Embedded Files
For science:
For science:
Atom-first perspective to biology should be first and foremost humbling, placing human discoveries (though remarkable feats!) and discoverers (though remarkable beings!) in the context of atom-scale complexity, and the limitations of humans. Colonial era biology, one of conquest and classification, was done largely by dividing larger wholes into smaller manageable parts, due to necessity in method, if not popular philosophy. Nevertheless, we cannot claim ignorance about the limitations of such a pursuit toward understanding biology (e.g., Lotka 1925). An atom-first biologist is unlikely to pull an Archimedes, or amplify the "significance" of a nucleotide, protein, pathway, trait, taxon, study system, or a single element (a la Leibig). It is worth noting that the delivery and receipt of such messages are intersectional, reinforcing longstanding socioeconomic biases among biologists (library > conference). Any atom-first observation of biology is a terribly incomplete/biased picture of the whole. A whole we (humans, however brilliant) are incapable of sensing without technology, and analyzing them without computers. Consequently, atom-first biologists will tend to publish fewer papers (why feed the Big Press?) with larger teams , wherein each member is an expert at measuring elements (not to forget valence states) at a level of organization (e.g., protein, ecosystem etc.) and/or condition (e.g., in vitro, ex situ etc.). By placing a premium on this ability to measure in the same currency, atom-first biologists minimize biases driven by selfish pursuits in science. Curiosity leads a child to science, but doubt drives science. Doubt of assumptions and inferences made by classical biologists is the fuel for the atom-first perspective of biology.
Atom-first perspective to biology should be first and foremost humbling, placing human discoveries (though remarkable feats!) and discoverers (though remarkable beings!) in the context of atom-scale complexity, and the limitations of humans. Colonial era biology, one of conquest and classification, was done largely by dividing larger wholes into smaller manageable parts, due to necessity in method, if not popular philosophy. Nevertheless, we cannot claim ignorance about the limitations of such a pursuit toward understanding biology (e.g., Lotka 1925). An atom-first biologist is unlikely to pull an Archimedes, or amplify the "significance" of a nucleotide, protein, pathway, trait, taxon, study system, or a single element (a la Leibig). It is worth noting that the delivery and receipt of such messages are intersectional, reinforcing longstanding socioeconomic biases among biologists (library > conference). Any atom-first observation of biology is a terribly incomplete/biased picture of the whole. A whole we (humans, however brilliant) are incapable of sensing without technology, and analyzing them without computers. Consequently, atom-first biologists will tend to publish fewer papers (why feed the Big Press?) with larger teams , wherein each member is an expert at measuring elements (not to forget valence states) at a level of organization (e.g., protein, ecosystem etc.) and/or condition (e.g., in vitro, ex situ etc.). By placing a premium on this ability to measure in the same currency, atom-first biologists minimize biases driven by selfish pursuits in science. Curiosity leads a child to science, but doubt drives science. Doubt of assumptions and inferences made by classical biologists is the fuel for the atom-first perspective of biology.
For Life:
"Life is a single spark between two eternities". - V. Nabakov as quoted by D. Gilmour.
Sparks (electrons from zinc atoms in dad’s sperm) break bonds (in mom’s egg membrane), and we happen. Same thing (stray electrons; aka spark) has to happen for memories to form (at least at the atom scale; recognizing quantum scale neurochemistry). It is this flame (i.e., flow of electrons) that is us. It is not the atoms that give us mass today, quantified by the bathroom scale. We are (more so) the electrons we have flicked off orbitals (a smile and a stare cause different sparks, aka neurochemical reactions). As such, we *are* the reactions we have catalyzed, while recognizing those reactions are endless, and beyond our control.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse