Fire-Breathing

As a genetic engineer, I am often asked if I could create a fire-breathing dragon (or maybe that has more to do with the crowd I hang with).  In any case, I've given the subject considerable thought, and I would like to present to the world my speculative plan.

First of all, the physiological mechanics will be tough.  I've always felt the most plausible way to get the job done would be as shown in the illustration above, from the movie "Reign of Fire".  Mixing of two biologically inert substances should create instant fire a safe distance from the dragon, with minimal risk to the dragon from storing the two reactants.  Such hypergolic reactions I am presuming will be safer to living things than would be something pyrophoric (igniting upon contact with air), although the latter might be a simpler organismal engineering problem.  Going with a hypergolic dragon's breath, there are already good animals to start from, like spitting cobras.

From here one would need to identify the developmental genes related to fang structure and play around with them until you had a beast with fangs that would, across generations, reproducibly cross the venom stream in front of its face.  Presumably one might be able to engineer left/right asymmetry in the venom pits such that one produces only your hydrocarbon fuel (ethanol, isoprene, pristane, and squalene are all good candidates) and the other produces a sufficiently strong oxidizer to instantaneously produce flame upon mixing with the fuel.

So, how to play around with the venom sacs?  This will be tough as you will also need to introduce left-right tissue differentiation.  In fact it might be the toughest part of this chimeric invention.  I started off by trying to think of examples in nature of animals with asymmetrical organs.  Hearts don't really count because they are actually bilateral, but just squished to one side, and besides, what I'm really after is an organ that performs completely different biochemistry on the left than what it does on the right, so all the other major organs are out too, the pancreas, liver, gall bladder, etc.  Even the intestines and appendix are all still technically bilateral.  I started investigating the developmental genetic regulation behind the asymmetry of lobsters and fiddler crabs, and interestingly found that whichever claw they exercise more in their youth becomes the crusher, and the default becomes the cutter (fun fact, if they are deprived of exercise entirely, they become symmetrical cutters).  There is surely genetic regulation going on underneath that process, with induction most likely by proprioceptive signalling molecules, so that might be the way to tweak this, but I'm unsure how neatly this would link up to a pathway which enables the dramatic differences in biochemistry I want to see in each venom pit.  Let's just assume for now that we're going to hi-jack developmental pathways from lobsters to get the left/right differentiation, until I think of something better.

Next we'll need to come up with the specific biochemistry in each venom sack.  I already invoked a hydrocarbon/oxidizer mix, and there are already very good pathways in birds for synthesizing and storing combustible squalene and pristane, so it should be a snap to get that working in snakes.  It might be best to tweak this such that isoprene is the stored hydrocarbon, both for its greater volatility and for its lower combustion point.  The venom pit holding our strong oxidizer will be more tricky.  This is where my chemistry breaks down a little because I'm not sure if strong oxidizers like hydrogen peroxide or dinitrogen tetroxide are hypergolic with hydrocarbons like isoprene.  Fortunately there is an entire field of chemists dedicated to the study of "green" rocket propellants.  Although scant on specific details, this article implies that you can make a hydrocarbon (like kerosine) hypergolic with 90% H2O2 by mixing in some transition metals.  I'll look into it a little more but if this is not true I'll need to think of a biologically plausible way to make and store hydrazine in the fuel-storing venom pit.  For now I will assume that a metal-isoprene conjugate of some kind is hypergolic when mixed with 90% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and go on to ways of making and storing this oxidizer in the other venom pit.  This then brings me to the amazing Bombardier Beetle.

From the wiki - "In the mixing chamber the enzymes rapidly break down the hydrogen peroxide, releasing free oxygen, and catalyze the oxidation of the hydroquinones into p-quinones.  The reaction is very exothermic, and the released energy raises the temperature of the mixture to near 100 C, vaporizing about a fifth of it."  How awesome is that?!  Give up?  OK I'll tell you, its more awesome than defending an orphanage from the empire of Xerxes the second with a fleet of armored Apaches flown by T. Rex pilots on July 4th, 1776.

Let's get back on track though.  So we can import hydrogen peroxide biosynthesis and storage from beetle butts.  Apparently the H2O2 stored inside these beetles is impressively concentrated to 25%, but that's unfortunately still a very long way off from 90%.  We might require a few rounds of selective breeding here to get a stable line boosting that number up because otherwise our reaction won't be instantaneous, and we'll have mini-dragons slithering around spitting on people and then waiting around for a few minutes before they ignite.  Fearsome mythological beasts have no time for that.

For now though I think we have our rough hypothetical framework for the fire-breathing part of our dragon.  Since this was far more effort than I expected, I'll save the bits about flying and gold hoarding for a later post I think.

On the creation of the Manticore, and uses thereof.

I nearly forgot this blog existed.

I was daydreaming just now thinking to myself, "I should start a blog that discusses hypothethical techniques for creating mythical creatures of all kinds."  I've fooled around with creating these kinds of speculative fictions before, and it is a fun way to pass the hours.

