Sunday, November 01, 2009

Turandot

Unknowingly we are all in pursuit of Turandot, the cold, vengeful princess of Peking who confronts her suitors with her three riddles. Answer the riddles correctly, you will enjoy the conquest of the heavenly beauty of Turandot, and become the king of the vast land in the East; fail them, you will forfeit your life and have your head chopped off.

Is it worth it, to have that singular obsession, the pursuit of which makes us oblivious to all other matters in life? Is it wise to risk it all, to climb the steep and snowy mountain, in search of the legendary snow lotus, when there are so many beautiful flowers just by your feet?

Greatness is invariably born out of foolishness, a blissful state of ignorance in statistics. How much less we would have achieved if we could see into the future! Foolishness abounds; greatness, by definition, is rare. Many a prince had lost his head, literally, to the seductive beauty of Turandot, before Calaf, in a streak of good fortune, solved all three riddles, and eventually won the princess's heart. Deaf to the good advice of his father Timur, deaf to the imploring of the slave girl Liu, who was secretly in love with him, deaf to the wise words of Ping, Pang and Pong, who told him that there were a thousand faces and a thousand legs awaiting him if only he would forget Turandot and leave Peking, and deaf to the chorused dissuasion of the crowd, Calaf insisted on taking the test. A madman indeed. For him, death is preferable to the torment of a life consumed by unrequited passion.

All failures sum up to a number in statistics; success stands out as a singular event. While the severed heads of the princes before him rotted on the pikes on the streets of Peking, Calaf embraced a Turandot transformed by love. She declared to the king that she had learnt the name of Calaf, and "It is love!".

Love may there be, but surely there is a lot of luck.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Destiny on the table

My friend's son turned one today. There was a big party. After the cakes were cut and served to the guests, a few objects were placed on a low coffee table: a pen, symbolizing scholarship; a drumstick, foretelling the life of a musician; two crayons, pointing to artistic creativity; a pink plastic ribbon, embodying longevity; a $20 bill, foreshadowing a career in finance; and a calculator, auguring a career in science and engineering. The one-year old was going to pick one of these objects on his own, which would reveal his future.

The son's name is Haydn, and my friend named his dog Mozart, so there was a clear expectation from the parents. Lo and behold, Haydn, donning traditional Korean costumes, reached for the drumstick. But then something funny happened. He stopped 3 inches short, hand suspended in mid air. He was thinking, and he started inspecting other objects. Then he noticed the pen - a Mont Blanc, and without further hesitation he grasped it. Scholar he would be! Everyone in the room broke into applause. Then Haydn also took the crayons. A scholar with artistic creativity, it could not have been better.

With an analytical turn of mind, I could not help thinking about the one-year-old's choice. First, he went for the drumstick; but instead, he chose the pen and the crayons. All these objects are long cylinders, with the Mont Blanc pen being the most well-crafted (and also by far the most expensive). Perhaps all toddlers have a innate affinity for cylindrincally shaped objects, but prefer the ones that they can easily hold in their tiny hands.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Reenact a novel on Facebook

Here is a silly but potentially fun game to play on Facebook. Take your favorite novel, say, War and Peace, and for each character, Pierre Bezukhov, Natasia Rostova, etc., register a Facebook page. Next, connect the characters in friendship as they do so in the novel. As you read the novel, each day you will update each character's page with things that happen to the character. Write statements in first-person, and write them in the protagonists' own tones. Record not only the events in the protagonists' lives, but also the thoughts that may go through their minds, and the emotions that they experience - use your own imagination here to express your personal impressions. By the time you finish reading the novel, you will have reenacted the novel in the cyberspace. Won't this be fun! Better yet, it will make you pay more attention to the details in the novel, thus appreciating it better.

If you have a reading group, each member in the group can play a different character. Such a game surely will enhance the reading experience, and give you something extra to discuss over cheese and wine.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Friendship, one bite at a time

In the movie Fightclub, Norton's nameless character coined the phrase single-serving friends - strangers who share a few hours of flight time, chat, and then part their ways. On Facebook, friends are like bite-sized snacks - their frequent posts and comments alleviate the sense of separation but never satiate the craving for real connection. Just like too much snack can ruin the appetite for a real meal, the deluge of Facebook friendships, I fear, might get in the way of developing more full-fledged friendship. We take a glimpse into our friends' lives through their Facebook posts, confuse them with real conversations, and be content with an illusion of company. 

