Scientists sequence Black Death bacteria DNA, admit they were wrong

Researchers have sequenced the DNA of plague bacteria from the bodies of English victims of the Black Death. The bits of DNA they obtained looked surprisingly modern, leaving the question of why the disease was so deadly uanswered.

<a href='http://meincmagazine.com/science/news/2011/08/scientists-sequence-black-death-bacteria-dna-admit-they-were-wrong.ars'>Read the whole story</a>

 

[taraba]

How about that? Scientist makes new discovery, has to revise a past assumption. No problem, in fact a pleasant surprise.

So will we hear from all the religious nutjobs denouncing the findings and either saying the Black Plague didn't happen, or that The Devil™ is messing with the results and really it was wicked people who God™ smote?

People don't have to believe "God smites" the wicked with illness (an assumption that religion was fighting at least 3000 years ago, by the way) to be critics of science. It's childish of science fans like you to say "my way or the highway" -- why not be critical of science as well as everything else? That would only be reasonable.

(And, for the record, I myself am not very impressed with this magical "Science is always right because it's always wrong!" as per the first paragraph of your comment. Neither am I Christian.)

Well, science adopts the best explanation that can be proven and reproducible for phenomena. The scientific community will move away from wrong assumptions over time. So science is already critical of itself. No one ever claims that current scientific assumptions are absolutely right but they have to be proved wrong first. You can go off and believe any kind of metaphysical crystal worshiping stuff without any proof, but one of the great things about science is that if you can prove that these things have a measurable effect, science will accept that proof. But if your thing has actually been proven false and still want to believe, then you're firmly in the unscientific camp.

 

[Dermoplasm]

How about that? Scientist makes new discovery, has to revise a past assumption. No problem, in fact a pleasant surprise.

So will we hear from all the religious nutjobs denouncing the findings and either saying the Black Plague didn't happen, or that The Devil™ is messing with the results and really it was wicked people who God™ smote?

I giggled a bit at the Devil™ and God™.

 

[iconmaster]

He was making a reference to claims made contemporaneously with the plagues. Claims that the plagues represented the wrath of god on a wicked society were exceptionally common at the time.

Who was advancing such claims? Certainly not the author of the article, and certainly not any of the comment posters. Where are these Black Plague reactionaries who are proclaiming their views so doggedly that we must counter their influence at every turn?

It's pure axe-grinding and irrelevant to the content at best.

 

[cwells]

So will we hear from all the religious nutjobs denouncing the findings and either saying the Black Plague didn't happen, or that The Devil™ is messing with the results and really it was wicked people who God™ smote?

What in the world are you on about? I've never heard any religious stance on the topic of the Black Plague other than "it was a really bad disease."

Are you confused b/c the illustration attached to the article is credited as coming from the Bible? It may have been included in some edition of the Bible but the events of the New Testament conclude 1300 years before the Black Plague, so there's no deep connection there. (Other than the fact that church was a much more prominent institution in the Middle Ages.)

Edit: I see you've already been sufficiently dogpiled. Well, you asked for it.

Dogpiled wrongly.

He was making a reference to claims made contemporaneously with the plagues. Claims that the plagues represented the wrath of god on a wicked society were exceptionally common at the time.

They are still common. It was only a couple of decades ago that AIDS was being diagnosed by televangelists as God's wrath upon homosexuals.

 

[truk007]

I took a microbio class in college and remember discussing Y. pestis. The 2 reasons he said it doesn't do the great amount of damage these days is that we don't have as terrible a rodent problem as towns did back then and we also have antibiotics that easily kills Y. pestis. The rodents carried the fleas that transmitted Y. pestis by biting humans.

I have heard of Y. pestis being treated in AZ hospitals as well as NM hospitals, and I know the varmints up in the four corners area, as well as the Grand Canyon tend to have fleas that carry Y. pestis still. The crucial thing is that the medical community needs to be able to recognize what disease is infecting somebody in order to treat it effectively. People can still die pretty quickly from it, once it takes hold of the lungs.

