The genes of culture

Evolution is based on particular molecules that can replicate themselves, which are passed from generation to generation and sometimes undergo slight changes, both when considered individually (mutations), both when considered in their whole within a population (genetic drift, natural selection,...). There have been several attempts to explain the changes in culture over time in terms of evolution, and is interesting especially the concept of "meme", coined by the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins ("The selfish gene", 1976).

Memes play a similar role to that of genes in evolution: they are entities that bring about cultural informations, transmitted in several ways: language, writing, music, and generally any means of communication. The most interesting fact is that memes are subject to the same phenomena that involve genes: mutations, change of their frequency in the population and extinction.

The similarities go even further. A gene is favored by natural selection if it increases the reproductive success of an organism, that is if it increases his chances of being transmitted. Memes can have more or less success in a population and this depends, on how a person is devoted to the propagation of a meme and on how it takes hold in the population (for example, how many times a certain behavior is imitated by others).

So it is clear that one of the best examples of a meme are all moral, political and religious ideologies. But so are also proverbs, legends, myths, songs, the various trends or common sayings, and obviously the technological knowledge. Thus, a very successful meme is one whose success does not depend on the subjectivity of a person, but that can be shared by many people.

Superstitions, religions and political ideas are perfect memes because they provide answers to many fundamental questions of life and very often those who share these ideas are influenced by other memes, from an ethical and behavioural point of view. This is especially the case of religions. In fact, very often those who do not belong to a certain religion are hit by threats concerning eternal punishments, and also people who are deeply faithful not only show a very strong mindedness to other ideas, but sometimes also devote much of their lives to spreading their convictions.

In general, we can compare culture to a gene pool, composed by a series of units that carry informations and pass through many people changing slightly and affecting their lives.

The origin of mammals

A recent study by researchers of the Yale University, published in Nature Genetics, led to the conclusion that the function that the uterus plays in the reproduction of mammals evolved from the insertion into the genome of early mammals of some transposons.

Transposons are sequences of DNA that can move to new positions in the Genome of a cell, through the action of enzymes encoded by the transposons themselves. This particular kind of genetic material has several similarities with viruses, and in fact they are thought to be descended from them. For this reason they are often compared to parasites, which can enter and multiply within the genome.

The researchers analyzed and compared the genetic heritage of the endometrial cells of humans and opossums placenta. They discovered 1532 genes expressed only in placental mammal's uterus, whose expression is regulated by transposons. This discovery, as stated by one of the authors of the article, Gunter Wagner, also contributes to a better understanding of evolution, which is often thought to be based only on mutations of small stretches of DNA.

Bellum omnium contra omnes? No! Nice guys finish first [Part 1]

Thomas Hobbes  proposed a very strong interpretation of human nature in the Leviathan, that could be summed up by the following statement:

"The state of men without civil society (which state may be called the state of nature) is nothing but a war of all against all; and that in that war, all have a right to all things."

Thereby the only possibility to avoid this state of nature is the commitment of your personal freedom to the Leviathan, who embodies a central government that acts only for common wealth.

This "homo homini lupus" theory seems to fit very well to human nature if we take in consideration many recent fact such as 2011 Norway attacks, 9/11, or the high rate of homicides in many cities or countries.


The fallacy of this kind of argument is that considering single events, obscures long terms tendences. If we consider for example the trend of homicides, we'll see that they drastically reduced through history. In London the 110 homicides per 100,000 rate in 14th century declined to fewer than one in the 20th century. Violent deaths declined from 500 every 100,000 on archaic society to 50 in the Middle Ages to 6 today worldwide. Also if we talk about war, the data agree with this theory: from 15% of popolation killed in wars, we reached today a few hundreds of percent level.


Could this mean that Hobbes was wrong? Not necessarily. Maybe human nature is similar to the one he describe, but the development of society helped to mask it. This led to the requirement benevolent interaction. It is indeed the only way to achieve a great role in society.


This means that our social interactions are not made for generous purpouse, but to satisfy our "Wille zur Macht", in english the "will to power". This idea was firstly propose by the german phylosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.

He believed that the leading force that guided man's action was the will to reach highest positions possible in life. Freud proposed a similar idea as well with his pleasure principle (the will to pleasure). Maybe those theories are a proper explanation to the "domestication of man", which is related to the fact that had to face the compromise to reach higher goals in society.

Why are we here?

Unfortunately very often the consequences of a deeper understanding of the evolutionary theory are ignored or misunderstood by many people. On an intellectual level, some beliefs seem to ignore completely the meaning of evolution. This is probably due both to our cultural and religious traditions, both to the real difficulties of people to accept, for example, that man has no privileged place in the world or in the universe. This is one of that consequences that most of all have difficulties in being finally accepted, together with the fact that human intelligence is nothing more than one of the many products of evolution, like the wings of bats or the cactus thorns.

Regarding the man's role in the world, the studies of the history of life and the discoveries of geology provides a very clear answer. Many people think they know how the evolution works, and are convinced that it proceeds undisturbed, incessantly and inevitably, from more "primitive" organisms to better adapted ones. If this would be true, the result would have been one or a few super-adpted life forms. They not consider the fact that the existence of most species is largely due to external contingent events.

In fact, the survival of organisms living in a certain environment, is closely linked to unpredictable events (such as natural disasters) that indiscriminately strike all life forms, from the strongest and most numerous one, to the apparently weakest one.

Therefore, whether we speak of small-scale events, or we consider the mass extinctions, the organisms that survive may not be the ones that during the previous period of stability had achieved greater success in evolutionary terms. Just think, for example, to the best known mass extinction, at the end of the Mesozoic era.

In the course of nearly two hundred million years, reptiles had so diversified that they became the dominant group of animals in almost all environments, while mammals and then birds occupied the few remaining ecological niches. After a catastrophic event happened about 65 million years ago, many of the reptile groups became extinct, and mammals, through a process called adaptive radiation, became the new dominant animals in many environments.

There is evidence of at least 5 mass extinctions. The existence of the modern species, including humans, is characterized by being incredibly improbable. This means, quite simply, that human life not only ever had no character of necessity, but that it is only thanks to a chain of contingent and extremely unlikely events that have occurred throughout Earth's history, that we exist.

The ancestors of mitochondria

One of the more plausible theories about the origin of the mitochondria, organelles specialized in performing the cellular respiration, is the endosymbiotic theory, according to which these organelles descend from bacteria that became endosymbionts of other host cells. Probably this is also the origin of chloroplasts. Many of their characteristics confirmed this theory, for example: they contain their own DNA, their structure based on membranes is similar to that of bacteria, and many other features as ribosomes, proteines and size are similar to the bacteria's ones.

Recently, the researchers of the Oregon State University and of the University of Hawaii at Manoa have discovered the possible ancestors of mitochondria.


It is a group of bacteria known as SAR11 (class Alphaproteobacteria), which are very abundant in the ocean. The discovery was made possible by the comparison between the genomes of mitochondria of many eukaryotes and that of SAR11 bacteria, which showed an evolutionary connection.

Moreover, the hypothesis is supported by the fact that these organisms are very common in the oceans, and if also their ancestors would have been so common in this environment, this would have facilitated meetings with potential host cells. These microorganisms, as has been noted by the researchers, have a particular physiology that make them suitable to be dependent on other organisms.

Noisy oceans

Sound is known to travel at 343 m/s through air, but if it travels through different materials this speed changes. For example through water the speed is 1480 m/s. If we connect this physical fact with the rise of maritime trade, we'll have the explanation of the gaining noise pollution in oceans.


It could be very dangerous because marine mammals communicate using impulsive signals called clicks, emitted between  500 Hz and 30 kHz, and the background noise generated by humans could interfere with them. Low frequency noise can also damage vital organs of several cephalopod.

One way to avoid those problems could be building solid barriers around either the source of the noise or the area to protect. Nevertheless it could result to be very expensive, and so others options are being proposed. The most innovative one forecasts the use of bubbles.

The problem is mainly related to the fact that low frequency waves are characterized by long wavelengths. You would need at least 10 cm bubbles to reduce significantly the noise. Furthermore those bubble should not break in smaller ones, so latex capsules are needed. Test performed on these kind of bubbles shown that they would reduce noise by 44 decibels.


