Precambrian on the brain

Spent a few hours living in the past during visit to Museum of the Earth (Ithaca, NY).

Did a sketch on the progression of the Precambrian period which is rarely represented to any extent in museums.

Which is weird because that is when life first appeared. Sure, it didn't have the fantastic creatures that started appearing in the Cambrian Radiation (I don't use the more common 'Explosion' because it insinuates all life magically happened in an instant). But to me it is more intriguing. Partly because we know less about it.

Yet, we do know that what we consider life first began before oxygen filled our atmosphere. Life then was anaerobic: without oxygen. And appeared only in water, not surprising since the planet was mostly covered with water back then. Water is H2O (hydrogen dioxide), but the two hydrogen atoms are tightly held on to the oxygen. So there was little oxygen in our atmosphere (which was then water vapor, methane, and ammonia).

Bacteria, and their appearance, is what we call the first 'life'. The cog in the wheel is that it depends on how we define 'life', but that's another long topic (which is embroiled in debate within the scientific community). Finding fossils of bacteria have been difficult: partly because they are so small, and partly that most of the rocks from that time period are also rare.

Our planet formed 4.6 billion years ago; a ball of gas, water vapor and hot molten minerals. The planet cooled enough for water to appear ~4.4 bya and cover the planet. A mineral crust began forming ~4.04 bya (called the Hadean eon) and the earliest fossils found are dated 3.5 bya.

Between that time (4.2-3.5 bya) the fist single cells formed. The Last Universal Common Ancestral (LUCA) cell population from which all subsequent life forms descended is estimated to be 3.5 bya. This is estimated from genome compilation (which implies that genes had to be present!).

But! before then was a first universal common ancestor (FUCA). A non-cellular entity is proposed that was the earliest organism with a genetic code capable of performing biological translation of RNA molecules to protein formation through peptides synthesis. In other words, it had to contain enough information to copy itself and evolve. Well, how did that come about?

And that is where my keen fascination is ignited. Hence, my interest in the Precambrian period. But all this is also absent from the museums. However, a few hypotheses are tossed around and debated on the process of how life originated. Yet, if we restrict it to the conventional definition (really a perspective) of life, it excludes possible candidates that were integral in that process.

I'm following two scientists active in this search: biochemist Nick Lane and astrophysicist Sara Imari Walker. They think outside the box. But more on that later. 

Living in an area under the curve

Being neurodivergent is sometimes like being a data point on a normal area under the curve. That especially becomes apparent when navigating society, including health care, insurance, and public policy. Our current state of the US is a perfect example where an outlier on that curve is a target for ridicule, harassment, or a political object. It all complicates understanding and interacting with each other. 

To aid navigation through life and society we want to understand ourselves, be understood by others, and accepted for who we are. We usually seek guidance in the first step, which is often thorny:

"Occasionally I wonder what my life would be like if a doctor had ever actually settled on "You are THIS type of neurospicy". I've had, in my life, three attempts at diagnosis, and it's always "You're not quite [thing], but have aspects of it."

My take on this (with help from a neurodivergent neuroscientist/psychologist colleague) follows: the brain is 'plastic', which means it functions in a myriad of ways to enact with & survive in its environment. And no two minds are alike.

Humans like 'boxes' into which they place and label animate and inanimate things. It helps us understand and communicate with others. Medical and insurance communities require and assign labels as guides to categorize physical/mental states and to navigate social systems: care, policy, education, etc. But they do not fully represent the reality.

Each category (box) has a probability of a standard normal distribution (area under the curve), which is agreed upon by a community of practitioners and researchers. For mental states and function the official guide is the DSM. It is not accurately representative of the full diversity of mental function because its goal is to determine 'normal' & 'pathology' (or 'outliers', if you will). What determines 'normal' is that middle area under the curve (AUC), but is also a biased interpretation (socially constructed). Humans are complicated. 

Thus 'diagnoses' (which I don't like because it implies pathology) are attempts to categorize and put labels on the way your brain functions. But they don't fully capture the reality. Boundaries of those categories are fluid, often unspecific and flow into another. A good discussion and graphic for autism is addressed in this recent article.

Increasing opinion by practitioners & researchers is that other neurodiverse traits currently excluded be added to the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) category: ADHD, bi-polar, anxiety disorder, etc. All these can co-exist, should be recognized & included in a diagnosis. Or minimally be included in ongoing discussion with each practitioner and client.