 

[Porter Doran]

Ah, science. This brought to mind a great quote:

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
-Carl Sagan, keynote address at CSICOP conference (1987)

I liked the quote until the last line. While not as prevalent as its occurence in science, it is hardly rare for theologians to change their minds when faced with persuasive counter-argument.

Yeah, and, ironically, discovering that "prayer doesn't heal plague" (to quote a previous poster) is a matter for theological inquiry much more (or at least much more directly) than it is a matter for medical inquiry.

Yet it's science fans that generally will leap on such claims, which, if they do, clearly makes them (to my mind) much more like religion-haters than science fans.

Another ironic thought: There is a difference between religion and theology, as the first is largely cultural rather than a discipline; and there is a difference between a science fan and science.

 

[pipe13]

Peter Doran said:

Another ironic thought: There is a difference between religion and theology, as the first is largely cultural rather than a discipline; and there is a difference between a science fan and science.

Thanks fer that. Been thinking along similar lines since me last post, tho not as succinctly. Thinking in particular abut the fairly profound reconciliation Catholic theologians have made these past fifty years with science, with the Pope apologizing for the Galilian disaster and over all pretty much coming to embrace the realization that science and theology are in fact complementary aspects of the human condition. That the role of the church is to promote and better man's relationship with God, and getting science wrong only gets in the way. Which isn't to say the Church doesn't think they shouldn't have some input into how public policy should or should not use scientific advances.

But as you say, there's a difference between religion and theology. 'Twas but three weaks ago it seems, that Jay wrote a climate-change article http://meincmagazine.com/science/news...oudy-with-a-chance-of-competing-realities.ars featuring the "work" of Dr. Roy Spencer, whose "ideas have proven so unpopular within the scientific community that he has taken to advancing them via popular books (ed. and press releases) instead of through scientific papers."

Dr. Spencer certainly has academic credentials. But his Wikipedia entry is nonetheless illuminating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

Spencer is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".[22]

The declaration states:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

From which my personal conclusion is "If Dr. Spencer is being quoted outside the peer-reviewed scientific literature, whatever he has to say is most likely driven by his personal religious beliefs. And if Dr. Spencer is being quoted from his peer-reviewed publications, it is prudent to look closely at exactly what he did say inside the cited reference, and at any follow-on comments that may have been published by his peers."

Not a trivial task. But the climate debate -- as is most science with direct impact on public policy -- is rife with fabricated controversy. It behooves us all to check the backgrounds of those promoting controversy, and attempt to assess the extent of possible fabrication.

 

[aeberbach]

He was making a reference to claims made contemporaneously with the plagues. Claims that the plagues represented the wrath of god on a wicked society were exceptionally common at the time.

They are still common. It was only a couple of decades ago that AIDS was being diagnosed by televangelists as God's wrath upon homosexuals.

Is this so different? It was last week.

http://www.businessinsider.com/michele- ... ton-2011-8

 

[readykilowatt]

Sorry about the post this morning, everyone. For some reason this just struck a nerve with me. The other day I read something about the fact that the atmosphere isn't retaining as much heat as the computer models are predicting and how that brings "the whole global warming thing into question." As if all that other stuff we're observing is irrelevant.

One data point isn't as predicted and people are ready to throw out the whole idea? If anything, we should be happy the models aren't right and adjust with the new data.

And I'm not trying to start a global warming debate either. I don't know if mankind is causing the Earth's atmosphere to trap heat, the Sun is hotter, or it's just the end of a mini ice age. But I'm not going to be so rigid in my opinion to deny the Earth has been warming over the last 100 years or so either.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Just because I'm curious, it wasn't this one, was it?

 

[Bicentennial Douche]

Many who turn their back on modern medicine now don't even do it for religious reasons...they do it out of misguided logic (anti-vaxxers, for instance).

Yes, fundies are all around us. But that has little or nothing to do with a potential plague. Grind your axe elsewhere.

