The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 278 No 7434 p56
13 January 2007

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 80K, Acrobat Reader

Symbol of both death and immortality more
Co-operation as an element of evolution more
Happiness improves the sense of taste more
Science and Islam more

Symbol of both death and immortality

Yew, with its dark leaves and its fascinating red fruits, has a vast folklore background to its credit, from the slips of yew used by Macbeth's witches in 1606, to the broader concept embodied by Arthur Conan Doyle in his “White Company” (1891): “The bow was made in England / Of true wood, of yew wood? The wood of English bows”.

The yew is unique in being a symbol of both death and immortality, poisonous but able to live a long life and to produce fresh saplings. The custom of planting yews in churchyards probably spread to England from the Mediterranean in the 12th century, in imitation of the cypress and laurel used there. Two explanations have been offered — to ensure a source of longbows and to discourage farmers from grazing cattle in the churchyard. Neither version has been substantiated.

Yew trees thrive in woodlands in the shade of ash or beech. They can certainly be magnificent. They are thought to survive for as long as a thousand years, sometimes longer. As they age, their heartwood may rot and this can leave trees with huge cavities large enough to hold parties in.

Unfortunately, many massive yews that have been well documented from the 19th century or earlier have been lost in recent years. One of the most famous was the Selborne Yew. It was described by Gilbert White in 1789 and two centuries later had achieved a girth of eight metres. But in 1990 it was felled by a violent storm and its root system was severely damaged.

The tree’s age was estimated at 1,200 to 1,400 years and its stump remains in the churchyard as a memorial to White. Another yew raised from it has been planted nearby to continue the story.

Back to Top

Co-operation as an element of evolution

From a crude perspective, the evolution of species of plants and animals is based on fierce, often ruthless, competition between individuals for the necessities of daily living. This suggests that evolution is based on the rewards of selfish behaviour, with genes, cells and organisms regarded as designed to promote success at the expense of competitors. However, as a biologist from Harvard University points out in the 8 December 2006 issue of Science, collaboration rather than selfishness can be observed on many levels of biological organisation, with genes co-operating in genomes, chromosomes in eukaryotic cells and cells in multicellular organisms. Co-operation, he suggests, has also been the decisive factor in the organisation of human society from hunter-gatherers to nation states.

Today, however, we pay scant regard to helping one another, but instead spend much time in achieving a position of dominance that satisfies our own ego. Interactions tend to be fleeting and are often asymmetric — ie, one person helps another without any direct reciprocation, the only thing gained in return being the glow of self-satisfaction derived from engaging in charitable activity.

Selection acts not only on individuals but also on groups. This means that a group of co-operators can prove more successful than a non-co-operative group and this adds a new dimension to progress. The two principles deciding evolution are mutation and natural selection. Co-operation renders evolution constructive and never destructive. When competing units on the lower level start to co-operate, new levels of social organisation begin to promote biological diversity and thus the principle of natural co-operation becomes a third fundamental element of evolution.

Back to Top

Happiness improves the sense of taste

A note in the 15 December 2006 issue of Science draws attention to one effect of depression that adds to its lamentable sense of injured feelings. Many people who are depressed complain of a blunted sensation of taste when they eat or drink. However, the explanation of this reaction has never been adequately determined.

One possibility may be the diminished level of neurotransmitters in the brain, according to research at the University of Bristol. Healthy volunteers given a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, thus increasing their brain serotonin levels, reported increased sensitivity towards sweet and bitter tastes, while those given a noradrenaline-enhancing antidepressant became more sensitive to sour and bitter foods.

It is hypothesised that the effect takes place not in the brain but in the taste buds. Both serotonin and noradrenaline are known to be concerned with taste interpretation, but the concept that mood may be connected with taste bud activity is new. Sensitivity to sweetness and sourness may have a bearing on the choice of a patient’s medication. Further investigation into the connection between serotonin and taste transmissions is desirable.

Back to Top

Science and Islam

In the 30 November 2006 issue of Nature there are two letters from scientists concerned at the subtle influence they consider Islamic cultures exert upon the teaching and practice of scientific subjects.

Two scientists from Yemen stress that the biggest impediment to the progress of science in the Arab/Muslim world is not the faith but the absence of a scientific research culture and of national research strategies, combined with a failure of higher education systems. They point out, ironically, that the greatest contributions to science occurred during an era when Islam dominated the civilised world.

Research and education are inseparable, and the problem in the Arab world is the existence side by side of governmental and for-profit private institutions. Government institutions have no control over their resources, and faculty members are administrators often appointed on political grounds, not on merit. Substandard education and research are the result. Although the number of private universities in the Arab world is increasing, almost all are profit-driven and focus on small programmes.

To advance, say the critics, the countries concerned must create a scientific culture that recognises the values of higher education and research, set up merit based structures, promote academic freedom and independent scholarship, attract talent to the region — irrespective of religion, nationality or ideology — and separate politics from scientific education.

A culture that lacks these safeguards and fails to value its science cannot progress. Paternalistic cultures in the Islamic countries discourage inquiry and free expression in the home, at school, at work and in response to government policies.