Even though this reduction is significant (it's the difference between a library and a busy street), it's not enough. The noise travelling though water would  be in fact reduced, but the one transmitted by seabed would not. So further solution are needed: only reducing the amount of noise pollution in oceans problems such as marine mammals strands could be reduced.

The fallacy of Wishful Thinking

When we try to reach a certain goal, we tend to imagine ourself succeeding doing it. This is a common idea that relates trust in your own attitude to a gaining of the possibility of success, and can indeed lead to a reduction of stress, and the related improvement of performances. The major improvements can be noticed in health. For example there will be lower rates of depression, greater resistance to the common cold and reduced risk of death from cardiovascular disease. Those positive effects are related to the fact that  with wishful thinking stress is controlled better, and its negative aspects are less effective. 


However this common idea has recently been disproved. Painting your life easier than what it really is can indeed lead to a drop of performances. When someone envisages positive outcomes, energy levels and blood pressure, drop. This obviously leads to a fall of performances.

If you want to improve your performance you should rather imagine the event, trying to face every possible complication, analyzing it under most aspects as possible. It can possibly lead to a overestimation of the problem, that is the better way to face a problem in the most prepared way possible.


We should try to put aside the idyllic idea of a positive outcome, typical of wishful thinking, and replace it with a more realistic and detailed one. Doing so we'll be able to face grater challenges, self-evaluating our actual ability, and maybe improving it. According to Antonis Hatzigeorgiadis of the University of Thessaly, "It's positive thinking, plus instructions".

Science or Pseudoscience?

Because of the spread of education to a large amount of people, science isn't anymore a stronghold of few elected, but has become a public-domain knowledge, at least for some more popular fields. This is of course a positive development, because more people have the opportunity to contribute to it, but has also some negative relapses, such as the spread of Pseudoscience. It can be indeed difficult for non-scientist to discern whether or not a branch of science is genuine. The boundaries between them can be hard to be found, even though pseudoscience is characterized by some feature that makes it different from the real one:

1. Ipse dixit : it is based on dogmatic beliefs and principles of authorities that reject any possible (and often plausible) confutation;
2. Spreading through the public: while scientific theories are usually reviewed by professionals before being released, pseudoscience usually bases its spreading on cultural reasons an economical goals. It is sold directly to the public, without any scientific demonstration;
3. Non-testable ideas: usually pseudoscience operates in fields where its theories cannot be tested in any meaningful way. This often leads the public to misguided judgment: if a fact by chance agrees with the theory is considered as a proof, otherwise it's just not mentioned.

The last one was also one of the main point of Karl Popper's "demarcation problem". He tried to distinguish empirical science, such as the 1919 test of Einstein's general relativity from others such as Freud's theories. While relativity could have been falsified if solar eclipse data didn't show the required starlight deflection, Freud theories could not be disproved. This absence of any testable hypothesis led Popper to declare "falsifiability" as the criterion of separation.

This criterion anyway cannot work in any field of science, because many theories, such as String Theory or Neuroscience are not falsifiable. Those one require a different demarcation, that can be found under a more pragmatical aspect. If a new theory generates interest in a part of scientific community, and leads to development in that field, producing new lines of research or new discovery, it could be indeed considered real science. It should be a democratic process the one that decides whether a science is real or not, and not some abstract criteria proposed by philosophers.  If any theory will be able to produce any significant development in any other field, it cannot be indeed considered as pseudoscience.

Biological warfare against malaria

Two recent discoveries indicate a possible new way to fight malaria, a disease caused by protozoans parasites of the genus Plasmodium, especially Plasmodium falciparum.

Researchers of the John Hopkins University and the Malaria Institute of Macha, Zambia, observed that a bacterium belonging to the genus Enterobacter, which lives in the intestine of animals, can block the plasmodium's development.

In particular, they captured Anopheles mosquitoes and analyzed their bacterical flora, discovering that the presence of Enterobacter was correlated to the absence of the plasmodium or to less aggressive parasites. The bacterium produces free radicals that damage the cells with a not fully understood mechanism, and it could be used to counteract the diffusion of the malaria for example placing it into some bites of sugar on which they feed.



