Kevin J Connolly (1936-2015)

December 17, 2015 • 9:00 am

by Matthew Cobb

One of the key relationships in academic life is that between a PhD student and their supervisor. If everything goes well, the supervisor is part mentor, part in loco parentis, and by the end of the process, when the thesis is written up and passed, supervisor and student have learned as much as they can from each other, and it is time for both to move on. But the consequences of that relationship can shape the ex-student’s views, career and their entire life. Just as you never stop being your parent’s child, at some level you are always the student of your supervisor.

During my PhD research (1978-1981) at the University of Sheffield, I had two PhD supervisors – Dr Barrie Burnet in the Department of Genetics, and Professor Kevin Connolly in the Department of Psychology. Kevin’s death was announced yesterday by the University, where he had remained as Emeritus Professor of Psychology since 1999. It was Barrie who emailed me the sad news.

This is the only picture of Kevin I can find. It was apparently taken in the late 1980s:

connolly

Kevin’s research career was focused on two apparently unrelated subjects – the genetics of behaviour in Drosophila, and child development. His first paper was published in Nature in 1966, on the effect of food deprivation on locomotor behaviour in Drosophila (it was easier to get published in Nature back then…):

209224a0

When he moved to Sheffield, where he eventually became Head of Department, Kevin teamed up with the geneticist Barrie Burnet, and together with a series of PhD students (including me), they produced a series of papers and reviews in the 1970s and 1980s on the effect of various mutations on fly and maggot behaviour. One of their first joint students was Lynn Eastwood, who later married Barrie. Kevin continued to publish on larval behaviour with the Chilean researcher Raul Godoy-Herera, who first came to visit Sheffield in the late 1970s.

Kevin and Barrie’s work on Drosophila mutations was pioneering – there were only few places in the world that were taking this approach at the time: Seymour Benzer’s lab in Caltech (which was clearly the inspiration for Kevin and Barrie), and Martin Heisenberg’s group in Germany being the two most influential labs. While Benzer focused on single genes and simple behaviours, and Heisenberg worked on the underlying neuroanatomy, Kevin and Barrie took a more holistic, ethological approach, looking in particular at the effects of mutations on the complex courtship behaviour of the fly or the movement of the maggot.

Nowadays there are hundreds of research groups around the world studying Drosophila neurobiology and behaviour – Kevin’s work helped to create this discipline, even if most of the people now doing this work will never have heard of him or Barrie. Here’s a brief review paper they published in 1981 in the British Medical Bulletin, showing the link between studies of behavioural mutations in Drosophila and human genetic defects:

Br Med Bull-1981-BURNET-107-13

I got interested in this field as a first year Psychology student at Sheffield, when I read an article in New Scientist in 1976 about an article published by Benzer’s group in which they created a Drosophila mutant that could not learn, which with typical humour they called dunce. I was immediately attracted to this approach, and by complete chance, was in one of the two places in the UK that did such work (the other was Edinburgh, where Aubrey Manning was Professor).

We even did a psychology practical on Drosophila behavioural mutants, including shaker and the delightfully named ether-a-go-go mutant, which would shake their legs – both these mutations turned out to be extremely important as they affect the way neurons function.

After my degree, I was lucky enough to get a PhD place with Kevin and Barrie, working first on learning and then, when that proved a dead end (entirely my fault), we shifted the topic to a comparative study of courtship behaviour in Drosophila species, with some primitive behaviour genetics, all of which led to four joint papers. I’m afraid I was a pretty lazy student and must have been frustrating, though neither Kevin nor Barrie ever showed any irritation with my slow progress.

Kevin’s work on child development was equally significant, though in a very different way. He focused on motor control in particular, and the way that children learn to manipulate objects. He also got interested in the way that iodine deficiency can affect development, and carried out several field trips to Papua New Guinea, and as a result the government instituted the addition of iodine to staple foods in order to reduce iodine deficiency in tribal regions. On one of these field trips that he had a heart attack and had to be flown back for intensive care. He recovered, and continued teaching and researching until 1999.

Here is one of his papers on Papua New Guinea, carried out with his colleague Margaret Martlew and published in 1996 in Child Development:

1131750

The Methods section shows how tough it was to do this work:

1131750-2

For all but a handful of academics who shape their field through amazing breakthroughs or insightful syntheses, the main legacy we leave takes the form of our students – the undergraduates who we (hopefully) inspire and inform in the lecture theatre, and the PhD students who we train. In the latter respect, Kevin and Barrie did pretty well – four of their students ended up as Professors at UK universities (myself, Ronnie Wilson at Ulster, my academic ‘big brother’ Bambos Kyriacou at Leicester, and the last of their joint students, Kevin O’Dell at Glasgow).

