Search Results

< Back to Issue 9 Eyeballs, a Knife, and No Fear of God by Jess Walton 28 October 2025 Illustrated by Anabelle Dewi Saraswati Edited by Chavindi Sinhara Mudalige Humans have wanted to understand our bodies the entire time we’ve had them, which is to say, the entire time. Late Classical Athens, around 300 BC, at a peak of intellectual prosperity: Herophilos cuts into a corpse. From this, he’s going to make the novel argument that the brain contains knowledge, and in doing so, he’s going to criticize Aristotle’s writing, which describes the brain as something akin to an air conditioner. Aristotle thought the brain was a cooling chamber, essentially, to prevent the heart from overheating, and that cognition happened in the heart. Much, much earlier, around 1000 BC in India, Sushruta, in his foundational surgical text, overestimated the bone count in humans by over 100. Many ancient societies had impressively detailed understanding of anatomy, considering they had no microscopes, no cameras, no X-rays; usually nothing more than their knives and eyeballs. It’s important to note as well that this article is a brief overview of a complex subject, with a major focus on Classical, meaning Ancient Greek and Roman, examples, and is in no way a complete story of early anatomical developments across the globe. Asia, Africa, the Americas and the Arab world each had their own rich and complex traditions, beyond the few examples cherry-picked here. Most societies had a few impressive hits and a few impressive misses; in a way, their approach to science isn’t all that different from ours today. What can we learn from them, and what can we learn about ourselves? In Ancient Athens, Aristotle believed the heart to be both the intellectual and emotional center of humans; the “seat of the soul” (1). Some remnants of this remain in our modern association between heart and emotion, though we know now it isn’t backed by science. His reasoning behind this was the convergence of blood vessels at the heart and its importance; from this, he also, perhaps reasonably, thought it to be the source of blood (2). Despite being deservedly considered a major anatomist, Aristotle likely made his observations from examining and dissecting the bodies of animals, particularly lower mammals, like dogs or livestock, instead of real humans (3). He unknowingly used homologous structures, long before evolution or even Charles Darwin himself was conceptualized, to essentially assume the anatomy of humans from other animals. Given this, his conclusions on the brain become a little more understandable. The brain is a strange-looking organ, critically important to life, though not obviously connected to the pulse or rich with blood; how were they to understand the structure of nerves and white matter? That it assists the heart in some way becomes a logical conclusion. So why not serve a cooling function? Blood is hot, so the heart must get hot. Overheating is usually bad; see fire. And the brain’s size makes it ideal for such a thing. The thing about anatomy and science, Aristotle’s assertion being one primordial example of many around the ancient world, is that it changes. Herophilos and Erasistratus were two more Greek anatomists who succeeded and often contested Aristotle. Unlike him, they dissected humans, having no qualms about a man’s dead—or, according to some sources, still alive—body (4). However, they offered several accurate, or at least more accurate, insights inside human bodies. Herophilus argued that the brain wasn’t a cooling chamber but contained knowledge (5). While he was at it, he argued that the heart has four chambers, unlike Aristotle, who claimed it only has three (5). Many of Herophilos and Erasistratus’ insights required Aristotle’s, or some other prior Mediterranean scholar’s, claims to give them something to criticise. Praxagoras was one such anatomist, from about 400 BC, about 100 years earlier. He correctly associated the pulse with natural movement within the body, but also asserted that arteries carry air (6). There is, possibly because of this claim, debate as to whether he had any practical anatomical experience or observed any dissections. If so, it’s quite impressive to miss the blood in arteries. He did, however, note that veins carry blood (2). Thus, he was later included in Herophilos’ critique. Before we criticise how long it took for them to realise seemingly obvious facts, we must remember that bloodletting as an acceptable treatment persisted into the 19 th Century. Modern and recent understandings are far from flawless. A couple of hundred years later, Galen, a Roman from the late 2 nd Century AD, would voice similar critiques (2). Galen would later become famous for his theory of the four humors: blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm, each with associated personalities and elements (7). While these are all real liquids found somewhere in the human body, they do not really work as the four-way counterbalance he describes. Galen made some incredible leaps forward in Roman anatomy, including developing more elaborate tools for dissection and surgery processes, which would be instrumental in allowing future developments in the field. However, he also learned more anatomy from treating severe gladiator injuries—which is awesome—or like Aristotle, from dissections and studies on lower mammals (7). This led to some interesting conclusions; his description and diagrams of a human uterus match that of a dog’s uterus exactly, for example (7). He did well with the tools he had, but guesswork has its limits. Three hundred years before Aristotle, and over seven centuries before Galen, the ancient Indian physician Sushruta, a continent away, was revolutionizing, and if there was nothing to revolutionise, inventing surgeries and surgical techniques. He also valued an understanding of human anatomy, which likely contributed to his surgical skill, and dedicated a portion of his seminal Sanskrit work, Sushruta Samhita , to anatomy, calling it the Sharira Sthana . In his work, he describes in detail the head, which he correctly identified as the major center of essentially all function, particularly the cranial nerves (8). He also includes the first detailed guide to human dissection, alongside the anatomy of the embryo at various developmental stages; this is described as arising from seven skins, each with their own associated ailments, and while the skins are anomalous, many of the ailments correlate impressively with known diseases (8). There’s also, incredibly, a detailed description of cataract surgery procedure, where exceptionally specific incision locations in the cornea are interspersed with instructions to sedate the patient with wine mixed with cannabis, which makes sense in a world far predating modern anesthesia, then to spray the eye with breast milk (9). This part seems outlandish and harder to explain, but anyone who has studied immunology can tell you that breast milk contains antibodies and antibacterial proteins. Sushruta likely made some link between breast milk and reduced post-op infections, even if there were not yet microscopes to see bacteria with. Even if they couldn’t see why on the molecular scale, ancient anatomists were able to understand what worked and what didn’t and justify it to the best of their knowledge. When Sushruta describes the bones of the human body, he does so in great detail, and also counts more than 300 of them. Humans typically have 206 bones, give or take a rib: Sushruta mildly overestimated. This is thought to be from him, largely basing his skeletal insights off child cadavers, before many bones have fused together (9). Hindu religious law calls for the cremation of any body over two years old, in its natural and thus undissected state; though there are accounts of Sushruta performing dissections, presumably on adults, the bodies he likely had the most exposure to were infants. Sushruta was working within the confines of the society and world that he lived in, as was Herophilos. Medical insights which seem obvious to us today, like that the brain is for thinking and the heart is for beating blood, and that blood goes through the arteries and is most definitely a liquid, rely upon prior knowledge reached with tools that hadn’t even been invented yet. These firsts—surgeons, anatomists, scientists—would probably have to be physically pried away from microscopes and X-rays, if ever introduced to them. They often didn’t even have a human body to dissect, yet drew human anatomical conclusions regardless. And it’s easy to marvel at their mistakes, but it’s even easier to marvel at how much they got right; Herophilos correctly uncovered nerves and linked them to sensation and response, which is impressive in itself. Could you find a nerve in some meat, with just your naked eye? He also linked the heart and the pulse. The Huangdi Neijing , for example, is a Chinese medical text said, though disputed, to be from 2600 BC, which describes the relationships between organs in military terms: the heart as a king, the liver as a commandant, and the gallbladder as an attorney-general responsible for coordination (10). However, both like and before Herophilos, it also correctly identifies the cyclic nature of blood flow and links it to the heart (10). The Edwin Smith Papyrus, dating from 1700 BC in Ancient Egypt, is the oldest known surgical text, describing 48 different injuries with treatments; all shockingly accurate (11). Sushruta may have miscounted the bones, but he described their shapes accurately and suggested legitimate therapies for particular bone breakages and dislocations. Nowadays, little has changed: in just the 1950s, lobotomies became the standard cure for a headache; even long after we developed microscopes, we were recommending treatments, like scrambling our brains, that only 70 years later seem ridiculously stupid. We’re far from done charting our own bodies, either. In 2018, an entirely new type of tissue all throughout the body was found: the interstitium, which is critical in cell and organ communication across the body (12). It’s been there the whole time, but no one had noticed before. Humans are humans; it is only natural to want to understand ourselves, and as a part of that, our bodies. We now study our ancestors as they studied themselves; the same mix of awe, confusion and confidence. Their methods and conclusions may be fallible, but their curiosity was not, and as long as we remain, never will be, dead. These examples were only a fraction of those whose work has been preserved, who themselves were only a fraction of the ancient people across the globe who investigated human anatomy. A millennium from now, our descendants will laugh at our misconceptions, when they have mapped every neuron in the human brain with instruments we could not conceive of. But without us, they wouldn’t know what they know, and without our original anatomists, we wouldn’t know what we know. Our modern granular understanding of our own structure is built on the bodies we looked in before ours. So, we should perhaps extend some empathy to our predecessors. They had only eyeballs, a knife, and our own curiosity. Different tools, same bodies. References Aird WC. Discovery of the cardiovascular system: from Galen to William Harvey. J Thromb Haemost. 2011;9(Suppl 1):118–29. Johnston IH, Papavramidou N. Galen on the Pulses: Medico-historical Analysis, Textual Tradition, Translation [Internet]. De Gruyter; 2023 [cited 2025 Oct 10]. Available from: https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110612677/html Crivellato E, Ribatti D. A portrait of Aristotle as an anatomist. Clin Anat. 2007;20(5):447–85. Papa V, Varotto E, Vaccarezza M, Ballestriero R, Tafuri D, Galassi FM. The teaching of anatomy throughout the centuries: from Herophilus to plastination and beyond. Med Hist. 2019;3(2):69–77. Bay NSY, Bay BH. Greek anatomist Herophilus: the father of anatomy. Anat Cell Biol. 2010;43(4):280–3. Wright J. Review of: Praxagoras of Cos on Arteries, Pulse and Pneuma. Studies in Ancient Medicine, 48 . Bryn Mawr Class Rev [Internet]. [cited 2025 Oct 10]. Available from: https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2017/2017.07.34/ Ajita R. Galen and his contribution to anatomy: a review. J Evid Based Med Healthc. 2015;4(26):4509–16. Bhattacharya S. Sushruta—the very first anatomist of the world. Indian J Surg. 2022;84(5):901–4. Loukas M, Lanteri A, Ferrauiola J, Tubbs RS, Maharaja G, Shoja MM, et al. Anatomy in ancient India: a focus on the Sushruta Samhita . J Anat. 2010;217(6):646–50. O’Boyle C. TVN Persaud, Early history of human anatomy: from antiquity to the beginning of the modern era. Med Hist. 1987;31(4):478–9. van Middendorp JJ, Sanchez GM, Burridge AL. The Edwin Smith papyrus: a clinical reappraisal of the oldest known document on spinal injuries. Eur Spine J. 2010 Nov;19(11):1815–23. Benias PC, Wells RG, Sackey-Aboagye B, Klavan H, Reidy J, Buonocore D, et al. Structure and distribution of an unrecognized interstitium in human tissues. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):4947. Previous article Next article Entwined back to

