Bob Marley Gets Species Named After Him - Steel Pulse Enraged
    By Hank Campbell | July 11th 2012 04:12 PM | 9 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0®.

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone ever had. Others may prefer Newton or Archimedes...

    View Hank's Profile
    A small parasitic crustacean blood feeder that infests certain fish that inhabit the coral reefs of the shallow eastern Caribbean is the absolute perfect species to name for a pleasant Jamaican stoner - and so it came to pass.  The little critter has been designated Gnathia marleyi.

    Never heard of a gnathiid isopod? Me either, so this blog post is about 90% press release, but Bob Marley and Che Guevara are two sacred cows I love to puncture, since their mythology has become so overblown - oh, and Rachel Carson, she was rubbish too - thus, this got my attention.  And while I am being indefensibly contrarian, what's so great about about coral reefs? 80 percent of all organisms found on coral reefs are parasites. Why are we trying to save those again?

    Back to the parasite. Paul Sikkel, discoverer and assistant professor of marine ecology at Arkansas State University, said, "I named this species, which is truly a natural wonder, after Marley because of my respect and admiration for Marley's music. Plus, this species is as uniquely Caribbean as was Marley."

    This parasite is Bob Marley's big honor.  Don't get all smug, Stephen Colbert.  Your beetle is not all that great, either.  President Obama has lichen, though. I bet that will get some Republican campaign attention this election. Credit: NSF

    Admiration? This is a parasitic crustacean blood feeder that infests fish.  Well, maybe he has a point with the infestation. Now I can't get "Jammin’" out of my brain.

    Somewhere, Steel Pulse is wondering why they don't get this kind of attention.  Answer: BECAUSE YOU'RE FROM ENGLAND. 

    LINK: New coral reef crustacean described and named after late reggae performer Bob Marley


    A Steel Pulse video, in return for them (hopefully) being good sports about not getting their own parasite:

    Rachel Carson was "rubbish?"

    I was trying to be succinct. It was a hysterical, pseudoscientific screed of claims like that she heard of someone who sprayed DDT and got cancer and died.  The very same people who just made fun of Michele Bachmann for stating that she heard someone had a child who got a vaccine and became retarded take Rachel Carson's rant about DDT at face value - because they haven't read it.

    And your Nobel is in what? I ask, because President Kennedy asked the President's Science Advisory Council to review Silent Spring for errors, and recommendations. That panel created a subcommittee including the nation's best experts in pesticides and entomology. Their report found no serious problems with anything Carson wrote (well, the tone -- it wasn't dull like a scientific paper read in a monotone). Watson was a member of the panel that did the work. Why would I believe you over James Watson?

    Have you read the book? The story you relate is in the book. Carson made no scientific claims about the incident, but coupled with a hundred others, she used it as a question raising case: Do we know enough about these synthetic chemicals we use with abandon? Carson based none of her recommendations on the incident.

    There are 50 pages of citations in Silent Spring, covering research dating back 20 years, correspondence, and everything anyone would need to track down the stuff she referred to. Not a single study has been challenged by peer-reviewed research in the past 50 years.

    Carson raised alarms, and she got credence because she was not hysterical. Rachel Carson was methodically and carefully scientific. You say others haven't read Carson? I think you remember the book incorrectly.

    That incorrect memory colors your views of Carson into false territory.

    James Watson also said black people were genetically less intelligent than whites a short while ago.  So I guess you agree with him.  He also complained numerous times about 'unpleasant leftists' which I am sure makes the conservative in you happy. They say the book increased awareness, which is not the same thing as being a work of science.

    The report was done because the book was popular.  Popular = science to you?  Then I agree you should love the goofy thing, especially that "Fable for Tomorrow" bit - because it was fiction.  I'm also not impressed by statistics that are intended to deceive but you seem to like that.  

    The 1964 document you cited said there should be more judicious use of pesticides.  Ummm, okay, though that is not what Carson advocated at all.  They noted 150 deaths from misuse of pesticides, which does not mean DDT causes cancer.  They instead wrote that ingesting even large amounts of DDT had no ill effects.  You seem to think her made-up anecdotes don't mean the rest of her book is suspect.  How strange to see the world through partisan glasses. 

    I didn't read your website advocating Carson's science because you got nothing else right in your comment, so it is unlikely you get better on your own website where you have no accountability.  Carson's book remains a “prosecuting attorney’s impassioned plea for action" as it was considered then - no one called it science.  I wish modern people were as smart.
    Judicious use of pesticides was exactly what Carson suggested.

    As I said, I don't think you remember the book correctly.

    Yep, Watson had a great misanthropic streak in him. His science was very good, and he has a Nobel to prove it. There were about a dozen other of the best scientists America had to offer on the thing -- and it appears to me they at least read what Carson wrote. (It was released on May 15, 1963, by the way.)

    You worry a lot about cancer and DDT's carcinogenicity. DDT was never banned, anywhere, for being carcinogenic. Why do you fret so over that?

    Can you cite for us the "made-up" anecdotes you claim Carson relied on? I recall she relied a lot on the work of ornithologists in the Midwest and California. Their work is still available, and as I mentioned, none of it has ever been contradicted by any other study.

    You accuse me of getting nothing else right. Carson's book was solid on science, as the President's panel determined -- and it still is. You mentioned one anecdote out of dozens of stories she related, and you suggest it may have been inaccurate -- but you offer no evidence. What about all the other evidence she amassed? What about the studies feeding seed-eating birds DDT; the studies of dying birds on college campuses where DDT had been sprayed; the research from the Fish and Wildlife Service, then rather the sina qua non of wildlife research, and solidly done.

    Carson's claims were more than fully evidenced in four separate court cases, two which found at trial that DDT is uncontrollable and deadly in the wild, and two appeals decisions on EPA's regulation of the stuff, which turn on whether there is good science to back the regulations -- both of the appeals decisions said there is ample evidence.

    So, backing Carson we've got a panel of the best scientists in the nation in 1962, two federal trial courts, and two federal appellate decisions, coupled with all the research done since 1962 piled on top. Against Carson, we've got your hysterical and erroneous claim that Carson used only anecdotes, and your irrelevant note thatJames Watson was a bit of a prick (still a great scientist).

    Any chance you've got a bit more of a case that you're hiding somewhere, or is that it?

    Gerhard Adam
    ...80 percent of all organisms found on coral reefs are parasites.
    Well, what have you got against parasites? 
    Mundus vult decipi
    No, I love parasites. I am lamenting the coral reefs that are parasite-deprived.
    Gerhard Adam
    Well, that's OK then.
    Mundus vult decipi