Another research guided by Raymond St. Leger, professor of entomology of the University of Maryland, studied the possibility of using the fungus Metarhizium anisopliae, which attacks Anopheles mosquitoes, to fight the plasmodium.

It is possible to insert in its genome genes for a human antibody or a toxin produced by a scorpion, with techniques of genetic engineering: both cause serious damages to the parasite. During the research three gropus of mosquitoes infected by the parasite has been compared. The first infected also by the transgenic fungus, the second by the unmodified strain, and the third without the fungus. The parasite has been found in the 25 % of the first group mosquitoes, the 87 % of the second and the 94 % of the third.

The main benefit of the use of the transgenic fungus is that it attacks selectively the parasite allowing to fight it even in mosquitoes infected for a long time, while it hasn't been possible in previous attempts to fight the plasmodium with fungal infection, since its effectivness was limited exposed to the fungus shortly after the infection of the parasite.

Neutrino, the particle that travels faster than light [Part 2]

Of all the particles physics has dealt with, Neutrinos are surely the strangest. Being able to pass through matter almost without interacting with it makes them so hard to be found. The fact that we hadn't been able to detect them for a long time, if compared to other subatomic particles, doesn't indeed means that they are not very common in our universe.

While you are reading this post, you are being showered by those invisible particles. This happens because they are being produced right now in the sun, as well as in any other living star. Anyway those ones are relatively newcomers, because most of them are relics of older events, such as the Big Bang. One the other hand they are also produced right now on earth, because of radioactivity, as we'll see later.

Those elementary particles are fermions. This means that their spin is one half, and that they obey to Pauli exclusion principle. Recent experiment proved that they have a small, but different from zero, mass and also no charge. This mean that they are not affected by electromagnetic force, but only by weak subatomic force. This explains why they are created in stars and by radioactive decay.

During those kind of reactions three flavors are created: electron, muon and tau neutrinos, and their corresponding anti-neutrino.

Electron neutrinos are created when protons decay in neutrons, producing also a positron.

Muon neutrinos are produced by decay of muons in in an electron and an electron anti-neutrino.

Tau neutrinos are produced by decay of a tau particle in an electron and an electron anti-neutrino.

Neutrinos has we have seen before are created in a precise flavor, but they don't remain in the same one forever. This idea was proposed by Bruno Pontecorvo in 1957, when he predicted that neutrinos are able to oscillate between the three states while travelling through space.

Anyhow the main importance of those particles is related to the development of observation technique, like the one used to the search for solar neutrinos, whose story will be the main topic of the following article.

Neutrino, the particle that travels faster than light [Part 1]

Today, 23 September, during the Cern Neutrino to Gran Sasso experiment the Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (OPERA) obtained a remarkable result. Neutrinos were found to be faster than light, a 60 nanoseconds gap in their 2.43 milliseconds trip from CERN to Gran Sasso, which is almost 732 kilometers. According to Antonio Ereditato, University of Berna, the uncertainty in the measurement is only 10 nanoseconds. Anyway Ereditato itself says it's too early to declare relativity wrong: OPERA researchers are only presenting a result that they cannot explain and asking the community to confirm it.

This experiment, if confirmed will mark the biggest discovery of physics in the last 50 years, because it contradicts Einstein's relativity.  In fact it would lead to a reformulation of the special relativity, because speeds greater than light's one are not covered by this theory.


Special relativity is based on a limit speed, that until now was c. It was formulated to rectify Newton's laws of motion, which are correct only at low speeds, if compared to light's one. Those laws in fact had to be corrected using the Lorentz factor.

Here we can see that if we put into the equation a speed greater than c, we get the square root of a negative number, also known as imaginary number, that until now had no physical meaning in this branch of physics.