About Us OmniSci Magazine is a science magazine at the University of Melbourne, run entirely by students, for students. Our team consists of talented feature writers, columnists, editors, graphics designers, social media and web development officers, all passionate about communicating science! Past Contributor Interviews Editors-in-Chief Ingrid Sefton President Aisyah M. Sulhanuddin President Current Committee Lauren Zhang Secretary Andrew Shin General Committee Ethan Bisogni Treasurer Luci Ackland General Committee Kara Miwa-Dale Events and Socials Hendrick Lin General Committee Elijah McEvoy Events and Socials Past Editors-in-Chief Rachel Ko 2022-2024 Sophia Lin 2021-2022 Patrick Grave 2021-2023 Maya Salinger 2021-2022 Caitlin Kane 2022-2023 Felicity Hu 2021-2022 Yvette Marris 2022-2023

< Back to Issue 9 Ancient Asian Alchemy: Big Booms by Isaac Tian 28 October 2025 Illustrated by Aisyah Mohammad Sulhanuddin Edited by Luci Ackland One question has plagued the human condition since the beginning of time: how can we escape death? Well, we certainly know who didn’t find the answer – the alchemists of ancient China. It’s 210 BC, and you are an alchemist standing before Emperor Qin Shi Huang in his court. You hand him an elixir supposed to grant him immortality and eternal reign. Only the serum contains what we now call “mercury” and if anything, you granted him mortality, as he drops dead before you (1). Where does one begin in this journey to immortality? How do we combine chemicals to find the perfect serum? Keep in mind, we have not even come close to establishing the periodic table at this point (no, that will occur about 1000 years later) (2). Saltpetre – or potassium nitrate – had been used extensively to treat common illnesses and to maintain good health. There’s our starting point (3). The search for this magic elixir persists for the next eleven centuries. We never give up… do we? The ingenuity of the alchemists spoke to them: it told them to mix in a few other ingredients to the saltpetre. With the trio of saltpetre, sulfur and charcoal, gunpowder was henceforth born into this world (4). The alchemists must have been in for a surprise when their “potion of immortality” sparked and exploded before them. So how does gunpowder explode? Why don’t other flammable items like match tips and dry wood explode when we set them alight? It comes down to a few key things. First is our perception of explosions. Chemicals don’t simply “explode” – it’s not an inherent quality of reactions – however, they can combust. Combustion is the release of energy from a fuel. Wood and matches combust, but they do so in a way that is relatively slower than gunpowder. Gunpowder combusts rapidly – so there is a large amount of energy release within a short period of time. Secondly, it’s about the availability of oxygen. Items that combust slowly typically have to wait for the oxygen to trickle in from the surrounding air, since oxygen is a critical component of combustion. This does not apply to gunpowder. The oxygen for its combustion is right there in the nitrate compound (of potassium nitrate – or saltpetre). So unlike burning wood or matches, the combustion does not need to wait for oxygen to arrive from the surrounding environment – it’s already in there with the rest of the powder (5)! To go further on that point: the closer the atoms are, the faster the combustion reaction can progress, because chemical compounds don’t need to wait long for the heat to get to them. Since gunpowder is… well… a powder, it’s rather compact and all the molecules of potassium nitrate, sulfur, and carbon sit tightly next to one another. It is this physical arrangement that permits the fast transfer of heat between molecules, ensuring that a lot of energy can be released at once. Ultimately, when all these physical and chemical phenomena occur in perfect unison, the high temperatures rapidly increase the kinetic energy of surrounding air molecules, causing them to shoot outwards at great speeds to form a “barrier” of sorts. When this barrier, also known as a shockwave, hits your eardrums, the gunpowder delivers what it does best: BOOM! Now, let’s combust some gunpowder, build up some gaseous pressure, and launch ourselves into the modern day. It’s been about twelve centuries – what have we been doing with all the gunpowder? As it turns out, we humans are very inventive, but also violent (Wow – who knew?). We quickly realised that the physical properties of the resulting gases can be harnessed to quickly move very heavy objects (6). Said heavy objects could then be guided in the direction of, say, a human being or a structure. Weaponry derived from gunpowder has existed for a very long time, albeit rather inefficient at first. The introduction of gunpowder to warfare came in the early 10th century, when soldiers applied gunpowder to arrows that would ignite and create fire arrows. Of course, whilst it might have been effective in creating a hole in humans, it was significantly less so when it came to creating holes in walls and structures. Only after 300 years did we then invent cannons and guns. However, those guns were slow – really, really slow – to the point that bows and arrows were actually preferred during warfare of that era. It would be another 600 years before we realised that there were more effective ways of reloading a gun; brandishing a new trend of military technology that would set the stage for the First and Second World Wars (7). By that point, the most terrifying of weapons had begun to stray away from the use of gunpowder. Missiles and rockets began employing other chemicals as propellants, owing to the advantage it had over gunpowder (7). It would also be remiss of this article to omit the exploitation of atomic power – pervading the world with such destruction that gunpowder appeared like a child’s toy (8). The tragic irony of a supposed innovation in immortality leading to mortality by war and conflict will forever embed itself into our history. Even with the right intentions, the invention by the great minds of alchemy has sparked a chain reaction for widespread destruction and warfare. It only makes you wonder – what are we making now that will lead us further astray in the future? References 1. Glancey J. The army that conquered the world. BBC. Accessed August 24, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20170411-the-army-that-conquered-the-world 2. Guharay DM. A brief history of the periodic table. ASBMBTODAY. Accessed August 28, 2025. https://www.asbmb.org/asbmb-today/science/020721/a-brief-history-of-the-periodic-table 3. Butler A, Moffett J. Saltpetre in Early and Medieval Chinese Medicine. Asian Medicine . 2009;5(1):173-185. doi: 10.1163/157342109X568982 4. Paradowski, R.J. Invention of Gunpowder and Guns. EBSCO Research Starters. 2022. Accessed August 24, 2025. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/invention-gunpowder-and-guns 5. Stanford University. Detonation and Combustion. Stanford University. Accessed September 4, 2025. https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/ww2/projects/firebombing/detonation-and-combustion.htm 6. Britannica. Ammunition | Bullets, Shells & Cartridges. Britannica. 2025. Accessed September 25, 2025. https://www.britannica.com/technology/ammunition 7. Beyer G. How Did Gunpowder Change Warfare? TheCollector. 2025. Accessed October 4, 2025. https://www.thecollector.com/how-did-gunpowder-change-warfare/ 8. ICAN. History of Nuclear Weapons. ICAN. Accessed October 4, 2025. https://www.icanw.org/nuclear_weapons_history Previous article Next article Entwined back to

< Back to Issue 2 The Evolution of Science Communication In the current age of social media, users hold far more autonomy over the posts and information which they share online. However, this was not always the case, with the media once being far more regulated, and restricted for only certain individuals. With users now having far more power over content posted online, how does this impact the information which others receive about the COVID-19 pandemic? by Monica Blasioli 10 December 2021 Edited by Khoa-Anh Tran & Yen Sim Illustrated by Rachel Ko Trigger warning: This article mentions illness, and death or dying. Since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, science communication has started to evolve in ways never before seen across the globe. There appears to be an endless amount of infographics, Facebook posts, and YouTube and TikTok videos… including some with dancing doctors. Information not only about the COVID-19 virus, but countless diseases and scientific concepts, is available in more casual, accessible language at only the touch of a button. Any questions which you might have about science or your body can be answered through a quick Google search. In this sense, science communication is now far more rapid, as well as more accessible than in research papers (which always seem like they are written in a foreign language at times). However, the downside of having vast amounts of information available is that it can create challenges in determining the validity of what is being presented. In previous years, science communication was typically limited to the more typical forms of media, such as in a newspaper or a magazine, or even through a television interview. These were typically completed by professionals in the field, such as a research scientist or a medical doctor. When looking at the 1920 Influenza outbreak, many citizens at that time would have received their information from printed newspapers and posters on bulletin boards, as seen below. Image 1, [1] Somewhat similar to today's age, there were signs displaying the importance of mask-wearing, and newspapers explaining the closures of schools and shops, the distribution of vaccines, and reports of death rates. These messages were, and still are, created and approved by larger institutions, governments and medical professionals, particularly doctors. As seen on the (left / right / below / above), doctors are urging people to not become complacent, despite a recent drop in influenza cases. This is rather similar to current newspaper or television news reports - only in reference to COVID-19, instead of influenza. Image 2, [2] There were, of course, still groups which were uncertain about the scientific evidence being provided by journalists, doctors and government officials at this time. In November of 1918, it was declared that “the epidemic of [influenza] disease is practically over,” with mask laws being relaxed. However, only a few days later, the previous mask laws were reintroduced with a spike in Influenza cases. As unpacked in Dr Dolan’s research [3], the “Anti-Mask League” formed and protested in response to this back track, claiming that masks were unsanitary, unnecessary, and stifling their freedom. As this was during the early 20th century, the league advertised their protests in local newspapers, with reports that hundreds of San Francisco residents were fined for not abiding by mask rules, often due to their alliance with the Anti-Mask League. The San Francisco Anti-Mask League is one of the most renowned and infamous groups of its time, with smaller-scale groups also questioning the science being communicated. This type of conflicting information surrounding mask issues, and the opinion that they restrict personal freedoms, have incited similar responses throughout history. However, resistance by anti-mask groups has not existed on such an influential and global scale, as it has during the current COVID-19 pandemic. With the rise of the age of “new media,” including platforms such as Instagram and Facebook, individuals now have far more autonomy over their role in the media, meaning that they yield a lot more power over the information others are receiving. Almost anybody can interpret scientific material online and upload it in a video of them dancing to some music on TikTok, spreading information to potentially hundreds of thousands of viewers across the globe. In many ways this new found autonomy and power can be quite beneficial. Australian Doctor Imogen Hines uses her platform on TikTok, alongside her medical education and current scientific research, to break down medical treatments and mistruths, particularly surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. These videos use simple language and straight-forward analogies, “humanising” the often intimidating figures in the medical field, and allowing the general public to be well-informed about scientific concepts. For example, Dr Imogen breaks down the research surrounding long term side effects of vaccines using a milkshake analogy! https://www.tiktok.com/@imi_imogen1/video/7027448207823211777?