Can dogs smell cancer?

Can dogs smell cancer?

Yes, they can!

To find out more: visit Cancer is Weird, my blog on all things cancer.

The Entropy Conundrum.

There's a question I've heard on more than one occasion.

"Doesn't evolution or life itself violate the second law of thermodynamics?"

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system must always increase. And entropy is a measure of the disorderliness of a system.

So, I've been reading Nick Lane's book 'The Vital Question', and I've come across a few interesting ideas.

Apparently, there's a lot of difference between things that "seem disordered" and things that "are disordered".

An example is:

While an irregular mixture of oil and water might seem less orderly than the lipid bi-membrane of a cell, it is not so,

Lane argues that this conundrum arises because we tend to ignore the subtle balance between a system and its environment.

A lipid bi-membrane is a stable, low energy configuration of molecules, and in achieving that configuration, the molecules lose heat. The overall entropy increases.

I suppose the same argument might be applied to explain the evolution of some, if not all molecular machinery in the early cell prototypes.

While the example I've chosen here, from Lane's book, is quite simple, I would love to know about the changes in entropy when considering a more complex organic molecule,


Any input regarding the same, can be shared in the comments section.

P.S. I'll be sharing my thoughts on the book, as and when I read it. I would highly recommend reading "The Vital Question", as it tries to answer some of the most difficult, yet fundamental questions in biology.

Nanoparticles in motion?

So, we've formally defined nanoparticles as any particle of the size range 1-100 nm (where 1 nm = 0.000000001 m). And this is the scale at which nanotechnology operates.However, I was thinking about nanomachines in nature. Nanorobots that have come alive through the process of evolution.

I'm talking about viruses. Yes, those pesky little things that make you sick. Viruses pose a problem, however. We don't know whether to classify them as alive or dead. Before we make an attempt to do that, we need to understand what the term "life" means and define what a living thing is.

The Nobel laureate physicist Erwin Schrodinger defined life this way: "Living things avoid decay into disorder and equilibrium". And that's a pretty good definition. Also, it means that viruses are very much alive. Viruses replicate, have DNA/RNA as genetic information, a boundary of proteins that separates it from the environment and are subject to evolution.

I like to think of viruses as nanorobots as plenty of viruses fit in the formal definition of a nanoparticle. The smallest dsDNA viruses are the hepadnaviruses such as Hepatitis B, at 42 nm; parvoviruses have smaller capsids, at 18-26 nm. As a whole the viral family geminiviridae is only about 30 nm in length. However, the two capsids making up the virus are fused, divided the capsids would be 15 nm. (Source: click here)

So, while we began thinking about nanoparticles in the early 1960s, nature was already engineering its own nanorobots for millions (perhaps billions) of years.

So, are we alone in the universe? (Fermi's Paradox)

Given that the universe is 93,000,000,000 light years, and each light year is equal to 9,461,000,000,000 kms, we've got a lot of space to begin with. In that space, there exist billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars having trillions of planets. 

Also, the universe started out somewhere around 14,000,000,000 years ago, so we've got a lot of time, too. However, I think, considering our universe's chaotic past, a major chunk of time was not a good time for life to evolve.

So, any life-form in the universe must have begun roughly 4,000,000,000-6,000,000,000 years ago as Earth is considered to be among the oldest habitable planets.

Just pondering over these numbers will convince you that life exists elsewhere. And that's a good enough assumption. Or is it?

For more information, click here. Or watch an amazing video by Kurzgesagt on YouTube by clicking here.

Science and religion: Will it blend?

December 4th, last day at my first international science conference.

I am waiting for my uncle to pick me up from the university, when I overhear an interesting conversation between a student from the university and a guest.

The student says "My family is a family of pundits (Hindu scholars of religious scripture). We've been pundits for the last ten generations, and I'm the first to break the tradition and venture into science. My father's never impressed with my work. He just says "His (God's) power still holds, where science reaches it's limits." I don't think he'll ever appreciate what I do."

