is science art

8/6/2019 Is Science Art

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/is-science-art 1/32

H o o k e

Is Sc ien c e ‘A r t ’?

E l e c t i o n 2 0 0 0



H o o k e - T h e W e s t mi n s t e r Sc h o o l Sc i e n c e M a g a z in e

PAGE 2 ELECTION 200 0

Ed it o r ial

Charlie Ogilvie

Having been somewhat belatedly asked to edit

Hooke I have been pleasantly surprised at how

eager people are to contribute and I would like

to thank the various contributors as well as my

co-editors who have worked with a certain de-

gree of tirelessness on this issue!

We have tried to keep the layout much the

same as it seems to work, but if you have any

suggestions for next issue please let us know. I

would like to see a questions and answerspage as featured in the back of New Scientist

in the next issue so if you have any questions,

or answers to the questions posed in this issue

please E-mail them to me, along with any

other comments:

[email protected]. I hope you en-

joy the issue.

Fatima Dhalla

Welcome to the new edition of Hooke. This

edition has been put together at fairly short

notice but thanks to the efforts of Charlie,

Emad, Valerie and Kaveh we have managed

to pull together a number of interesting arti-

cles and exciting new features. As for the biol-

ogy section – biology tends to have a bad

press amongst other scientists; however, I as-

sure you the biology articles in this edition of

Hooke raise a number of interesting and pro-vocative points. So read the articles and feel

free to come and see me with any feedback or

ideas for future articles.

Valerie Diederichs

Finally the moment you have all been waiting

for has arrived… your latest copy of Hooke is

here and once again your world is complete.

First, a plug for my area, the physics aspect of the magazine, which I am sure you will all

find incredibly interesting. For those of you

that think physics isn’t your thing and that it

doesn’t affect you then turn to the articleabout the cosmological constant, and find out

about the history, the present and the future of

the universe. For those of you that are going

to take physics A-level well there is an insight

into your future, and for those of you that

aren’t, well you will find out what you are

missing. That is enough from me… so read

the articles and come and see me with any

ideas for future issues.

Kaveh Barkhordar

Hooke has always been a magazine for scien-

tists, so this edition’s leader is of great interest

for the artistic minority who read Hooke.

Sadly, as always, chemistry is pretty much in

the background, but I hope to change this in

the future, so contact me with any chemistry

ideas! Finally, a big “thank you” to everyone

who contributed, especially Charlie, Val,Emad and Fatima. Also thanks to Julian Elliot

for his invaluable assistance, which made this

edition of Hooke possible.

Mohammed Mostaque

Hello and welcome to the Election 2000 edi-

tion of Hooke magazine. We’ve been a bit

pushed this time, as has been said virtually

every issue so far… Never mind, here it is inall its glory. That’s enough for now, unless

you want some jokes – if H20 is water and

H202 is hydrogen peroxide, what is H204?

Drinking. Haha. There we go, no matter how

bad the magazine is, you won’t beat that… On

a more serious note though I’d like to thank

the various writers who made this magazine

possible through their hard work and efforts,

and on the short time period they were given.

Articles from anyone in the school are alwayswelcome—just contact one of us editors either

personally, or by e-mail. Enjoy.





C o n t e n t s

2 Editorial

3 Contents

4 An interview with the Headmaster

5 Is Science Art?

8 The Tizard Lecture 2000

9 Gene Therapy

12 The Prisoner’s Dilemma

16 The New Telescope

16 The Physicist’s Song

17 2,3,7,8-Tetra What?

19 Physic’s Phun

21 Cladistics, Evolution and the Death of the Ladder

24 Krazy Kaveh’s Khaotic Kekulé Korner

26 A Science of History

29 Proteins and Microgravity

30 λ − Einstein’s ‘Greatest Error’

32 The Chemical Elements





An In t er v iew w it h t he Headmast er

WOULD YOU SAY SCIENCE HAS BECOME

“THE NEW CLASSICS”?

No, as that would imply that the classics are dead,

and this is not so. They are alive and flourishing so

there is no comparison to be made. However, the

emphasis on science is changing, the cutting edge

used to be physics, especially theoretical physics,

but now Biology and specifically Biochemistry have

become the ‘new’ science and more people are now

being involved in this aspect.

SHOULD WE INCREASE THE EMPHASISON SCIENCE IN THIS SCHOOL?

No, science is now well staffed, and everyone who

wishes to do it may. In fact, the amount of science

A-Levels overall in the country has been decreasing,

and no expansion is required as we are ahead in this

aspect.

SO THE SUBJECT PROPORTIONS WILLSTAY THE SAME IN THIS SCHOOL FORTHE FORSEEABLE FUTURE AND NEWSYSTEM?

Yes, all pupils will do five straight AS levels, and

although the numbers studying science may change

due to the increased number required, the propor-

tions doing it as opposed to Arts will not.

WILL THE NEW A-LEVELS AFFECT THE

QUALITY OF EDUCATION?

This is not easy to see. The new physics syllabus

seems to be a lot easier, but the examination boards

are maintaining that the synoptic paper will maintain

the current standard of examinations.

WILL THE DECREASE IN STANDARDS AF-

FECT WESTMINSTERS?

No, S Levels and the new World Class tests will

help maintain the current high standards. In fact,

Oxford and Cambridge are thinking of reinstating

entrance tests for all subjects, as opposed to the

small number that currently require them.

WILL IMPERIAL COLLEGE, LONDON

OVERTAKE OXBRIDGE IN SCIENCE?

I’d think that Imperial would say that they have al-

ready overtaken Oxbridge in science.

WILL THIS DENT THE TRADITIONAL

LINKS BETWEEN WESTMINSTER AND OX-

BRIDGE AS MORE SCIENCE STUDENTS GO

TO IMPERIAL FROM WESTMINSTER?

No, Westminster has very strong links with Imperial

and if you consider it to be one college then more

people go there than any other college. However, I

personally believe that it is better to get away and

meet new people as well as experience a change of

approach. I also believe in the tutorial system,

where as in other places the smallest teaching

groups will be 12-15 in a seminar.

DO YOU INTEND TO INCREASE THEACADEMIC TEACHING OF COMPUTERSCIENCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOL-OGY AS ITS IMPORTANCE IN OUR DAILYLIVES GROWS?

We will not introduce an IT A level or GCSE.

However we hope that increasing numbers of lower

school pupils will pass the European Computer

Driving Licence (EDCL) so that new sixth form op-

tions using these necessary skills can be introduced.

IN RESPONSE TO THE ‘CREATIONIST’

MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, DO

YOU BELIEVE ALTERNATIVE

‘BEGINNINGS’ SHOULD BE TAUGHT AS

SCIENCE OR R.S. OR SIMPLY AVOIDED?

Darwin should be taught in schools, as nothing in

Darwin either proves or disproves the existence of a

God - who knows, God might like Darwin. It is ap-

palling for the state to prescribe exactly what should

be taught in schools, neglecting other points of

views.

SO YOU WOULD ENCOURAGE DISCUS-SION OF THESE TOPICS?

Yes, certainly, although this is a church school, but

that is a different matter.

Charlie and Emad interview the headmaster about science at Westminster





Is Sc ienc e an Ar t ?‘Knowledge has killed the sun, making it a ball of gas with spots… The world of reason and science… This

is the and sterile world the abstracted mind inhabits’ - D.H. Lawrence

The Hooke team asks the heads of science whether they agree...

Dr Beavon

I doubt that the great Nobel prize-winningphysicist Richard Feynman ever met DH Lawrence.More of a loss to Lawrence than Feynman (quiteright - I don’t like Lawrence). In 1980 Feynman, ina Horizon programme on ‘The Pleasure of FindingThings Out’, raised the question why knowing moreabout something seems, in some people’s’ eyes, tobe knowing less. Lawrence’spoint. Knowing the fusion reaction

that powers the Sun does not de-value the beauty of the Sun. It doesnot affect the poetic sunbeam/ sunlight/sunshine – it remains ‘thestone that put the stars to flight.’How can it be devalued? Is it notmore of a comment on Lawrence’sinsecurity than it is a concern forNatural Philosophy?

Robert Hooke would not haveunderstood the argument at all. Forhim the natural world was there to

explore, all aspects of it being le-gitimate areas for creative thought.At school here he had mastered agood deal of Classics and Mathe-matics and Science, and I don’tsuppose he thought of them as re-quiring a different psyche. Whyshould it be different now? CP Snow in the 1950’sbemoaned the ‘two cultures’ as being wasteful andunnecessary, but it exists still. Indeed it is alive andwell and living at Westminster. Ironic, really, giventhe enormous increase in scientific teaching –though possibly not in scientific education.

The problems associated with creativity in sci-ence stem, firstly, from the long apprenticeship thatis necessary before truly creative work can be done;secondly from the fact that it is not an unfetteredcreativity. I can perfectly well understand someonesaying ‘I am happy with my world view; I recog-nise the value of the scientific method, but my in-terests lie elsewhere; in consequence I do not wishto serve that apprenticeship.’ Fine. We are not allthe same. But do not then accuse the scientist of

being uncreative just because the creativity is of adifferent type. The process of developing a workingmodel of the Universe requires insight, and leaps of the imagination, an idea of ‘how it could be’. The

constraints arise from the necessity to conform withexperimental data; an hypothesis giving rise to thenecessity for red leaves on trees clearly requiresmore thought. The idea that in science nothing oc-curs other than mere ‘discovery’, the successiveturning over of ever more deeply buried playing-cards in the Universal pack is risible.

The mutual sniping between subjects is en-demic, and though common in schools is not

confined to them. And it ismutual; those there are that

think the knowledge of howto wire a plug is in some waysuperior to knowledge of Greek, or vice-versa. I findthis argument utterly incom-prehensible. It’s rather likeasking me whether I preferporridge or a bicycle. But thesniping is there, as a judg-ment of who is ‘educated’.‘Oh, haven’t you read….?’ intones of incredulity. People,

it seems, are fond of a canon,a list of works that definesthe educated person. Oddly italways seems to be the booksthat they have read! Whatabout my canon? Have you,as an educated person, read –

oh, Wilkie Collins? George Borrow? Thackeray?Trollope (both varieties)? Flaubert, TobiasSmollett, Defoe? How about Ambrose Bierce?Brian Phelan? Daniel Dennett, Paul Davies,Omar Khayyam, Gogol, Mario Vargas Lhosa?How about Catullus, Ovid? Shall I go on? No,because the whole notion of a canon is absurd.What you have read is accidental as well as in-tentional; imposed and voluntary; probably someis unfinished. My list is not a canon. It is (partof) my list.

So, whence the antipathy? Tribalism. Insecu-rity. Why should someone who knows little or noth-ing about science find me a threat? If he cares thatmuch he can go and find out about whatever it isthat is bothersome. He might be better than me,

eventually. After all, suggest an author to me and Iwill usually have a look. I don’t feel threatened bynot having read Martial or Terence or Corneille orDawkins. Nor do I feel uneducated – I am simply





ignorant of what these people have to say. In realityevery one of us, however educated we are, is igno-rant of all but a minuscule proportion of what hasbeen written, even in our own speciality. I simplydo not believe anyone who claims otherwise.

Perhaps it’s all down to the shade of BenjaminJowett. Sometime Master of Balliol, theologian andclassicist, it was written of him ‘I am the Master of this College – and what I don’t know isn’t knowl-edge’. Jowett lives on, and I find this deeply sad.I’m with Feynman – if I knowall there is to be known aboutthe biochemistry of a flower,and the beauty of the flower isavailable to me as it is to you,then I know more than the pureaesthete. I don’t understand how

it can be otherwise. The differ-ence may be that I object less tothe aesthete than seemingly hedoes to me.

Dr Walsh

Science as a creative 'art'? Itis interesting that it is the word'art' that finds itself in invertedcommas; again, here is a discussion, the depth of which hangs on definitions and contextualinterpretations. What is 'art'? What is 'science'?Huxley's view was that science is basicallyorganised common sense, and so scientificapproach can reasonably be applied to everything.But of course both art and science are products of the human mind, bothexplorations of and byconscious thought andfor me there is noconfusion about'dividing lines' as

Wolpert puts it - theyare not required. As forscience killing the Sun,well, I'm with Feynmanon this one: not only doscientists* as humansappreciate beauty andnatural phenomena, thewonder and delight isenhanced by even amodicum of understanding - or wanting to understand -

mechanisms ** Whilst I find quantum mechanicsvery challenging and difficult to explore, I still findit to be very beautiful - it is one of the finest works

of art there is.* particularly physicists!** If you like, scientists and artists are people usingthe same data in different ways. The trick is to beable to analyse the data in lots of ways - there are

no dividing lines!