Furthermore Newton's laws are invariant for Galilean transformation, and so work only at relatively low speed. To make them invariant for Lorentz transformations a new idea of mass is needed. The mass we are used to is the rest mass, or invariant mass, but the real relativistic mass increases with speed. In fact, according to the famous equation, mass is just a defined form of energy:

If we try to accelerate a body its energy will increase, and so will do his mass as well. So we must take this in account, changing the inertial mass in Newton's laws with the relativistic one, that is:

Problems rise at light-speed. In fact if we consider the following limit, it gives infinite as result:

This mean that no object with inertial mass different from zero will ever reach the speed of light. Increasing speed will increase also mass, and the work to bring it to the speed of light is infinite if the mass is infinite.

Here we can see why the discovery of a particle with mass travelling over the speed of light is incredible. This evidence, if confirmed, requires a new formulation of laws of motion, similar to the one done by Einstein in 1905.

In this post I tried to explain the main theoretical problems caused by this experiment. In the following one i will explain more about neutrino, focusing on its nature and on the history of its discovery.

Rudolph doesn't go Snowblind

Polar explorers and local populations such as Inuit sometimes experience a condition known as snow blindness. This is also known as ultraviolet keratitis, a painful eye condition caused by prolonged exposure to ultraviolet rays. Ultraviolet radiation is well known for being dangerous to humans, because of the associated risk of melanoma. This risk gains with latitude, because of the thinner ozone layer, that is less effective in blocking those rays, explaining the high rate of snowblindness.

The Inuit, to help prevent snow blindness, carved snow goggles from reindeer antlers. Those goggles were curved to fit the user's face, protecting the eye from UV radiation. Anyhow this solution wasn't possible for reindeers, so biologists started wondering how Arctic mammals adapted to survive in those conditions. It resulted that they did not only adapted to tolerate those conditions but also used  them as an evolutionary advance becoming able to perceive UV light. This brought them many advantages. In fact their primary food, lichens, and fur of their predator both adsorbed UV light and made them stand out the snowy landscape, that reflects light.

A deep understanding of how reindeer prevented  UV rays from being dangerous  could be useful to treat loss of vision with age. In fact the loss of central photoreceptors over the course of life could be related to light exposure. Understanding how and why Arctic mammals adapted to those extreme conditions could be fundamental to prevent and treat loss of vision with age.

Myths about our Learning Brain

Brain is a very complex structure, made of almost 100 billions neurons. Since the beginning of human history, many disciples tried to study it and to treat its diseases. A prominent importance was also given to the study of human behavior, and its connection with those unknown mental processes.  A lot of progress had been done in this field, but we are still far from a complete comprehension of brain. 

Science in fact gave among the years many wrong explanation of how brain works, and those mistakes are still widely accepted, even though they had been proved wrong. The complexity of brain  lead to a widespread simplification on topics related to it. Once this branch of science was held only by a limited amount of people, but nowadays more and more people are basing their brain-knowledge on urban myths. This kind of behavior can be dangerous, especially if those methods are applied to children's education. In fact it can indeed lead parents to adopt teaching methods that can affect children's growth.  Those are the most common wrong ideas about our learning brain.

1. We use 10% of brain: brain  scans had shown that, no matter what we are doing, our brain is always active. Some areas are less active than others, depending on the activity, but no one is ever completely turned off.  In addition to the 100 billions neurons brain is in fact full of other types of cells, that are always on use. So studying harder will not light up unused neural circuits.
2. Left and right brain people are different: the idea that we have a rational left brain and an intuitive and artistic right has no scientific basis. In fact, according to  John McCrone, language turned out to be represented on both sides of the brain. Areas on the left dealt with aspects of speech such as grammar, while aspects such as intonation lit up the right side. Likewise the right brain proved to be good at general sense of space, while left brain worked when someone thought about objects at particular locations. Humans use both hemispheres for all cognitive functions.
3. Learn one language before one other: the idea of interfering languages suggest that different areas of the brain compete for the same resources. In truth children who learn two languages gain a better knowledge of their structure. Furthermore bilingual children resulted to be more creative and more prepared to solve complex problem than others.
4. Brains of male and female work differently: of course there are many differences in male and female brains, but no one results in how networks of neurons connect while learning new skills. In fact sex differences emerged with evolution because man and woman faced different selective pressure. So sex differences must be adaptive, because brain got used to work toward different goals.