I was told when learning my 'label' and category (2007) that my primary traits aligned with autism, specifically 'Asperger's syndrome'. I also fit the criteria of "mild" ADHD. However, medically and legally, I could not be both. According to the DSM-4, my category had to be one or the other. (see footnote below)

As my colleague explained both autism and ADHD can co-occur regardless of the strict criteria and categorization in the DMS-4. If I wanted his analysis added to my medical records, it would be 'Asperger's Syndrome'. (I chose not to have it documented for reasons explained in an earlier post.) 

Research in the last two years indicate that a significant percentage of people with ASD also exhibit symptoms of ADHD, and vice versa. The overlap is more inclusive of the reality of traits and function. Yet it can complicate diagnosis and therapy. Both conditions share some behavioral or cognitive characteristics but can also have distinct features.

Regardless of a diagnosis label, individuals can discover more about themselves and other neurodivergents through conversations sharing experiences and testimony. It's less about what label you are than more about who you are as a person. The best way is to meet other ND people and learn from each other. 
______________________________________________________

Note: A newer addition, DSM-5, eliminated the Asperger's label and incorporated those criteria into the Autism Spectrum Disorder category. Also, DSM-5 allows for the co-diagnosis of ASD and ADHD conditions, but the current colloquial term AuDHD is not included. 

Every Day

 

America's Horrible Tyranny Virus

I'm having a hard time understanding the horror in this country. 

It's like an alternate reality where the horror is a tyrannical dictator virus running the country. Two monsters in the same embodiment. And zombies are everywhere; brainless hands groping for something that satisfies their raging anger while those with brains hide behind their walls and doors pretending nothing is wrong. 

Religion in horror and America

Came upon this essay accidentally this morning. The irony is that this (growing up in religious schools) was a topic in three conversations last week* (different people who lived it; one called it the "school of hypocrisy"). While I can't really contribute to the conversation because I didn't have that experience, I've known many who did live it. Including my father.

As author C. J. Leede comments, the roots run deep, perhaps a thousand years ago. Although, my limited experience in Europe suggests that perhaps it's influence may no longer be as strong in many places there. A French colleague once mentioned that many hundreds of years of religious wars there makes people weary and wary of religious repression and control (have heard similarly of Asia). Obviously, some countries are still willing to kill and maim in the name of their gods, such as many places in the Middle East. And treat women like property and dogs. I find this tantamount to extreme hypocrisy and excuse for patriarchal control. 

Regardless, the bad vapors of religion manifest in various ways. Many times permeating and fusing with capitalism, and, as the US is a perfect example of current times, politics. Some mistake religious piety for greed. As I mentioned in our conversation on Friday, the demon in the box pulling the strings is power. Greed and power seem to be twins, so can't delineate where one begins and the other ends. They are joined at the hips. Or, perhaps, the brain. 

"When I ask myself why I wrote 'American Rapture,' why I read religious horror or watch it on the screen, when I really stop and think, what do I wish more than anything I had known when I was a young girl trying to step into herself?

It’s this: Repression—religious or otherwise—is the horror. Ignorance is what we should fear. What makes us all ill-equipped for moving through life as humans in natural human bodies.

And maybe little girls aren’t born into more sin than little boys. Maybe sin is just an idea we’ve created for control. A powerful little beast that preys on all of us every day, in and outside of fiction. And maybe it’s one we just don’t need to feed anymore. - C. J. Leede"  

* These people whom I had these conversations with were unconnected, nor did I initiate the aforementioned topic. This suggests people may actually be thinking about such subjects. I interpret that as a good sign, aka maybe hope?

The never-ending questions

The running theme in this blog, perhaps in my entire life, has been on reality, or what we think may be reality. What is reality?  Is that a valid question?

As author, literary agent, and 'thinker' John Brockman once proclaimed, he has had a lifelong obsession with asking questions, especially "the" question: "What is the last question?". 

Brockman's first book on pondering questions was By The Late John Brockman, published in 1969. In his own words, it was "about the idea of interrogating reality". Most would respond by declaring this is useless philosophy, thereby concluding it all meaningless. Yet each and every one of us plays apart in it, and without it. (As suggested in the movie, "The Matrix") Most of us just aren't aware of it. 