Dr Roli Roberts

To those of us involved in science, and perhapsmost specifically the study of living things, the assertion (byD.H. Lawrence and manyothers) that to dissect nature isto destroy its magic isincomprehensible; indeed it is inthe details that the true miracle

of nature is revealed. Where elsemight one find machines amillionth of a centimetre acrosswhich use quantum mechanicaleffects to carry out physics andchemistry to which 21st centuryhuman technology can onlyaspire? A single cell (whosevery existence would remainunknown today were it not for

the curiosity of scientists) contains more marvels

than we could possibly imagine from a leisurelyperusal of our macroscopic world. From thehumblest bug to our own brains, intricacy thatwould shame a watchmaker drives the mostcomplex processes in the universe. Do we thenwonder at the splendour that the tenacity of survival

can wring from anunsupervisedevolutionary processacting on a bowl of chemicals? Or do wesee it as

incontrovertibleevidence of a mindfulcreator of bewilderingingenuity? People maygaze with awe at aspectacular sunset, abeautiful flower, a childspeaking its first words,but if they follow theLuddite's plea and shy

away from exploring how these things arise thenthey deprive themselves of the greatest show of all,

whether God or Nature be the ringmaster.As for the question of creativity in science, for

every Picasso there are a hundred derivative





plodders who churn out "To Our Dearest Daughter"greetings cards, and for every Shostokovich anarmy of Ronnie Hazlehursts penning mindlessgames show theme tunes. Science too has itsinspired geniuses and its prosaic drones.

But what IS "creativity" in science? Althoughcreativity in the arts is as diverse an animal as thearts it infuses, I would claim that its scientificcounterpart is a card-carrying member of the club;indeed its principle is almost indistinguishable fromthat of creativity in poetry. The creative act in bothscience and poetry is theconstruction of metaphor. Ineach field a hithertoincommunicable entity (an ofteninvisible natural phenomenon inscience, and an equally

intangible impression in themind of the poet) is packagedinto a form which can beunderstood by others byreference to a seeminglyunrelated but universallyfamiliar object.

Almost all successful poetryis metaphorical, and likewisealmost every scientific term (weoften resort to Latin or Greek todisguise our sheepishness!) takes

its name from an everyday itemor concept.

As in poetry, this is notmerely for the sake of givingsomething a label; the verynature of the chosen metaphor shapes the way thatother people will think about the idea. And as inpoetry, that metaphor may either flower and bearfruit, or stagnate and live only as testament to thebanality or misconceptions of its originator.

Dr Roli RobertsLecturer in Molecular Genetics.

Mrs Lambert

While most of us have a clear idea of what con-stitutes the arts, the majority would not seriouslyinclude science as part of it. My initial reaction is tothrow out the motion. However, I shall proceedwith caution and explore some ideas.

I propose that some of the common features of

the various art forms are freedom of expression,provocation, titillation, excitement and the ability toevoke a variety of emotions. But they have a ra-

tional side, too, though their main purpose is to en-tertain and thus provide vital interludes in the mo-notonous existence of human life.

Science, on the other hand, sets out to explainrather than entertain. But, worryingly, popular be-

lief holds that science is no more than a dry body of facts. It is not. Science is an approach; it makes aserious attempt to explain the world around us. Ithas to involve method and rules. It certainly in-cludes difficult concepts, complex terminology andabstract thinking. And there is no place for anarchy

within scientific methodology.Scientists must obey the con-ventions if they are to have anyvalidity.But science is so much morethan this. There is excitement

in discovery and delight fromhaving one’s observations andhypotheses irrefutably con-firmed. And, a biologist,whilst seeking to relate struc-ture to function, will alsoview living things aestheti-cally.Most of you reading this will

be familiar with the names of James Watson and FrancisCrick. They were the young

biologists who, in the middleof the 20th century, worked outthe structure of DNA(deoxyribose nucleic acid).Arguably, this was the most

significant discovery of that century, possibly eventhe millennium. DNA is after all the very essenceof life and universal to all organisms whether theyare bacteria, fungi, plants or animals. Who couldnot be moved by the account of how they piecedtogether the structure of DNA from the evidence

available? Who could fail to wonder at the sheerbeauty of DNA, the simplicity of its complexity, theflexibility of its constancy, the mutability of its sta-bility? DNA contains the code for life. At the timeof writing, the human genome project is all but fin-ished. Its secrets will soon be revealed.

So what are my conclusions? I would arguethat there is a clear boundary between the arts andsciences. Yet there is overlap. Science is not justanother art form although it relies on creativethought and the odd leap of faith. And, the mani-festation of some of the arts requires scientific

knowledge; printing, photography and painting toname but three examples.

So why is there so much antagonism betweenthe pretenders of the two camps? Let us continue





The Tizar d Lec t ur e 2 0 0 0

This year’s Tizard lecture was on the

leaning tower of Pisa and was given by Prof John Burland, professor of soil mechanics atImperial College London.

In 1989 the Tower of Pisa was shut due to thecollapse of a similar tower in Italy. The threat of economical loss to Pisa resulted in the Mayorsetting up an International commission of scientists to stabilise the tower. Prof Burland wason this commission.

When the tower wasfirst inspected it revealedthat the tower stood onvery soft ground and thatany movement ordisturbance of the soil onthe downward side mayresult in the tower falling

over, as well as thematerials in the towerhaving reached stresses

near to their point of structural failure.

The tower was firsttemporarily stabilised usinglarge blocks of lead eachweighing 10 tonnes, to atotal of 600 tonnes.Although these stopped themovement of the tower,they neither straightened

the tower, nor did theyprovide an attractive option.Being a tourist attraction, the stabilisationtechnique had to preserve the overall appearanceof the tower as well as ensure the safety of thevisitors.

The commission then proceeded to develop amore permanent solution. A student at ImperialCollege, London developed a special drill. Thisdrill which would be inserted on the north side

(the upward end of the tower) allowed material tobe drilled out without disturbing the surrounding

soil. The drill could then be retracted slowly and

the cavities allowed to fill with minimaldisturbance. The removal of soil would lower thisside of the tower, and thus reduce the lean of thetower. Tests and mathematical models weregenerated, and the controversial method wasgranted permission for a test on the tower. Beforethat the test was conducted a support cable wasbuilt and the cable was fixed to the ground at thenorth end of the tower. The test conducted in

February 1999 was toremove a small amount of

soil, enough to correct thelean of the tower bytwenty arc seconds, anamount which would notbe visible to the nakedeye. The uncertainty andthe conditions of the soilmeant that a maximum of twenty litres of soil everytwo days could beextracted from under the

tower. The test wassuccessful. The apparatusused is shown in themiddle.

The operation ended inthe beginning of June1999 at which stage thetower had moved through90 arc seconds. BySeptember 1999 the tower

had moved a further 40arc seconds. Due to the

success of this operation, a continuation with atotal of 41 drills will take place this year. If successful this operation will result in an overallmovement of half a degree.

The lecture provided a fascinating insight intoone of the world’s most famous landmarks. Thespeaker was informative and humorous as theaudience was entertained with short stories from

the site, as well as fascinating details of thehistory of the tower and its construction. The

Valerie Diederichs gives a report on this year’s Tizard Lecture





Gen e Ther apyFatima Dhalla explores the developing world of Gene Therapy

What is Gene Therapy? Many people have aclouded view of what gene therapy actually entails.Images of transgenic mutants spring to mind. How-ever, in reality gene therapy serves as a correctivemeasure rather than a cosmetic commodity.

Gene therapy is the altering of a patient's geneticmaterial in order to fight or prevent disease. Gene ther-apy has many useful applications and its use couldrevolutionise clinical medicine:§ Genetic disorders can be corrected by providing

cells with healthy copies of missing or flawedgenes, in other words by altering the genetic

makeup of certain cells.§ Genetic defects can be prevented

from being passed on to futuregenerations by the alteration of

germ cells in germ-line genetherapy.

§ Gene therapy could also be usedas a form of drug delivery by theinsertion of a gene, which pro-duces a useful product, into theDNA of the patient's cells. Forexample, during blood vessel sur-

gery, a gene that makes an anti-clotting factor could be insertedinto the DNA of cells lining bloodvessels to help prevent dangerousblood clots from forming. Thisapplication would save much ef-fort, money, and time.

It has been more than a decade since the firstapproved clinical trial to put genes into the cells of human beings was initiated and since then morethan 3000 patients have been treated. Initially therewas an overoptimistic view that gene therapy wouldbe quick to revolutionise medicine and the technicalchallenges involved in the process were not fullyunderstood. However, lessons learnt from earlystudies have redirected the course of research andthe prospect of clinical applications of gene therapyis fast becoming a reality.

Two types of gene therapy exist:

§ in vivo gene therapy: A vector carrying the thera-peutic gene or genes is directly administered to the

patient.§ ex vivo gene therapy: Cells from the patient are

harvested, then cultivated in the laboratory and

incubated with vectors carrying a corrective/ therapeutic gene. Cells with the new genetic mate-rial are then harvested and transplanted back intothe patient from whom they were derived.

One challenge that was not initially fully appreci-ated was the difficulty in delivering genes to cells

needy of correction. The techniques used in gene cor-rection therapy, whereby mutant genes are modifieddirectly, were far too inefficient, therefore it was nec-

essary to treat genetic disorders by addition genetherapy, whereby a normal copy of the mutant gene isadded to the cells. Both viral and non-viral techniques

for gene delivery have been clinicallytested and, to date, viral methodshave proved to be most effective,especially in cases that require thestable integration of the deliveredgene. Most gene therapy experimentsrely on disabled mouse retrovirusesto deliver the healthy gene; these vi-ruses usually carry their genetic in-formation into cells and integrate itinto the cell's own genetic material.In order to modify retroviruses for

safe use in gene therapy scientistsremove crucial genes so that the vi-ruses cannot reproduce after theydeliver their genetic information. Theproblem with crippling replication isthat the mechanism the viruses use tospread genes is also inactivated and

therefore the spread of the vector is governed by diffu-sion, which is often limited by the small intercellularspaces through which the viral vectors must move. It isalso possible give the retrovirus a new gene that makesit susceptible to an antibiotic so that the cells that itinfects can easily be destroyed if they become cancer-ous or if the virus delivers the genes to the wrong cells.An advantage of using retroviruses in gene delivery istheir specificity. Scientists can select a particular retro-virus that normally infects cells of a desired type, deac-tivate it and use it as a gene vector.

To achieve the long-term effects of gene therapy,integration of the added gene into the chromosomalDNA of the host may be essential. Unfortunately, themost efficient integrating gene transfer systems usesmall viral vectors (usually retroviruses) that are un-

able to accommodate full-length human genes. Fur-thermore random integration of the gene transfer vec-tors onto different chromosomal locations can also ad-




PAGE 1 0 ELECTION 200 0

versely influence gene expression. In addition to this,scientists have encountered problems related to thedevelopment of immune responses directed towardsthe viral vectors and some of the genes being trans-ferred.

The number of modified viruses being used ingene therapy is growing, as is the understanding of theimmunology of these systems. Scientists have workedto produce a new generation of adeno-vectors withoutviral genes - the "gutted" adenovirus. These adenovi-ruses have shown long-term "survival" in animal mod-els. The virus is not associated with any serious humandisease and has a low potential to induce an immuneresponse or produce inflammation. It is also able toinfect mature, well-differentiated cells, such as musclecells or neurones. The main drawbacks are the limitedcoding capacity of the virus (about 4.0kb) and the la-

borious production systems.Gene therapy using viral methods results in the

addition of genetic material; it does not correct the un-derlying genetic defect causing the disease. Revolu-tionary changes are being investigated in non-viral me-diated gene transfer and genecorrection. Experiments tocorrect single nucleotide mu-tations in genomic DNA haverecently been developed usingRNA and DNA residues induplex conformation to target

the desired nucleotide ex-change . The RNA-DNA se-quence is complementary tothat of the target gene, exceptthat it contains one mis-matched nucleotide whenaligned with the genomicDNA sequence. It appears that this unpaired nucleotideis recognised by endogenous repair systems, leading toan alteration of the DNA sequence of the target gene.This method could herald a major advance in gene

therapy that could mediate the correction of mutationsthat cause genetic diseases.It may seem surprising that the majority of current

clinical applications of gene therapy show a prepon-derance of treatment for cancer rather than genetic dis-orders.

The chart in the middle of the page shows the pro-portion of protocols for human gene therapy trials re-lating to various types of disease.