In this new era of Facebook, friendship needs a re-definition. According to Facebook, my friend Coco has 1278 friends and counting, and George recently announced that his friend count just entered 4 digit realm as well. When one's got that many friends, each friendship cannot but be diluted down. As an old Chinese saying goes: a virtuous friendship is thin but pure like water. Are all Facebook friendships not only virtual but also virtuous?

One psyche that draws us to Facebook, I suspect, is curiosity, a social voyeurism out of boredom. We are born to peek into others' lives, and now Facebook seemingly offers a way to peek into others' minds (the form on Facebook asks "What is on your mind?"). A thought, once posted, is no longer exclusively owned but is shared among all who read it. Does this allow us to vicariously live our friends' lives? When a friend posts sad feelings, does it inflict sadness among all who view the post? To what extent will the great connectivity synchronize our emotions?

On Facebook, one promotes to friends who in real life are but acquaintances. It is convenient and it costs nothing. Friendship can be deleted - a click on a button and the connection is removed; no awkward social situation is involved. One can also delete one's posts; is it equivalent to saying "Oh, sorry, I take it back!" in a real conversation?

Friday, October 09, 2009

A Nobel SurPrize

In debating whether President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize after only 9 months as the president of United States, it behooves a re-reading of Alfred Nobel's original will:

one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

There is an apparent difference between the intended recipients of the Peace Prize and those of the other disciplines. In chemistry, physics, medicine, and literature, the prize should go to researchers or writers who have produced the most significant result - discoveries, inventions, or a body of literature that have transformed the scientific, technological, or cultural landscape. Notably, these prizes award impact, not effort or intention. Even though success, as Edison put it, is ten percent inspiration and ninety percent perspiration, sometimes chance happens to all. Kary Mullis won 1993 Nobel Prize in chemistry not for any heroic effort, but for his stroke-of-genius invention of polymerase chain reaction. With few exceptions, Nobel Prizes in these disciplines have rarely been given to anyone for simply tireless work - too many scientists and writers toil for a lifetime without any recognition. In short, award for quality, not quantity.

The Peace Prize is singled out because it can be bestowed upon a person who has "done the most or the best work". Now the door is open for effort, regardless of result. In the past, the Nobel Peace Prize has been repeatedly awarded for intentions and labor, even when such intentions and labor have not paid quantifiable dividend of a more peaceful or sustainable world.

Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are established to encourage individuals in the pursuit of science and literature, thus more immune to any mutable agenda of the committee itself, the Nobel Peace Prize takes it upon itself to promote peace in the world. The Prize committee therefore has its own political agenda. The main purpose of the award is not to recognize any individual's effort or accomplishment, but to recognize and support a cause, a policy or an action that the committee deems to be in the correct direction. It is not an award for the past, but for the present and the future. The award to Obama is not a nod to what he has achieved, but to what he is doing. In other words, the committee is making a statement that had they been elected the president of the United States, they would be instituting the same international order as Obama; they are also telling the world, be vigilant of this new course of the United States, and make sure that the Obama administration never strays from it. The award is a means for the Prize Committee to insert its own agenda into world politics.

Unfortunately, good intentions do not equal good outcomes. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. (This is probably best illustrated by the predecessor of Obama.) A world without nuclear weapons may not be a more peaceful world, just one less likely to face total annihilation. The impact of policies can only be tested by time. But again, the committee of the Nobel Peace Prize is not there to assess the impact using scientific measurements, it is there to ensure that the United States, and the rest of the world, commit to the policies that the committee approves of out of their own noble intentions and gut's feelings. After all, in the long run, we are all dead; but in the next 3 years, we want to live the way that feels right.