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1&lang=en On the other hand, this phenomenon can have pretty serious ramifications, with many individuals feeling rightfully confused about what the truth really is, when there appears to be so many versions of it posted across the internet. Following a rather controversial study on Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19, the internet was soon buzzing with excitement about the prospect of a drug that many believed could replace the need for a vaccine. Despite numerous gaps in the original study, and countless further studies refuting Invermectin’s ability to treat COVID-19, many social media users are continuing to spread this myth online. Both governments and hospitals alike have been accused of hiding a seemingly “good” cure from their citizens. In Texas, a group of doctors won a legal case which allowed Texas Huguley Hospital to refuse administering Ivermectin to a COVID-19 infected Deputy Sheriff. This sparked outrage on Facebook, with users and the Sheriff’s wife demanding greater freedoms over their medical treatments, instead of just relying on the judgement of doctors and hospital staff. In this instance, the misinformation surrounding Ivermectin is not only influencing individuals to seek out futile treatments, but it is also spreading mistrust with the science and medical communities, who work incredibly hard to protect the world, particularly over the past two years. Despite Ivermectin being used in a clinical setting to treat parasitic (not viral) infections in humans for a number of years now, it can be extremely dangerous for individuals to have complete power over their medical treatments. The dosage and timing of treatment is crucial in ensuring success. Just like with everyday medications such as paracetamol, taking Ivermectin in high doses is risky. A COVID-19 infected woman from Sydney who read about Ivermectin on social media took a very high dosage of the drug after purchasing it from an online seller, which resulted in severe diarrhea and vomiting. In order to combat some of this misinformation, a number of social media platforms are “fact checking” posts or providing warnings on posts with keywords, such as ‘COVID-19’ or ‘vaccination.’ On Instagram, each post with these keywords will contain a banner at the bottom inviting users to visit their “COVID-19 Information Centre,” which provides a list of information supported by WHO and UNICEF about how vaccines are of high-standard, well-researched, and generally resulting in mild side effects. In addition, on Facebook, posts identified to be spreading mistruths will provide users with websites explaining the truth, before they can access the original posts. However, these warnings and fact-checks can only go so far. Posts blindly supporting the use of Ivermectin, falsely reporting side effects of vaccines, and arguing that masks cannot block virus particles still circulate the internet. Often those most vulnerable in the community are at risk of being led astray with misinformation. In principle, evidence-based, concise, easy-to-understand science communication is essential to break down the barrier between research and the general public, ensuring that citizens are well-informed and more comfortable about the world around them. In the situation of a public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic, this communication is crucial in ensuring that all citizens can remain well-informed, safe and healthy. Misinformation and dodgy studies can not only lead people astray, but also cost them their health and wellbeing. References: 1. Kathleen McGarvey, “Historian John Barry compares COVID-19 to the 1918 flu pandemic,” University of Rochester, October 6, 2020. https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/historian-john-barry-compares-covid-19-to-1918-flu-pandemic-454732/ 2. Kathleen McGarvey, “Historian John Barry compares COVID-19 to the 1918 flu pandemic,” University of Rochester, October 6, 2020. https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/historian-john-barry-compares-covid-19-to-1918-flu-pandemic-454732/ 3. Brian Dolan, Unmasking History: Who Was Behind the Anti-Mask League Protests During the 1918 Influenza Epidemic in San Francisco? Perspectives in Medical Humanities (San Francisco: UC Medical Humanities Consortium, 2020) Previous article back to DISORDER Next article

By Andrew Lim < Back to Issue 3 Hope, Humanity and the Starry Night Sky By Andrew Lim 10 September 2022 Edited by Manfred Cain and Yvette Marris Illustrated by Ravon Chew Next Image 1: The Arecibo Observatory looms large over the forests of Puerto Rico The eerie signal reverberates out over the Caribbean skies, amplified by the telescope below. It oscillates between two odd resonating tones for little more than a couple of minutes, then shuts off. Eminent scholars, government administrators and elected representatives watch in wonderment, their eyes glued open. The forest birds and critters chirp and sing. It is November 16, 1974 – from a little spot in Arecibo, Puerto Rico, Earth is about to pop its head out the door to say ‘hello’. Those sing-song tunes, beamed out into space on modulated radio waves, are a binary message designed for some alien civilisation– a snapshot of humanity in 1679 bits. It sounds like the beginning of a bad sci-fi flick: the kind that ends with little green men coming down in UFOs for a cheap-CGI first contact. But it isn’t, and it doesn’t. Instead, the legacy of those telescope-amplified sounds – that ‘Arecibo Message’ – has a place in history as a symbol of human cooperation, here on Earth rather than in the stars. The message’s unifying vision imbued the famous ‘pale blue dot’ monologue of its co-creator Carl Sagan; and led to the launch of a multi-year international programme designing its successor message 45 years on, presenting extra-terrestrial communication as a mirror of our earth-bound relations. A unified message symbolizing a unified humanity. The previous feature in this series (Discovery, Blue Skies…and Partisan Bickering?) ended with a declaration of nuance: that science in politics matters solely because it transcends partisan bounds with clear analysis. Yet, looking at stories like Arecibo’s, so imbued with human optimism, maybe this cold, logical formulation isn’t enough. Perhaps for all its focus on appropriations bills, initiative funding and flawed infrastructure, that perspective lends insufficient weight to science’s ability to inspire, to cut through the fog of day-to-day policy battles with a beacon of what could yet be. But is this talk of hope just ideological posturing – a triumphant humanism gone mad? Or could there be some merit to its romantic vision of humanity speaking with one voice to the stars? Might it possibly be that science really is the key to bridging our divisions? COOPERATION AMIDST CHAOS Well, why not begin in the times of Arecibo? After all, the interstellar message came at a key moment in the Cold War. Just a few months before, US President Richard Nixon had made his way to Moscow to meet with General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev, leader of the USSR. The signing of a new arms treaty, a decade-long economic agreement and a friendly state dinner at the Kremlin all seemed to indicate a world inching away from the edge of nuclear apocalypse. Such pacifist optimism is found readily in the message’s surrounding documents, with its research proposal speaking glowingly of future messages designed and informed by “international scientific consultations…[similar to] the first Soviet-American conference on communication with extraterrestrial [sic] intelligence.” Indeed, it seems the spirit of the age. Soon after the Arecibo message’s transmission, the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project would see an American Apollo spacecraft docking with a Soviet Soyuz module. Mission commanders Thomas Stafford and Alexei Leonov conducted experiments, exchanged gifts, and even engaged in the world’s first international space handshake – a symbol of shared peace and prosperity for both superpowers. Image 2: Thomas Stafford and Alexei Leonov shake hands on the Apollo-Soyuz mission Apollo-Soyuz marked an effective end to the US-USSR ‘Space Race’ (discussed in Part I of this series), and would lead to successor programmes, including a series of missions where American space shuttles would send astronauts to the Russian space station Mir, and eventually the building of the 21st-century International Space Station (ISS). Science seemed capable of forging cooperation amidst the greatest of disagreements, transcending our human borders and divides. Frank Drake, the designer of the Arecibo Message, was filled with optimism, hoping that his message might herald the beginning of a new age, marked by united scientific discovery and unparalleled human growth. He triumphantly declared to the Cornell Chronicle on the day of its transmission that “the sense that something in the universe is much more clever than we are has preceded almost every important advance in applied technology. SCIENTIFIC SPHERES OF INTEREST Yet this rose-tinted vision of science as the great mediator perhaps has a few more cracks in it than its advocates like to admit. Even at the height of Nixon’s Cold War détente, science was not pure intellectual collaboration. Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State, pioneered ‘triangular diplomacy’, the art of playing adversaries off against one another with alternating threats and incentives. In later years, he would declare that “it was always better for [the US] to be closer to either Moscow or Peking than either was to the other”. And as he opened channels of communication with China, it was science that would pave the way for a stronger relationship. In the Shanghai Communique negotiated on Nixon’s 1972 trip to China, both sides “discussed specific areas in such fields as science [and] technology…in which people-to-people contacts and exchanges would be mutually beneficial [and] undert[ook] to facilitate the further development of [them].” Scientific collaboration (often manipulated by spy agencies from the CIA to the KGB) was the carrot beside the military stick – a central part of building alliances in a world of realpolitik. To Kissinger and his colleagues, the world was to be divided into Image 3: US President Richard Nixon shakes hands with CCP Chairman Mao Zedong in China in 1972 spheres of influence, even in times of peace – and science was best used as a way of strengthening and shoring up your own prosperity. It is a realist view of science diplomacy that continues to this day, with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noting in Image 4: Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi meets with his Cambodian counterpart Prak Sokhonn in September 2021, pledging additional aid and vaccine doses. 2014 that “educational exchanges, cultural tours and scientific collaboration…may garner few headlines, but… [can] influence the next generation of U.S. and [foreign] leaders in a way no other initiative can match”. To both Clinton and Kissinger, science is an instrument of foreign policy, whether deployed overtly in winning over current governments or more subtly in shaping the views of future ones. For them, amidst competing interests and simmering tensions, we ignore science’s soft power at our own peril. Just look at China’s distribution over Sinovac COVID-19 vaccines in the pandemic. In October 2020, January 2021 and September 2021, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi went on tours of Southeast Asia, promising vaccine aid while pushing closer connections between China and the rest of Asia. Last year, it was estimated that China had promised a total of over 255 million vaccine doses – a key step in building stronger economic and military ties in an increasingly tense region. Indeed, in mid-2021, just as concerns about Chinese vaccine efficacy grew, US President Joe Biden announced “half [a] billion doses with no strings attached…[no] pressure for favours, or potential concessions” from the sidelines of a G7 Summit. Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin travelled across Southeast Asia. In the the Philippines he renewed a military deal just as a new shipment of vaccines was announced – a clear indicator of the linkage between medical and military diplomacy, something reinforced when Vice President Kamala Harris landed in Singapore later that year to declare the US “an arsenal of safe and effective vaccines for our entire world.” Australia is key to vaccine diplomacy too. On his visit here earlier this year, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken made a point of visiting the University of Melbourne’s Biomedical Precinct to talk about COVID-19, declaring on Australian television that our nation was central to “looking Image 5: United States Secretary of State Lloyd J Austin III meets with Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte in July 2021 for negotiations on renewing the Visiting Forces Agreement at the problems that afflict our people as well as the opportunities…dealing with COVID…[in] new coalitions [and] new partnerships.” These views are backed up locally too. Sitting down for an exclusive interview with OmniSci Magazine last year, Dr Amanda Caples, Lead Scientist of Victoria, was keen to characterise her work in terms of these developments, reminding us that Victoria had been key to “improving the understanding of the immunology and epidemiology of the virus, developing vaccines and treatments and leading research into the social impact of the pandemic”, and emphasising Australia’s national interest, declaring that “global policymakers understand that a high performing science and research system benefits the broader economy…science and research contribute to jobs and prosperity for all rather than just the few.” Science, it seems, whether in vaccines, trade or exchanges, just like fifty years ago, is again to be a key tool for grand strategy and national interests. Image 6: Dr Amanda Caples, Lead Scientist of Victoria ARGUMENTS AND ARMS But perhaps even this might be too optimistic an outlook – for that simmering balance of power occasionally boils over. We need only to look at what happened when the détente of Nixon and Brezhnev was dashed to pieces with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The policy was roundly condemned as sheer naïveté in the face of wily adversaries, with President Ronald Reagan later describing détente in a radio address as “what a farmer has with his turkey – until Thanksgiving Day”. Science was the first target for diplomatic attacks. After the invasion, Senator Robert Dole (R-KS) launched legislation barring the National Science Foundation from funding trips to the USSR. And the push seemed bipartisan, with Representative George Brown Jr. (D-CA-36) proposing a House Joint Resolution enacting an immediate “halt [to] official travel related to scientific and technical cooperation with the Soviet Union”. Image 7: Russia’s cosmonauts board the ISS on 18th March 2022, shortly before Russia ends its participation in the program Now, as we face war on the European continent, even the ISS – the descendant of Apollo-Soyuz’s seemingly-apolitical scientific endeavours – seems to be falling apart spectacularly. On April 2 this year, Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, announced that it would be ending its participation in the ISS program, demanding a “full and unconditional removal of…sanctions” imposed over the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Earlier in the year, Roscosmos’ Director General Dmitry Rogozin openly suggested on Twitter that the ISS being without Russian involvement would lead to “an uncontrolled deorbit and fall [of the station] into the United States or Europe”, alluding to “the option of dropping a 500-ton structure [on] India and China.” Rogozin’s threats became even more pronounced as the war continued, with Roscosmos producing a video depicting Russia’s two astronauts on the station not bringing NASA astronaut Mark Vande Hei back to Earth with them (American astronauts primarily go to and return from space via Russian Soyuz capsules). Shared by Russian state news, its chilling final scenes show the Russian segment of the ISS detaching too, with Vande Hei presumably left to die in space aboard the station. Such attacks need not remain rhetorical, either. Scientific advancements have long been tied to weaponry and defence systems, with mathematicians and physicists from John Littlewood to Richard Feynman involved in making bombs and ballistics in times of war. Even Arecibo, that bastion of a united humanity, began life as a Department of Defence initiative detecting Soviet ballistic missiles. Today, the AUKUS defence partnership – one of the most significant Indo-Pacific defence developments in recent memory – centres on sharing nuclear submarine science and technology, promising scientific cooperation regarding “cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and additional undersea capabilities”. Even if induced by factors beyond our control, such weapons-based science is a far cry from the pacifist ideals of the Arecibo message. Thus, perhaps this messy reality is more central to our science than we like to admit. From the ISS to Australia’s waters, science still is intertwined with conflict and frequently co-opted by geopolitical actors in times of renewed aggression. Science at its worst is mere weaponry. But at its best, it speaks to something greater. HOPE IN THE DARKNESS In June 1977, the world was far from diplomatically stagnant. From the rumblings of Middle Eastern peace (what became the Camp David Accords) to new hopes of nuclear arms reduction, US President Jimmy Carter had quite the array of diplomatic dilemmas to consider. But amidst all that cold politics, he penned a letter to be sent on board the spacecraft Voyager, now the furthest manmade object from our solar system, declaring “We are attempting to survive our time so we may live into yours…This record represents our hope and our determination, and our good will in a vast and awesome universe.” And if this magazine has purported to speak to the ‘alien’ – far removed from our human lives - then perhaps we have discovered quite the opposite: that looking out up there is so much about looking in down here. Science presents a way we can look out at the alien and see ourselves – “survive our time…into yours”, finding a path ahead reflected in the inky blackness above. We are often constrained by time and circumstance, forced in the face of nefarious actors to compromise our idealism and use science as a mere weapon or tool. Discovery for discovery’s sake is frequently the first casualty when battle lines are drawn and aggression begun, and too often the political pessimism of the scientist can seem overpowering. But if the stories of broken détentes, diplomatic realpolitik and weaponised technology have made it all feel inevitable, then perhaps it is worth considering the story we began with, looking up into the night sky and remembering that somewhere amidst the stars is a tiny warble in the electromagnetic spectrum. Long after the funds and papers that forged it have faded away, after the people who wrote it have perished, it will continue. In its odd combination of ones and zeroes, it will represent humanity: our contradictions and our fears, our constant foibles and infighting, but also our occasional glimpses of a future beyond them. A signal…a reminder that when the times, the people Image 8: President Jimmy Carter’s message, sent aboard Voyager, the furthest man-made probe from Earth and the ideas line up just right, science can be the torchbearer for something greater. Something so rare that amidst all the ills of the world, it often seems non-existent, and so powerful that over two millennia ago, Aeschylus himself deemed it the very thing given to humanity by Prometheus to save us from destruction – the ideal that transformed us from mortals fixated on ourselves and our deaths to a civilisation capable of great things. “τυφλὰς…ἐλπίδας”, he called it: blind hope. A handshake in a capsule. A life-saving jab on board a ship. A binary message in a bottle, out among the stars. Fleeting images – not of what we are, but of what we can be: visions of blind hope, that sheer belief that we can grow past our worst violent impulses and reach out into the great beyond. Maybe it’s foolish. Maybe it’s naïve. But, on a brisk fall evening, looking out at a sky full of stars, each one more twinkling than the last, it’s easy to stop and imagine…maybe it’s the only thing that matters. Andrew Lim is an Editor and Feature Writer with OmniSci Magazine and led the team behind the Australian Finalist Submission to the New Arecibo Message Challenge. Image Credits (in order): National Atmospheric and Ionosphere Centre; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Archives Nixon White House Photo Office Collection; Kith Serey/Pool via Reuters; Malacanang Presidential Photo via Reuters; The Office of the Lead Scientist of Victoria; AP; National Aeronautics and Space Administration Previous article Next article alien back to

By Juulke Castelijn < Back to Issue 3 Believing in aliens... A science? By Juulke Castelijn 10 September 2022 Edited by Tanya Kovacevic and Ashleigh Hallinan Illustrated by Quynh Anh Nguyen Next The question of the existence of ‘intelligent life forms’ on a planet other than ours has always been one of belief. And I did not believe. It was probably the image of a green blob with multiple arms and eyes squelching across the ground and emitting noises unidentifiable as any form of language which turned me off the whole idea. But a book I read one day completely changed my mind; it wasn’t about space at all, but about evolution. ‘Science in the Soul’ is a collection of works written by the inimitable Richard Dawkins, a man who has argued on behalf of evolutionary theory for decades. Within its pages, you will find essays, articles and speeches from throughout his career, all with the target of inspiring deep rational thought in the field of science. A single essay gives enough food for thought to last the mind many days, but the ease and magnificence of Dawkin’s prose encourages the devourment of many pages in a single sitting. The reader becomes engulfed in scientific argument, quickly and completely. Dawkins shows the fundamental importance of the proper understanding of evolution as not just critical to biology, but society at large. Take, for instance, ‘Speaking up for science: An open letter to Prince Charles,’ in which he argues against the modelling of agricultural practices on natural processes as a way of combating climate change. Even if agriculture could be in itself a natural practice (it can’t), nature, Dawkins argues, is a terrible model for longevity. Instead, nature is ‘a short-term Darwinian profiteer’. Here he refers to the mechanism of natural selection, where offspring have an increased likelihood of carrying the traits which favoured their parents’ survival. Natural selection is a reflective process. At a population level, it highlights those genetic traits that increased chances of survival in the past. There is no guarantee those traits will benefit the current generation at all, let alone future generations. Instead, Dawkins argues, science is the method by which new solutions to climate change are found. Whilst we cannot see the future, a rational application of a wealth of knowledge gives us a far more sensitive approach than crude nature. Well, perhaps not crude per se. If anyone is an advocate for the beauty and complexity of natural life, it is surely Dawkins. But a true representation of nature, he argues, rests on the appreciation of evolution as a blinded process, with no aim or ambition, and certainly no pre-planned design. With this stance, Dawkins directly opposes Creationism as an explanation of how the world emerged, a battle from which he does not shy away. Evolution is often painted as a theory in which things develop by chance, randomly. When you consider the complexity of a thing such as the eye, no wonder people prefer to believe in an intelligent designer, like a god, instead. But evolution is not dependent on chance at all, a fact Dawkins argues many times throughout his collection. There is nothing random about the body parts that make up modern humans, or any other living thing - they have been passed down from generation to generation because they enhanced our ancestors’ survival. The underlying logic is unrivalled, including by religion. But that doesn’t mean Dawkins is not a man of belief. Dawkins believes in the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life, and for one reason above all: given the billions upon billions of planets in our universe, the chance of our own evolution would have to be exceedingly small if there was no other life out there. In other words, we believe there is life out there because we do not believe our own evolution to be so rare as to only occur once. Admittedly, it is not a new argument but it had not clicked for me before. Perhaps it was Dawkins’ poetic phrasing. At this stage it is a belief, underlined by a big ‘if’. How could we ever know if there are intelligent life forms on a planet other than Earth? Dawkins provides an answer here too. You probably won’t be surprised that the answer is science, specifically a knowledge of evolution. We do not have to discover life itself, only a sign of something that marks intelligence - a machine or language, say. Evolution remains our only plausible theory of how such a thing could be created, because it can explain the formation of an intelligent being capable of designing such things. We become the supporting evidence of life somewhere else in the universe. That’s satisfying enough for me. Previous article Next article alien back to

