Home > PJ (current issue) > Onlooker | Search

PJ Online homeThe Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 275 No 7364 p266
27 August 2005

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 110K, Acrobat Reader

Onlooker

DNA clue to early human migrations in America more
Can the Royal Society justify its existence? more
Why the scientific community and the political world need to work closely together more
Citizen of the world more


DNA clue to early human migrations in America

Chumash tribe of CaliforniaIn the 14 July issue of Nature there is an intriguing account of an investigation into the early migrations of humans from southern Alaska into new territories in Illinois, California, Mexico, Ecuador and Chile.

Human remains, including a mandible and some teeth, were discovered in 1996 in a cave on Prince of Wales Island off the coast of Alaska. They yielded a radiocarbon date of 10,300 years before present.

Attempts to extract telltale DNA samples from the mandible bone failed but teeth yielded mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down the maternal line, and Y-chromosome DNA, which is inherited by the male route.

When the mitochondrial DNA was compared with some 3,500 specimens derived from native American sources there were 47 matches achieved. Most of them used material from modern individuals but some used older material up to 1,500 years old. More than half the matches related to members of the coastal tribes of the Cayapa in Ecuador. Others related to individuals of the Chumash tribe of California, the Klunk Mound tribe of Illinois, the Tarahumara of Mexico, and the Mapuche and Yaghan of Chile.

The original DNA carriers are believed to have originated in Asia, showing a close match with members of the Han ethnic group from Qindao in eastern China. These findings demonstrate that in the early world of human culture there must have been an almost incredible number of tribal movements, many of them remaining to be detected as the fine art of DNA testing gathers momentum.

Back to Top


Can the Royal Society justify its existence?

The tricky question of whether or not the Royal Society continues to justify its existence was raised in an editorial in The Lancet for 21 May. The organisation was established in 1660, and became in title the Royal Society in 1662. It originated in meetings of philosophers and scientists first held at Gresham College from 1645. In 1710 the society moved into Fleet Street, in 1780 into Somerset House and in 1857 into Burlington House. To be elected one of its fellows became the highest ambition of scientists in all disciplines.

But in 2005 the criticism was made that as an institution of standing the Royal Society was failing to display anything of public value and was showing sad signs of withering. Inevitably there was a backlash from supporters of the Society over the idea that the prestigious Royal Society was reaching the end of its usefulness as a guide to sound scientific endeavour, and evidence of this feeling appeared in The Lancet for 15 June.

The clash between the Society and The Lancet was described in the BMJ for 2 July. The question was raised of why the critics had received so much publicity. In particular, the performance of the Royal Society was contrasted with that of the Institute of Medicine, an offshoot of the National Academy of Sciences in the US.

Of course, the possibly superficial criticism of how far medicine is today benefiting from the deliberations of the Royal Society will spur scientists to greater efforts to defend the historic institution to which they have been linked for so many fruitful years.

Back to Top


Why the scientific community and the political world need to work closely together

An editorial in Chemistry World for July raises the thorny problem of the interaction between science and politics.

This is an important issue, for those working in science are fully entitled to freedom of opinion and expression and should not be leant upon by political factions who find their reports and conclusions distasteful and an impediment to pursuing policies. At the same time, scientific research plays an immense role in informing and influencing those who take political decisions on behalf of citizens in general.

The controversy was sparked by a decision taken by the Association of University Teachers on 22 April to blacklist two Israeli universities. The union‘s members had wrongly been persuaded that the univseristies threatened the academic freedom of their scientists. A number of institutions, including the Royal Society in the UK and the American Association in the US, condemned this stance, and a special meeting of the AUT council on May 26 overturned the boycott resolution.

It has been pointed out that science has a duty to support developing countries and that developed countries help the cause of science in Africa important political decisions such as providing clean water and countering the spread of some infectious diseases cannot be taken and enforced. Scientists in Africa, in particular, need to know that they have the support of others elsewhere, so that they may progress with their own research. Scientists and politicians are both deeply involved in the question of climate change and the need to cut greenhouse emissions, as they are also in the need to tackle malaria and AIDS. Solving these problems calls both for technical advances in science and for sound government policies. The two roles must be mutually involved if progress is to be pursued.

Back to Top


And I quote …

Citizen of the world
“Among all the famous sayings of antiquity, there is none that does greater honour to the author, or affords greater pleasure to the reader (at least if he be a person of a generous and a benevolent heart) than that of the philosopher who, being asked what countryman he was, replied, that he was ‘a citizen of the world’. How few are there to be found in modern times who can say the same, or whose conduct is consistent with such a profession! We are now become so much Englishmen, Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Spaniards, or Germans, that we are no longer citizens of the world; so much the natives of one particular spot, or members of one petty society, that we no longer consider ourselves as the general inhabitants of the globe, or members of the grand society which comprehends the whole of human kind.”
— Oliver Goldsmith (1728–74) in Essay XI, National Prejudices.

Back to Top


©The Pharmaceutical Journal