"Reality as a whole is unmeasurable except through effect. The unity is in the methodology, in the writing, reading, in the navigation. This system cannot provide us with ultimate answers, nor does it present the ultimate questions. There are none."*

This also precipitated his vision of the 'Third culture' consisting of "those scientists and other thinkers in the empirical world who, through their work and expository writing, are taking the place of the traditional intellectual in rendering visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are." 

In 1988 Brockman and others created The Edge Foundation, an association of science and technology intellectuals. It was also an outgrowth of The Reality Club, a gathering (historically called a 'salon') of intellectuals based in NYC and held by a host. From 1981 through 1996 many well known scientists, authors, artists, technologists, and entrepreneurs met for presentations, 'round-table' discussions, seminars, etc. It retired to a virtual  presence on The Edge website in 1996. (A link on the sidebar has been posted when I created this blog in 2005.)

Despite frequently following the website after I first discovered The Edge (~1998), life became complicated and I lost track of it. An academic career sometimes consume the only existence in one's life, especially in LAC (Life After Children). I was busy "interrogating" small subsets of reality. 

It was with sadness (on my part) that Brockman ran out of questions and announced in 2018 the finale to The Edge project with the question, "WHAT IS THE LAST QUESTION?". 

"Ask 'The Last Question,' your last question, the question for which you will be remembered."

Possibly the best tribute to The Edge was in a ''moratorium'' by lecturer and writer Kenan Malik in The Guardian. The excerpt below gave me some private satisfaction in that I have always relayed similarly to students, children, colleagues, lab members, friends, relatives, and, many times, here on this blog: ask questions. (despite the frustrations of many).

"Asking questions is relatively easy. Asking good questions is surprisingly difficult. A bad question searches for an answer that confirms what we already know. A good question helps to reset our intellectual horizons. It has an answer that we can reach, yet unsettles what we already know."

 One response on the webpage, which may not really qualify as an answer for some, is one of my favorites. As we often say in the scientific fields, answers to a question may only be more questions.

"The final elegance: assuming, asking the question. No answers. No explanations. Why do you demand explanations? If they are given, you will once more be facing a terminus. They cannot get you any further than you are at present. The solution: not an explanation: a description and knowing how to consider it."**

Many people are unsettled by that, but it is the reality. Perhaps it is a very simple single question with no explanation. Just like reality.

________________________________________________________

 * John Brockman, By The Late John Brockman, 1969, Macmillon. The Kindle format can be accessed on Amazon.com. Hard copies are >$70.

** Ludwig Wittgenstein, Zettel, eds. G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright, trans. G. E.

Genetics is like a musical score

Amadeus Mozart and Ludwig van Beethoven may be the most genetically studied musicians of all time. Why is that? Because their music is famous and loved? Because their personal history is full of celebrity and drama? Or are they just favorites of geneticists?

The narrative in most of the published studies is to understand the interaction between musical sounds and humans. I'm still not sure if this can be completely solved because music is more than just sound. It is a musical 'language', with or without words, that interacts with with the human mind and body. However, because we are a curious species, we seek to learn about those connections. And, as I suspect, the two famous composers have had a growing foundation of research on which to build upon. 

A recent study* explores if genetic factors can determine extraordinary musical achievements. If that is so, then how do genes contribute or determine a person's musicality? This isn't a new query; geneticists have examined similar questions by studying the two famous composers for decades. However, recent advancements in molecular genetics allow scientists to probe deeper into human DNA, sometimes restudying old questions or asking new ones, especially of long-dead people.

Then again, when studying humans, sometimes these newer studies only confirm older results. 

“An analysis of the famous composer's genetic make-up has revealed that DNA data has so far been too imprecise in capturing a person's abilities.” 

In this recent study, an international team of researchers analyzed Beethoven’s DNA to investigate if and how any differences in his genes may account for his celebrated musical exceptionalism. 

The deeper question is, how much can genes impact human traits, especially behavior? When considering a bird or a lizard, probably quite a bit. But humans are “messy.” There is no single quantitative or qualitative line that divides genetically determined and learned human behavior. This is the age-old “nature versus nurture” dilemma. The lines are fuzzy.

Ludwig van Beethoven was born in Bonn (a major city in Germany), which was at that time the capital of the Electorate of Cologne and partly dominated by Roman archbishops. He moved to Vienna (1792), Austria, to flee a dysfunctional family and meet other musicians. 

