The Passenger

Amazing! Giant Squid Pictures!

Japanese scientists Tsunemi Kubodera and Kyoichi Mori have successfully photographed a living Giant Squid. This is the first time that scientists have filmed a live giant squid in its natural, deep-water habitat. Most of what we know about the creatures comes from dead or dying specimens that have washed up on beaches. The photos were taken almost a year ago off the coast of Japan's Bonin islands. The Architeuthis was observed attacking bait that was suspended just about 3,000 feet below the surface. The squid--which the scientists believe was about 26 feet long--ferociously attacked the bait, aggressively wrapping its tentacles around it, and generally moving much faster than many people expected a giant squid would. One of its tentacles got stuck, and it spent several hours trying to free itself, before ripping the tentacle off (damn!) and swimming away. The tentacle (or at least tentacle part) was retrieved, and measured 18 feet when pulled aboard the research vessel.

In addition to the Washington Post article, also see the National Geograpic coverage, which features several astonishing picture.

The Straight Dope (Or, The Zebras Are Going DOWN)

(Below is a fine guest-post from Joel, a friend to man and zebra alike):

Since the dawn of mankind, the question has been asked, "Can man beat zebra in a footrace?". The Fox network attempted to answer that question in the fall of 2003 when they pitted sprinter Steve Crawford against a Zebra in a 100-meter race. America watched, and held it's collective breath. The zebra won. And it seemed to us that the animal kingdom had our number... until now. For those of us who derive a kind of joy from watching a sumo wrestler body slam a grizzly bear, or a hobo box a kangaroo, there is still hope- in something called "genetic doping".

But let's start at the beginning. Unless you've been vacationing in a deep dark cave this summer, you're aware of the steroid scandal that has rocked Major League Baseball. Rafael Palmeiro, one of the game's greatest sluggers of all time, recently flunked his drug test. It is just the latest in a series of events that began with the release of Jose Canseco's tell-all book, "Juiced." Canseco fingered a number of major leaguers for steroid use, Palmeiro among them, leading to congressional hearings and calls for more stringent testing methods. Many baseball fans were left wondering who else will be caught under the new regulations, and debating whether Palmeiro should still be considered a viable candidate for the baseball hall of fame. But this current scandal is only the tip of the iceberg. There is a bigger, meatier, and insanely muscled problem on the horizon; genetic (DNA) doping.

Intended as gene therapy for disorders like muscular dystrophy, genetic doping transfers genes directly into a person's own DNA. There is no testing for this in place, and it's potential appears nearly unlimited. Charles Yesalis, professor of Health policy and administration at Pennsylvania State University, is quoted in the peer reviewed science journal, 'The Young Investigators': "Think of a characteristic that's valuable in a particular sport, think of how much or how little of it you need... it can be changed."

Need super strength? Want to beat a zebra in a footrace? Not a problem, evidently.

Eventually, there will likely be a way to test for this–or maybe they will just be able to pick out the 400 pound block of pure muscle in a line-up of regular looking athletes. But until the Fox network cares enough about the human race to start drug testing it's freak-shows, we can, at the very least, be assured hours of mindless, superhuman entertainment in the future.

Joe Barton v. Science

Well, Joe Barton, Chairman of the House Commerce Committee is probing prominent climate researchers. Understandably, his fellow Republican Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the Science Committee, is pissed. In recent days they've exchanged angry letters and their spokesmen have dueled in the press. At issue is a probe into the work of Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, whose work, including the famous "hockey stick" chart, has been very influential in international circles. Boehlert questions whether or not the probe is being done in good faith. He thinks Barton, who doesn't support greenhouse gas emissions caps, is honestly interested in the findings, or is trying to pull a stunt to silence good scientists whose research he just wishes didn't exist.

A lot of scientists are protesting the probe (follow that link and scroll down to find the websites of each scientist, as well as the papers in question).

This is despressing because we've now gotten to the point where politicians are so closed-minded that when they are presented with scientific data that demonstrates a problem, they don't put their heads together to think up a result. Instead, they attack the experts.

In the Washington Post, David Ignatius sees "political intimidation" as the motive. But then, Barton is bought and paid for by the energy lobby. Who Ignatius says chipped in over half a million dollars for his last campaign.

Here's a link to Barton's fundraising information. You might notice that on route to picking up two-thirds of the vote, Barton raised more than five times the amount of money from the energy industry as his opponent spent on the whole campaign. Granted, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, thanks to lobbyists and industry PACs, Barton raised over twenty times what his opponent could muster.

No Alarm Bells? Sure. Controversy? Yes Please!

In The New York Times, Gardner Harris reports that two women in California have died of bacterial infections after taking RU-486, also known as Mifeprex. In the article, Dr. Steven Galson, who is the director of the FDA's center for drugs says that "There are no alarm bells going off because of this rate, but we are watching it closely." The "rate" he is referring to is the approximately one death per 100,000 uses of the drug. This represents a similar risk as childbirth or surgical abortion. Galson also "emphasized that the agency did not know whether these infections were caused by the use of Mifeprex, the abortion medicine also known as misoprostol or RU-486."

Wait, so this new information, though a clear tragedy for the friends and family of the two women who died, is statistically irrelevant? And the cause of death is not 100% certain? Well then, good thing the headline "2 Women Die After Abortion Pills" doesn't lead the reader to any conclusions. Also good is that the Times got a quote from Wendy Wright, who is not a doctor or medical expert, to provide this helpful analysis: "Sadly, people who support RU-486 apparently believe the risk of death is preferable to having a child." Of course, her group frequently supports banning late-term abortion with no provisions made for saving the life of the mother, but whatever. And of course, if this report is even close to accurate, then RU-486 is actually safer than most prescription drugs given to patients in hospitals (though I'd like a better source for that claim).

This is not an issue that should be demagogued. Anything involving drug safety is very serious and worthy of investigation. From today's headlines though, this seems, of course relatively speaking-given that it involves two tragic deaths, to be a non-story, particularly with regard to the political issues of abortion and FDA drug approval.

Thus far Google News is registering 176 articles covering this story. That's more coverage than a new threat of terrorism in Saudi Arabia is getting.