The following are examples of clinical trials thatare currently underway using gene therapy:

CYSTIC FIBROSIS

Researchers at Stanford University have started a

trial in gene therapy delivered by aerosol to thelungs of patients with cystic fibrosis. The treatmentconsists of a corrected version of the faulty cysticfibrosis gene in an adeno-associated virus shell. It ishoped that the virus transfers the corrective gene

into lung epithelial cells. The patients receive thetreatment through a nebuliser, which blows a mistconsisting of the viral particles into the air passages.

SEVERE COMBINED IMMUNO DEFICIENCY

SYNDROME (SCIDS)

Gene therapy has been successfully used in Franceto treat SCIDS. Severe Combined Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome is an x-linked, life-threateningdisorder, which usually results in death before theinfant reaches one year due to the inability to mount

an immune response to infection. The defectivegene encodes part of a cell receptor that signals thestem cells of T-lymphocytes to develop and grow.Thus SCIDS patients are left vulnerable to even theslightest infections. The treatment involves the har-

vesting of the patient'sbone marrow and infect-ing it with a retroviruscarrying the correctivegene. After three daysof repeated infection,the bone marrow is putback into the patient. Inthe recent trials doctorswere able to demon-strate the corrected ver-sion of the gene in thenew cells of the patient.

Of the two children that have been treated both havecell counts comparable to those of normal childrenof the same age but will have to be monitored toensure the long-term success of the therapy.

HAEMOPHILIA

Haemophilia is potentially one of the few geneticdiseases that are curable with gene transfer technol-ogy because clotting factors do not require physio-logical regulation and as little as 1% plasma concen-tration will convert a severe haemophiliac to a mildhaemophiliac. Any gene therapy strategy for haemo-philia should be low risk, however, they have to betested in animal model before clinical trials cancommence.

HIV-1





In HIV-1 infection it may be possible to apply thetechnology of gene therapy to deliver anti-viralagents directly to the infected cells and potentiallybenefit the infected individual. Retroviral vectorsthat inhibit the HIV-1 virus at various points in the

viral cycle have been constructed. Clinical trials us-ing various vectors have begun, in which T-lymphocytes are harvested, transduced with vectorscontaining potentially therapeutic genes, culturedand infused back into the patient. To check for suc-cess the relative survival engineered T-cell popula-tions is monitored by vector specific PCR, while therecipients' functional immune system is monitoredby standard in vitro and invivo testing protocols.

CANCER

Scientists are currentlyworking on ways to geneti-cally alter immune cells thatare naturally or deliberatelytargeted to cancers. They areinterested in arming suchcells with cancer fightinggenes and returning them tothe body, where they couldmore forcefully attack thecancer. Clinical trials alongthese lines are in progress for the treatment of mela-noma.

Alternatively, cancer cells can be taken from thebody and altered genetically so that they elicit astrong immune response. These cells can then bereturned to the body in the hope that they will act asa cancer vaccine. A variety of clinical trials usingthis approach are now under way.

It is also possible to inject a tumour with a gene that

renders the tumour cells vulnerable to an antibioticor other drug. Subsequent treatment with the drugshould kill only the cells that contain the foreigngene. Since other cells would be spared, the treat-ment should have few side effects. Two trials usingthis approach are in progress for treatment of braintumours.

GENE THERAPY DEATH

A gene therapy experiment at the University of Penn-sylvania led to the death of Jesse Gelsinger, an 18

year old man with an inherited metabolic disorder.

Ethical issues about genetics have been discussed

for years and gene therapy is not different to anyother kind of risky medical research. However, inthe aftermath of Jesse Gelsinger's death it has be-come evident that better regulation of trails, and co-ordination between data safety and monitoring

boards and institutional review boards to share in-formation on adverse outcomes are vital if clinicaltrials of gene therapy are to be effective.

Patients cannot be entered into a clinical researchtrial unless they may benefit. They must be healthyenough for the trial to show whether the treatmentbenefits them. If they are near death, the researchers

cannot determine whetherdeath resulted from the treat-ment or from the disease.They must also be able to give

informed consent, which usu-ally rules out children or ba-bies.

It has been suggested that re-searchers' ties to biotechnol-ogy companies might compro-mise studies. In the UnitedStates federal law has encour-aged such ties in order to bringresearch efforts to the marketplace and benefit patients. Al-

most all leading researchers have such ties.

The future for gene therapy is hopeful. Althoughthere has been more speculation and optimism thanproducts, the results of recent trials augur well for afuture in clinical gene therapy, which has the poten-tial to dra- maticallytransform the treat-ment of a great manymedical conditions.

AIDS PATIENT RECEIVING GENE THERAPY





The Pr iso n er ’s Dil emma

Decision-making is at the heart of life itself,whether decisions be programmed responses orconsciously evaluated. Although there may be a greatmultiplicity of responses in any given situation, andthe decision and its outcomes may involve incalculablecomplexity, it is possible to crystallise these ideas intoa mathematical framework, such as the Prisoner’sDilemma. In order to simplify analysis, a decisiontaken by an individual may only have two outcomes:cooperation (being nice) or defection (being nasty).Also, it is assumed that the decisions are made byindividuals pursuing self interest without centralauthority (which may enforce a

certain cooperation/defection).This appears to be a veryrestrictive assumption, but infact, the application of thismodel extends very far, and of course, can be made morecomplex to accommodate morethan two outcomes. Therefore,the question is, when tocooperate, when to defect, andwhether any particular strategycan be employed. There is also

an evolutionary aspect to this conundrum: how can aparticular strategy invade an environment dominatedby other strategies, can this strategy evolve to becomemore widespread, and is the strategy will be stable?

The Prisoner’s Dilemma originally describes thesituation where two accomplices to a crime arearrested and questioned separately. Either can defectagainst the other by confessing and hoping for a lightersentence. But if both confess, their confessions are notas valuable. On the other hand, if both cooperate witheach other by refusing to confess, the district attorneycan only convict them on a minor charge. Formally,then, the Prisoner’s Dilemma game is defined as a twoplayer game in which each player can either cooperate(C ) or defect ( D). If both cooperate, both get thereward, R. if both defect, both get the punishment P. If one cooperates and the other defects, the first gets thesucker’s payoff, S, and the other gets the rewards fromexploitation, E . The payoffs are ordered E > R>P>S,

and satisfy R>( E +S)/2 – indeed the payoffs may bequalitatively and quantitatively different for eachplayer as long as these inequalities hold (this isimportant in an iterated situation so that players cannotgain by alternating being exploited by and exploitingeach other). The rules of the game are now defined,first for one iteration. All strategies are possible. Thereis no way to be certain of the other player’s move,(hence, communication, although allowed, is quiteworthless). The players must make exactly one of either move. The payoffs are unchangeable. Thepayoffs are illustrated in the grid below, where payoffs

are shown (row player, column

player):Therefore, in a one-off meet-ing, cooperation is the optimalbilateral strategy, but defectionis the optimal unilateral strat-egy to adopt (whatever the op-ponent does, you maximiseyour own points by defecting).Since bilateral agreements can-not be made with certainty,decisions are always unilateral,and hence defection is the

dominant strategy. However, if the game is playedmore than once, then each player may react to theother’s strategy – this is an iterated Prisoner’s Di-lemma. Imagine that the game is played a known finitenumber of times what would your last move be? Onthe last move there is no future to influence, in effectreducing the situation to a one off game, so both play-ers anticipate defection for that move, and so the pe-nultimate move is reduced to a one-off game and so onuntil the first move. Therefore, there is no incentive tocooperate if the number of interactions is known andfinite. However, in most realistic settings, such as busi-ness relationships the players cannot be sure when thelast interaction between them will take place.

When considering an iterated Prisoner’s dilemma,the only information available on the players abouteach other is the history of their interaction so far.What makes it possible for cooperation to emerge isthat the players might meet again. However, the futureis less important than the present, since the game may

SengHin Kong talks about decisions, both easy and hard





be terminated unexpectedly (e.g. other player dies) anda payoff now is usually more attractive than an equalpayoff in the future. So can you see a way of accounting for this? This can be represented by adiscount parameter (between 0 and 1) – the degree to

which the payoff of each move is discounted relativeto the previous move. If this discount parameter issufficiently high, there is no best strategy. Forexample, if one player adopts the strategy of alwaysdefecting, then the other player should only everdefect; however, if one player adopts a strategy of cooperation, which if suckered by a defection from theopponent, changes to permanent defection, then theother player should never defect. However, informulating strategies, rationality is not at al lnecessary, procedural rationality, based on rules of thumb can produce satisficing outcomes, and even

simple operational procedures followed blindly canproduce interesting results. Thus, the framework of thePrisoner’s Dilemma is broad enough to encompasssituations from international relations to bacterialcolonies.

Having just established the absence of an optimalstrategy, in a tournament set up by Robert Axelrod,where competing strategies were pitted against eachother, one strategy emerged victorious. This strategy,called TIT FOR TAT, involved cooperating on the firstmove and then reciprocating the opponent’s previousmove thereafter. This very simple strategy had several

interesting qualities.People are accustomed to thinking in zero-sum

situations, where one person’s loss is the other’s gain(e.g. a football match – if one team loses, then theother must win). In this frame of mind, when peopleenter a Prisoner’s Dilemma situation, the only standardby which they judge their own strategy’s performanceis the benchmark set by the opponent in each game –in short, envy is manifested, and this is not a goodstrategy unless one’s goal is to destroy the otherplayer. Therefore, a player should compare their score

to that which could be obtained using another strategy.In a variegated environment of many other strategies,each individual game becomes only a part of thewhole, so a strategy that can do well across the boardis better than strategies which can exploit a few weakerones, but end up punishing each other with mutualdefections. In an iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma of longduration, one’s opponent’s success is virtually aprerequisite for one’s own success, as mutualcooperation is the most rewarding outcome, and soenvy is counter-productive.

It may be observed that the British system of

government may not serve the interests of the peopleto the extent that one might think, at least qualitatively.There are two main parties, Conservative and Labour,

competing for votes in order to remain in power – thusthey are in a zero sum situation, and the goal is todestroy the other party. This results in polarisationover many issues, such as Europe, education, taxationetc, so that the electorate must choose between the

parties and cannot agree with both. However, theprocess of guiding a country to a socioeconomicoptimum is a process of cooperation – drawing battlelines over every issue only hinders sensible debate andcompromise, which so often would be beneficial – forexample over European Monetary Union.

TIT FOR TAT is never the first to defect, it alwaysapproaches with open arms, and hence increases thepotential for cooperation, and avoids unnecessaryconflicts, but this generosity must be supported by amechanism to respond to provocation, or else thestrategy may suffer exploitation. Furthermore, when

interactions are likely to be short, i.e. the discountparameter is low, it pays to be meaner (for example,alternating cooperation and defection where opponentsare using TIT FOR TAT). For example, if it is knownthat an influential MP is likely to be expelled from theparty for scandalous behaviour, the incentivediminishes for other MPs to do political favours forhim/her or for businesses to keep him/her on theirpayroll for questions in parliament, because reciprocityis unlikely. Another possibility is that no other strategywould reciprocate cooperation, and it is difficult todetermine this in advance. A possible alternative

strategy would be to defect until the other playercooperates, but this is a very risky strategy as it couldlead to indefinite bilateral defection. In real life, if yougreet people with a slap in the face (metaphorical orotherwise), they are unlikely to be all that forgiving,and you would probably regret not having started off cooperating.

The policy of reciprocity is very robust because itis rewarding in a wide range of circumstances. TITFOR TAT, for example, can discriminate betweenthose strategies that return its initial cooperation and

those which do not; indeed being immediatelyprovocable is a prerequisite for a strategy to succeed.For example, if the strategy were modified to TIT FORTWO TATS, it is clear that an opponent which startedoff cooperating and then alternated between defectionand cooperation would be able to exploit thisgenerosity. Reciprocity strikes a balance betweenpunishing and forgiving defection, and indeed thisbalance may be altered to suit the situation. However,if more than one defection was exacted per defectionfrom the opponent, there is the risk of escalation of theconflict, whereas a more forgiving policy risks

exploitation.A related concept in a reality where strategies are

not always as evident, is a player’s reputation





(embodied in the beliefs of others about the strategythat the player will use) which influences others. Areputation is typically established through observingthe actions of that player when interacting with otherplayers. For example, Britain’s reputation for being

provocable was certainly enhanced by its decision toretake the Falklands in response to the Argentineinvasion. By contrast, the United Nations’ ratherclumsy operation in Kosovo recently sent conflictingsignals – on the one hand the UN is prepared tointervene, but may not be properly committed orcompetent. Knowledge of a player’s reputationprovides some information even before the first move.This has implications on both players. A clear strategysuch as TIT FOR TAT is easily identifiable, so as theopponent would do well to cooperate as this wouldlead to mutual gains. If, however, a strategy can be

exploited, then informed opponents can clean up. Theutter simplicity of TIT FOR TAT makes it easy toassert as a fixed pattern of behaviour, and is aneffective way of making the other player adapt tocooperation; hence it cannot be drawn into adetrimental pattern of behaviour.