So, that's all I have time for now, just an announcement that I may or may not be re-purposing this blog to create a collection of methods and protcols for the creation of fire-breathing dragons and elusive manticores.

What what?

Blogs. The word sounds very "2008". Cool kids used to write blogs. These days someone who speaks of their blog sounds like an inflated narcissist, or at best, out of touch with the modern blessings of a Facebook profile. My original excuse for abandoning this blog was simply the mental redirection necessitated by my new daughter. She's 2 years old and wonderful now though, so that excuse is no longer valid. No, I think if I choose to drop this vanity project entirely, it will be because I find it too quaintly solipsistic.

Oh and you know what? February is the shittiest month of all.

Announcement

First, let me apologize for not having posted in so long. Second, let me apologize for not making the following announcement earlier. Third, let me apologize for misinforming some of you that I had already made the following announcement on this blog.

The Annoucement:



Please see my wife's blog for more pictures and vastly better updates of how things are going.

"Organic"

The other day my wife saw a dry cleaners that advertised that they only used "Organic Solvents" in their dry cleaning processes. This amused the shit out of me, for you see, these clever dry cleaners know the actual meaning of the word and are using it accurately, but also deceptively, in a way. The most commonly accepted definition of the word "organic" is - relating or belonging to the class of chemical compounds having a carbon basis; "hydrocarbons are organic compounds". As you all know, over the past decade or so, the word "organic" has been saddled with a new meaning, a meaning promoted by trendy mega-corporations like Whole-Foods, Trader Joe's and Wegman's. The new meaning is of course the fourth down in the above linked list - of or relating to foodstuff grown or raised without synthetic fertilizers or pesticides or hormones; "organic eggs"; "organic vegetables"; "organic chicken".

You see, all dry cleaners use organic solvents. Organic solvents are solvents made of carbon atoms, as opposed to aqueous solvents which are typically made of oxygen (ie: water, H2O) that's why they call it "dry cleaning". The cleaning isn't done with water (an aqueous solvent, aka "wet") but instead with an organic solvent ("dry"). The most commonly used dry cleaning solvent is tetrachloroethylene, an obviously organic solvent (first definition), but simultaneously a decidedly non-organic solvent (fourth definition).

The clever dry cleaners my wife discovered were clearly using the technical meaning in their advertised "Organic Solvents" yet I fully expect that the dry cleaners were hoping certain customers would only be aware of the newer, marketing-driven meaning and think to themselves, "oh wow, this dry cleaning place must be really environmentally conscious". Don't get me wrong here, environmental consciousness is a good thing. What I think is wrong is to redefine words in the English language strictly for marketing purposes. All of the pesticides and herbicides used in industrial agriculture today are organic (carbon-based) as are all things made of carbon (like all foods, regardless of how they are grown (first definition)). As and aside; a few herbicides and pesticides exist which are non-organic because they are instead made of heavy metals. Ironically, these non-organic, heavy metal-based pesticides and herbicides are used only in organic farming.

Anyway, because of marketing giants like Whole Foods, actual government regulations have been passed that outline how foods must be raised to be labeled as organic (fourth definition). So today we have a situation whereby a food can be both organic and non-organic simultaneously depending upon whether you are speaking with someone who has taken an introductory chemistry class, or someone who shops at Whole Foods out of "principle". If you happen to fall into both categories, I expect you've had to rationalize things by context.

As a last point, if you happen to align more with the Whole Foods camp and perhaps feel that the fourth definition has now surpassed the first definition of the word "organic", let me make myself a little more clear. The first definition, "relating or belonging to the class of chemical compounds having a carbon basis" is a technical definition. It is like when doctors refer to your stomach area as your abdomen, or when scientists refer to an atom with two protons as helium. It is a solid term that has been defined and used for centuries now and is never going to change. I only wonder if these days some uninformed college students are enrolling in undergraduate Organic Chemistry (a med school requisite class) thinking that they will learn all about the chemistry of Organic Farming techniques. If so, I blame the marketing department at Whole Foods and the like for their contributions in the dumbing down of America. I salute my local dry cleaners for re-annexing the word "organic" for its originally intended purpose.

DHA

So as many of you know, my wife and I have been trying to get pregnant for a while now. Here's a great article that was on NPR's "Morning Edition" today, relevant to mom's and baby's health and DHA.

Click the link at the top of the article to "listen" to the show as it was aired on today's "Morning Edition"

Happy Halloween!

I had a lot of trouble working up some Halloween spirit this year for some reason. But alas, I've finally found some. I decided to leave work early to buy some candy and put up some of our easier decorations. We'll at least have the bare essentials. In any case, I've found a new artist today, and he's definitely good to check out not just for Halloween, but any time. I present Cyriak Harris.


