Lowering the Bar

Grad Student Says He Will Sue Over Lost Collection of Lizard Dung

"Its loss left me reeling and altered the course of my life forever," said Daniel Bennett about the 77 pounds of lizard dung somebody threw out while he was away from his lab.

Bennett, a graduate student at Leeds University in England, is working on a Ph.D. and is studying the rare butaan lizard, a relative of the famous komodo dragon. He has been collecting samples of butaan crap for several years, he said, in order to study the animal's dietary habits. Bennett said he was devastated by the loss of the research materials, which the university said had been thrown away in error because the large bag of dung was not marked in any way.

Bennett seemed to concede that the scientific importance of the reptile excrement might not have been immediately apparent to others. "To some people it might have been just a bag of lizard shit," he said, "but to me it represented seven years of painstaking work searching the rainforest with a team of reformed poachers to find the feces of one of the world's largest, rarest and most mysterious lizards." Well, his thesis may be screwed, but it sounds like somebody's got an awesome screenplay in the works.

Was this the largest collection of lizard shit in the world? Bennett was apparently asked.

"Whether it was the largest collection of lizard shit in the world is uncertain," he said. "But it certainly contained the only dietary sample from that little-known species Varanus olivaceus, and probably the most complete dietary record of any single population of animals in Southeast Asia." And now that is lost to humanity. Let us drape the world in black, and lament.

The university called the matter "unfortunate," and has apparently conducted a review of its dung-disposal policies to prevent any future mishaps, just in case anybody else's thesis may require storing large bags of crap on the premises. "Lessons have been learned and protocols improved," it said in a statement, "to ensure this cannot happen again." It has offered Bennett 500 pounds and an apology as compensation, and has stated that his Ph.D. will be awarded on schedule, subject to minor corrections to his thesis unrelated to the lost "materials."

Bennett, still reeling from his loss, says this is not enough, and that he will "see them in court." You know, that might not be such a great idea. Given that he will apparently be getting his Ph.D. after all, it is hard to see what his damages would be. What value do you put on the loss of an opportunity to pick oh-so-carefully through 77 pounds of lizard feces? Hard to say.

Link: AFP via Yahoo! News

Swiss Government Demands Respect for Plant Dignity

The Wall Street Journal reported in October that an ethics committee in Switzerland has interpreted that country's constitution to require respect for the dignity of plant as well as animal life.

Among the committee's conclusions: it is "morally impermissible" to arbitrarily cause harm to plants, such as "decapitation of wildflowers . . . without rational reason."

All this apparently stems (pun intended) from a constitutional provision that requires respect for the "dignity of living beings."  This seems to have been aimed at limiting genetic engineering, but for the past few years a committee has been pondering the question whether plants have dignity and if so, exactly what that means.  The result was a report called "The dignity of living beings with regard to plants," which carefully considered the question of whether plants deserve moral consideration for their own sake.  Answer: sort of.

The discussion ranged everywhere from simple common sense to the question of what God wants for plants.  Then there was this:

In terms of ratiocentrism there is unanimity that plants do not have the required capacity for reason that entails we must consider them for their own sake. The positions of patho- and biocentrism, as well as the positions of sentientism and non-sentientism, remain open to the possibility of morally considering plants for their own sake. Someone who takes a ratiocentrist position may be either a sentientist or a non-sentientist. Pathocentrists can only be sentientists. A theocentrist position is compatible with both a sentientist and a non-sentientist position.

 Well, obviously.

"Sentience" is defined as having the capacity to experience harm or benefit.  Some believe that if something is not sentient, morality is not relevant in dealing with it; others think we should respect even non-sentient life.  Apparently, the committee members had a more fundamental disagreement:  "Not quite half of the members are doubtful, based on current knowledge, that plants are sentient."  Translation: more than half of the members think plants have feelings, or aren't sure whether they do or not.  (Sorry - the members are unsure, not the plants.)