Although it is certainly advantageous to a playerfor having a firm reputation for using TIT FOR TAT,it is not the best reputation to have, which is areputation for being a bully. The optimal kind of bullyis the one who has the reputation for squeezing themost out of the other player while not tolerating any

defections at all from that other player. This can bedone by defecting so often so that the other player justprefers cooperating all the time to defecting all thetime, and the best way to coerce the other player intocooperation is to be known for permanent defection if provoked even once. However, these reputations arenot always easy to establish. In a white vs. blackssituation, there is a large majority of whites to supportsuch exploitative behaviour against black people. If this is not the case, and everyone is attempting to getthe better of everyone else, in the reputation stakes,

then a prerequisite is frequent defection. However, thisstrategy, as observed before, is likely to provoke otherplayers into retaliation, leading to many unrewardingcontests of will (e.g. power struggles in the mafia).One might also consider the development of statushierarchies. So, if two people, races or countries aretrying to establish a tough reputation against eachother, it is easy to imagine a vicious cycle of defections leading to endless mutual punishment.

Indeed, this can be seen to be the case in WorldWar I. Here, all the players needed to maintain areputation of instant defection when defected against.

When Serbia rallied for the independence of their Slavneighbours in Bosnia -Herzegovina by assassinatingArchduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrio-

Hungarian throne, Austria -Hungary, if they were toprevent a fate similar to that of the Turkish empire(which suffered wars of independence from many of its states), needed to respond with clarity and force. Inother words, the Slav people had defected and

punishment was necessary, or else other states mightbelieve that Austria -Hungary’s forgiveness could beexploited by attempting to gain independence.However, if the champion of the Slav people, Russia,were to maintain her status as guarantor of Slav rights,she would have to intervene, i.e. defect againstAustria-Hungary. Germany, being allied with Austria-Hungary, had to deliver an ultimatum to Russiaordering the threat of war to be removed. This broughtFrance into the foray as well, as she was allied toRussia. Then, as the German war machine wasmobilised according to the Schlieffen plan, Belgium

was invaded, and her protector, Britain, which mayhave remained in ‘splendid isolation’ for a whilelonger, was drawn in to retaliate against Germany.Hence, this very costly single defection by eachcountry started the war, which could have beenprevented (or at least delayed – the pressures werealready mounting in Europe despite the assassination)if Austria-Hungary and the Bosnians had reached amutual compromise i.e. cooperated.

Once the war started, another game was beingplayed in the trenches, where soldiers at the front linewere supposed to slaughter each other in a war of

attrition for a few square miles of land (or less), butinstead, a ‘live-and-let-live’ system of warfaredeveloped – i.e. cooperation. This brings us to thequestion of how cooperation can develop in a hostileenvironment, where everyone starts off defecting bytrying to kill each other. It has already been establishedthat the discount parameter, or equivalently, theexpected length of the game, must be fairly high inorder for cooperation to stand a chance, but what elseis necessary?

In the scenario of trench warfare, mutual restraint

is preferred to mutual punishment, and indeed,unilateral restraint met with punishment would resultin a worse outcome for those who were restrained thanthose who dealt out the punishment. Moreover, bothsides would prefer mutual restraint to the alternation of serious hostility (entails high casualties). Therefore,the inequalities that define a Prisoner’s Dilemma holdin this situation. If the scenario is restricted to twoentrenched units facing each other across No Man’sLand, it is clear that whatever the opponent does,shooting to kill is the dominant strategy. However, thesame units often face each other for extended periods

of time, so cooperation has a chance to evolve, so letus appeal to mathematics.

The question is whether a strategy of permanent





defection can be invaded by a nice strategy such asTIT FOR TAT. Having established that reciprocity isuseless, at an individual level, if the other playerintends always to defect, if several players, startadopting a TIT FOR TAT strategy, and all players

interact with each other, cooperation does stand achance. Referring to the matrix shown in table 1,where E =5 (exploiting other player), R=3 (mutualcooperation), P=1 (mutual defection), S=0 (beingexploited by other player), if the discount parameter is0.9, using the result for the summing of an infinitegeometric progression where the common ratio isbetween 0 and 1, in a population where the onlystrategy is defection, each individual accrues a score of 10 points. If several players employing TIT FOR TATstart playing with the defectors, then, against defectorsthey score 9 points, and against each other they score

30 points. If TIT FOR TAT newcomers are anegligible proportion of the entire population, the highscores between mutual cooperators will be more theoffset by the fact the TIT FOR TAT scores less than adefector against a defector. If TIT FOR TAT has someproportion, p, of its interactions with other TIT FORTAT players, it will have (1- p) with the defectors. Soits average score will be 30 p+9(1- p). If this score isgreater than 10 points, then the TIT FOR TATnewcomers can successfully establish themselves.Therefore, if p>1/21, cooperation can evolve in thisspecific situation. The proportion required drops

substantially if the expected duration of the gameincreases. Furthermore, it can be seen that if TIT FORTAT becomes the dominant strategy, p can beexpected to increase until defectors are eliminated.

Therefore, in World War I, a clear escalation of cooperation should be observed after spontaneous non-aggression appeared once trench warfare had past itsbloody and highly mobile initial stage. For example, aslow down in fighting due to miserable weather, ormutual restraint shown by not bombing ration suppliescould spread to other forms of cooperation. When

defections actually did occur, a two-for-one, or three-to-one punishment system was often imposed, as afirm response was necessary for TIT FOR TATreciprocity. An inherent damping process in the formof restraint exercised by the offending party wouldprevent escalating conflict, and even apologies wereshouted across No Man’s Land for third party shelling.Rotation of troops would have interrupted anyrelationships, but the common practices of the ‘live-and-let-live’ system could easily be communicated tofresh troops. For the high commanders, it was a zerosum game – defeat of the enemy results in victory, but

not so for those at the front line whose lives were inthe direct line of fire. Indeed elaborate procedureswere developed in order to deceive officers who did

not approve of cooperation, such as deliberatelyinaccurate shooting and shelling. In the end, it was thefrequent raids made mandatory by high commandwhich spelled the end for the live-and-let-live system,as random defections were made necessary, and

cooperation would have lead to high casualties in theevent of a raid. Therefore, cooperation can emerge inthe most bitter of circumstances The evolution of cooperation is dependent upon the robustness, initialviability and stability of a strategy. It has already beenshown that TIT FOR TAT is initially viable in a hostileenvironment, given that the proportion of newcomersis great enough, and that TIT FOR TAT is very robustas it can cope with a wide variety of situations, and isdiscriminating. In order for any strategy which is firstto cooperate to be collectively stable, the discountparameter must be sufficiently large. The reason is that

for a strategy to be collectively stable it must protectitself from invasion by any challenger, including thestrategy which always defects. If the native strategyever cooperates, a strategy of always defecting will get E for exploiting the native strategy, but the populationaverage can be no greater than R per move. So, inorder for the population average to be no less than thescore of the challenging defectors, the interaction mustlast long enough for the gain from exploitation to benullified over future moves. Furthermore, the scoreachieved by a strategy that comes in a cluster is aweighted average of two component: how it does with

others of its kind and how it does with the predominantstrategy. Both of these components are less than orequal to the score achieved by the predominant, nicestrategy. Therefore, if the predominant strategy cannotbe invaded by a single individual, it cannot be invadedby a cluster either. Therefore, if the shadow of thefuture on the present is great enough, TIT FOR TAT iscollectively stable. This amounts to a ratche tmechanism in the evolution of cooperation – within therules of the game, cooperation cannot regress todefection.

These ideas about the Prisoner’s Dilemma can berepresented in a very attractive way – inherently selfishindividuals, who are not necessarily rational, can learnto cooperate, and indeed the evolution of cooperationhas a ratchet mechanism that prevents degenerationinto undesirable mutual punishment by defection.However, nice strategies such as TIT FOR TAT caninvade nasty populations with surprising ease, as longas a few people are willing to cooperate, given thatconditions do not change, and indeed that nice strategycan become dominant. However, perhaps the mostinteresting thing is that mutual cooperation is rational

in even a one-off situation, since if everyone wereperfectly rational, they would presumably all think inexactly one way, and hence the outcomes would be





The New Tel esc o pe

The physics department has recently purchased a tele-scope. It’s a Meade ETX90 and comes with a tripod,eyepieces, a photoadapter and a num-ber of other accessories including asolar filter. This excellent system ishighly portable and with the mini-mum of training extremely easy touse. Interested pupils will be able tomake observations and take photo-graphs in London or on school tripssuch as Alston or expeditions.

The telescope allows the Physics Department the op-

tion of offering a GCSE Astronomy option to Upper-shell/Sixth form pupils. The course requires severalpieces of observational coursework such as monitoringJupiter’s moons, photographs of the Moon and the ac-tive regions of the Sun; the telescope is ideal for thesepurposes.

In addition to its use by Westminster pupils, the tele-scope will be a valuable tool in helping to forge closerlinks with prep schools through the Department’sCLOSPA scheme whereby members of the Depart-ment visit a prep school to give a talk on some aspect

of astronomy. It is hoped that upper school pupils(either as an option or even a station activity) willeventually be given the chance to become involvedwith this project by giving demonstrations of the tele-scopes use and assist these younger pupils in makingobservations.

If pupils are interested in taking the GCSE Astronomyoption, helping with the CLOSPA scheme, or in mak-ing observations and photographs please see yourphysics teacher asap.

The school has purchased a new telescope, the de-

Sung to the tune of ‘The Lumberjack Song’

Physicist: I'm a physicist, and I'm okay,I sleep all night and I work all day.I do my tests, I take results,I do them all quite happily.On occasion they don’t quite work,Experimental errors, you see.

Chorus: He's a physicist, and he's okay,He sleeps all night and he works all day.

He does his tests, he takes results,He does them all quite happily.Even though they don’t quite work,The theory is still right, you see.

Physicist: I'm a physicist, and I'm okay,I derive equations all day.Integrals and differentialsAre all easy for me.Just give me a system,I'll model it with glee!

Chorus: He's a physicist, and he's okay,He derives equations all day.Integrals and differentialsAre all easy for him.If you told him to model,You'd see he isn't dim.

Physicist: I'm a physicist, and I'm okay,I work all night and I work all day.I make sure all the equipmentAll completely safe,I’m really happy if My lab coat doesn’t chafe.

Chorus: He’s a physicist, and he’s okay,We works all night, and he works all day,He cleans all of his equipmentAnd he tries to be safe.He’s only happy if His lab coat doesn’t chafe

Physicist: I’m a physicist, and I’m okaySo go on, do some physics today!

The Phys ic is t So ng Mohammed Mostaque





‘As under a green sea…/ He plunges at me,

guttering, choking, drowning.’ The images and whatwe naturally associate with any word or phrase varyfrom one person to the next and are constantly beingdistorted through our experience. For those thatsurvived the Great War chlorine will forever be linkedto memories of friends and companions ‘stumbling’and ‘drowning’ in a ‘green sea’ of chlorine gas.However the darker days of chlorine are behind us andwe know chlorine for its somewhat more beneficialcontributions to our lives. The number of ways inwhich chlorine is useful to us is huge, as a disinfectantand purifier as a component in pharmaceuticals and

agrochemicals and innumerous manufacturingprocesses…. Choleraepidemics racked the citiesof Victorian Britain killingthousands. In this countryat least we no longer needto worry about the threatof cholera as our water ispurified by chlorinewhereas in many lessdeveloped nations cholerais still a very real dangeras they do not have theresources to properly treattheir water. A wide rangeof ordinary and some notso ordinary goods rely onchlorine, our paper isbleached using chlorine,silicon chips containchlorine as do bullet-proof vests and swimming pooldisinfectants.

To meet this demand for chlorine WesternEuropean chlorine manufacturers alone produce morethan 9 million tonnes of chlorine every year. Of thistremendous volume of chlorine turned out by theindustry a third is recycled, mostly as hydrochloricacid, within the production plants. Roughly two thirdsof Europe’s entire chemical production depends,directly or indirectly, on chlorine and the value of thechlorine industry alone is an estimated EUR 230,000million per annum.