If the Nobel Peace Prize were to be awarded for impact instead of intention, if it were to be given to people whose work have fundamentally improved fraternity among nations and different people, I would like to nominate Timothy Berners-Lee, for the invention of the internet, or Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google. Nothing has done more to spread democracy, to combat poverty, to defeat dictators, to foster fraternity across national borders, and to carry prosperity from corner to corner in this world, than the freedom of information and instant communication brought about by the internet. If there were to be a number assigned to the impact of the internet on world peace, it would have to be googol.

Sunday, October 04, 2009

The Making of a Great Scientist

When I first got into science, I thought that it was about coming up with brilliant and evolutionary ideas and the rest would come together by itself. After ten years in research, however, while being by no means a great scientist, I did learn a few things about the making of one, which I would like to share with you. It's an immodest thing to do. But anonymous modesty never serves anyone. So here I go.

First of all, if you have not read Richard Hamming's lecture, "You and Your Research", read it now. If you haven't reevaluate your research after reading it, read it again. Hamming's lecture should really be writings on the wall for all aspiring scientists, for it shows us the most important step to great research: how to pick the great problems to work on. Avoid mediocrity.

But picking the right problem is just the first step. The really great scientists are also great problem solvers. Rome is not built in one day. Great science does not happen by itself even if you have a great idea. There is only subtle difference between a genius and a mad person. That difference is the methodical implementation of one's ideas.

Once you have an idea to solve a great problem, you set out to see if it is right. You carry out an experiment. If you are really onto something big, often you will need to design a new experiment that nobody has done before, you will build some new apparatuses, write some new computer programs, collect some hard-to-collect data. (Incidentally, having to do something difficult and unusual also hints that you may be onto something significant.) These new elements bring in extra uncertainty. The experiments may at first disagree with your hypothesis. You have to determine whether your hypothesis is wrong or your experiment has flaws.

The ability to verify the integrity of your experiment is the paramount skill you need to have as a great scientist. You have to be able to design experiments where you know the outcome to test your new apparatus, devise simple models with analytical results to test your computer program.

Once your experiment agrees with your hypothesis, the real test of greatness begins. You must overcome the initial excitement, and with a cool head, consider if there is an alternative hypothesis that also agrees with your experiment. How can you design additional experiment to distinguish between different hypotheses? Don't draw conclusions too quickly.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Facebook prize

Netflix just awarded a cool million to a 7-member team who managed to devise algorithms that improved the prediction of user's ratings of movies by 10% compared to Netflix's own Cinematch algorithm, the endgame of a 4-year long contest (see NYTimes).

Isn't it time that Facebook sets up a contest of its own? With its database of human connections, Facebook can challenge the machine learning community to predict friendship: reveal 90% of each user's friends, and have the algorithm predict the rest 10%. Another challenge is to reveal each user's friends up to a certain date, and have the algorithm predict new friendships that the user forms afterwards. May the most accurate algorithm prevail.

Online dating services can certainly use such an algorithm. Who else? Insurance companies? Banks? Salespeople? How much can you learn about a person from the friends he or she keeps?

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Mobile human computing

I am a big fan of Luis von Ahn's work on human computing. The idea of human computing is to harness the idle human brain power to perform computational tasks that so far have eluded the computers, such as image labeling (see google's image labeler) and recognition of old text (check out reCaptcha). The clever part of von Ahn's approach is to engage the human brain through an entertaining game or as a by-product of other necessary tasks.

I believe that this approach can be extended to the mobile phone platform. With smart phones like the iPhone, the location and time of the carrier are known, and these information should be valuable for designing location- and time-specific computational tasks. Another advantage of using smart phones as a platform for human computing is that these phones are almost always accessible at idle times - my colleagues invariably play on their iPhones when the meetings get boring. 

What can be accomplished using smart phones and idle human time? I have not come up with a specific application. But here are some general, and obvious, thoughts. Each human should be presented a simple task, which should not require expert knowledge or special skill, and should be fun to perform. The task should be easy for normal humans but difficult for even the most advanced computers, such as to observe and describe one's surroundings, or to identify a person. The outcome of all these tasks should then be combined in a way to solve a complicated problem. In order to take full advantage of the mobility of smart phones, the problem that we try to solve should ideally involve the locations and times at which the carriers perform their tasks.

Ideas?

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

First time pheasantry

The first bird got away. It flew away so fast that before either Yang or I opened the safety on our guns, it had crossed the grassfield and safely alighted in the woods far beyond the reach of any 12-gauge shotgun. We followed its flight path with our eyes. It was a beautiful male bird with a long tail and a dash of red on its head. We were relieved that we did not have to kill so early in the hunt. But the two dogs were disappointed.

The pointing dog was responsible for the escape of the first bird. Upon smelling the scent of the bird, the pointer should have frozen and have pointed its nose at the bird's hiding place. Instead, it came too close to the bird and flushed it out before we could ready our guns. More experienced hunters could have responded in time. But we could not raise our guns that fast yet.

Don, our guide, with a Jack Nicholson semblance and a loose lip for curse words, told us to be more ready the next time. We walked on, in wet, knee-high grass which I feared might harbor venomous snakes or ankle-breaking pits. The pointer ran around excitedly, the bell on its neck ringing. When it got too far away from us, Don would blow a whistle to call it back.

Then the pointer froze. Its bell stopped ringing, and a moment of silence fell upon the field. Don stepped forward in the direction of the pointer's nose. As he kicked in the bushes, a bird took flight. "Shoot it!" Don shouted. This time I was ready. I mounted my gun, waited for the bird to clear a distance for 20 yards - shoot it any closer and there will be very little meat left, and took aim and pulled the trigger. Feathers scattered in the air, and the bird fell straight down into the grass.

Don released the retriever, who dashed to the spot where the bird fell. In half a minute it returned with the lifeless bird in its mouth. Don wrestled the bird away and put it in the pocket of his enormous vest. A good shot, Don congratulated me.

We would return home with at least one bird, I thought. We'd driven 3 hours from New York City to this upland preserve in the Catskill, slept the night before in a fly-infested cabin, and paid $360 for the hunt. Our jeans had got all wet from the knee down, and our boots were covered in mud. It would be disappointing to return home empty-handed, and embarrassing to face the friends that we had promised to share our game. Although Yang and I had been shooting clay targets for a couple of years, we had never hunted before. The clay target only flies out when we are ready and call for it; the pheasants are less obedient to our wills.

It turned out, however, that hunting pheasants is not too different from shooting clays, as far as the shooting technique goes. Pheasants are big birds, and they fly rather slowly and in almost straight lines. Although they didn't come out at our bidding, the well-trained pointer gave us plenty of time to prepare for the shots, and Don invariably flushed them out when we were ready. The hunt lasted just short of two hours. The pointer found all ten birds that Don released in the field. I shot two of them, Yang got another two. We also shot one bird together - we fired simultaneously and heard only one shot! The other five birds got away; may they live prosperously until old age.

The irony of hunting with a guide in a preserve is that we never really got to touch the birds. Each time we dropped a bird, the retriever got it back and Don pocketed it for us. After the hunt, the management staff plucked and skinned the birds, and packaged them in vacuum-sealed plastic bags. In the end, we were handed nicely packaged pheasant breasts at check-out. Aside from a few residual down left on the wings, they were indistinguishable from a supermarket purchase.

A few days later I baked honey-glazed pheasant breasts. Our guests and we all agreed that they tasted just like chicken.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

On the phone with Verizon

I do not own any land-based phone line, but my parents-in-law still use Verizon. Recently their phone stopped working, and Verizon sent a technician to fix the problem. Having revived the phone service from outside the house, the technician suggested that he could also change a wall jack in the bathroom. Why not, my father-in-law thought. So he got a new water-proof jack in the bathroom.

To their dismay, the phone bill for that month came to more than $100, out of which $91 was for "Labor Charges for Inside Wire Repair Visit", and $24 for the wall jack. Since it was unclear why there was a charge for "inside wire repair" as the actual repair took place outside the house, I called Verizon to have the charge explained.