< Back to Issue 7 Interstellar Overdrive: Secrets of our Distant Universe by Sarah Ibrahimi 22 October 2024 edited by Hendrick Lin illustrated by Amanda Agustinus “Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known” - Carl Sagan Humanity's innate curiosity and desire of uncovering the unknown has been the spark for mankind's explorations since the beginning of time. From Columbus' expedition across the Atlantic to discover the New World, to Armstrong's first steps on the Moon's surface, we have experienced technological advancement at a lightning pace over the course of human history. Perhaps the most enthralling of these advances has been the scientific quest to unveil the true nature of our universe - the stars, the planets and the beings that exist within it and far beyond. And now, a novel and revolutionary tool has been developed to deepen our understanding of the cosmos. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) developed by NASA is the largest of its kind to ever be placed in space. Launched on Christmas Day in 2021 on board the Ariane 5 rocket, it travelled 1.5 million kilometres equipped with various high-resolution and high-sensitivity instruments, allowing scientists the ability to capture detailed infrared astronomical images of our old and distant universe (NASA, 2022a). In a matter of less than a year, the deepest infrared image known to mankind was produced. Named Webb's First Deep Field, it was unveiled by U.S. President Joe Biden on June 11th, 2022 at the White House, encapsulating never-before-seen perspectives of our universe. With this revelation, a new gateway has been opened into answering the countless questions of the early universe pondered by astrophysicists and the public alike. Confronting viewers with an array of contrasting colours and eccentric shapes, Webb’s First Deep Field can be hard to interpret ( figure 1 ). Figure 1. Webb’s First Deep Field: SMACS 07223 Note. From/Adapted from Webb’s First Deep Field: SMACS 07223 [photo] by James Webb Space Telescope. NASA, 2022b. https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/035/01G7DCWB7137MYJ05CSH1Q5Z1Z?page=1&keyword=smac Copyright 2022, NASA. But with a careful eye and some clever detective work, we can begin to decipher the secrets contained within. For example, the bright lights depicting what appear to be stars are rather entire galaxies, each a gateway to billions of stars. In addition, Webb’s Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam) is able to capture distant galaxies with the sharpest focus to date, unravelling important features from their faint complexities. Appreciation for this image increases exponentially once we begin to comprehend the magnitude of its importance - it depicts the galaxy cluster, SMACS 0723, exactly as it looked 4.6 billion years ago! In other words, this image is a glimpse back to a time well before humans or any life forms existed. Amongst the myriad of initial images produced by JWST, one particular point of interest would be the Southern Ring Nebula illustrating the dying NGC 3132 star ( figure 2 ). This can be seen through the expulsion of its gases and outer layers, producing striking imagery through Webb’s NIRCam. Viewers may also notice the bright lights representing individual galaxies in the nebula's background - again, not to be mistaken as stars. JWST’s ability to capture such a pivotal point in the trajectory of a star's life is crucial in assisting scientists to calculate the volumes of gas and dust present, as well as their unique molecular compositions. Figure 2. Southern Ring Nebula captured by JWST Note. From/Adapted from Southern Ring Nebula [photo] by James Webb Space Telescope. NASA, 2022c. https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/033/01G70BGTSYBHS69T7K3N3ASSEB Copyright 2022, NASA. The efforts to produce such groundbreaking images and insights into the universe did not happen overnight. The Hubble Space Telescope, launched in 1990, was an important predecessor to the JWST. Whether it was confirming the existence of black holes, or the Nobel Prize winning discovery demonstrating the accelerating rate of expansion of the universe, the Hubble Space Telescope laid the foundations for the JWST to flourish. These marvellations revealed by the JWST would also not be possible without the efforts of countless scientists to improve the technological potential of the Hubble Telescope. As a result of these developments, JWST contains a larger primary mirror, deeper infrared vision, and is optimised for longer ultraviolet and visible wavelengths, all with the aim to increase the telescope’s ability to capture profound images of our universe. Nonetheless, a number of hypotheses relevant to matters such as dark energy, exoplanets, and infrared astrophysics remain unanswered. As a next step forward, the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope is set to launch in 2027 with the capacity to produce a panoramic view two hundred times greater than the infrared view generated by Hubble and JWST. The questions that continue to itch our minds remain limitless. As Einstein once lamented, "the more I learn, the more I realise how much I don't know”. There is still so much that remains to be discovered. However, the JWST illustrates that through collaborative scientific efforts, humankind can begin to unravel the many mysteries that govern our universe, one galaxy at a time. References NASAa. (2022, July 12). NASA’s Webb Delivers Deepest Infrared Image of Universe yet. https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/nasas-webb-delivers-deepest-infrared-image-of-universe-yet/ NASAb. (2022, July 11). Webb’s First Deep Field . Webb Space Telescope. https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/035/01G7DCWB7137MYJ05CSH1Q5Z1Z?page=1&keyword=smac NASAc. (2022, July 11). Southern Ring Nebula. Webb Space Telescope. https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/033/01G70BGTSYBHS69T7K3N3ASSEB Previous article Next article apex back to

The body, et cetera Wiggling Ears By Rachel Ko Ever wondered why we have a tailbone but no tail, or wisdom teeth with nothing to chew with them? This column delves into our useless body parts that make us living evidence for evolution- this issue, ear wiggling. Edited by Irene Lee, Ethan Newnham & Jessica Nguy Issue 1: September 24, 2021 Illustration by Quynh Anh Nguyen Human beings fancy ourselves to be quite an intelligent species. With our relatively enormous brains and intricate handling of the five senses, we like to believe that the things we see, touch, smell, taste, and hear, define the boundaries of our universe. Yet, evidence of our shortcomings exists in plain sight on our own bodies. This becomes even more prominent when compared to the furry companions we often assume we are superior to. After living together for almost a decade, my dog is rather sick of me. While she is educated enough to know her name, I no longer even get a turn of a head when I call her. Often, the only response I receive is a wiggle of the ears as she turns them towards me. I, the source of sound, must wait as she considers whether my call for attention is worthy of her time. In this scenario, my dog’s ego might not be the only thing giving her superiority - in the realm of ear wiggling, her abilities are anatomically unattainable to us mere humans. The muscles responsible for this skill are the auriculares, with the anterior controlling upwards and forwards movement, the superior controlling the upwards and downwards movement, and finally the posterior pulling them backwards (1). In other species such as dogs, cats and horses, these muscles have evolved to become intricate over generations, with dogs manoeuvring their ears using 18 muscles, and cats using more than 30 (2). In most human beings, voluntary control of the ears has been almost entirely lost. For the 15 percent (3) of us who can wiggle our ears, the trait is vestigial – effectively useless, except for perhaps readjusting your glasses without using your hands. Despite this, ear wiggling was once a useful functional trait in our ancestral Homo species. Tracing back more than 150 million years (4), a common ancestor of mammals learnt to pivot and curl their ears for evolutionary advantage. It is theorised that before we walked upright, our own primate predecessors directed their ears in response to sound (5). This allowed them to pinpoint sources of danger that were hard to locate while moving on all fours. It was a mechanism comparable to when big cats, like those often featured in Attenborough documentaries, perk up their ears as they prowl through the grasslands. In fact, most of our mammalian relatives (6), other than our closest ape family, have preserved some level of ear wiggling ability, from foxes and wolves to lemurs and koalas. The deterioration of human ear-wiggling began with the emergence of bipedalism. As our ancestors lifted upright, off their knuckles and onto two feet, their entire centre of gravity shifted. This awarded them a wider scope of vision and diurnal activity (7), meaning they began to primarily operate during the day, so humans began relying on vision for many important things: hunting, protecting and surviving. Ear-wiggling's role in showing emotional expressions, such as anger or fear (8), was also replaced with gestures of the hands that were now free to be swung about. With no need for the sophisticated ear machinery that evolution had equipped us with, human beings’ ability to move our ears diminished, while our eyesight drastically improved. It seems that over time, the ear-orienting ability in humans simply died out with evolution. We have not let go of it completely, though. Interestingly, Homo sapiens have retained the neural circuits that were once responsible for ear movement. In the journal Psychophysiology by Steve Hackley (9), a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Missouri, remnants of this neural circuitry were observed in clinical studies. When stimulated by an unexpected sound, the muscles behind the corresponding ears twitched and curled. Similarly, distraction with sounds of bird songs while attempting a set task kick-started bursts of ear muscle activity. While ear wiggling is no longer required for our survival, we exist as evolutionary fossils. As humans, we now have other options in well-established senses while hearing remains a dominant form of sensory input in other species – a very well-refined one too, if my dog’s ability to recognise the sound of her treat packet opening is anything to go by. While the only thing human ear-wigglers have is a cool party trick, our furry friends have mastered intricate ear control, giving them a paw up on us at least in this race. References: 1. "Auricularis Superior Anatomy, Function & Diagram | Body Maps". 2021. Healthline. https://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/auricularis-superior#1. 2. "10 Things You Didn’T Know About Cats And Dogs". 2021. Vetsource. https://vetsource.com/news/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-cats-and-dogs/. 3. "Why Can Some People Wiggle Their Ears?". 2021. Livescience.Com. https://www.livescience.com/33809-wiggle-ears.html. 4, 7, 8. Gross, Rachel. 2021. "Your Vestigial Muscles Try To Pivot Your Ears Just Like A Dog’S". Slate Magazine. 5. "Understanding Genetics". 2021. Genetics.Thetech.Org. https://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/wiggling-your-ears. 6. Saarland University. "Our animal inheritance: Humans perk up their ears, too, when they hear interesting sounds." ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200707113337.htm. 9. Hackley, Steven A. 2015. "Evidence For A Vestigial Pinna-Orienting System In Humans". Psychophysiology 52 (10): 1263-1270. doi:10.1111/psyp.12501.