Similarly, my uncle asked me about stem cells at the dinner table that night and after listening to me talk for the next 10 minutes, he laughed it off ,saying "Great! But I'm not impressed until they can make a soul."

My neighbour's daughter, 12 years old, asks me "Our theology teacher at school says that science is a bad thing. And learning science is wrong. Do you think so?"

My reply, of course, was that her dear teacher is wrong. And if she is right, she should immediately stop using anything that is the product of science. Which, I know for a fact, isn't possible.

So, are science and religion compatible?

The answer is not simple.

So, what's the issue?

Religion has long been portrayed as the enemy of science and reason, supposedly due to lack of evidence of a higher power, and the failure of religion to solve mankind's problems.

This idea of incompatibility between science and religion, I believe, arose in the West prominently due to famous incidents such as the case of Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake for being a heretic. His fault? To conjecture that the stars are like our sun, each having their own planets, and that the universe is infinite.

Galileo Galilei is famous for being labeled a heretic by the church for advocating the heliocentric model of the solar system, rather than the Aristotelian geocentric model.

The Muslim world, once flourishing in the sciences, went downhill after the Islamic scholar Al-Ghazali, who claimed that falsafa (which literally meant philosophy, but included logic, mathematics and physics) are fundamentally incompatible with Islam. The Islamic world hasn't recovered from that downfall, ever since.

This scares the scientists, who believe that religious indoctrination necessarily implies the loss of one's scientific inquisitiveness. Which is not necessarily so.

The situation is very similar to the West being so afraid of Islamic terrorism, they began to abuse and insinuate Muslims who are looked at with suspicion for no fault of their own.

The theophobia associated with scientific thought these days, is disturbing.

To me, my religious beliefs are a very, very personal thing. And I do not bring them up unless I need to. It is the same with science. I do not try to mix the two aspects of my life. My spiritual life is my own, and I believe no one has the right to question my belief in anything, Just as I do not question theirs.

As I've mentioned earlier, I believe we are all a collection of belief systems, and so, I believe I cannot and should not force my opinions on those who might have a different worldview.

My suggestion?

Atheists condemning and ostracising religious people as non-scientific based solely on their religious beliefs is ridiculous. Of all the people, I believe scientists should be the ones to have an open mind, and be more tolerant towards different belief systems, regardless of whether they appeal to you or not.

Nevertheless, I also believe that religious leaders from all major religions should embrace science, just as they have embraced it's various offerings. And I encourage religious people to learn science, even if it is to know the mind of God.

I'll end with a quote from one of my favourite characters, Mr. Rzykruski from the film Frankenweenie. This quote beautifully explains the reason behind the rejection of science by various religious fundamentalists.

Pretty neat, right?

I don't believe in superstitions. They're bad luck.

So, recently my maternal uncle had a daughter.

Once, when I was visiting her, I just sat there rocking her empty cradle. And my father asked me not to do so. I asked him why? He replied "I have no problem, some people in this room may object." Turns out, rocking an empty cradle or a rocking chair is a bad omen, and people believe it invites demons to come and rest in the cradle or chair.

My aunt was basically locked up in her mother's house for forty days, because, apparently it's a bad omen to let them out of the house before that period. So, let's see, whatever evil forces were there, ready to pounce on her, just gave up the minute the clock struck midnight on the 40th day? Were they like "Oh, screw it!".

We've got stupid superstitions.

When my aunt was pregnant, my grandmother was worried that a lunar eclipse was approaching.
Supposedly, pregnant women should not be allowed to work during a lunar eclipse. Or else it will have a bad effect on the developing child, and may lead to deformities. So, the cells, nicely dividing and re-arranging themselves in the fetus are just going to be like "Wait! The Earth and the moon have aligned! And, the mom's working! Let's screw up the baby!"