Having punched in a long sequence of number options on my dial pad, I finally got a representative, to whom I had to repeat again the phone number that I was calling about, which I had keyed in before. The representative must have waken up on the wrong side of the bed as she sounded confrontational in the very beginning. She informed me that since the technician replaced a wall jack inside the house, there would automatically be the labor charge. When I patiently explained to her that the wall jack was not relevant to the repair, she insisted that once the technician did anything in the house, there would be a $91 charge. Seeing that she was beyond reason, I suggested that perhaps Verizon could send an invoice to me that explains exactly what was done to fix the original disruption of service. But that's not her problem, the representative argued, and had me transferred to the repair department.

The repair department apparently did not keep a record of what repair had been performed by its technicians. The new representative, a woman who seemed not to have waken up at all, told me that the only way I could find out the actual repair job was to speak with the technician who did the job. She said that she would have the technician call me the next day.

The next day, no technician called.

So I called Verizon again. This time a Theresa answered my call. I suspected that she was the same representative from last time, for she had the same confrontational tone in her voice. Or maybe that was inherent in the training of all Verizon employees. This time, I got a slightly different story - any time a technician comes to a house, regardless whether the repair is performed inside or outside the house, there will be a charge of $91. It was then insensible, at least to me, to call the charge "inside wire repair". Nonetheless, I said that all I wanted to know was what repair had been performed. When I visit the doctors, I always get a notice from my insurance that list exactly what procedures the doctors have performed and charged for. Should not the phone companies do the same, as a check against dishonest technicians who wantonly charge more than the necessary? Can Verizon just send an invoice explaining the problem and the repair? That seemed, however, too much to ask from Theresa, who repeatedly told me that the service was already explained in the bill. Perhaps to Theresa it was clear what "inside wire repair" actually entailed, but to a person not working for a phone company, that was opaque. So I asked to speak to the manager.

The manager was a man who sounded like he was jerked out of his siesta. Sorry, there was nothing that he could do, since he worked in the billing department, and I had to speak to someone in the repair department. Apparently, in the same company of Verizon, different departments do not share information. In this case, perhaps there was no information, except for the technician's words.

I gave up.

Monday, August 24, 2009

When God retires from heaven

Men used to believe that distinct laws governed the heavenly bodies and the earthly objects .The motion of the planets followed different rules than the motion of a catapulted stone. The genius of Issac Newton changed this view forever. Gravity, the first universal force discovered, follows the same inverse square law in heaven as on earth. Much of modern theoretical physics strive to unify all the interactions, and to reduce all matter to the composition of elementary particles. Modern science no longer separates the celestial realm from the terrestrial regime; the same laws apply to both.

This new affinity for unity between celestial and terrestrial affairs may be sound so far as the immutable laws of physics is concerned, but it can be dangerously misguiding when it comes to the search for extraterrestrial life. Most of astrobiology searches not for life but for life as we know it on earth: carbon-based, water-dependent forms that amazingly share the same genetic material. Yet the life on earth is nothing more than a historical accident, in that it happened to have evolved in a water world and in the temperature range where proteins and nucleic acids dissolve in water. It could happen differently in a different environment. On a much colder planet, for example, liquid carbon dioxide or sulfur dioxide can provide life's matrix that water is on earth.

Whenever a new paradigm sweeps away the old, it is often adopted beyond its proven applicability. The unification of the celestial and terrestrial phenomena, successful as it has been in the laws of motion, has yet to find any evidential support in the discipline of biology. Until then, it may be beneficial to keep an open mind, and regard life in the heaven as something different than that on this earth.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Congee

We were in Congee Village on Allen Street, eating porridge, Dungeness crab, and stir-fried frog legs. Viola said that the food reminded her of the movie The Wedding Banquet. All four of us at the table had seen movies of An Lee, so we talked about them, going through each one. Yang questioned whether there was a unifying theme in An Lee's movies. What did "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", "Eat, Drink, Man, Woman", and "Brokeback Mountain" have in common?

"Tolerance", I said. In his movies, An Lee showed the audience how much grief intolerance could afflict.

All agreed. Amelie lamented that today people were no more tolerant than they were two hundred years ago. We might seem a bit more accommodating toward our neighbors, but we remained hostile toward foreign regimes with different ideologies. Half of the people still detested homosexuality.