Kevin was heavily involved in the British Psychology Society (he was President for some years), and held a series of visiting chairs around the world. As well as his academic articles, chapters and edited volumes, he co-edited a book of quotations related to psychology Psychologically Speaking.

The last time I saw Kevin was about six years ago when he called me over from Manchester to go through his research library. He was clearing out his reprints, and gave me a huge collection of obscure but fascinating papers, many of which are hard if not impossible to obtain. I went with my children, who somehow got the impression his name was Ned, and behaved eerily well throughout. For many years afterwards when we wanted them not to mess about, they were asked to be on ‘Ned behaviour’.

A few months ago, I was interviewed by my University about my research and my career. One of the questions they asked me about was my ‘scientific hero’. I chose Kevin, and here’s what I said:

KJC

My last contact with Kevin was four years ago, when he sent me an Xmas e-mail:

 Matthew

Merry Christmas and all good wishes for 2012!

Kevin

I have been out a bit out of things due to illness, do keep me up with
with your work. We might have a little Drosophila meeting in 2012, would be good
to see you.

The meeting never happened, sadly. And now it’s too late.

Vale, teacher!

Google Doodle honors Beethoven

December 17, 2015 • 8:15 am

Today’s Google Doodle is an animated puzzle celebrating Beethoven’s 245th birthday. Click on the screenshot below, and then on the arrow, to start the game. You’re required to assemble in order manuscript sheets containing the notation for some of Ludwig’s masterpieces. Only when you get them in order can you continue the game by going to the next piece of music:

Screen Shot 2015-12-17 at 5.45.05 AM

Time Magazine explains the game and its origin:

Google’s Beethoven Doodle is more of a puzzle than it is a picture. Players are tasked with arranging Beethoven’s sheet music in the correct order after he mixes up the pieces on his way to conduct a concert. The game focuses on the composer’s most widely-received works, such as Moonlight Sonata and Ode to Joy. Each song becomes harder to piece back together as the game progresses.

While the game itself may be simple, coming up with the idea was anything but. Google’s team of doodlers had been brainstorming ways to capture Beethoven’s achievements in a Google Doodle for about two years. The problem, however, was the challenge of creating something interactive and unique to Beethoven’s life that hasn’t already been done in previous doodles.

“We went through a lot of different prototypes for what we wanted a Beethoven doodle to be,” says Jordan Thompson, an engineer on the Google Doodle team “But none of them really filled the role of what we wanted, which was to teach people about Beethoven and his music.”

The group stuck with this idea over others because of its subtle educational aspect. “You can actually see the music notes, so you can get the concept of written music,” says Thompson.

I’m sure our many music-loving readers will succeed. I failed miserably on the second attempt: I got the opening of the Fifth Symphony (easy), but then failed on Für Elise.

 

Reader’s wildlife video

December 17, 2015 • 7:30 am

It usually takes a bit of time to assemble this feature every morning, but fortunately reader Ernie Cooper called my attention to a video he’d made a few years ago. It’s a rare one, showing a bumblebee queen mating with a drone, something few of us would ever get to see. The species is Bombus vagans, the half-black bumblebee. Ernie’s notes:

A couple of years ago I posted a YouTube video of a pair of bumble bees mating on the deck in my backyard. The odd thing is that there are now more than 20,000 views of that video. I find it odd that so many people are apparently searching for bee porn! LOL!

As the Bumblebee.org site notes, most queens mate but once, so that all their female offspring are full sisters, sharing three-quarters of their genes (males are haploid, and the genes in every one of their sperm are identical). In normal diploid species like us (these bees are “haplodiploid”), sisters share half of their genes.

Here’s how it works:

The adult male bumblebee (in common with most adult male insects) has only one function in life – that is to mate. Unfortunately it had been estimated that only 1 in 7 males actually achieve a mating. He will fly in a circuit depositing a queen-attracting scent pheromone produced from a gland in his head in suitable places, usually in the morning, and replacing the scent if it rains. Different species have different preferred flying heights for this, and different queen attracting scents. Sometimes the same route is used by the same species year after year although all males die and so the new males have no idea where the males from the previous year made their circuit.

The pheromone is used to scent-mark prominent objects (tree trunks, rocks, posts, etc) on the circuit which is usually a few hundred metres long. The scent of some species can be detected by some humans. Usually they patrol at species specific heights. Bombus lapidarius, terrestris and lucorum males patrol at tree-top height. Bombus sylvestris and hortorum within 1 m of the ground. However this depends on the habitat.Bombus hypnorum does not bother with the hassle of patrolling a circuit and laying down scent. The males just find a suitable nest where the new queens have not yet emerged and they hang around the nest entrance and make a nuisance of themselves until the virgin queens do emerge. Then it is every man for himself.