Also, recently my paternal aunt (dad's sister) had a granddaughter. Now, when her daughter was rushed to the hospital, my grandmother rushed to the kitchen and took a weird twig that looked something like a tumbleweed. It's called "Maryam ka phool" here, in India. Literal translation: Mary's flower. She kept that thingy in a bowl of water, and upon soaking water, the rosette opened up into a woody flower, revealing seeds inside.

Now, doing this, somehow, according to my grandmother (paternal), will help the pregnant woman in easily delivering the baby. So, now the baby that is on it's way out, is going to be like "Oh! My great-grandmother placed a tumbleweed in water seven kilometers away. Great! Let's make this easy on my mom."

I later read about the tumbleweed, and found out it was from a plant called Anastatica hierochuntica. And one simply doesn't immerse the tumbleweed in water seven kilometers away, but rather the pregnant woman should drink the water in which the tumbleweed was immersed for some time.
It contains number of elements useful for pregnancy and labour, including calcium, magnesium, potassium, zinc. Calcium and magnesium, particularly, work together to coordinate and regulate smooth muscle contraction.

I don't know why my grandmother just kept it in water, and made it look like a stupid superstition.
Ignorance is better than half-baked knowledge, I think.

There are plenty of other stuff like black cats crossing your path is a bad omen, cutting fingernails after dark is wrong, spilling salt is a bad omen, not allowing widows to take part in wedding ceremonies because they're bad luck (Which is very offensive, btw. And it got me mad.), etc.

Now, who is to be held responsible for propagating such non-sense?

Our elders, of course!

We're not born superstitious, we're made superstitious through years and years of mindless indoctrination. The only way to break the cycle is to question "why?" every time you come across a stupid superstition.

Dr. Tyson puts it nicely, here.

Do not blindly accept anything just because your elders said so. Your elders are not infallible.

Question everything. Boldly.

After all, that's what makes us human!

So, do you have any annoying local superstitions? Leave your answer in the comments below, or see me on twitter. :)

So, you're a nerd?

Am I a nerd?

Well, let's first look at what the word means.

The Merriam Webster dictionary says a nerd is an unstylish, unattractive, or socially inept person; especially one slavishly devoted to intellectual pursuits.

Now, if that was a checklist, I fit the description like a glove. But I believe we should not be limited to the description above.

What I want to talk about, though, is the annoying trend of people pretending to be nerds.

Firstly, brainy is the new sexy. We all know that. But, as with anything else, there are a couple of stereotypes associated with the nerd culture, like horn-rimmed glasses, buck teeth, suspenders, bow-ties and oily hair.

Do I wear horn-rimmed glasses? No. Do I have buck teeth? No. Suspenders? No. Bow-tie? No. Oily hair? No.

So, am I a nerd? Hell, yes!

Now, I look nothing like that. And trust me, 99% of the nerds don't look like that either.

We come in all colours, shapes and sizes.

We are a diverse group. We all look different. We all are unique.

We all have different hobbies and are inclined towards different activities. Some of us like science, some of us like video games, some of us like collecting pokemon cards, some of us like star wars and star trek.

What kind of nerd am I? I'm a science nerd. I basically spend more time than I should on science, and understanding the universe around us.

We cannot and should not be stereotyped. Especially, because we know the difference. When someone puts on horn-rimmed glasses and a bow-tie to "be a nerd", he's only trying to put on an image. But, I can easily see through their masks. So can other nerds.

We are nothing like other cultures, where you can easily fit in by altering your appearance. You can't simply be a nerd by trying to act like one. We can see through it. Easily. So, don't try.

Although, I believe we're all nerds. There's always something you're exceptionally good at. That's what makes you a nerd. It's more to do with your mind, than your appearance. Appearance doesn't matter. Neither does gender. It's just about you being you.

I remember a girl from the UK on omegle, who claimed to like nerds, asked me if I wore big glasses. When I said no, she said "Well, you're not really a nerd, then". Which, in fact, was pretty annoying.


Anyways, there are two awesome twitter accounts dedicated to nerds, that I would like to mention here. They are @BlackGirlNerds and @ThoseNerds. Click on their usernames to go to their twitter pages. Show them some love.

