Bugs fighting back + Bugs fought back. So, what is science to you?

The facts of science correspond to that to nature. Not to the whims of mere mortals. Which is why I trust it more than anything. Based almost exclusively on observable phenomena, structured in objective inquiry, yet not without a personal touch - science has been the one topic which drew me closer to my fellow man, and to some minute quantum-physical extent, the rest of the universe. ;)

Now when I say science. I mean the HUMAN enterprise. Obviously the workings of nature will continue to go on and the laws of physics (whether we understand them or not) will still apply. So why do we still want to do science? What stokes the burning passion of me and so many other great giants before me?

If you'd ask me that, I'm inclined to believe that it is down to pure curiosity. As Richard Feynman would say: "There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower."

We do science because deep down in our hearts, it interests us and for knowledge's sake we want to know more.

As for the human aspect, no doubt there will be mistakes, most easily caused by improper logic, misinterpretation of data, or something as innocent as improper training. After all, we are but humans and not perfect beings of infinite knowledge (again, this is exactly why we do science). But whatever errors which may have incurred, it will be sorted out and rectified thanks to a human system of self-correction called peer review.
Note: I'm going to skip a long explanation on the issue for and against the current form of peer review for another post, I hope you readers will bear with me a bit. If I have the flow coming in by then, I'll be presenting the debate regarding the peer review process as well as impact journals. :]

While I accept that human errors and limitation puts a undefined rate determining step in scientific advancements, I abhor attitudes which does nothing to further the understanding of the world around us. Even the Old Masters know that nothing is for sure in our knowledge of science, what is for sure is the observable universe will continue to function as it always have been regardless of what we say or think about it.

So why do some "scientist" still want to diss a mere scientifically valid suggestion when you obviously do not know any better than the one who proposes? Fine, you are only human and prone to show off, but to be smug about it is not smart at all.

Now, on to a short rant about some undergrad "science" students:
"To you, science is just a tree from which you make your wooden planks, not a seed from which a most beautiful flower will blossom. Needless to say, I am disappointed."

Alright folks, expect me to rant and express my views freely. Its frustrating to be me. Sometimes. >.< Hypothesis: My brain got re-wired quite differently from my peers. Somehow.


Anyway, two articles here regarding potentially pathogenic microbes.

1. An opportunistic pathogen which exhibits a certain Green Lantern-like reaction to BLUE light. Infinitely cool, with novel antibiotic resistant mechanism - a truly nasty bugger. (A 50% rise in ampicillin resistance over the course of 2003-2008) With quite a cute weakness though.. The article raises a very important point about hospital-acquired infections and the future of human disease control - inhibition simply by letting the light shine through!
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/disease-prone/2011/09/07/acinetobacter-baumannii/

2. Discussing the existence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria since the time of mammoths. At first glance, it looks like a normal news post with an important message that resistance ala MRSAs, VRSAs have evolved in the bacterial genome since the natural products themselves have been around. And that our stores of "back-up" antibiotics (if any still exist) will likely be ineffective once resistant strains emerge and kill us all one by one. [I was joking about them killing us, at least not intentionally. As a pathogen it wouldn't make sense to eliminate your vector. Unless you were engineered to do so, in which case, good job!] But the most interesting thing I found is the technique used in the research, I quote: "They even sprayed their drilling equipment, and the surface of their unearthed ice cores, with glow-in-the-dark bacteria. This way, they could immediately tell if anything from the outside world had leached into the interior parts of the cores – the parts where they drew their samples from. Nothing had."
This is the kind of science, the method of attaining certainty and reliability, which I look up to!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/08/31/bacteria-resisting-antibiotics-for-at-least-30000-bc/?sf2131230=1

I hope you have a good Friday people! Enjoy the weekend!