<-->

WoW

I felt the need to come in here and dust off this blog (now if I could just work up the motivation to re-paint the guest room). Apologies for not posting for so long (almost 8 weeks!). So, let's see, what have I been up to lately? Well for one, I've picked up my wife's addiction to World of Warcraft, and with it has come an indoctrination into the whole "WoW" subculture, which perhaps surprisingly, is populated primarily by 30-somethings. And by "subculture" all I really mean is short web videos that may be funny on their own, but are funniest when you are familiar with the WoW universe. Like this:

First I should probably throw up the one everyone sees on Sundays during football games, the new Toyota Tacoma ad.

Next there's the famous Onyxia Wipe. This raid leader just loses his mind.

Now we have Teremus the Devourer, who is led to Ironforge by an Elven Druid named Punchcat - solo. The video is 11 minutes long and only really funny to WoWers, so if that isn't you, just skip to the next video. Wiki here.

And lastly, my all time favorite - Leeroy Jenkins!
Wiki here.

Remember folks, don't be a Leeroy.

Anyway, if any of you readers have the inclination to try playing WoW, get in touch. My wife and I play on the Shandris realm and love playing with good groups.

I've converted to PM

I have a friend with whom I sometimes have conversations which often perplex me at a certain point. Until now, I had no way of dealing with the point this friend would make, as I was utterly unfamiliar with it. The perplexing assertion in question is that all knowledge, including Scientific knowledge, is culturally relative and not objective. I've come to learn that this is a classical post-modernist argument, and in recognizing this, I have been able to dig a little deeper into the subject. I eventually came across the paper quoted in part below. After reading it I have decided that indeed, knowledge is culturally relative and not objective. Science is a myth, and rational thought is an artifact. The scientific method produces illusions and reality is only perception.

The Absurdity of Truth: Nihilism, the conceptual paradigm of consensus and nationalism
F. Rudolf Porter
Department of English, Carnegie-Mellon University
John K. Tilton
Department of Politics, University of North Carolina

1. Precultural appropriation and subcapitalist structural theory

If one examines the prematerialist paradigm of context, one is faced with a choice: either reject precultural appropriation or conclude that society, ironically, has significance, given that consciousness is distinct from culture. The primary theme of Brophy’s[1] analysis of subcapitalist structural theory is the stasis, and thus the failure, of capitalist sexual identity.

In the works of Rushdie, a predominant concept is the distinction between closing and opening. But nihilism states that the significance of the reader is deconstruction. Any number of narratives concerning the bridge between consciousness and sexual identity may be discovered.

In a sense, Lyotard uses the term ’subcapitalist structural theory’ to denote the genre of subdialectic truth. Debord promotes the use of capitalist neocultural theory to attack sexism.

Therefore, many theories concerning subcapitalist structural theory exist. Bataille suggests the use of textual feminism to analyse class.

In a sense, the premise of subcapitalist structural theory suggests that government is intrinsically dead. Several discourses concerning a postdeconstructivist reality may be found.

However, in The Ground Beneath Her Feet, Rushdie examines nihilism; in Midnight’s Children he deconstructs subcapitalist structural theory. The subject is interpolated into a capitalist neotextual theory that includes consciousness as a totality...


For other essays which had a similar impact on me, please visit this link.

For the rest of the above essay, visit this link instead.

Rabbit in the Moon

I saw Rabbit in the Moon perform at the 9:30 club last night. I could go on for pages about how awesome the music was and how thrilling the visual performance was, but that would take a bunch of space, and others have done it better than I would at the moment anyway. Instead I'd rather focus this post on the one part of the night that was most pleasantly surprising to me.

Let me first just mention that Rabbit in the Moon are touring to promote their new album, "Decade" - a most aptly named work. You see, my wife an I met at a rave a little more than a decade ago, and electronic music has long been a source of bonding between us. In fact, the last time we saw Rabbit in the Moon perform was almost exactly a decade ago. The whole brain-tingling experience last night made my life feel recursive in the best way. The crowd was great, giving off that awesome good-vibey, dare I say, "PLUR" attitude all night. I had thought that this kind of music-based, neo-techno-hippyish culture was dead and forgotten. I'm now thinking that thought was cynical, and am interested in trying to see if I can find that vibe elsewhere again.

One quick anecdote from the night and I'll stop gushing. Chris met the cutest pair of young kids who, with their small group of friends, thought Chris was a great dancer (I was somewhere else at the moment). The girl of the pair wanted to pinch Chris' ass while she was dancing, but was too shy, so her girlfriend did it instead, and thus introductions were made (I had come back at this point). Anyway, when these two young lovers found out that Chris and I were happily married, and had been in the techno scene for 15 years or so, and were still having this kind of fun, they just couldn't contain their happiness for us. It was really sweet. I could tell that they were looking at us as something like role models, an image of what their fresh pairing could look like in a decade. At one point, the boyfriend said, "You guys make us really happy". Great kids, I started feeling protective of them.

It's tough enough keeping a good relationship going right, and frankly if people hear you met your special someone "at a rave" I know from our own experience that people are skeptical that what you have is genuine, and think it won't last. I like to think that Chris and I are living proof that all those assholes were wrong about us, and will continue to be wrong about the younger ones making it work like Chris and I have and do. Props to the young.