So, are you a nerd? Leave your comments below, or see me on twitter.

Achievement UNLOCKED!

Being the nerd that I am, I recently attended an international conference at Hyderabad, on genome architecture and cell fate regulation. It was held at the University of Hyderabad campus, and was jointly organised by the University, as well as Tata Institute of Fundamental Research.

It was my first international conference. I was really nervous about the event, but it was absolutely amazing. The lectures were excellent, although slightly esoteric in nature.

I learned a lot, probably more than what I would learn in a fortnight at the institute, which made me really happy.

Hyderabad was a happy, lively city with nice people. I arrived at Hyderabad on the morning of November 29th, and attended the conference from 1st December to 4th December.

On the first day, I met a friend from school, Areeb, and we had dinner together at a restaurant called All Seasons, which specialises in Arabic cuisine. Trust me, the food there, was mind-blowing! And I'm not exaggerating. You can find some pictures of the food, here.

The next two days went by like the blink of an eye. After which, I got busy with the conference for the next four days. Someone gave an apt description of what was to follow, calling the conference "four days of science and biryani".

I made a few friends at the conference, and hope to maintain contact with them, and learn as much as I can from them. That is, if I ever e-mail them. I think, I will.

After two days, I got bored of the biryani, but was still eagerly looking forward to the science.

If I had to condense the entire conference into one simple sentence, it would be "chromosome territories are dynamic".

After the conference, I lazed around for the next two days, after which I got back to Aurangabad by train on the 7th of December.

Overall, it was one of the most memorable experiences I've had.

Looking forward to another one. Soon, God willing.

Group photo taken at the conference. (Find me)

Hey! Why are you so shy?

So, I've been asked why I am so shy at college, or why I don't have more friends than the one that I have (shoutout to Parth Vyawahare (I know, it's a fricking tongue-twister)).

First of all, I am not shy, I'm an introvert. Some might say that it's the same thing, but I believe they're really not. Second, I do have friends other than the one you know. People who are interesting, and have been with me through tough times. It takes a lot to be my friend, the rest are acquaintances. I'm a tough nut to crack. (Wait, I'm a nut now?)

See, the fact is that people don't really like me. I don't know why! So, if you really want to know why I'm not around more people more often, ask them, not me.

I hate social events. For me, they're nothing but long awkward interactions with people I'll probably never meet again. Although, sometimes (rarely), I meet someone that interests me, personally. But that ends with an awkward handshake and a goodbye (mostly). With me hoping that our meeting could last just a little longer, just so I could know them better.

I am never included in anyone's best-friend list, and it's been almost two years since I've made a new friend. Okay, to be honest, I might just be a little shy. Also, a little awkward. But that only lasts for the first couple of days that I get to know you. Although I can see why it is often misinterpreted and people take it as a signal to back off.

I might seem like I'm an outgoing, witty guy if you see me on the internet. I'm really not so in real life.

I don't like talking. Except when the conversation is better than silence. That might be another reason why I choose to maintain distance from people. I can't do small talk. And if I do, I'm faking it. Just so you know.

I don't like chatting about the weather, about how cold it is. I know. I read the newspaper every morning, I know what the temperature is. It's cold, I get it.

Don't get me wrong, if I'm okay with you, and consider you among my friends, I'll most certainly end up talking to you about the weirdest stuff (if you don't mind me bringing up nerdy stuff into the conversation, every few minutes).
I've been called arrogant and a narcissist because my introversion can be, and is commonly misinterpreted. It just comes off as odd to people.

Trust me, extroversion is as odd to me, personally.

I don't understand people who get comfortable with strangers easily. I don't understand the loud ones in class. I wonder how they can be so outgoing?

I never feel the need to speak more than I need to. There's only one good thing about this, it makes me a good listener.

I've been advised to be more outspoken, more approachable. I try to be. It doesn't work.