Bored of that one topic you need to keep revising? Read our chat with Elijah McEvoy about getting inspired by all areas of science, his sci-fi movie recommendations, and hear about his upcoming article about artificial intelligence. Elijah is a writer and editor at OmniSci and a second-year Bachelor of Science student. For Issue 4: Mirage, he is writing about artificial intelligence that masquerades as human, and contributing to two articles as an editor. Mee t OmniSci Writer and Editor Elijah McEvoy Elijah is a writer and editor at OmniSci and a second-year Bachelor of Science student. For Issue 4: Mirage, he is writing about artificial intelligence that masquerades as human, and contributing to two articles as an editor. interviewed by Caitlin Kane What are you studying? Bachelor of Science, looking to major in infection and immunity. I still have some back ups, but that’s looking to be the path. I’m in second year, first semester. Do you have any advice for younger students interested in what you’re studying or more generally? The Bachelor of Science is really, really good. That’s my suggestion. If you’re someone like me who loves all areas of science and was a bit unsure about what path I wanted to go down, then science is really great to explore all those opportunities. What first got you interested in science? I would say probably science fiction movies. I saw Jurassic Park when I was really young and my parents bought it for me on DVD. I found all that science-y background to it very interesting and obviously those stories gets you engaged… What's the scientific backing behind that? That would probably be very early what got me interested in science. Did you always imagine that you would study science formally, or this kind of science? Not exactly. I’ve had the science pathway in mind for a long time, but there were a lot of things in high school that made me consider whether I did or didn’t want to do it. I found writing very interesting in high school, and I was considering whether I do science or I don’t do science… In the end, I’ve found everything that I’m learning so fascinating and I love the ability that I’m continuing to learn everyday in science and that my perspective continues to grow. And the final pathway… is something that’s relatively new. COVID got me interested in studying viruses and microbiology and the management of those situations as well. That is a bit more of a new thing, but all build off continuing to learn and do things in science. What would be your dream role as a scientist? Do you have a job in mind after your studies? I’m a bit undecided… A dream role of mine would definitely involve learning new things, where I can communicate and work in a position that’s not just in a lab or doing continuous research. Something where I can take the stuff learnt in a lab, figured out in a laboratory and apply it to society as a whole, whether working in government or with organisations in public health particularly infection and immunity. What is your role at OmniSci? I’m writing an article for the magazine… I’ve always loved writing and it’s given me an outlet to pursue a bit of writing in a scientific field, which is something very exciting that I’m passionate about. I would describe [editing] as a really great opportunity to work with someone else to hone their idea. I find it very interesting to see what other people's ideas about other aspects of science are and get informed through them, to encourage their opinions and ideas, and the way they express that. Are there other roles you would be interested in trying in the future? Or any other topics you are interested in writing about? Yes, there probably would be. I’ve always found… if you go back to Jurassic park, genetic engineering is always an interesting topic to cover. Particularly one that is growing and growing nowadays with greater access to it. I find all of this very interesting, the science behind genetic engineering… functional and ethical applications, all those questions. How did you get involved with OmniSci? I saw it on the initial club listing in first year, but I don't think anything came out of it… I was trying to figure my way around university as a whole. Then at the start of the year, I made a commitment to myself that I wanted to get involved a bit more. I saw it again in the club listing website and I checked out the website and saw how many people were involved and had different roles and came from different science backgrounds and I thought “oh this looks like a very accepting club and organisation to get involved with” and just signed up! I saw the welcome night that you guys were having and went along to that and decided I wanted to get involved. What is your favourite thing about contributing at OmniSci so far, or something that you’re looking forward to? Giving myself an outlet to learn new things. What I’m writing about isn’t really within my field of science particularly, but it’s a topic I’ve chosen because I find it interesting and it’s encouraged me to go on and learn a lot more about that. But not only that, it’s encouraged me to talk with other people at OmniSci that do know a bit more and can share their opinions. It’s really helped me guide what research I do and where I go from there. That’s probably my favourite thing: giving myself an excuse to learn a bit more about science through writing. Can you give us a sneak peak or pitch of what you're working on this issue? If there’s a lot to come, maybe just what stage you’re up to in the process? Within the theme of mirage, it’s specifically about artificial intelligence that is able to mimic human ability, whether that be human speech, human personality, how we look through deep fake photos and generative AI technology. And looking at how that could potentially impact different wings of life, and how that can be exploited. I mainly go into general discussion of those sort of things and the potential, but I do end on the idea of what needs to be done considering how fast this AI is progressing, and whether regulation is necessary in order to ensure that human work is protected and us as humans are not being exploited by some of the potential applications from this technology. What do you like doing in your spare time (when you're not contributing at OmniSci)? I’m a big movie person. I watch as many movies as possible and I discuss movies with friends… making the most of the student movie nights and cheap deals. Seeing as many movies as possible from a variety of backgrounds. I also like writing. I do a bit of writing in my spare time, but mostly movies. Do you have any movie recommendations? Big question. I love horror movies so if you’re looking for a horror movie I recommend ‘Hereditary’, it’s my favourite horror movie. I guess within the realm of scifi and even artificial intelligence, a really good one that I saw is Ex Machina. Which chemical element would you name your firstborn child (or pet) after? I should be able to think of one—I’m a biochemistry student! Fluorine sounds interesting. Fluora could be a nickname. Yeah, something that you can shorten down. Read Elijah's articles Real Life Replicants

How should scientific research and political legislation interact, and what role should they play in public discourse? Climate Change, Vaccines & Lockdowns: How and Why Science Has Become a Polarising Political Debate By Mia Horsfall In light of the compounding climate crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, the discussion around how we implement scientific research into political realms is growing, and with it, the controversy. But perhaps the debate surrounding such contentious issues reveals more about how we communicate our science than the quality of the science itself. Edited by Yen Sim & Andrew Lim Issue 1: September 24, 2021 Illustration by Janna Dingle The degree to which public rhetoric morphs and formulates enactment of scientific research in topics such as climate change, energy politics and vaccinations has become increasingly evident in recent years, as evidenced by polarising public debates surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and the ‘School Strike’ movements. The ‘apocalyptic narratives’ employed by climate protesters are often combated with condescension and intellectual elitism propagated by political figures, resulting in a remarkably detached exchange of dialogue and a good deal of reticence but an overwhelming lack of progress. Reluctance to accept COVID-19 vaccinations and lockdowns is indicative more of a dogmatic belief in exertion of liberty at all costs rather than a measured comprehension of the implications of such decisions. Likewise, discussions surrounding implementation of nuclear power showcase the disconnect between scientific research and economic policy making, resulting in conflict and frustration as the two struggle to reconcile. The role of science in political, legal and social spheres is contingent upon public discourses surrounding its relevance and remains largely subservient to public opinion. Scientific matters should increasingly, “be studied in relation to how they impact social structures,” (Holmberg & Alvinius, 2020) and it is in this way we can hope to understand the dimorphic nature of research and its intersection with political and social implications. To understand how scientific discourse shifts from a research-centric discussion to a tool to uphold political ideology, it is crucial to deconstruct the rhetoric utilised by opposing sides of the climate debate to advance support for their cause. Examination of the discourse on different sides of the ‘School Strike’ movement ironically reveals that both sides stem from the same source: an analysis of the authority of youth in political spheres. The succinct, punchy statements used to endorse student climate advocacy relish in the youth of the protesters – “you’ll die of old age, we’ll die of climate change”, “I’d be in school if the earth was cool”, “it’s getting hot in here so take off all your coals,'' (Kamarck, 2019). By focusing the targets of the movement on ‘abstract’ actors such as legal, political and economic ecosystems, the movement distances itself from the accepted scientific consensus and focuses on the issue of the mobilisation of policymakers in climate action. These ‘apocalyptic narratives’ do not question the authority of the science communicated, instead hinging their argument upon the challenge of inciting political change from a youth-driven movement. Their narrative relies on the distinct lack of political influence historically held by youth, and satirises the predicted response of politicians such as the then Federal Minister for Education Dan Tehan who asserted that the strikes were orchestrated by professional activists and children were missing valuable class time (Perinotto & Johnston, 2019). The difficulty then posed is that formulating the protester’s messages from a place of pathos drives the argument further away from the scientifically enforced urgency and enables politically interested individuals to divert the argument from one of scientific claim to one about challenging the authority of youth to speak with regards to politics. Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s suggestion to the school strikers to, “get a bit of context and perspective,” (Perinotto & Johnston, 2019), is saturated not only with elitism but an enforcement of the notion of political superiority, that some knowledge remains incomprehensible to the public sphere and is privy only to the select few. It remains, then, that the biggest obstacle in the school strikers’ position is the unification of scientific authorities, politicians and the emotionally driven and passionate youth. But perhaps the politicisation of climate change has more to do with political dichotomisation than the controversy of the science itself. Chinn, Hart and Soroka assert that, “beliefs about climate change have become a marker of partisan affiliation,” (Chinn, Hart, & Soroka 2020), and this is not the only realm of scientific contention to become politicised. Opposition to government-mandated lockdowns, vaccinations and regulations of genetic modification of food all stem from one crucial point of difference in belief; the degree to which the government should have the ability to regulate everyday happenings of our lives. This is not a new phenomenon. This key difference is at the heart of bipartisanship and is the central debate in almost every political issue. So perhaps the issue is not inherently the politicisation of scientific discourse, as implementation of policy in reference to new scientific findings will inevitably become politicised, but the monotonous rhetoric employed by the left and the right. As Kamarck upholds, “it is the lack of trust in government that may be one of the foundational barriers to effective environmental action,” (Kamarck, 2019). If we take the intent of science as being to seek a degree of objective insight about the nature of the world and its happenings, it will naturally lead to division in political climates saturated by individual motivation and greed. A 2020 American study utilised word frequency analysis software of articles from four major newspapers (New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post) to quantitatively determine the number of times scientists’ names were mentioned in regard to phrases such as ‘global warming’ or ‘fracking’, in comparison to politicians (see Figure 1 & 2). Whilst this understandably has to do with matters of climate policy making and does not in and of itself convey an image of the politicised nature of the debate, it does provide significant insight into the shifting obstacles faced in attaining climate action. What provides significantly greater insight is an analysis conducted of the language variance within the media of the parties across the years. From this data, we see that whilst the difference in rhetoric across the two major parties is significant, it is also largely unchanging. It is this divide in political narratives that fosters a sense of distrust and scepticism amongst individuals. Where more left-leaning parties emphasise the social inequalities that will be expounded upon as the consequences of climate change compound, conservatively leaning parties perpetuate the notion that climate action stipulates a greater control of the government on energy politics and enables less agency to the individual. In their narrative, the economic consequences outweigh the benefit of transition to renewable energy systems. From such polarised discourse, it becomes apparent that the way science operates within social spheres has more to do with pre-existing flaws in systemic structures than the quality of the science itself. Figure 1 (2) Figure 2 (2) Of course, a key consideration of how political and activist narratives impact the science that is upheld is through the medialisation of science. ‘Medialisation’ is the concept that science and media should engage in a reciprocal relationship, where scientists use media for broader impact and to advocate for more public funding while the media relies on interest to propagate scientific breakthroughs (Scheufele, 2014). The utility of science comes only from what is accepted and implemented in public opinion, hence scientific practice continues to grow into these frameworks, particularly in discussions around climate change or gene editing technologies. Ultimately, as Scheufele asserts, “the production of reliable knowledge about the natural world has always been a social and political endeavour,” (Scheufele, 2014), one that the media capitalises on to make as economical as possible. That is, it is in most media outlets’ interest to frame politics and science as being at odds with each other as, “coverage increases dramatically if and when issues become engulfed in political or societal controversy,” (Scheufele, 2014). Whilst science cannot and should never be removed from subjugation to moral scrutiny, discourse remains dominated by discussion surrounding the legitimacy of those advocating for one side or the other, rather than the quality of the science itself. Of course bias exists in media outlets , but is propagated by the bias of the consumers, as a consequence of ‘motivated reasoning’. That is, individuals subconsciously place more weight upon information that confirms pre-existing viewpoints and divert more energy into finding flawed reasoning for all that does not concur with preconceived perceptions. The result is a positive feedback loop that is hard to curtail. Individuals form opinions from information they are exposed to in the media, subconsciously seek further information to fortify their initial opinion, leading to opinion reinforcement. In this way, microcosmic ‘mediated realities’ form, each individual inhabiting a vastly different scientific landscape than those of the opposite opinion. In these realities, it is the implications of policy making rather than objective reasoning about the science itself that prevails, resulting in scientific breakthrough perpetually existing subserviently to the opinion of the people, irrespective of whether that opinion is informed. This consequently influences what scientific research is allocated what proportion of public funding, inadvertently providing a quantitative discriminator in what ‘sides’ are upheld in the media. So, what role should science play in political discourse? How do we ensure a mediation of scientific advice and democratic decision making? Darrin Durant of the University of Melbourne unpacks this question, deliberating on whether science should assume a ‘servant’ or ‘partner’ role when it exists within public discourse. Durant argues that if science were to assume the role of a servant (acting in an advisory position to politics), public perception would descend into a degree of populism, overrun by conspiracists and anti-pluralists. Rather, if it were to exist as a ‘partner’, legitimising the authority held by scientific figures, a degree of objectivity could be applied to an otherwise dynamic and transient political landscape. It is only by bridging the political dichotomy that prevails in media and social spheres that scientific discourse will cease to fall prey to political weaponization, existing as a level-ground for rational debate rather than morphing in accordance with ideology. References: Alvinius, A & Holmberg, A. (2020). Children’s protest in relation to the climate emergency: A qualitative study on a new form of resistance promoting political and social change. SAGE Journals. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0907568219879970. Chinn, S., Hart, P., & Soroka, S. (2020). Politicization and Polarization in Climate Change News Content, 1985-2017. SAGE Journals. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1075547019900290. Durant, D. (2018). Servant or partner? The role of expertise and knowledge in democracy. The Conversation.https://theconversation.com/servant-or-partner-the-role-of-expertise-and-knowledge-in-democracy-92026. Durant, D. (2021). Who are you calling 'anti-science'? How science serves social and political agendas. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/who-are-you-calling-anti-science-how-science-serves-social-and-political-agendas-74755 . Feldman, H. (2020). A rhetorical perspective on youth environmental activism. Jcom.sissa.it. Retrieved 11 September 2021, from https://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/JCOM_1906_2020_C07.pdf . Kamarck, E. (2019). The challenging politics of climate change. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-challenging-politics-of-climate-change/ . Perinotto, T., & Johnston, P. (2019). What our leaders said about the school climate change strike. The Fifth Estate. https://thefifthestate.com.au/urbanism/climate-change-news/what-our-leaders-said-about-the-school-climate-change-strike/ . Scheufele, D. (2014). Science communication as political communication. Pnas.org. https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/Supplement_4/13585.full.pdf. The best climate strike signs from around the globe – in pictures. The Guardian. (2021). https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gallery/2019/sep/20/the-best-climate-strike-signs-from-around-the-globe-in-pictures . Image reference - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1075547019900290

< Back to Issue 4 The Power of Light by Serenie Tsai 1 July 2023 Edited by Yasmin Potts and Tanya Kovacevic Illustrated by Pia Barraza Light is often a symbol of greatness, and rightly so, with its ability to be both visible and invisible. It exists in the form of wavelengths, which we view as a multitude of colours. However, the powers of light extend beyond that: light has the potential to manipulate the way we see things, resulting in mesmerising and sometimes mind-boggling illusions. Colour is nothing without light Light is a form of electromagnetic radiation that lies on a spectrum. Due to our limited ability to see these electromagnetic waves, we are only able to see what is characterised as visible light [1]. Colours exist as different wavelengths in a rainbow-coloured order, with red being the longest wavelength and violet being the shortest wavelength, and these colours are detected by cone-shaped cells in our eyes [2]. There are two types of common light rays outside of our visible light range, ultraviolet and infrared light, positioning animals who can detect these to have superior vision [3]. Moreover, as colours and lights exist in the form of wavelengths, temperature can affect what is seen. For example, hot objects radiate short wavelengths, changing the colour we see, such as a hot flame having a range of red to blue colours, because of the way heat radiates from it [1]. Role of light in the mirage There is an age-old question: what would you do with the power to be invisible for a day? Well, the ability to do this is not that far into the future, with many scientists developing methods to make this a reality. Magicians use a common trick of placing mirrors strategically for a disappearing act. The use of mirrors reflects light away from the object so all we see is empty space because our eyes are programmed to view light as a straight line, so we struggle to process it any other way [4]. So far, this has worked successfully to disappear objects on a small scale. However, scientists are finding ways to amplify this technique to disguise larger items or even a person. A recent viral TikTok video is baffling people as to how a mirror can reflect an object hidden behind a piece of paper. Let’s unpack the science behind this trick. When light rays hit an object, photons of light are reflected off it in all directions, and some of these rays will hit the mirror. So, when you look at the object at a certain angle, you can also see it being reflected into the mirror, despite having a boundary in-between [5]. Similarly, this sort of illusion can be seen in nature itself. There is an optical phenomenon in the desert, which produces a mirage image on the ground. Because heat affects wavelengths of light, a warm surface on the ground can bend the rays of light from the sun upward, creating what is known as an inferior image. For example, this could make it seem like there is water on the ground, when in fact it is a reflection of the sky because an image of a distant object can be seen below the actual position of the object. Likewise, if there was cool air underneath, it would create a superior image [6]. This is all due to a temperature gradient created between the ground and the atmosphere above it [7]. Invisibility in the movies Violet from The Incredibles and the Fantastic Four heroine, the Invisible Woman, can both become invisible at their own will. While these examples are only in the movies, there is some truth here. Light can be manipulated to create an illusion, although it is unlikely to appear as realistic as an invisibility cloak. A more theoretically possible form of light manipulation would be the advanced technology portrayed in movies such as Marvel and Harry Potter. It features hovercrafts and a flying car, respectively, that possess the ability to camouflage themselves against their background. This is done through reflective plates, which become a mirror to match the surrounding objects and reflect light away to conceal the object. Another example of a cinematic light-based mirage is in the movie Now You See Me, which includes a series of magic tricks. In one scene, a character is shown to stop rain mid-air and control its movement with his hands. Sorry to ruin the magical illusion, but this one is merely a simple trick of strobe lights flashing repeatedly at the right frequency which makes it seem like the rain is stopped in mid-air. It also requires some movie magic and a large-scale rain machine to control the droplets [8]. There has been so much progress on movie-making to make creative imaginations a reality. For example, there is a new focus on transformation optics, the application of metamaterials to manipulate electromagnetic radiation. Metamaterials are designed with unique patterns to interact with light and other energy forms artificially. For example, Pyrex glass and oil have the same refractive index, so if you put these items together, the refraction of light against these objects can make it disappear out of view [9]. This is an easy trick you can try at home. Overall, light has a multitude of abilities that are still untapped. However, there is hope in society's ability to take advantage of technology and discover more uses for light, and its ability to evade the human eye. We could soon be having magic shows worthy of contending with even the most bizarre movies. References Visible Light | Science Mission Directorate [Internet]. science.nasa.gov . Available from: https://science.nasa.gov/ems/09_visiblelight#:~:text=WAVELENGTHS%20OF%20VISIBLE%20LIGHT Fara P. Newton shows the light: a commentary on Newton (1672) “A letter ... containing his new theory about light and colours...” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 2015 Mar 6;373(2039):20140213–3. Animals See a World That’s Completely Invisible to Our Eyes [Internet]. All About Vision. [cited 2023 Jun 26]. Available from: https://www.allaboutvision.com/eye-care/pets-animals/how-animals-see/ David R. Smith Group [Internet]. people.ee.duke.edu . Available from: http://people.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/transformation-optics/cloaking.htm Nicholson D. How does the mirror know what’s behind the paper? Explained! [Internet]. Danny Nic’s Science Fix. 2023 [cited 2023 Jun 26]. Available from: https://www.sciencefix.co.uk/2023/04/how-does-the-mirror-know-whats-behind-the-paper-explained/ Richey L, Stewart B, Peatross J. Creating and Analyzing a Mirage. The Physics Teacher. 2006 Oct;44(7):460–4. Li H, Wang R, Zhan H. The mechanism of formation of desert mirages. Physica Scripta. 2020 Feb 11;95(4):045501. Now You See Me 2 [Internet]. Framestore. 2016 [cited 2023 Jun 26]. Available from: https://www.framestore.com/work/now-you-see-me-2?language=en Puiu T. Human-sized invisibility cloak makes use of magic trick to hide large objects [Internet]. ZME Science. 2013 [cited 2023 Jun 26]. Available from: https://www.zmescience.com/science/physics/human-sized-cloak-hide-large-objects-543563/ Previous article Next article back to MIRAGE

< Back to Issue 2 Spirituality and Science Science is limited by the philosophies which govern it. Common thinking is that science is a rigid, cold and largely academic field which sneers at the domain of spirituality. I posit that one must move beyond this point of view in order to do good science, and to find the true aims and values of the discipline. by Hamish Payne 10 December 2021 Edited by Irene Yonsuh Lee & Khoa-Anh Tran Illustrated by Quynh Anh Nguyen When I was fifteen, I thought that I could thwart my English teacher. He had given us homework that was simple enough; discuss with our families whether true altruism exists. I did not have this discussion with my household but instead hosted the debate in my head, coming to a measured conclusion. However, the privacy of my argumentation showed the next day when my teacher asked me to share. He immediately suggested that I had only been thinking by myself and had not welcomed others into my discussion. This is not my most interesting story, but it did teach me something important: every thought that I have had contains traces of me. Even when I am fiercely debating contrary viewpoints on a subject, even when I am having my most dissonant thoughts, it is my own voice against which I argue. Whenever I have drawn my pen across the page, I have been leaving my fingerprints in the ink. At the time, these traces of me made me very uncomfortable. I have always heard that the beauty in science is that it does not matter if it is considered in isolation or in consultation with others; its facts and its theorems are invariant. This vision of science as a haven for unchanging logic was popularised by Descartes. For the cartesian, the body is split from nature, allowing one to consider the latter more sterilely. But the mind is also split from the body, and our talents, ambitions and passions are split apart in our minds. This thinking for centuries has spurred enormous strides forward in physical technology and has made humanity feel in control of our environment largely because the cartesian divide heralds natural determinism wherein each phenomenon has a direct and exploitable cause[1]. However, there is no room for individual expression in the Cartesian framework – no place for perception, experience, or spirituality. Though my retelling is likely apocryphal, the story of Galileo serves in my mind as a symbol of this divide. From the instant Galileo sought to place the sun at the centre of our solar system, he toppled the heavens and was thus persecuted by the purveyors of spirituality. The persecution of both the scientist and his heliocentric principle barred faith and belief from the scientific process and hence placed reason and logic at its centre. Yet it should not be forgotten that the clergy of the Roman Inquisition paid Galileo in kind and forbad the scientist a spirit. But what are the consequences of taking such a divided view of nature? When I hear people talk about scientists today, they treat the scientist not as someone who lives but as someone who develops rules about life. Scientists must never strive for innate beauty, but for inert truth, guided by cold logic – even Oscar Wilde wrote that “the advantage of science is that it is emotionless”[2]. As a continuation of Galileo being branded apostate, the scientist has been stripped of the right to ambiguity in his explanations, and uncertainty in his world view. If science is not complete, it is deemed a failure. But this is ludicrous. Any scientist must know and accept that the cartesian split neglects certain aspects of the world – those properties of a system which emerge only when all its parts are combined. Moreover, nature still eludes science on a very deep level. For example, there is still no widely accepted philosophical explanation of quantum mechanics, no ability to predict the chaotic flow of a surging river, no profound understanding of the synchronisation of heart cells. Science is so woefully incomplete and incapable of dealing with the sheer scale of disorder in the world that most real-world systems must undergo several fundamental simplifications to be modelled, lest they take years to understand. And when things are cut apart, it becomes even more difficult to stitch them back into the complete picture. Then what remains of the aims of science if it is only an imitation of nature – a painting with no colours, shadows on the wall? When I ask myself this question, I find Feynman’s words echo back in my head: doing science is no more than thinking about “the inconceivable nature of nature”[3]. Science seeks to connect us with nature. It is not about disassembling it and organising it, splitting it into more and more isolated pieces, but about marvelling at the whole system, attempting to let it all sit in your mind - to look at the dancing shadows and understand what is casting them, enjoying the dance all the same. Likewise, in his book, Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos, Steven Strogatz humorously lists life under the list of unexplored scientific domains[4]. He does not relegate, however, science to its usual, removed, and sterilised place in this. Instead, he suggests that nature is so complex, that one cannot help but marvel at it with no real hope of controlling or quantifying it. I argue that these two scientists are just as much talking about what it means to be spiritual as scientific. To be spiritual is to try relentlessly to understand our life and our world and their relationship, even as they mercurially shift and change. Simply put, spirituality arises from a profound connection with nature. For example, the unity of the mind and the natural world is the bedrock of Eastern mysticism. The discipline seeks to connect the two through considered meditation and direly avoids their division. Such is highlighted by the Buddhist philosopher Asvaghosha; “When the mind is disturbed, the multiplicity of things is produced, but when the mind is quieted, the multiplicity of things disappears.” Western religions similarly connect nature and the spirit. Polytheistic traditions like the ancient Greek and Roman ascribe to their gods an element of the world each to control. The communication of the individual with a god is thus the interaction of the individual with the natural world. Similarly, the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is often present in awesome acts of nature. Particularly in the oldest parts of the Bible, God is seen to communicate through natural disasters and great floods and great fish and plagues and pestilences. Whilst I must admit that this analysis is somewhat superficial, it certainly illustrates the place nature holds deep in our minds and mythology. In an overwhelming number of cases, nature begets spirituality. Science is likewise born of nature and, for me at least, is therefore spiritual. But the value in reclassifying science as something spiritual as well as logical is not argumentation for naught. The scientist who is spiritual and fully connected with nature is better equipped than any. Guarding the connection between the individual and nature as sacred allows us to question our world on a more fundamental, truer level. Take as an example a question I hear often in my studies of physics: “Why is this theorem true?” Whilst it sounds reasonable enough, this type of question leads its asker down a reductionistic rabbit hole, in pitting mathematics against nature. Instead of seeing mathematics as a tool to describe nature, nature is seen as a product of mathematics. The rich physical world is reduced into rigidly true or false statements when we know such dichotomies are severely inept in the real world. Perhaps the scientist who is more holistically, spiritually connected with nature would be prompted to ask instead: “How true is this theorem to the world?” One does not have to look far to see how this subtle shift in approach to science can be incredibly successful. A fundamental principle of quantum physics states that matter is simultaneously particle-like and wave-like. This ambiguity in physical explanation, which would not be allowed from a cartesian point of view, is acceptable because it matches completely what is observed rather than attempting to reduce nature into the language of mathematics. Werner Heisenberg even wrote that “we cannot speak about atoms in ordinary language”, demonstrating the need for scientific holism. Approaching scientific discovery from a spiritual perspective allows us to move beyond the constraints of a reductive language. Likewise, studying science increases our spiritual relationship with nature. Albert Camus, perhaps rather unknowingly, said much the same thing in his unpublished novel, La Mort Heureuse. The protagonist, Mersault, on the brink of his death, says of the red, sunset clouds: “When I was young, my mother told me that [the clouds] were the souls of the dead who were travelling to Heaven. I was amazed that my soul was red. Now I know that it’s more likely the promise of wind. But that’s just as marvelous.”[5] What is spiritual is natural. Intellectual curiosity is rooted in the physical world, even as it changes and develops, becomes completely chaotic and throws more and more unanswerable questions in our faces. Science persists not because it seeks to provide answers to all of life’s questions, but because it provokes the mind into deeper questioning and, in that, deeper connection with nature and its ineffable, uncapturable beauty. The most marvellous thing about taking this perspective is that the science I do becomes more personal and ignites a stronger passion. I no longer must worry about the traces of myself; they are a necessary part of my understanding of the world and have shown me that, although science is “emotionless” in its methodology, it should not be so in its execution. Science is not spiritual because it precludes knowledge that is born from blind faith, but because it pushes knowledge to somewhere that is deeply human and that is beyond faith. References: [1] Fritjof Capra. 2000. The Tao of Physics : An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. 35th Anniversary Edition. Boston: Shambhala. [2] Wilde, Oscar. (1890) 2018. The Picture of Dorian Gray. New York, Ny: Olive Editions. [3] Feynman, Richard. 1983. “Fun to Imagine with Richard Feynman.” Documentary. BBC. [4] Strogatz, Steven H. (2014) 2019. Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos : With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering. Second. Boca Raton: Crc Press. [5] Camus, Albert. (1971) 2010. La Mort Hereuse. Paris: Gallimard. Previous article back to DISORDER Next article