Just got finished watching a fascinating NOVA program entitled, “Ghost in Your Genes” which was about epigenetics. Epigenetics is the study of genetic modifiers called “epigenomes” that are instrumental in turning on and off the varied features of any given genome. The Human Genome Project of the early 90’s was monumental as it mainly purposed to identify all of the genomes or “genes” in the DNA make-up of humans. In 2000 they reported that they had found 22,000-23,000 genomes, which was surprisingly less than they had anticipated. That’s roughly the same that can be found in worms, rats, and frogs. Since it has been thought that humans are more genetically complex, it left many questions about what causes some genes to appear and others not to appear. The salient example of this question is how identical twins which have the exact same DNA structure can develop differently. The answer that has been found in the past few years is the discovery of “epigenomes” which can attach themselves to certain genes or gene sequences and turn them on or off depending on the circumstances. Moreover, they are finding that epigenomes can be influenced early in development, showing that although we inherit genes and epigenomes naturally through our parents, it is how we are nurtured that can determine which traits develop in us. That is certainly a simplification of very complex research, but nonetheless very compelling. They have now launched the Human Epigenome Project to try to identify what could be millions of epigenomes influencing genetic development. This is very exciting, and they have already benefited from this kind of research in cancer treatment.

Here is the TV Program Description
Here is the Program Manuscript
Here is the Program Preview
Here are some links and resources
Here is the Wikipedia entry for Epigenetics

Spoiler Alert. What can I say, the Wachowski Brothers have done it again. This is a very well done adaptation of the 1980’s comic series. I had the privledge of watching this with my wife, her brother, mother, and aunt. Of course, it was right up our alley as young people, I mean for me, my wife, and brother-in-law, since it is about a man with a very intimate understanding of the corruption of the government situated in future Britain. However, I don’t quite know what to make of Kalila’s mother’s and aunt’s response. The comments the next morning from them seem to indicate that it simply is propagating anarchy against a Christian government (because of repeated references to God by the high chancellor) and endorsement of the Koran. I pointed out that perhaps we should not attach the principles of this movie to the particulars referenced to.

The principles of this movie are similar to that of Equilibrium: in the effort to prevent future war and social injustice/ills, a government tightens its grip of power by scaring its people into submission with manipulated media, and so producing a tightly regulated society, precluding religious, literary, and artistic freedom/expression. This movie highlights the corruption that led up to this system of control, and the main character “V” (Hugo Weaving) is out to knock off each person that was initially responsible for the current state. “V” is a wonderfully complex and mysterious character, although he is labeled as a “terrorist” by the state. He encounters an unasuming girl “Evey” (Natalie Portman) on the way to his first “event” and saves her as she was about to be raped by some members of the local law enforcement. The philosophical question pressed in this film is if there can be a “good” terrorism. Both the State and “V” carry forward “terrorism”, but can either one of these be justified. “V” believes that the corrupt state is simply reaping what they sowed, such that their terrorism toward him and the like caused his terrorism of them.

This movie was enjoyable to me on every level: dramatically, cinemagraphically, and philosophically. But I expect nothing less from the brothers Wachowski.

My wife and I thoroughly enjoy the food network. One of the new shows that has aired this year is Ham on the Street hosted by George Duran. I never quite figured it out, but one of the reasons I liked George is because he looked so familiar. I did not figure it out till tonight! He is the Mark Driscoll of the culinary world. Like Piper and Koch, these guys are parallel down the line. George is a French trained chef, so he is generally the highest pedigree in his field, yet has chosen to appeal to the common American regarding some of the oddest and coolest food out there. He has had episodes from gourmet microwaving to banquet style camping. Mark did his undergrad work with a minor in philosophy and chose to narrow his emphasis on epistemology and the historical epistemological shift that took place after the life of Descartes. He has chosen to appeal to the unchurched young culture of Seattle while maintaining a Reformed theological perspective, which is (pardon my bias) the highest pedigree of his field. But more than that, these two guys looks identical. I swear, if Driscoll had a soul patch in his picture to the right there would be no telling them apart.