For the past week and change, ScienceBlogs has been nerdily (and happily) hosting the Science Spring Showdown. It is Signout's distinct honor to host the Sweet Sixteen match-up between HIV and Phylogenetics. (Please see the SSS Press Center for details of previous rounds' results.)
As a microorganism, HIV is dazzlingly cunning and elusive; as an epidemic, it is insatiable; and as a PR campaign, it is straight-up sexy. In the past, if you wanted to talk about condoms, prostitution, anal sex, and men who have sex with men, you'd have to go to a shady bar, or maybe a Democratic convention. Now, because of HIV, these subjects are all easily within the domain of legitimate scientists all over the world. And what other sexually transmitted disease has such glamorous benefit events? Or BONO?
Phylogenetics has the advantage of being, quite literally, above it all. It has tremendous appeal in its embrace of rigor and method, and although it does not employ celebrities in promoting its cause, it provides a lens through which no one (and no thing) can avoid being seen. Yes, phylogenetics lacks the drama of being a disease without a cure. But it holds within its confines innumerable unanswered questions, and at least as many opportunities for mental gymnastics as HIV does.
Organism vs. system!
Chaos vs. method!
Octopussy vs. Bond!
Acronym vs. multisyllabic word!
Mac vs. PC!
HIV vs. Phylogenetics!
Who will win?
Addendum (3/30/07):
Evolgen points the less familiar cheering squads to several articles in Nature (#1 and #2) and in his own oeuvre that highlight previous encounters between these teams.
On a related note, a NY Times article from this week's Science section points to a Nature article detailing the delayed speciation of mammals following the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs. Natch, evolgen has something to say about this, too. Rahhhh, phylogenetics! Or whatever.
- Log in to post comments
Um, maybe it's just my current mental-status-changing fever from some bug I've caught from all the ER patients coughing on me...but I'm confused. Am I the only one that's confused? And I'm all for celebrating our geekness, but is this taking geek too far? Just a thought.
What? You haven't been following this? And you call yourself a MAN?
loooooseeerrr.
I read your first little post about this. I thought it was a joke. Going back I've surmised that, yes, it's just geeky. And the fact that I got the Duesberg reference in the synopsis of HIV's first round against plasmodium makes me all that much of a geek...and yes, I agree...a loser. But who's been going around calling me a man damn it?
Is this taking the geek too far?
I can't think of a better metaphysical question. Can you take it too far? Maybe. (Plus my money is on H.I.V.)
This could come down to the rapid evolution of the HIV genome vs. the ability of phylogenetic methods to reconstruct evolutionary relationships.
Or maybe HIV will turn to its biology (how boring!) rather than its evolutionary genetics. By taking the game outside of phylogenetics domain, HIV could end up scoring at will.
Phylogenetics techniques have been used in epidemiological studies of HIV transmission (for example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&do…).
So it's clear that Phylogenetics will be playing a finesse game, trying to shut down HIV's explosive potential. I think they've got the advantage going in - if HIV can't spread, it can't win.
I think people differ greatly on this issue. For example, if it were completely unidentifiable as my own, I would have no problem with a picture of my naked ass being posted on the Internet. Others would be absolutely horrified by the prospect.
thanks for information.
thanks for information