nowhere. It’s too late for me now. I don’t know what I’ll do. I can never get a job.” Pause. Another deep sigh. “But you’re ok. You are still young.”

You are left feeling absolutely terrible for that person, and then panic sets in as you start worrying about yourself.

The insane workaholic: This class of postdoc is pure intimidation. This postdoc works 16 hour days seven days a week, juggling 6 experiments every day. His/her eyes are bleary, with dark circles around them. You don’t know when (or if) he/she eats or sleeps. Wears the same sweatshirt almost everyday. One day he/she mentions to you that his/her weekend was very relaxing. It was the first weekend in three years that this person had taken off.

And you wonder if that is what’s needed in order to succeed. Is life as a successful scientist really that hard?

There’s plenty of pressure as it is in being a postdoc. There’s no need to be in any of these classes, making every one around you unhappy. Some people hate happy campers, and wonder how some people can remain reasonably happy always, through ups and downs at work. But I love them, and wish more postdocs were like that. A dash of positivity, a little bit of humility, the ability to laugh off mistakes, and finding time to relax. Just give me enough of that and the postdoc life will remain a lot of fun.

Wall-E thoughts

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:50:55 PDT

This isn’t a review, but there are some spoilers here. Hopefully nothing here will hurt your movie experience, but perhaps give you some food for thought.

I’ve often thought that the best thing George Lucas did was not making Star Wars or Indiana Jones, but setting up a dedicated “special effects” computer group. This little group would go on to become Pixar, the studio that redefines animation and graphics while still telling great stories. With every movie of theirs you wonder what could be better and yet (almost) every time they manage to deliver cinematic classics. From monsters in the closet to lost fish, wannabe normal superheroes, rat chefs and now an amazing robot, they continue to spin visually incredible yarns that defy imagination and dare you to expect more in the next installment. With Wall-E they’ve done it again, and have really gone where no robot has gone before. The movie is breathtaking, brilliant and pushes the boundaries of what is possible on screen when you have a great story, scriptwriters and brilliant animators.

Now, one of the great things about Pixar is that along with the story, they take serious pride in the thoroughness of their research, and their content is impeccable. Where ever there is some actual science or detail involved, they invariably try to get it right. This was on particular display in Nemo, and every frame of every scene at the bottom of the ocean was painstakingly created to real detail. It wasn’t just the general feel of it, but Pixar had taken the effort to determine exactly which species of fish or crustacean or mollusk or coral or anemone could exist in that particular ecosystem, and then the drawings of each of those were perfect. It wasn’t just the sharks who were drawn right.

There were plenty of brilliant bits in The Incredibles, but that was a superhero flick, so there could be plenty of liberties with science (while trying not to break all the laws of nature at once). But with Wall-E, Pixar has gone back to its Star War roots, and classic science fiction. Here’s the movie in a nutshell. Humans have made the earth uninhabitable, so they leave and live somewhere in distant space on a giant starship. The earth has robots (Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class, or Wall-Es) to clean it up, but all of them have now been inactivated. All except one, our hero Wall-E. He is some kind of self-teaching and constantly learning robot whose primary job is to pick up trash, compact it and pile it up. 700 years after humans have left the planet, a scout robot (Eve) comes to earth looking for signs of recovering life, meets Wall-E, sparks (literally) fly, and we have a delightfully eccentric intergalactic robot love story. But even as I left the cinema thoroughly satisfied, the scientist in me started talking in my head. Had there really been a robot named Wall-E left behind on earth, while people spent their time on a starship in space, what would things be like? Could it really be like the movie?

First, the earth itself. Now, in the movie the random abandoned city on a plant-less earth is depicted in dusty reddish hues (perhaps a little tribute to Tatooine, and a somewhat Martian landscape). There are plenty of dust storms to go around. But here’s my thought. If the world is good enough for cockroaches (as the movie says it is), it may not be good enough for us or other large animals, but it certainly will be good enough for microbes. Gazillions of them. And where there’s life on earth, there will be some photosynthesis. This means even if there aren’t too many plants around, there will be photosynthetic microbes. This in turn means the world wouldn’t just be a dry, dusty brown, but would have some shades of green, with polluted water all around. Wouldn’t it?

Then there’s Wall-E himself. I loved the way the creators of the movie made little things about Wall-E plausible. He needs energy, and the sun is the obvious inexhaustible source, so he has nice retractable solar panels (much like the Mars rover) to charge up when he’s running low. And the city is littered with tons of decommissioned Wall-Es, so Wall-E can go to any of them for spares or repairs (from new “eyes” to new caterpillar tracks). Obviously, he’s going to have wear and tear over 700 years. But how does his memory/cpu work perfectly for 700 years. My desktop has a habit of dying every couple of years, so clearly Wall-E wasn’t made in some low-cost mass fabrication plant. Either that, or Wall-E needs to be able to repair and replace his own memory or cpu by himself, figuring out a way to backup and retransfer all the data (so that he remembers he’s the Wall-E and not just some generic wall-e). How does he pull that off?