However the recent past of chlorine has not alwaysbeen so good, CFCs being one example, and new envi-

ronmental issues concerning the products and themanufacturing of chlorine are almost constantly beingbrought to the public’s eyes, ears and any other sen-

sory organ that the media can reach. The latest scare is

dioxins.Dioxins are a group of compounds formed in the

presence of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, chlorine andlarge amounts of heat and so are mainly found to beundesirable by-products of the Chlor-alkali industryand various combustion and other industrial processes,but it is also known that some occur naturally. Theword ‘dioxin’ has come to represent just one of thedioxin family, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin(2,3,7,8-TCDD). This dioxin is formed in particularduring the synthesis of 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, and otheruseful compounds, which is in turn used in the

manufacture herbicides,2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyaceticacid (used in Vietnam bythe U.S Army in thedefoliant Agent Orange)and hexachlorophenewhich is antibacterialagent formerly used insoap an deodorants. Avery small amount of dioxins are alsointentionally produced forresearch purposes.The structure of dioxins,or more accuratelydibenzo-p-dioxins, is asfollows; two benzene ringswhich are connected bytwo atoms of oxygen. Intotal the two benzene rings

have twelve carbons between themselves of which fourare bonded to the pair of oxygen atoms. The remaining

carbons can form bonds to hydrogens or atoms of otherelements such as chlorine. The carbons that still havethe possibility to form bonds with other atoms are, byconvention, numbered in the following manner; theremaining carbons in the first benzene ring are labelledwith numbers ranging from one to four and on thesecond ring from six to nine. More toxic dioxins arebonded to chlorines at these positions.

Dioxins are not readily soluble in water, howeverthey are highly lipophilic, that is they are extremelysoluble in fatty substances and in other fat like organicmaterials. Pure dioxins are colourless and odourless

solids whose melting and boiling points are high andevaporate at a slow rate.

2,3,7,8-TCDD is the most well known of all the

2 ,3 ,7,8 -t et r a w hat ?Paola investigates the presence of dioxins within our everyday lives





dioxins, the most studied, is extremely stable and isalso recognised as being the most toxic of all thedioxins. It is insoluble in water and in most otherorganic substances but is soluble in oils. This propertymeans that dioxin in soil is resistant to dilution by

rainwater. These properties are what cause the dioxinto seek and then enter the fatty tissues of any body intowhich it enters. The toxicity of TCDD is thought to bea result of its ability to bind with a certain type of receptor protein, which is found in some of the body’scells. The TCDD-receptor complex, which is the resultof the binding of the dioxin and the protein, is able toenter the nucleus of the cells and bind to the DNA.This will adversely affect the cell’s ability to produceproteins.

To reiterate dioxins are by products of manycombustion processes and also of the Chlor-alkali and

related industries. Hospital and other wasteincinerators, wood fires, power plants and motorvehicles all release dioxins every day. Once thesedioxins become airborne they can come to settle onfarmlands and due to their chemical they are able tomake their way into the food chain as well as into ourwaterways.

Very recently an advertisement was published inthe New York Times highlighting the alarm that dioxinshave caused in the United States, while here the issueis very much in the background, as we seem to be farmore concerned with other matters. It is entitled

‘Guess What You Had For Breakfast?’, it makes apoint of drawing the public’s attention to the effects tohumans from dioxin exposure and what some of thesources of our dioxin consumption are.

‘Dioxin is now pervasive in fish, beef,milk, poultry, pork and eggs. Infants getdioxin in breast milk. Dioxin is aknown cause of cancer.’

The advertisement’s text goes on to list furtherharmful effects of the exposure to dioxins;

‘Learning disabilities, birth defects, endometriosis

and diabetes…. Dioxin weakens the human immunesystem and decreases the level of the male hormonetestosterone.’

There is great confusion and allegations are farfrom being few and far between in the U.S concerningthe dioxin issue, much like the current situation herewith GM foods, and this advertisement is a primeexample of the panic and alarm that an incorrectlyinformed press can cause. In fact the side effectsexperienced by humans from exposure and ingestionof dioxins are much less serious than what the mediawould have us believe.

The main source of the confusion was a paperreleased in 1994 by the U.S Environmental ProtectionAgency (USEPA). The substance of the report had not

been properly or accurately and scientificallyresearched. The report was based on ‘many unprovedassumptions and untested hypotheses’, and whatevidence was given as to the effects of dioxins onhumans were drawn from conclusions based on testing

on guinea pigs that were exposed to ridiculousamounts of the 2,3,7,8TCDD, the most toxic of all thedioxins.

The most accurate information available to usregarding the effects of dioxins on humans comes fromobservations made of communities that have throughindustrial accidents and the like been exposed to verylarge amounts of dioxins over a long period of timeand also on workers that are working day to day in thepresence of dioxins. The findings from such studies arevery much different to those published in 1994 by theUSEPA. Cancer was not found to be a much larger

problem among these groups as it is among others andsome dioxins have even been found to inhibit thegrowth of breast tumours. None of the other effectswere documented as being serious problems in thesesectors and most often the worst effect on thoseexposed to that amount of dioxins on a daily basis wasfound to be a skin disease very similar to acne. Thesewere the findings of studies conducted on peopleexposed to thousands of times more dioxins than theaverage human being.

There is great concern as to the amount of dioxinsthat we are daily exposed to, as is illustrated by the

advertisement in the New York Times. This hasprompted WHO to decree what they think acceptableexposure to dioxins to be. WHO has recently releasedthe value of ‘one to four picogrammes per kilobodyweight per day’ as acceptable daily dioxin intake.The amount of dioxins that we are actually exposed tois roughly half of that value.

As per usual the chemical industry has beenblamed for the pollution by the media and manyinfluential and yet ill-informed members of the public.Many sources such as European Dioxin inventories

have shown that the chemical industry is but a veryminor contributor to the levels of dioxins in theenvironment, less than 1% in fact and some sectors of the industry, such as the pulp and paper sector havepractically eliminated dioxins from their waste. It isnot chlorine and its related industries that are at theheart of the issue as the environmentalists would haveus all believe, combustion processes occurring in alldifferent circumstances, including in nature, that arechief contributors to the dioxin contamination.

Dioxins are indeed quite dangerous, should levelsever be high enough (they have dropped considerably

over the past thirty years), due to their chemicalproperties. However we should take what is publishedwith a pinch of salt as inappropriately tested theories





When someone mentions the word school trip eve-ryone immediately imagines standing in a pond scoop-ing insects and counting how many water beetles theycan find. However the physics department havebrought the sixth form on many school trips, with not apond or traffic survey in sight.

The first was a day spent at the conference hall inRussell Square where we enjoyed a host of lectures onmany contemporary subjects. After having filed intothe large auditorium surrounded by hundreds of otherphysics A-level students we listened to a lecture onmobile phones. This lecture led us through the historyof mobile phones, as well as how they worked and

how they communicated with the network to whichthey were registered. Mobilephones being an integral part of many teenagers’ lives the lecturecaptured the attention of the audi-ence, as all were eager to find outthe finer points of how we actu-ally stayed in touch. This wasfollowed by a lecture on the dif-ferent forms of night vision. Thelecturer worked in coordinationwith DERA and explained tech-

niques such as infrared vision andlight intensifying techniques.Heat techniques were also men-tioned. The lecturer used fascinat-ing slides and as the advantages of each method were mentioned wewere entertained with incredibleimages. The downfalls of eachmethod were also vividly illus-trated with slides. The followinglecture was on a lighter note andwas very topical at the time. These lectures were con-ducted just before the end of the play term and the nextlecture was given the title ‘the physics of Christmas’.The lecturer proceeded to tell us that it was in fact pos-sible for there to be a Father Christmas and for him toride in a sledge pulled by reindeer and deliver his pre-sents all in one evening. This lecture had the hall audi-ence roaring with laughter as well as simultaneouslybeing very surprised by the implications of the lecture.This lecture was followed by a lunch break. Havingreturned refreshed from our break we were seated andonce again amused by the following lecture’s title, ‘the

physics of sex’. This lecture was to describe the dis-covery of the first biological wheel. This wheel hadbeen found on a sperm, and showed how incredibly

efficient their swimming technique was. A more con-ventional lecture followed, as biodegradable plasticsand the scam behind most currently available plasticscaptivated the audience. The lecturer had been in-volved in a research team, which researched currentbiodegradable plastics and found them to break downonly into long strands of polymer, rather than the ac-tual monomers involved in the material. These longstrands of polymer were still harmful to the environ-ment. The research team then continued to develop aplastic that would actually break down into its mono-mers rather than long chains of monomer. The re-search team succeeded in doing this and the climax of

the lecture came as the lecturer swallowed a spoonfulof this plastic to prove that itwas completely harmless. Thefinal lecture of the day was onchaos theory and compoundpendulums. The lecturer ex-plained to us the unpredictablenature of the pendulums whenmore than one was attachedend-to-end and allowed toswing. A demonstration of thisfollowed and once again the

lecture climaxed when the lec-turer selected a volunteer fromthe audience and set a newworld record for the most pen-dulums balanced end-to-endvertically upright.All in all it was an educationalday and everyone left feelingsatisfied that they had learntmore of daily aspects of phys-ics, and many left astonished as

to how much physics affected our daily lives.The following sixth form physics trip was to the

Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire.When we arrived we were led to a large room filledwith a host of displays. We were firstly introduced,before being split into smaller groups and being ledaround the particle accelerator. In small groups it wasexplained how the particle accelerator worked as wellas being explained why it was built, and a little of thehistory. The accelerator has many ‘cells’ leading off the main chute where the particles are accelerated. Inthese cells experiments are carried out. The cells can

be rented out for a time period of a couple of days toseveral months, and are used by many different groups,from university students to global companies. We then

Physic ’s PhunValerie Diederichs provides a short insight into the physics trips in the sixth form





visited two specific cells. In the first cell research wasbeing conducted on super-conductors, and some of theproperties of superconductors at low temperatureswere displayed, as a small magnet lay suspendedabove the superconductor. We were then led into a

cell that was under construction and we were able tosee the incredible technology involved in such re-search. After lunch we had two options. The first wasa talk on lasers and the second was a talk on spacetechnology. I chose the talk on space technology.Two scientists gavethis lecture from STEP,which is an Interna-tional Collaboration inFundamental Physicsand it is a joint US-European project into

the phenomenon of gravity. The lectureexplained how the dis-tance to different starsfrom the earth is meas-ured. He explained thedifferent techniques aswell as the implicationsthis had, if severalreadings were taken.The lecturer also ex-plained how the mass

of stars could be calcu-lated. When this lec-ture was finished we were given a talk on materials,specifically composite materials. The combined prop-erties of composite materials were explained as well asthe science and the molecular implications of theseproperties. This was followed by a tour around a labo-ratory where materials were tested. We were

shown how inserting solid carbon dioxide into theballoon could blow up a balloon and as the solidwarmed and evaporated the balloon expanded andeventually burst. Again inserting them into a balloonand observing their behaviour showed the properties of different gases. A large machine was then used to ap-ply a tension of up to one tonne on an aluminium rodof diameter 12 mm. Viewing different forms of carboncomposites completed the tour of the laboratory, andtheir different properties explained.Our latest physics adventure has been to two powerstations in Didcot near Oxford. The first power stationwe visited was Didcot A, a large traditional coal firedpower station. We begin the day by an introduction

into the power station as well as an explanation intothe various stages of the power production. At variousstages in the production of electricity from coal waste

products are formed. We were able to see these wasteproducts as well as being given an explanation as tohow they are being processed into more useful forms,such as insulating blocks for building purposes. Thegroup of physicists were then split up into smaller

groups of roughly five people and a guide accompa-nied us around the site. We were able to see key fea-tures such as the control room, which was originallybuilt in the 1960’s and is now being refurbished tomake it more modern. As this refurbishment takes

place the amount of staff needed to run thepower station de-creases dramatically,and when we werethere only four staff were in the control

room. The power sta-tion was very impres-sive and the magnitudeof the equipmentneeded to produce suf-ficient electricity wasastonishing. In theafternoon we visitedJET. This is the JointEuropean Taurus andis a research projectinto the possibilities of

producing electricityfrom nuclear fusion. It

is a tokamak reactor as in the diagram.The plasma is an ionised gas and is produced by heat-ing an ordinary gas of neutral atoms beyond the tem-perature at which electrons are knocked out of the at-oms. The gas consists of free negative electrons andpositive nuclei. This plasma will then undergo fusion,and thus releasing energy. We were split into smallergroups where we were able to see a full-scale model of the Taurus as well as being talked to about the differ-

ent stages of development, which the Taurus has un-dergone. Finally we were allowed into the controlroom, from which we were able to witness a test. Thetest can be viewed because as the gas reaches a plasmaa lilac haze is emitted. Sensors in the ring detect thisand transmit the colour to screens in the control room.