During this time in history Napoleon restructured France (1789) and regions north including Bonn (1794) and Vienna (1805) after the famous French revolution. Beethoven supported Napoleon's reformations and composed his famous third symphony naming it “Napoleon”.  After Napoleon proclaimed himself Emperor (1804) Beethoven rescinded the Napoleon dedication and renamed it “Eroica”. He even refused to play this symphony in front of French soldiers.

Beethoven lived during a tumultuous era of wars and conflicts with rulers. It was the rise of the German Enlightenment period, transition from the Classical to Romantic era in art and music, almost constant family turmoil, and loss of hearing. He was a man full of emotion, conviction, and righteousness. As his music conveys, he was a man with passion. Are there genes for that?

The researchers analyzed DNA sequences available from an earlier study (2023) in which the composer’s DNA was extracted from strands of Beethoven's hair. The authors then developed a ‘polygenic score’, a number that summarizes the estimated effect of many genetic variants on an individual's trait or behavior. 

"Our aim was to use this polygenic score as an example of the challenges of making genetic predictions for an individual that lived over 200 years ago.”

They chose a specific component of music that had a score for “beat synchronization ability”, which is closely related to musicality. Beat perception and synchronization in humans is the degree to which an individual can synchronize their movements in time with a musical beat. In humans, it is commonly within 120 to 140 beats/minute and is frequently used in music composition. Ironically, beat synchronization was thought to be uncommon in non-human species and the mechanism determining the optimal tempo are unclear.

Although this was thought to be a human rhythm trait, a study in rats (2022) revealed that rats also showed head movements and neural recordings within the same range as humans. This suggests that "the optimal tempo for beat synchronization is determined by the time constant of neural dynamics conserved across species".

And Beethoven?

"The study found that Beethoven had an unremarkable polygenic score for general musicality compared to population samples from the Karolinska Institute, Sweden, and Vanderbilt University, USA. However, considering the limitations of the current polygenic scores and the fact that a genetic indicator for ‘beat synchronization ability’ may not directly tap into Beethoven’s composer skills (musical creativity), this finding is not unexpected.”

The genetic architecture of this trait is highly polygenic, meaning that it is influenced by many genes in the human genome. Authors identified 69 separate locations on the genome in which different genetic alleles (every person has two copies of a gene; they are called 'alleles') in the population account for some of the variability in how accurately people synchronize to a musical beat. 

Genes associated with beat synchronization are more likely to be genes involved in central nervous system function, including genes expressed in brain tissue and genes involved in early brain development. Recent studies also found that beat synchronization shares some of its genetic architecture with other traits, including several that are involved in biological rhythms (walking, breathing, and circadian rhythm). 

The polygenic score computes the sum of genetic effects associated with beat synchronization in each individual, but they are only a rough guess. It can tell us only what an individual’s likelihood of specific levels of beat synchronization would be in relation to the population-based model, but they do not correspond directly to an exact match with the person’s beat synchronization accuracy. Thus a person's beat synchronization may be a point amongst many in a wide area under the curve. And Beethoven's score may be lower than expected, but did that negatively impact his compositions?

“Although Beethoven had a rather low genetic predisposition for beat synchronization highlights the limitations of polygenic score predictions at the individual level. While polygenic score prediction is expected to get more accurate in the future, it is important to remember that complex human traits, including musical skills, are not determined solely by genes or the environment but rather shaped by their complex interplay.”

In conclusion the authors stated that the current study "only shows that we’ve been able to use genetics to explain a portion of the variability in beat synchronization skills (again, at the level of pooled data in a large study sample)."

When scientists talk about “heritability” they are referring to the amount of phenotypic variance explained by genetic variation. This does not mean that rhythm is only “genetic” versus only “environmental,” or that rhythm is genetic in certain people but not others.

"Scientifically we really can’t say for sure how and why an individual reaches (or does not reach) a certain level of musicality. So it’s not “either-or” but “both-and” genes and environment, and the incredibly complex biological interrelationships that occur during human development of musicality will take many, many more years of work to unravel!"

Studies of beat synchronization in humans and other species, such as in rats, found interesting genetic correlations between beat synchronization and a cluster of interrelated traits: walking pace, musculoskeletal strength, breathing function, and cognitive processing speed. Possibly even cadence in language! Additionally, the shared genetic architecture has implications for physical and cognitive function in neurodiverse people and during aging.

* "Was Beethoven unmusical?", Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Research News, published on website April 10, 2024 and accessed 20/08/2024.