The conclusion on genetic modification was that it's okay "as long as their independence, i.e. reproductive ability and adaptive ability are ensured."  As a result, scientists who want to perform experiments on, let's say, wheat, now have to explain to the government why the experiment won't "disturb the vital functions or lifestyle" of the plants involved.  (There is probably a translation issue there, because even if plants were sentient I don't see how they could have a "lifestyle.")  At least one experiment has been moved to the U.S. because the Swiss would not approve it for this reason.

The WSJ reports that Switzerland also now requires people to take a class before getting a dog, and that aquariums have at least one non-transparent wall so the fish will have some privacy. 

Link: Wall Street Journal

Snack Analysis Leads to Thief

It seems fairly common for burglars to treat themselves to a snack while they are burgling -- occasionally one will even stop to make himself an omelette or something like that -- but it may become less so if this story is widely distributed in the burglar community.

A 37-year-old man was reportedly linked to an April burglary in Darmstadt, Germany, by saliva-borne DNA he left on a slice of salami he snacked on during the crime.  German police announced on January 31 that the suspect, who was already in custody on suspicion of committing 19 other burglaries, had been linked to the Darmstadt theft by the DNA evidence.

A police spokesman said that the man had broken into the office of a workshop, stole cash and caused damage worth about 3,400 euros (now, sadly, worth over $5,000).  It was not clear whether that valuation included the damage to the salami, which the burglar happened across at the scene.  "He didn't bring the salami with him," the spokesman said.  "It was just lying around in the office."

You can now add one to your list of reasons not to eat a piece of salami that you find "just lying around," especially if you are in the middle of a crime.  And if you can't resist taking a bite, in the age of DNA analysis be aware that you had better eat the whole thing to get rid of the evidence.

Link: Reuters

Nice One, Einstein

The latest article of Newsweek has an interesting review of a new bio of Albert Einstein, who besides inventing special and general relativity, providing proof of the existence of atoms, providing the foundation for quantum mechanics, and thinking up that E=MC² thing -- all of which he did while he was just sitting around bored at the patent office -- also tried to come up with a legal framework that would lead to greater harmony in his domestic life:

Einstein's relations with his first wife, Mileva, degenerated so badly that in 1914 he demanded she sign a contract promising to deliver three meals to his room daily, renounce "all personal relations with me insofar as they are not completely necessary for social reasons" and "stop talking to me if I request it."

He never totally understood quantum physics, either.

Newsweek, Apr. 16, 2007, at p. 100.

New LAPD Flashlights Feared Less Effective in Beatings

On Friday, LAPD Chief William Bratton unveiled new police flashlights powered by LEDs rather than standard bulbs.  The new flashlights are brighter, use less power, need fewer batteries, and so can be made smaller than the two-pound, two-foot model that was previously standard-issue.  While some praised the new high-tech, ten-inch model 7060 LED flashlight, others may be lamenting the loss of the good old Mark One Combined Photon Emission Unit/Kinetic Individual-Suspect-Control Device.

That is, the new flashlights will be harder to beat people with.

That's exactly why the old ones were banned.  According to the report, the idea for the LED coplight "was conceived just days after" the media captured and broadcast images of police using the Mark One to beat a car-theft suspect.  The smaller, brighter flashlight thus fits perfectly with the department's plans to deploy smaller, brighter policemen.

As you might expect, the ACLU chimed in on this story, and its executive director for southern California emitted one of the better quotes so far this year.  "It's a really important step in the right direction," she said, "and it's going to make a difference in how the police department deals with the community.  We've always felt that a flashlight was not an instrument to beat people with.  This new one will serve the purpose it was intended to."  Not an instrument to beat people with?  Lady, if God didn't mean for us to beat people with portable electrical devices he wouldn't have made batteries so big and heavy.  Anyway, flashlights don't beat people -- people beat people.  Smaller flashlights just means more strokes per criminal.

Or, not necessarily, if the Model 7060 can be deployed in the right way.  The report noted that it also features a "tactical mode," in which it becomes "bright enough to temporarily blind suspects."  Its specially designed photons undoubtedly will leave innocent eyeballs intact.

Link: AP via Yahoo! News