It was a thoroughly enjoyable day, in which wewere able to see the past, present and the future of electricity production. Visiting JET also helped settlesome of the safety concerns associated with nuclearpower and allowed us to see nuclear fuels as a real andpotentially inexhaustible supply of electricity to meet

our daily needs.





Mention evolution, and most people think ‘progress’. Images of ladders, slopes leading out of the primordial soup with humans at the other end.This can be seen in most pre 90s textbook recon-structions of the history of life. In what I call thediorama effect, a group evolves, usually through‘improvement’ from a more simple ancestor, andthen proceeds to dominate a few dioramas and pic-tures, and then is supplanted by something moreadvanced, improved, and therefore ‘better’. This is

just one example of the ‘age’ mentality, when lifeon Earth is divided into a series of ‘ages’ when dif-ferent organisms dominate. Infact, we are and always will be inthe age of bacteria. Fishes did notdisappear at the end of the Pa-laeozoic era, yet reconstructionsof Jurassic and Cretaceous seasonly show the more ‘advanced’ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs etc.Companies and institutions thathave been made obsolete are re-

ferred to as ‘dinosaurs’. Anotherexample of this worldview is inthe popular view of human evolu-tion, with the stepped row of hominids, each more upright andless hairy than the last, culminat-ing in modern humans as thehighest product of natural selec-tion. There have been decades of this type of misconception, going back to the Victo-rian era.

The Victorian view of evolution was first cre-

ated, in a strange compromise between the thenradical theory of Darwinian evolution, and the reli-gious establishments iconography of ‘mortal coils’,‘successive creations’, and ‘Great chains of being’.These were partially due to efforts to understand thefossil record outside of an evolutionary context.

This mindset has at times reduced palaeontologyto a pseudoscience. In the 20s and 30s, for example,it was assumed that chordates developed from ar-thropods due to the fact that these were the two most‘advanced’ phyla, and therefore must be closely re-lated. The efforts to force the fossil record to agreewith this preconception resulted in a bizarre hy-pothesis wherein the arthropod nerve cord, whichruns along the stomach, somehow migrated to the

dorsal surface (where it is in the chordates) througha transformation of the tissues of the mouth, throatand gut into the brain and spinal chord, and the de-velopment of a new mouth underneath the old one.This theory also had more serious problems, such asthe fact that an arthropod with an exoskeleton wouldhave to be turned inside out, or at least highly modi-fied, to create a chordate with an endoskeleton. Ithas now been shown, through a new, more quantita-tive, less assumption bound method of elucidatingthe history of life, that the chordates are moreclosely related to the echinoderms. The first view

also has more sinister implica-tions, leading, when taken to ex-tremes, to ‘social Darwinism’,racism, and eugenics. Palaeontol-ogy has not really worked likethis for decades, but this is stilllargely unknown to most people,who are still inundated with im-ages of evolutionary ladders andmissing links from most of the

popular press.Cladistics, the new scientificmethod of discovering evolution-ary relationships, removes the‘Just So Story’ factor from Palae-ontology, and turns it into a realscientific discipline. It also com-pletely revolutionizes systematicsand taxonomy, changing them

from being concerned mainly with naming organ-isms, to discovering evolutionary relationships anduncovering the history of life (Phylogenetic sys-

tematics).The word Cladistics comes from a Greek root

meaning ‘branch’, and it is a particular method of hypothesizing relationships among organisms.The basic idea behind cladistics is that members of agroup share a common evolutionary history, and are"closely related", more so to members of the samegroup than to other organisms. These groups arerecognized in that they share unique features thatwere not present in distant ancestors. These shared

derived characteristics are called synapomorphies.It is not enough for organisms to share charac-

teristics; in fact two organisms may share a greatmany characteristics and not be considered membersof the same group. For example, consider a jellyfish,

C l ad is t ic s , Evo l ut io n , an d t h eDeat h o f t he l ad der

Patrick Mellor reviews our existing views of evolution





by the human.

The only way that the most parsimonious clado-gram can be found is through the addition of an out-group:

Using a frog as an outgroup, it can be seen that

cladogram 4 is the most parsimonious, as cladogram3, even if chicken like features were lost by the hu-man, requires that they were evolved first by thecommon ancestor of the frog and chickenA. Eitherchicken like features evolved and there was a subse-quent loss of these features, or chicken like featureswere evolved twice, independently. In any case twoevents happened, and both these interpretations areless parsimonious than that in cladogram 4.

This example shows the basis of how cladisticanalysis is carried out, in reality, often hundreds of

species are involved, and extinct animals can be in-cluded in the cladograms. The fact that cladisticsgives an objective analysis of evolutionary relation-ships, allows it to give an accurate history of theevolution of life on Earth, constrained only by theincompleteness of the fossil record. It also com-pletely revolutionizes taxonomy, as it gives a differ-ent interpretation of evolution to that of the oldtaxonomic system. In the new taxonomy, a taxon orgrouping of organisms is defined as being a mono-phyletic clade, which is a group of organisms with acommon ancestor. Obviously, this means that all life

is a monophyletic clade. But clades are nestedwithin each other. For example, in cladogram 4,chickenA, chickenB, the human, and the frog form a

monophyletic clade, but so do chickenA and chick-enB by themselves. This destroys much of the oldtaxonomic system, which does not properly repre-sent true evolutionary relationships. The words‘fish’ or ‘reptile’ no longer have any evolutionary

meaning, except to define certain physically similaranimals, as these groups do not form clades that ex-clude other, disparate organisms.

Cladistics was used to determine the relationshipbetween dinosaurs and birds, and to elucidate manyparts of human evolution. It can be used to help re-construct ancient worlds, by explaining the evolu-tion of different groups, and so the habitats in whichthey lived, and their relationships and interactionswith other organisms, which provided the selectionpressures.

Cladistics removes the false iconography of lad-

ders and progress, by showing that the famous evo-lutionary ‘ladders’ e.g. horses and humans, are inreality only applicable to numerically unsuccessfullineages. If evolution is not a ladder of anagenesisbut a bush of bifurcating cladogenesis, then the lad-der analogy can only be used when most of thebranches of the bush are lost, and a tortuous pathcan be traced from the base to the one survivingtwig that is left and apparently therefore must have‘improved’ from the original species. This is whyyou never see ladders and slopes for successful line-ages like rodents and teleost (advanced bony) fishes.

Also, increasing complexity and cognitive devel-opment can be seen more objectively as somethingthat in general (at any one time) is not happening tothe most successful lineages, but more to those justhanging on with only a few, or even one, speciessuch as humans. This can be understood in the con-text that the most successful lineages are usuallythose with a generalized body plan that can easily beadapted to different environments without any needfor physiological or mental ‘improvement’. Arthro-pods, most bacteria, and to a lesser extent, teleosts,

have shown no trend of ‘improvement’ throughouttheir long histories.Cladistics is also not just limited to biology, but

can be used in any groupings that show change andevolution over time. Thus it is used in linguistics,and in the study of different copies of pre-printingmedieval manuscripts. It seems strange that a sys-tem that has had so many important successes,sometimes in popular and well-known subjects, re-mains so unknown.





Kr azy Kaveh ’s Khao t ic Keku l é Ko r ner Abs “of steel” Barkhodar speaks upon benzene

Before I begin, I must apologise for the title, it

wasn’t my idea. Anyway, this article aims to resolve

the long-standing problem of the structure of

benzene, or rather how it should be represented.

Although at first the problem may appear trivial, you

must understand that organic chemistry has two

main sections: Aromatic compounds (compounds

with a benzene ring) and aliphatic compounds (all

other compounds based on carbon chains).

Therefore, the symbol used for benzene has far

reaching effects.

To decide which representation is the best, we

must first understand the structure of benzene. This

has long presented a problem for chemists. The

molecular formula of benzene is C6H6. This could be

a highly unsaturated structure, such as that below:

CH2=C=CH–CH=C=CH2

However, this has two problems. Firstly, modern

techniques such as X-ray diffraction show that

benzene is planar and has a regular hexagonal shape,

unlike the straight chained molecule above.

Secondly, the alkene above would be expected to

undergo electrophilic addition reactions, but

benzene undergoes substitution reactions instead.

The first attempt at a solution to this dilemma

was proposed by the German chemist Friedrich

August Kekulé in 1865. This became known as the

Kekulé structure and is shown below (full structure

on the left, skeletal on the right):

However, this doesn’t solve the problems above.

C=C double bonds are stronger and shorter than C–

C single bonds. This means that the Kekulé structure

would in fact not be a regular hexagon. Also, the

length of all bonds in benzene has been measured as0.139 nanometres. This is in between the lengths of

a C=C bond (0.134 nm) and a C–C bond (0.154 nm),

suggesting that benzene’s bonds are all identical and

are somewhere between single and double bonds.The Kekulé structure shows benzene’s bonds as

alternating between single and double bonds (a

conjugated double bond system), which is not

representative of the real chemical. The second

problem with the Kekulé structure is the fact that it

would still be expected to undergo electrophilic

addition reactions due to the unsaturated double

bonds. In fact, the structure is identical to a

cycloalkene (1,3,5-cyclohexatriene), but does not

behave like one. The final nail in the coffin is the

difference between the enthalpies of hydrogenation

and atomisation between the Kekulé structure

(1,3,5-cyclohexatriene) and the experimental results

obtained for Benzene. From these differences, the

energy difference between benzene and the Kekulé

molecule can be found:

Both enthalpy diagrams show that benzene is

more stable than the hypothetical 1,3,5-

cyclohexatriene (which doesn’t actually exist). The

enthalpy of hydrogenation diagram gives the

difference as –152 kJmol-1 and the enthalpy of

atomisation gives the difference as -209 kJmol-1.

These two values are acceptably similar, given

average bond enthalpies were used. It is therefore

clear that benzene is energetically more stable than astructure with localised π bonds (C=C bonds).

Representing the structure as an intermediate of

two forms can solve many of the problems of the

Kekulé structure:

The arrow does not mean that benzene exists as

both forms and oscillates between them (indeed,they are the same isomer), but instead means that the

actual structure is an “average” of the two forms,





where each bond is somewhere in between a single

and a double bond. Benzene is thus called a

“resonance hybrid” of the two structures. This

resolves the problem of the hexagonal shape of

benzene and also the bond lengths. However

problems still remain withthe electrophilic addition

reactions and enthalpy

differences. It also

introduces a new problem.

Whenever benzene is

drawn, both forms must be

given, with an arrow! As

this will usually not be

done, an inaccurate

representation of the

structure of benzene willoften be used. Also, to draw reaction mechanisms,

only one of the forms can be practically used,

misrepresenting the actual mechanism. Clearly the

Kekulé representation of benzene has some very

significant problems. Therefore, it has been

superseded by the molecular orbital structure.

In benzene the carbon atoms are sp² hybridised.

This means that one s orbital and two p orbitals

hybridise forming three sp² orbitals, which are

coplanar with an angle of 120° between each. Thishybridisation leaves one p orbital, which is at right

angles to the plane of

hybridisation. The three sp²

orbitals overlap with either

s orbitals (from the

hydrogens) or other sp²

orbitals (from adjacent

carbons) in the benzene

ring. This produces a planar

hexagonal structure for

benzene. However this stillleaves six unbonded p

orbitals protruding above

and below the plane. We

know that in alkenes,

neighbouring p orbitals will overlap forming a π

bond. However in this case, the bond is not between

two carbons but actually the six carbons around the

ring. Therefore, the electrons in the p orbitals are not

located between any two carbon atoms, but are free

to move around the ring, and are described as

delocalised. The coplanar arrangement of σ bondsand the delocalisation of the p electrons are

demonstrated in the diagrams in the centre of the

page

The first diagram shows the p orbitals before

overlap, and the second shows the resulting areas of

electron density, the delocalised π bonds above and

belowthe

hexagonal ring of σ bonds.

This delocalised structure

is represented by the

symbol below:

It is clear that this representation has none of

the problems of the Kekulé structure. It doesn’t

show any double or single bonds, all bonds are

clearly identical, and between a double and single

bond. It is also easy to draw, as it is only onestructure. It also solves the problem of why benzene

undergoes substitution and

not addition reactions. The

enthalpy diagrams above

clearly show that benzene’s

delocalised electrons make

it very stable, compared to a

structure with localised π

bonds. Addition reactions

would disrupt this

delocalisation, reducingbenzene’s stability.

Substitution reactions don’t

affect the delocalised π

bonds, so don’t affect the stability of benzene.

Despite the clear advantages of the molecular

orbital structure, both it and the Kekulé structure are

acceptable representations of benzene, mainly

because of the historical use of the Kekulé structure,

and the fact that 1,3,5-cyclohexatriene doesn’t exist

(which means there should be no confusion).