Why is copulation so long, as the video notes?

The time taken for matings varies widely from 10 minutes to 80 minutes. The sperm is transferred within the first 2 minutes of mating, and the bees are in a rather vulnerable position, so why do they continue for so long? Well after the male passes his sperm into the queen he pumps a sticky mixture into her genital opening. This genital plug takes time to harden, and once hardened can completely or partially block the entry of sperm from other males for up to three days. So even though the two are in a vulnerable position, it is in the interest of the male to hang on to ensure that his genes have a good chance of being passed on to the next generation, and as most males don’t even manage to mate, and those that do usually just mate once, he wants to be sure his genes will be passed on.

One more note: mating is fatal for honeybees, as when they separate from the female, their innards are pulled out by their genitalia, part of which remains stuck to the female. Bumblebees are luckier: males can survive and may mate again.

 

Thursday: Hili dialogue

December 17, 2015 • 5:39 am

Professor Ceiling Cat (Emeritus) is poorly with a sore throat today, and so will soon go home to work from the supine position. Posting will in all likelihood be very light, but I’ll do my best.  On this day in history, Henry VIII was excommunicated by the Pope (1538); having lost his father figure, he proceeded to execute his wives. And WTF is this from Wikipedia???: on his day in 1862, “American Civil War General Ulysses S. Grant issues General Order No. 11, expelling Jews from parts of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky”. I had no idea! Why the Jews? On December 17, 1997, “the British Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 took effect, banning all handguns with the exception of antique and show weapons.” Enacted by the Blair government in response to the Dunblane school massacre the year before in Scotland, it’s exactly what the US should be doing now. If the UK can do it, why not America? Finally, on this date in 2011, Supreme (not Dear) leader Kim Jong-Il was assumed bodily to heaven to join his father, President for Eternity Kim Il-Sung. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is upset because her very favorite tidbit, ham, has gone down Andrzej’s gullet. Look at her expression!

Hili: What happened to the smoked ham?
A: I ate it.

P1030687

In Polish:
Hili: Co się stało z tą wędzoną szynką?
Ja: Zjadłem.
As lagniappe, watch this short CNN video (click on the screenshot) to see the story of a tiny kitten, Murphy, saved at the last minute from a mess of recycling headed on a conveyor belt toward blades and a trash compacter. Lucky kitten!
Screen Shot 2015-12-17 at 5.33.52 AM
h/t: Wendell

John Cleese insults Taylor Swift’s cat, she gives it right back

December 16, 2015 • 2:45 pm

I can’t brain much today, so—moar cats. Here’s a pretty funny exchange between Taylor Swift and John Cleese on the Graham Norton show (BBC America). Both are cat lovers, but differ in what they see as a “proper cat”. Later on, Cleese makes an invidious remark about women, and Taylor responds appropriately. It’s a few funny minutes to end the day.

h/t: Taskin

Catmas tree

December 16, 2015 • 2:00 pm

This comes from Matthew Cobb, who unaccountably isn’t claiming authorship of this post. I’d save it for Christmas, but I already have a cat Christmas post in the wings, so let’s just use it to get ourselves in the Christmas (and Coynezaa) spirit:

http://www.dravenstales.ch/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Katze-versteckt-sich-im-Weihnachtsbaum.gif

Kristina Keneally: Religion certainly belongs in politics

December 16, 2015 • 12:30 pm

When I say “religion shouldn’t mix with politics,” it’s not because I don’t think that, in principle, religion shouldn’t influence people’s stands on issues. It’s just that when it does, at least in the U.S., it’s rarely for the better. The opposition to gay rights and gay marriage, as well as to abortion; the promotion of prayers and legally-taught creationism in public schools; views on euthanasia; the “just world” view of the poor (“the poor deserve what they get”); and even opposition to global warming—all of these views (and virtually all promotion of creationism) simply wouldn’t be as pervasive without religion. And I won’t even mention the politics of countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, which are not only harmfully infected with Islam, but are almost coincident with Islam.

In contrast, when people do good in the name of faith, I suspect they would have done good anyway, for they’re simply good people. I really do think Steven Weinberg was on to something when he said, “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” Well, it can also take unthinking ideology, as in the case of the Nazis and Stalinists. But it’s the invidious effect of religion on politics and morality, and faith’s ubiquitous side-effect of proselytizing, that convinces me that we should be deeply suspicious of politicians who get advice from God, or even who claim that their faith informs their politics.

But Kristina Keneally, former head of Australia’s Labor party and premier of New South Wales (now a commentator on Sky News), thinks otherwise. Or so she argues in a new Guardian piece, “Of course my faith influenced my political decisions, as did my gender. So what?” She’s a pious Catholic, which makes it more worrisome.  While arguing that most of the decisions she made had nothing to do with her faith, she starts off on a bad foot:

Religion isn’t silly, of course. Neither is politics, most of the time. Occasionally the two intersect.

