Razib Khan One-stop-shopping for all of my content

July 1, 2011

Subscribe to Nature for 1 year for $36?

Filed under: Blog,Nature — Razib Khan @ 10:38 am

I saw this on twitter and though I would pass it on. A 1 year subscription to Nature print + online for $36. I have a lot of ambivalence about the way that some scientific publishers comport themselves, but this seems like a good deal, and I know many readers of this weblog don’t have academic access…

This is a screenshot of what I saw….

(of course you can keep reading PLoS for free!)

December 15, 2010

“Genome blogging”

Nature profiles Dodecad, the Pickrell Affair, and the emergence of amateur genomicists in a new piece. Interestingly David of BGA is going to try and get something through peer review. In particular, the relationship of Assyrians and Jews.

So we have Genomes Unzipped, Dodecad, and BGA. What next? Who next? I hope Dienekes doesn’t mind if I divulge the fact that the computational resources needed to utilize ADMIXTURE as he has is within the theoretical capability of everyone reading this post. Rather, the key is getting familiar with PLINK and writing some code to merge data sets. After you do that, to really add value you’d probably want to get raw data from more than what you can find in the HGDP, HapMap and other public resources.

But here I make an open offer: if you start a blog or a project which replicates the methods of Dodecad and BGA I’ll link to you and promote you. When Dienekes began Dodecad I actually started to play around with the data sets in ADMIXTURE, but I’ve personally held off until seeing what he and David find. What their pitfalls and successes might be. Here’s to 2011 being more interesting than we can imagine!

Update: Already had a friend with a computational background contact me about doing something on South Asian genomics. So again: if you get a site/blog set up, and start pumping out plots, I will promote you. In particular, if you need 23andMe raw data files of geographical region X it might be useful to try and get the word out via blogs and what not.

June 21, 2010

Animal Apartheid

Filed under: Environment,Environmentalism,Ethics,Nature — Razib Khan @ 6:46 am

Here’s an article from Canada on the debate about whether hybridization should be discouraged. I understand the impulse toward preserving nature as it is, but the drive for presumed purity seems almost fetishistic. Consider this sentence: ” Or could hybrids actually weaken genetically pure populations of disappearing wildlife?” What does “genetically pure” mean in a deep sense here? We know what it means instrumentally for the purposes of conservation genetics, but the way people talk about pristine lineages makes it seem an almost ethical concern.


When it comes to conservation and environmental policy you’re at the intersection of science, norms, and the messy world of human possibility. Perspective matters a lot in how you value or weight the parameters within your value system. To me the preservation of putatively pure lineages immemorial smacks a bit of pre-Darwinian biology, with its focus on systematic analysis of fixed and eternal kinds as well as a descriptive analysis of anatomy and physiology. At the other end is evolutionary biology which is a process, a phenomenon, understood as a flux of gene frequencies and morphs over time. It is by definition a refutation of a static conception of nature. Of course it takes time…but but not that much time. And then there’s the tendency to see humans as apart and beyond nature, exogenous to the system, destabilizing an eternal equilibrium. This is also arguably a false ideal, humans have been part of the ecosystem of every continent excepting Antarctica for at least 10,000 years, Australia for 50,000 years, Eurasia for a million years, and Africa somewhat longer. Modern H. sapiens sapiens has likely reshaped whole ecosystems through predation and fire even before agriculture and dense societies.

Let’s have a more nuanced and subtle conversion here, and put the focus on what our ultimate values are, or at least the ultimate values of the majority. As it is too often it seems to me that we’re not that far from “king’s wood” whereby we view nature as something to be isolated from the common man, who by his presence sullies and contaminates its purity. And now the fixation on distinct kinds and lineages seems to veer in a similar direction, albeit focusing on the purity of species and sub-species rather than nature as a whole.

Powered by WordPress