Hopefully, by propagation of such anarchist viewssuch as mine, in a couple of generations, the

outdated and misleading Kekulé structure will be





To w ar d s a Sc ien c e o f His t o r y

A science, as defined by Karl Popper, is a discipline that

describes and explains its subject in terms o f general, uni-

versal laws, such as Newton’s laws of motion, or the three

laws relating to the behaviour of gases. These laws are

conjectures — models postulated by the scientist which he

hopes will accurately describe the behaviour he is study-

ing, and enable him accurately to predict future behaviour.

For example, Isaac Newton’s second

law of motion not only describes the

behaviour of bodies with forces acting

on them observed in the past, but also

predicts how bodies with forces act-

ing on them will behave in the future.The prediction is implicit in the law,

because by a general law we under-

stand a law which holds in all p laces

and at all times, past, present or fu-

ture. Science progresses through the

falsification or refutation of such conjectural models —

through the observation of behavior which does not con-

form to the law postulated: so, an instance of a bod y accel-

erating at a rate other than that of the force acting on it

divided by its mass refutes Newton’s second law. At this

point, the obsolete conjecture is replaced by a new one

that fits all observations, and includes its own implicit

predictions.

As practised by most historians, the study of history is

not a science, because historians — in g eneral — do not

seek to explain the past in terms of these general, universal

laws. Rather, they treat past social and political changes as

the be -all-and-end-all of their study, and in explaining the

events of their period come up with reasons particular to

that period alone. For instance, in studying Adolf Hitler’s

rise to power, we might decide — as historians — that oneof the causes of his rise was that the heavy depression of

the late 1920s and early 1930s made the populace lose

faith in the status quo, and look for alternative solutions

from more extreme political parties. There is no general

law postulated here, and so no means by which this state-

ment might be tested scientifically, because there is no

implicit prediction in what has been said. This is an unfal-

sifiable statement, and thus an unscientific statement.

It would be easy, though, to turn it into a scientific

statement. Instead of making it specific to the one histori-cal area, we could turn it into a conjectured general law,

which not only describes Hitler’s rise to power, but also

implicitly predicts future events. We might phrase the law

like this: “In times of economic hardship, the electorate of

a democracy loses faith in the present government.” We

might even go further, and say “loses faith in the present

government and turns to more radical forms of govern-

ment.” Regardless of whether these laws are true or not, it

is obvious that they include implicit predictions, and pro-

vide us with opportunities to test

them. Obviously enough, we wait

for a time of economic hardship

somewhere in the World where

there is a democratic government,

and observe what the electoratedoes. If it turns to more radical

forms of government, we keep our

laws, at least for the time being. If

it acts in some other way, we re-

ject our laws.

Thus, we see that a truly scientific approach to history is

absolutely possible. Indeed, it has already been put into

practice: Karl Marx’s theory of historical dialectic was

scientific in the way we want. It described the way socie-

ties have developed in the past, based on the clash be-

tween the status quo and the alienated class, and predicts

how societies will continue to develop in the future. In

particular, Marx predicted that in capitalist societies, made

up essentially of factory-owners and factory -workers,

these two classes would clash, and the clash would pro-

duce first a dictatorship of the factory -working, proletarian

class, and then a communist utopia. It is Marx’s predic-

tions which have allowed us now to refute his theory, be-

cause such a progression never took place in the highly

industrialised countries of Western Europe: instead, the

two classes began to reconcile themselves to one anotherthrough the trades’ unions, and other means. Ho wever,

there are people who argue that this scientific method is

not appropriate to the study of history, whether practica-

ble or not. When the philosophers (which is to say Fran-

çois- Marie Voltaire, David Hume, Denis Diderot and oth-

ers) of the Enlightenment proposed loosely what we are

proposing — that historians should engage themselves in

producing general laws which govern human political and

social behavior, — a man called Giambattista Vico reacted

in his book, Scienza Nuova, by asserting that the subjectmatter of the natural sciences and that of history are funda-

mentally different. He held that a system can only truly be

George Hull discusses the scientific side of history





known by its creator. Thus true knowledge of the natural

world, he thought, is available only to God, who created it,

and so the natural sciences must be based upon guesswork

and modeling: not true knowledge. Society, on the other

hand, is a human creation, and thus we ought to be able to

have direct understanding of how it works, and not have to

rely on conjecture.

In answer to this objection, we might ask how such direct

understanding is attainable. One example might be with

the decision-making of a historical political figure. By

considering the thought-processes we would have gone

through in his situation, Vico might argue we can see why

he acted as he did. But we know from experience that two

different people will deal with the same

problem in different ways, often choosing

vastly different courses of action, andsurely this is only the more true when the

two people live in different cultures, and

in different ages, and so inevitably have

hugely different beliefs and presupposi-

tions, as the historian and his subject

nearly always do. Quite apart from that,

history is often concerned with whole

societies, rather than just individuals, and

here the society is not the conscious crea-

tion of an individual, or a group of indi-

viduals. Instead, it grows up through the

interplay of many individuals, over many

generations, some of whom may have had a direct hand in

creating aspects of the society, but none of whom under-

stand — let alone have created, as Vico demands — the

society completely. Surely the very fact that we practice

history, and that historians do not agree, shows that human

society is something which must be investigated very

much as an unknown, just as we investigate the natural

world, because no one human has ever been the sole crea-

tor of a society, just as no one human has ever been thecreator of the natural world.

The German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich

Hegel presents us with another objection. He says that

society, unlike nature, is primarily a spiritual thing, and

therefore to study it requires a different methodology than

to study a physical thing. Each society through history, he

says, has its own Geist —spirit, — and the progression of

human society is the progression of the Geist towards a

perfect state. By Geist he means outlook, or mentality, in

the same sense as in our word, zeitgeist. But it seems un-

necessary to bring the very dubious issue of spirituality

into the beliefs of a society. A society, we might say in

objection to Hegel’s idea, is made up of humans. A soci-

ety has prevalent opinions, we might continue, where a

majority of the humans share these opinions. Humans

manage to have opinions through the physical states that

hold, or processes that take place in their brains.

This is not definitely the case: our understanding of the

rational, decision-making, opinion-forming side of the

brain is very limited. However, the fact is that we have an

organ in our heads, which seems to dictate how we act and

speak, and that when changes take place in this organ —

when we use psychedelic drugs, for instance, or cut off a

piece of our brain, our decision-making is altered. It seems

pointless to try and explain decision-making and opinion

forming in terms of spirituality, when a

perfectly good physical explanation lies

just under our noses (or behind ournoses). This defies Ockham’s Razor,

which instructs us to choose the explana-

tion of a state of affairs that involves the

fewest new presuppositions, all other

things being equal. That a spiritual world

exists is a mammoth-sized presupposi-

tion. Thus, we conclude that a society’s

opinions are (probably) physical entities,

in that they are physical states in the

brain, and so that scientific methodology

can still be appropriate to the study of

human society. Perhaps a scientific

methodology would be approp riate even if we do follow

Hegel’s theory, because the spiritual Geist must certainly

have physical manifestations in society — wealt h and

poverty, for instance, by which its nature may be dis-

cerned.

But, even if we accept that societies can be examined

scientifically, and as physical entities, we might argue that

to understand a society properly requires us to know more

than we can know. To understand and explain a society,we might argue, requires us to know the contents of the

mind of every member of that society, so as to understand

each member’s decision-making process, on top of all the

outside influences on the society from the natural world,

which must also be taken into account. That is indeed a

tall order, but it is not clear that all this is necessary, as can

be seen in an example from the natural sciences: Charles’

gas law says that the volume of a mass of gas at constant

pressure is directly proportionate to its temperature. To

make this conjecture, and to test this conjecture, does not

require us to know (or, rather, conjecture) why this law

holds — although we do know that it holds because an





increase in heat energy gives the gas particles more kinetic

energy, which makes them move further apart, and thus

increases the volume of the body of gas. The point is,

though, that this knowledge is absolutely not required for

us to observe that Charles’ gas law holds, and test it.

Similarly, in a scientific study of history, we can make

general conjectures, such as the one about econ omic de-

pressions that we considered earlier, without justifying

them ad infinitum with subordinate conjectures about the

workings of the human mind. Naturally, as has happened

with the natural sciences, theories will become more and

more detailed as the science of history grows. As the pool

of historical theories, and sciences such as psychology

(and psychoanalysis), sociology and neuroscience science

grows, so we would expect our historical conjectures to

become more and more complex, based on an intricate(conjectural) understanding of human decision-making. So

far, there seems to be nothing to prevent history being

made into a scientific discipline, because it is concerned

—like the natural sciences — with understanding the

workings of a rational and material system, based on cause

and effect.

There is one problem with a scientific history that is

very hard to get around, though. This is that a scientific

historian’s conjectures themselves affect the system that

they hypothesize about. This problem can best be ob-

served in Marx’s theory and its consequences. Here, when

revolution took place in Russia in 1917, it was led by a

political party that had as its aim to effect what Marx had

predicted. It is quite possible that, without Marx’s theory

of historical dialectic, no revolution would have taken

place in Russia: the theory had a hand in causing what it

had predicted (though it failed in the end, because the

bloody dictatorship of the middle-class Lenin could b e

described neither as a dictatorship of the proletariat class,

nor as a communist utop ia). This is a problem never really

encountered in the natural sciences: it is inconceivable thata gas would expand to a certain extent because a scientist

had predicted that it would. This is a problem which

makes historical conjectures untestable because if a soci-

ety behaves as the historian conjectures, it may be that it

has behaved this way because of his conjecture, and like-

wise if it doesn’t.

This is a thoroughly tricky problem to deal with. An

obvious solution is to isolate historical research absolutely

from society, so that historians are purely spectators, not

participating in the society at all, to eliminate the possibil-

ity of their influencing the cause of events in any way, and

keeping their conjectured theories secret from the society

they are examining. This idea could be put into practice,

although it is difficult to imagine anyone voluntarily iso-

lating himself or herself from the outside world in this

way. However, this would to an extent defeat the point of

academic research. The point of any academic study is to

achieve a better appreciation of the way the World is, and

this appreciation is surely achieved in vain, if it is re-

stricted to just one or a few people. Ideas of how the

World is are, of themselves, interesting and fulfilling to

consider, and also possibly make us more adept when it

comes to the nitty-gritty of living, and thus they should be

on the common market, for all to profit by.

However, the fact that this problem of the historian’s

influencing his subject-matter eludes solution does not

fatally cripple a scientific history. All it means is that his-

tory cannot be an exact science, and must make allowancefor the fact that its theories will influence what happens in

the future. This is a problem encountered in two other dis-

ciplines, which surely are sciences — because they in-

volve the creation of general, testable laws of behavior,

although they are not always called so: economics and

psychoanalysis. When economists theorise that the stock

market generally behaves in a certain way, this inevitably

means that many people will buy and sell shares as if it

does, hoping to profit by it, and thus fulfilling the econo-

mist’s theory. Similarly, when psychoanalysis tells people

that they are likely to dream about having sex with their

mothers, or comparing the size of their sausages with that

of their father’s over the dinner-table, inevitably many

people do dream this kind of dream simply because they

have been told they will. But economics and psychoanaly-

sis, and, surely, a scientific history, can all be practised

despite this problem, as long as it is acknowledged that

testing conditions for theories are far from ideal, and al-

lowance is made for this fact.

This, then, is the scientific history that we are advocat-

ing, and which we believe is quite practicable. It is a studyof change in society, and in politics, based on a considera-

tion of the interplay of factors originating in the natural

world (such as natural disasters, or the site o f a city) and

the behavior of the various groups of people which make

up the society subject to these environmental factors. It

considers how people in power make d ecisions and how

people who lack power as individuals, but hold consider-

able strength as a group respond to those decisions. Most

importantly, it treats the past as a source of evidence to

which general theories about the aforesaid issues must be

fitted, not as an end in itself. The function of this scientific

history is to generate testable conjectures about how so cie-





sible to replicate on Earth due to gravitational influ-ence. For example, influenza protein crystals that hadbeen grown in space have aided significantly in devel-oping a powerful flu medicine. This new medicine iscalled Neuraminidase, which was developed by de-signing several counteracting inhibitors of viral influ-enza after studying the proteins closely.

Also, detailed pictures and diagrams of insulin pro-teins, developed in microgravity, are critical in devel-oping new therapeutic insulin treatments for the con-trol of serious diabetes. If these treatments are success-

ful, they will allow diabetes pa-tients to reduce the number of daily injections that they require.