Well, yes, religion is silly, both its tenets (a man’s death on a cross redeemed us all from a sin committed by two nonexistent progenitors of all humans) and its trappings (have you seen what the Pope and his cardinals wear?). And it’s based on the firm belief in things that either cannot be demonstrated or have been disconfirmed. So yes, religion is silly: it’s a childish thing that humanity should have long ago put away.

Keneally’s argument that it’s no more irrational for religion to inform politics than gender, or economics, as in the quote below, is bogus:

Yes, I believe in Jesus Christ but I am also a disciple of Joseph Stiglitz. Why did no journalist ever ask how much my economic thinking influenced my political decisions?

Well, maybe it’s because at least you can adduce evidence for views on economic policy (Paul Krugman does this regularly in the New York Times), but you can’t for Christianity. And as for gender, if a woman has experienced discrimination, it sensitizes her to its ubiquity and bad effects in her country, and so it’s perfectly rational to inform your politics with gender. I would argue, in fact, that the natural stand on abortion by women should be pro-abortion (or its euphemism “pro-choice”) rather than “pro-life,” since laws forbidding abortion take away a woman’s choice over what she does with a parasitic fetus (see Judith Jarvis Thompson’s “parasite” argument).

Likewise, it’s rational to inform your politics with your ethnicity. That’s exactly what American blacks did in the Sixties, and of course that produced the Civil Rights act and a new era of legal equality. The view that the U.S. would be better off without segregation didn’t come from a revelation or scripture (which usually says the opposite)—it came from observation and reflection.

But where Keneally really goes off the rails is when she explains why we shouldn’t trust atheist politicians:

 . . . In fact I have often wondered about atheist politicians. Surely the logical conclusion to atheism is nihilism, in which case, why bother engaging in political activity, trying to improve the lives of your fellow citizens and make the world a better place? Which politician is scarier: the one who insists there is ontological meaning and transcendental purpose to our lives, or the one who denies objective truth and believes that existence is ultimately a useless void?

I’d say the former! The religious-activist politician in the U.S. is likely to be an evangelical Christian Republican, and we know what they’re trying to do to the country. Further, Keneally is simply dead wrong when she claims that atheists are nihilists and therefore wouldn’t make good politicians. Is she aware of the fact that there are atheist politicians (not many will admit to that in the U.S.) and that, more important, many atheists are out there doing good? We don’t lie abed all day, dumbstruck by nihilism. One would think that someone with two neurons to rub together would realize this and jettison the “atheists-are-nihilists” argument. It’s simply dumb.

Keneally’s trump card: religion has always been with us, and always will:

There are those who argue religious belief has no place in civic discourse. Yet from the earliest periods of recorded history we are presented with evidence that human beings possess a spiritual dimension. The people with the longest continuous cultural history on Earth, Aboriginal Australians, tell rich spiritual stories to explain creation and humanity’s relationship to it.

Human beings are physical and they are spiritual. They bring their spiritual selves, however expressed, to their political discussions. This is not a threat to civil society. For thousands of years the spiritual life of human beings has supported and encouraged the extension of human rights, the establishment of civic communities, promulgation of the public good and extraordinary acts of self-sacrifice for one’s fellow citizens.

Here she’s confusing “spirituality” with “morality”. Those of us on this site—most of us, I suspect—who favor gay rights, equality of women and ethnic minorities, and other liberal values, don’t do so out of our “spiritual dimension,” but because we think these stands have salubrious effects on society.

So yes, let’s keep religion out of politics, and by all means let us ask politicians to tell us whether and how their political views are colored by their faith. That’s a perfectly fair question.

What do we replace religion with, then? Why, with secular humanism and secular morality—much better guides to running societies.

I’ll leave it to the Aussie readers to tell me how Keneally fared as a politician in their land.

707395-kristina-keneally
Kristina Keneally

h/t: Phil D.

The Simpsons and evolution

December 16, 2015 • 12:30 pm

by Matthew Cobb

I guess that many of you will have seen this, but to my surprise, I see we have never posted it here. This is from 2010:

What’s noteworthy is that give or take a few anachronisms (T. rex and Stegosaurus were not alive at the same time), this is reasonably accurate – in particular it has a Dimetrodon-like organism as Homer’s ancestor, which indeed it was (or rather, it was our ancestor).

It does however skip over the transition to an early chordate and then to a bony fish in a remarkably brief time. And it suffers from the terrible sin of presentism, whereby the last few hundred years take up as much time as scores of millions of years deep in the past.

But hey, you know what? Humans don’t have yellow skin and bug eyes. It’s a cartoon, folks!