Maybe I should give people a chance, and not strike them off so easily.

But I believe I shouldn't alter my personality to make people happy. Or should I?

Are you an introvert, or an extrovert?

Leave your comment below, or see me on twitter.

Love. ;)

The Pale Blue Dot.

Something beautiful that I wanted to share with you guys.

We are so self-absorbed that we seem to forget how insignificant we are.

To remind yourself of the humbling grandness of the cosmos, we need to take a look around us.

The picture, famously known as the "Pale Blue Dot", is a picture of Earth as taken by the spacecraft Voyager 1, six billion kilometers from Earth.

Can you see it? Me and my crush, in one picture. Yay!

All we can see, is a pale blue dot. It might seem like a dream, to imagine that life exists, in all it's glory, on that tiny speck of dust in the vastness of the cosmos.

The above video has an audio clip from the audio-book version of Carl Sagan's book Pale Blue Dot, published in 1994.

For those who cannot watch the video, I'm providing the text below, although I would suggest that you watch the video.

"From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it's different. Consider again that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity – in all this vastness – there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known, so far, to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment, the Earth is where we make our stand. It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."

—Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space, 1997 reprint, pp. xv–xvi

Your mind's fingerprint. (The uniqueness of one's set of belief systems)

First of all, I'm sorry for being away for so long. I was up to my neck in a lot of things. Basically, I did bite off more than I could chew. Also, the cluster headaches only make it worse.

But, I've decided that I'll start blogging regularly, with two posts every week. One on Sunday and one on Wednesday. 

Anyways, this post is not going to be a long explanation about why I was away for so long. 

This post is basically about a conversation I had with a friend of mine. I wanted to know your thoughts regarding the issue.

Well, we started out with a conversation, and with some hot tea and chocolate cake to go with it, it turned into a discussion about human behaviour and how we perceive things.

I suggested that we humans are nothing but a thought. And we are nothing more than a set of biases and preferences. And we're a collection of belief systems. 

All belief systems, combined, give us a unique pattern, something like a fingerprint. Unique for every single being on this planet. No matter how alike two people are, there will be certain differences in their approach to a common subject. Which makes their set of belief systems unique.

These belief systems, I believe are dynamic. But the transition from a set of belief systems to another, will further lead to a unique set of beliefs that is still unique to the person and the same exact set of beliefs does not exist elsewhere, I believe. 

Now, all of these belief systems, although rigid in nature, can be flexible and subject to change over time when subjected to influences. Among these belief systems, there is perhaps no other belief system that is as rigid as religion. 

I believe, for example,  for a non-religious belief system A and religious belief system B, to make an effective change in system A, it is easier to influence change when it is by-passed via system B, implying that religious belief systems hold influence over other belief systems, and the easiest way to alter someone's belief system, is to give your argument a religious edge.

This might seem like a good explanation as to why or how certain terrorist organisations convince people to do ridiculously stupid stuff. They alter their belief systems about life and death, and war, by using religion as a tool.

And we both agreed, that to control the masses, there is no tool that is as effective as religion.

Now, to test my idea, I sent out ridiculous random occurrences cloaked as miracles to religious friends on social media, and I didn't even need to convince them, many of them readily accepted the validity of my claim and praised God for the supposed miracle. 

Anyhow, I should also mention that many of my friends were smart enough to see through the whole thing, and instead explain to me why the claims I made were not miracles at all.

 This further strengthened my belief in the idea.

Anyways, I'd love to know what you guys think about it.

Does a unique fingerprint of the mind exist, although dynamic?

Why do religious beliefs have such influence over our other belief systems?

What are your thoughts about using religion as a tool to influence people effectively?

What other belief systems do you think have influence over other belief systems?

I would love to know your thoughts on the subject, and I'm waiting for your responses. 

You can reply here, in the comments section, or tweet me on twitter.

I'm also on instagram, ask.fm, kik and snapchat.

My username on all platforms is SyedAsif93.

See ya!