Protein crystals are typi-cally grown in a PCAM (ProteinCrystallization Apparatus for Mi-crogravity). This apparatus in-

volves vapour-diffusion to beginthe crystallization process. Theliquid in the protein solution isevaporated, which creates a sig-nificantly greater protein concen-

tration in a well and activates crystal growth.It is also possible to use a DMDA (Dual Materials

Dispersion Apparatus), as the Milton Science Club did.This relies upon osmosis-diffusion rather than vapor-diffusion. The DMDA consists of two small wells,both no more than a half an inch long. Each of thewells is made up of two parts which slide together

upon activation. The crystal protein is in one sectionand a liquid chemical is in the other. Once the two sec-tions are locked together, the liquid and the proteinmixes and crystallization occurs fairly rapidly. Often,the DMDA is accompanied by a DMDA-O, which isan optical version of the DMDA and a small video re-corder.

It is important to recognize the strides which havebeen made in scientific and medical research due toprotein crystallization. It is hoped that in the future,even more will be gleaned from the data collected andthat this knowledge will greatly further the ongoingprocess of developing new medicines for the diseasesand illnesses of the human race.

On October 29th, 1998, at 2:20:19 PM, EasternStandard Time, the space shuttle STS-95 was launchedfrom the Kennedy Space Centre in Jacksonville, Flor-ida. On board were several experiments, dealing witheverything from a trial insulator called aerogel, to liveculture samples. The presidents of the Milton Acad-emy Science Club, Chris Rodriguez, Adrina DeVitre,Nathan Bliss and myself had designed an experimentinvolving sugar crystal growth in microgravity, andwere fortunate enough not only to secure a place forour project on the shuttle, but to witness the launch of STS-95. Although our experimenthardly produced groundbreaking re-sults, it was both worthwhile and ex-citing to be involved with the field of space science on so close a level.While my mother was simply excitedthat John Glenn would be the payload

specialist who would activate ourexperiment on the second day of theflight, I was aware of the importanceof the larger experiments on boardwhich ours resembled on a smallerscale.

The study of protein crystallization in space isgreatly worthy of study, due to the critical role whichproteins play in the human body’s metabolic processes.The protein crystal experiments launched on the STS-95 were intended to give researchers a better under-standing of the biochemistry of these proteins. Ideally,

under zero gravity conditions, protein crystals shouldgrow defect-free and larger than they would on Earth.This is because the presence of gravity on Earth ofteninterferes with the growth of crystals, leading to struc-tural imperfections. Once returned to the labs, scien-tists can then analyse their structures and gain a betterunderstanding of the arrangement of molecules withinthe protein. This knowledge can then be applied to-wards creating new pharmaceutical medicines whichcan alter the functions of proteins in the body. Clearly,the creation of new medicines which may be able toimprove the metabolic functions of a human is an im-portant area to research.

There has been much science research previouslyconducted with crystals that would not have been pos-

ties function, how people make decisions, and ho w envi-

ronmental factors affect all this, conjectures which are

testable because they contain implicit predictions about

how societies will behave in the future. This science is

valuable because it shows us how societies develop and

function, why certain set-ups and states of affairs exist in

them, and gives us some knowledge of what we increas-

ingly realise is the greatest unknown of all: ourselves.

Pr o t ein C r ys t al l isat io n in Mic r o g r avit y Jessica Tooker talks about protein crystallisations





λ, Eins t ein ’s Er r o r

One of the greatest achievements in astronomyto date was the publication of Einstein’s theory of Relativity, describing the large-scale behaviour of the universe, and the establishment of the ‘BigBang’ theory, which described the origin and natureof the universe. The latter encapsulates a conceptmost of us take for granted today; the universe isexpanding and had an initial moment of creation.

This was not always the case however. Therewere rival theories to explain the origins of the uni-verse, the most popular (more so than the ‘BigBang’) was the ‘Steady State’ model, proposing anexpanding universe, in which matter was constantly

being formed, thus had no moment of conception.Einstein’s relativistic model for the large-scaleuniverse, had inherent in its equations the fact that

the universe had to be dy-namic (either contracting orexpanding). Einstein foundthis ethically displeasing,which was not unreason-able given that there was noevidence to support the ar-gument. He believed thatthe universe stood still, and

had always been there;there was no beginning of time. In order to create this‘steady’ universe one sim-ple Greek letter was added

to the relevant equation(s); λ, which he called thecosmological constant.

Protagonists of the ‘Big Bang’ theory were con-scious of this fact, but failed to convince Einsteinthat he was wrong.

The crucial evidence that established the ‘BigBang’ theory was then discovered; the backgroundradiation found everywhere in the universe (leftover ‘heat’ from an initial ‘bang’). It was then that

Einstein changed his mind labelling λ, the greatestblunder of his career.

One might imagine that things after that were‘sorted’, but if they were, I wouldn’t be writing thisarticle.

The ‘Big Bang’ theory had, and still has itsproblems. One such problem is the fact that matteris found to be evenly distributed throughout the uni-verse, (is homogeneous) and looks the same every-

where in the universe (is isotropic). This is strangebecause matter at opposite ends of the universe,would have never made contact, or indeed ex-

changed information, and yet they will exhibit thesame intensity of background radiation. However,there is no theoretical explanation, given by the bigbang model as to why this is the case.

The other problem is to do with the nature of space. This ‘space’ in our universe is determined bythe density of matter. The matter warps space, thusthe density of matter in our universe should give usan idea of its shape. The shape of the universe isconsequently of interest because it affects the wayour universe behaves and the final destiny of ouruniverse. This ‘cosmic mass density’ is represented

by an Ω, which can be thought of as a number being

not much greater or less than 1.If Ω > 1 , then space-time can be described as

closed. This is the easiest universe to envisage, itwould basically look like asphere. As for its destiny,well, there is so much mat-ter in the universe, that thegravitational force is strongenough to slow down theexpansion of the universethen begin the collapse of the universe. The result

would be like running atape of the ‘big bang’ inreverse, the universe col-lapses on itself into a bigcrunch.

A universe whereΩ < 1, creates space which is,yes that’s right, open. Here space-time is shaped likea hyperbola, it is curving out and away. While it isnot feasible to imagine what the universe wouldlook like globally in this state the effects are easy toexplain. If one was to take a sheet of paper, place it

in a very bowl then draw a triangle, the total of allthe angles would be slightly less than 180°. Conse-quently the whole geometry of the universe is de-pendant on the shape of space. As for the fate of thisuniverse, well, there is insufficient gravitationalforce to slow the expansion of the universe and so, itcontinues to expand. Eventually matter is distributedso sparsely over the universe that it effectively be-comes cold and suffers what is called a heat death.

By now I expect you will have been asking,“What is so special about the value 1?” well this isthe value which is referred to as the critical density,

which gives rise to a third universe.This universe is called flat, which also applies to

the shape of its space. Here the universe continually

Roderick McKinley discusses λ , the ghost of Einstein’s ‘greatest error’





slows down but never actually stops, thus it is alsoliable to suffer a heat death.

It has been found that space locally is very close

to flat. This suggests that Ω is very close to 1. Thisbeing coincidence is not a possibility favoured by

scientists. It just seems too much that we happen tolive in a time when the value of Ω is close to one, if it was 1, however, there would be no problem. Al-though objection this may seem bizarre one maylook at it from the following point of view. If one iswalking in the mountains there is a certain chancethat the hiker will encounter a rock balancing in aprecarious position, it is however, far less likely forthe hiker to come across such a rock just as it is be-ginning to fall. The toppling rock can be analogous

to the universe having a value of Ω close to 1 in-stead of just being equal to 1.

Both the problem of large-scale homogeneityand isotropy, and the value Ω, are tackled cleverlyby an extension of the ‘Big Bang’ theory, known as‘Inflationary Theory’.

What Inflationary Theory proposes is that thesize of the universe, in its infancy for a fraction of asecond, increased exponentially, at a pace fasterthan the speed of light. The net result is that the uni-verse that is visible to us is nothing but a small frac-tion of the entire universe, whose light has not beenable to reach us. It has been said that if the earthwere to represent the whole inflationary universe, aproton would represent the observable universe.Thus the isotropy problem is solved by simply say-ing, that inflation may have begun after the actualbig bang, allowing the primordial material to mixbeforehand, the homogeneity is then explained bythe fact that any ‘lumps’ of matter in the primordialstate were ironed out by inflation. The flat spaceproblem is also solved. Since the universe is now sobig, localised space appears flat, much in the sameway that the earth appears flat to us. Consequentlyno deductions regarding the shape of space can be

made through the observation of local space.Branches of inflation theory go a step further to

claim that Ω is 1, a result that is nothing short of aesthetically pleasing.

What begs a question now is, what could havecaused this drive at the early part of the universe?

You can probably guess from the title that it is λ.Here the cosmological constant appears in theform of an anti-gravitational force that served todrive the expansion.

Continuing research, suggested however that λ could not be left in the past. There is no reason why

λ if it once existed should have suddenly vanished,in which case it would still be playing an active rolein the universe today (though the influence may be

small). This reason is however shadowed by a muchlarger problem.

The figure responsible for the expansion rate of

the universe is the Hubble Constant, H 0. This con-stant is measured through the Doppler shifts of gal-

axies (usually red shifts). This is actually a verycomplex process however, and while everyone hadbeen satisfied with a value of about 50, recent calcu-lations have yielded results as high as 80. Who cares

you say, well a universe without λ and H0 = 80,would mean that we live in a universe where somestars are older than the consequently estimated ageof the universe, a concept, which, of course, makesno sense. If these higher values of H0 are true, then

λ is needed in order to say that the expanded quickerthan what one would have anticipated.

Now we have a situation where λ is no longer a

forgotten error, but a real possibility, which haslarge implications for the cosmos. Going back to the

subject of Ω , its derivation was revised in light of

the possibility of the λ being non-zero.

Ω = 2q0 + (2/3λ)× (c2 /H02)

(where q0 is the deceleration parameter; the rate at

which the universe slows down due to gravity)

So now that we have seen that a lot of fuss

has been made over whether λ exists or not, it is

worth questioning whatλ

actually is .The most popular explanation is that it is aforce that arises out of the natural state of the uni-verse. The universe can be described to be in a‘false vacuum’, a state where although the energydensity is very low, it could still be lower. This falsevacuum by its nature has fields that exert an anti-gravitational-like force. The higher the energy stateof this vacuum, the larger the effect of the fields. Soa proposed explanation for the inflation at the begin-ning of the universe was that it was in a state of highenergy, and so the scalar fields were prominent, pro-

moting large scale inflation. Once the vacuumdropped down to a lower energy state however, thisinflationary period ceased. However, although therewas a drop it does not necessarily mean that thedrop was to the ground state, thus the propositionthat there are still scalar fields driving the expansionof the universe (on a lesser scale) today.

So far no one knows the size of λ, in fact asalready mentioned the value of H0 is in doubt, andso the cosmological constant still remains part of atheoretical world, which may be far away from tell-ing us about the fate of our universe.



Fr on t c o ver des igned by Val er ie Dieder ic hs © Ho o ke Magazine 20 00

an y par t o f t h is pu bl ic a t io n may be r epr o d u c ed f o r n o n -c ommer c ial use, c o n t ac t us at ho oke@west mins t er .o r g .uk

THE CHEMICAL ELEMENTS

To the tune of ‘Modern Major-General’

There's antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium,

And hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and rheniumAnd nickel, neodymium, neptunium, germanium,And iron, americium, ruthenium, uranium,Europium, zirconium, lutetium, vanadiumAnd lanthanum and osmium and astatine and radiumAnd gold, protactinium and indium and gallium (inhale)And iodine and thorium and thulium and thallium.

There's yttrium, ytterbium, actinium, rubidiumAnd boron, gadolinium, niobium, iridiumAnd strontium and silicon and silver and samarium,And bismuth, bromine, lithium, beryllium and barium.

Isn't that interesting?I knew you would.I hope you're all taking notes, because there's gonna be a short quiz next period.

There's holmium and helium and hafnium and erbiumAnd phosphorous and francium and fluorine and terbiumAnd manganese and mercury, molybdinum, magnesium,Dysprosium and scandium and cerium and cesiumAnd lead, praseodymium, platinum, plutonium,Paladium, promethium, potassium, polonium,

Tantalum, technetium, titanium, tellurium, (inhale)And cadmium and calcium and chromium and curium.

There's sulfur, californium and fermium, berkeliumAnd also mendelevium, einsteinium and nobeliumAnd argon, krypton, neon, radon, xenon, zinc and rhodiumAnd chlorine, cobalt, carbon, copper,Tungsten, tin and sodium.

These are the only ones of which the news has come to Harvard,And there may be many others but they haven't been discovered.

- Tom Lehrer

is science art

Documents