The world of instant gratification on the starship had massively obese people shuttling around on their little pods, and communicating exclusively through the virtual screen. Obviously, centuries of living without any walking would result in massive obesity. What was far more delightful was the description of massive bone loss and bone shrinkage from the limbs of these people. But how much bone would we loose if we don’t walk for 700 years? Will we (as the valiant captain of the ship does) even be able to lift our body mass, leave alone walk? And, ahem, if people never physically interact, how do babies come? And here’s a question for you. Can you use a fire extinguisher in outer space to propel yourself forward? And how long will a plant survive in the frigid temperatures of outer space?

Finally, most of the imaginary technology on display in the movie was brilliant. The details on the starship were spectacular, and those little pods which the people lived on were fantastic. But why did Wall-E, back on earth, have a betamax VCR and a cassette (Hello Dolly!) from the 60s? Wouldn’t he have an abandoned DVD player or something instead? There must be some story behind this, so will one of the creators of the movie tell us?

There are only a few movies out there which have scenes in them filled with such lush detail of imaginary worlds, but Wall-E enthralls you in almost every scene, leaving you to ponder a thousand little questions. Perhaps that’s why it isn’t surprising that this is the first movie in a long time that left me with so many thoughts after the movie.

If you haven’t seen it yet, go see the movie, and come up with your own questions.

A fortune in the attic?

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:57:42 PDT

When I first came to the land of liberty, I discovered something rather quickly. There is a ton of “junk” here in this country that is perfectly good and useable, and which would be very valuable to lots of people around the world.

This astute observation was made on my second day in the States, when I was in the balcony of my apartment, observing the trash dumpsters visible from there. Two college kids were moving out of their apartment, and by the time they left, they had left behind an old (but working) television set, two excellent lamps, an old (and working) microwave, and some still useable furniture. I was astounded by the fact that these seemingly useful things would just be left behind. No one threw away furniture or *gasp* a television set. If you had an old TV and wanted a new one, you took the old one to the store, and the store owner would take your old one and give you a new one with a 15% discount. That was how you upgraded electronics.

And that was when I learnt one of the first rules of living in a consumer paradise. In order to live the American life, one had to buy lots of stuff continuously, but remember to upgrade constantly, and get rid of the old stuff. There is a sequence to getting rid of the old stuff as well. First it goes into the closet, then it moves into your garage, and finally it goes into the dumpster.

Not too long after that, I learnt that there was a corollary to this rule. If you happened to forget to clean out your garage, and kept your old stuff really long (say till you had grandkids), that stuff (actually useless in the modern world) would suddenly become valuable.

Only, instead of calling it junk, you would now call it a “collector’s item”, and you could sell it on eBay for a small but tidy fortune. What’s more, you can pass of just about anything as an antique or even better, a classic, on eBay. There are actually people here who will pay m-o-n-e-y to buy your old trash.

And this means there is a slim chance that I might have a fortune in my hands. And I have to thank my dad for this. Here’s why. My father had always been an enthusiastic adopter of technology, and eagerly bought the latest and best in electronics in the ‘60s and ‘70s. In his possession are 30 year old typewriters made by Brother, or a fine collection of LP record albums, or better still, an 8 mm and 16 mm film projector (and 8mm films), or a spool audio recorder. And all of them have been used but stored in perfect working order in their original packaging. The last time I looked, people were selling “vintage” 8 mm film projectors for $125 or thereabouts. The typewriter sold for $50 or more.

Add all of these together, and there’s a small fortune waiting for me, all tucked away in some shelf somewhere in our home back in India.

There used to be a time when I made fun of my parents storing their old and used electronics. I take all of that back, and hope they keep it safe and sound so that I can sell them all after another 10 years, by which time they will be absolutely and completely useless, and worth a fortune.

Where fanatism takes us, and a new SciFi story contest

noreply@blogger.com (Sunil) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:34:18 PDT

For your viewing pleasure, a video from one of Carl Sagan's shows.

While some religions pretend today that there was never any wanton destruction of knowledge or (different) thought because of their "peaceful" message (and other religions still continue to unleash violence in the name of eternal peace), ALL organized religion has always been guilty of fanatism. There is much for us to remember in Sagan's words here.

**********

And here's an announcement. Selva, who blogs at The Scian has announced the Scian Science Fiction short story contest.

Go on, take up that pen (or keyboard) and start working on your SciFi masterpiece.