Agreed. There is so much antipathy, but religion has little affect on scientific research and perception anymore. Creationism vs Darwinism gets far too much press and attention. The much bigger threat is the self-serving anti-research of special interest groups backed by large corporations. There is a real, tangible effect that this funded 'research' has had on the public perception of climate change and policy towards it.

News Corp. is happy to report on academics arguing about Creationism or attacking religion because it takes the debate away from more worthwhile issues that affect it's supporters (i.e. energy companies, right-wing politicians funded by polluting corporations, et al.).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opini ... _LO_MST_FB

 

[mogbert]

"But to really be sure, we will need to first clone the DNA and study it."
*sound of test tube breaking*
"One moment, I'll be right b-"

I think I've seen this movie before.

 

[hobgoblin]

One data point isn't as predicted and people are ready to throw out the whole idea? If anything, we should be happy the models aren't right and adjust with the new data.

From the pen of Asimov: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/ ... fWrong.htm

Sadly we are brought up to think that right and wrong is similar to black and white.

 

[dbbolton]

singular -> bacterium. plural -> bacteria.

 

[jrose]

"But to really be sure, we will need to first clone the DNA and study it."
*sound of test tube breaking*
"One moment, I'll be right b-"

I think I've seen this movie before.

Cynic in me says that they're going back to old versions of the virus in the hopes of potential weaponizing...

 

[Torbjörn Larsson OM]

So Y. pestis is nowadays a fairly innocent bacteria (~ 3 % lethality IIRC) but started out viciously (~ 30 % lethality IIRC).

Yet its only (?) plasmid, the gene package that bacteria transmits useful genes such as antibiotic resistance or infectious traits in, is much the same as before.

Of course our population's genome shifted as a consequence of the earlier success. Maybe we can defend ourselves better.

But there is another possibility (HT erv http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/09/bla ... ated_b.php ): it was similar packages in the bacteria chromosomes inserted by phages, so called morons. =D

"A moron (in bacteriophage biology) is a DNA element inserted between a pair of genes in one phage genome when the genes of this same pair are adjacent in a related phage genome. The name derives from the fact that one phage contains "more" DNA than the other at this particular spot", http://www.asm.org/division/M/blurbs/gl ... con.html#M .

In other words, just as bacteria makes genome "cassettes" with little or no extraneous gene material, viruses have to slimline their innards to fit into small packages. Hence "morons" stick out.

According to erv, phages are bribing bacteria with useful genes to be able to set up a safehouse from time to time:

"My money is on phages, and specifically, those phages morons. Phages are kinda like bacterial ERVs-- They are DNA viruses that insert themselves into the bacterial genome, and hijack that bacteria to generate more babby viruses. But phages dont always immediately start making babbies-- sometimes they go latent. Its a dog-eat-dog world out there, and sometimes its safer to hide in a warm snuggly bacteria than to be out fending for yourself. But the bacteria have no interest in having this parasitic DNA contaminating their Specially Created genome. So phages bribe them.

Phages can encode for gene groups called morons.

I am not joking.

These are viral genes that dont code for anything the virus wants, like structural proteins, or enzymes the virus needs-- They are genes that make having the virus around attractive to the bacteria. And few things are more attractive to a pathogen than making you sick, thus spread the bacteria faster than if you werent pooping/oozing/puking/etc.

I bet its a moron." [Links removed.]

 

[kaachadi]

Always pleasant to read a story which is essentially "Yup, this bacteria that took out between 1/5th and 1/3rd of the planet's human population is not only still around but has demonstrated an ability to ramp up its lethality by unknown means in response to unknown factors.".

Leaves you hoping it doesn't find an additional vector.

IDK why but the idea to do a little bio engineering and then send blankets to our Chinese friends immediately came to my mind.

Sending infected blankets is an old strategy practiced by the US against Native Americans in their genocidal program in the 18th century, otherwise known as a weapon of mass destruction or using a biological agent against a civilian population - nice (/sarcasm). I think the Geneva Convention has outlawed this practice, but I wouldn't put it beyond the scope of possibilities these days...