"Why can't all the people in the world be like us?" one of us asked. We were all liberals educated in Columbia University. Then we laughed. We had found the source of all intolerance.

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Santa Fe

I haven’t been to any scientific conference for a year, so attending one in Santa Fe is refreshing. I have been in this field so long that going to a conference is like attending a family union: lots of familiar faces, with a few new additions. There are a few people whose presence can be depended upon. There is one man who has indefatigably come to every conference that I recall going to, and he asks the same set of questions and makes the same set of comments in the sessions that his attendance can be accurately reproduced from recordings.

In conferences, the audience often pretend that they understand the speaker. In one lecture, the speaker opened with a mathematical problem. He went over the problem so quickly that I did not understand it. Seeing no confusion in the audience, I assumed that I was the dumb one. After the session, I asked around for a clarification of the problem. Yet no one understood the problem enough to explain it. In a conference, none of us is as dumb as all of us.

Someone spoke about the state of the field. It was essentially a summary of the unsolved research problems. It was depressing to hear the list because I had heard the same list years ago. It upset me also to observe that most people, who could all eloquently critique the status quo of the field, were attempting nothing to change it. Moreover, there were skeptics who outright reject any possibility of significant advance in the field. They arouse in me a sense of pity. Why keep doing something that you don’t even believe in? Inertia is the source of all misery.

Creativity

I am not fond of contemporary art – most of it, at least. Nevertheless, I went to see Cai Guoqiang’s exhibition “I Want to Believe” in Guggenheim. I went because I had corporate membership so I did not have to pay. I went because Chinese modern art had been fetching skyrocketing prices in art auctions, so I felt that I should be more in the know. I went also because I liked novelties, and creating art using the violent means of burning gunpowder, the technique that Cai pioneered, sounded convincingly novel.

I still entertain the old-fashioned thought that art should serve life. Art for art’s own sake offends me. I feel sorry for contemporary pieces that exist only to question the definition of art, as much as I feel sorry for an amnesiac person questioning “who am I?” I am appalled when art tries to include every triviality in its domain: a shark suspended in formaldehyde, castrated human figurines, a plume of black smoke in the air, an array of jars labeled as a variety of fluids including human urine. Are they art or just children’s mischief? Some argue that abolishing all rules of art makes the possibility of artistic creativity boundless. But does creativity without bound even make sense?

Scientific creativity, for example, is creativity with constraints. A creative theory explains experimental mysteries; a creative experiment tests a theoretical hypothesis. We regard Einstein’s theory of relativity as the culmination of scientific creativity as much for its completely new view of space-time as for its success in explaining many astronomical observations that were previously inexplicable. Only with constraints can we separate true creativity from lunacy.

Architecture and fashion also call for creativity with constraints. No matter how twisted a building is – take a look at Turning Torso in Sweden – a building has to be above all functional. The architect at no time can forget that he is creating a shape and space for human use, as an office, a store, or a home. No one, upon seeing the most outlandish building, will mistake it for something else. The same is true for fashion. The most outrageous design still has to fit a human body for willing customers to pay for and wear.

I enjoyed Cai’s exhibit, that is, I liked a few pieces, hated a few, and was indifferent to most others. I liked the pieces that Cai created for specific commissions, in which he used gunpowder to burn in identifiable images. There was an image of two barely visible wolves in a black forest. In another was a rainbow of fireworks over a historical town. In memory of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Cai created an image of many mushroom clouds, aligned in rows and columns, by controlled burning of powder under cutouts and arranged grass.

But when Cai was given a free reign to express his artistic ideal, things can go really wrong. The installation of nine cars flying through air – an attempt to capture the dynamic sequence of an exploding car bomb in frozen motion – was confusing, childish, and almost laughable. There was also the film showing the burning down of a house with exploding fireworks, a dumb and pointless show. Cai also went around the world to make rainbows of fireworks: exploding gunpowder in midair in a rainbow shape. But nothing tops, in absurdity, Cai’s Extension of the Great Wall by Ten Thousand Meters, in which he ignited a belt of gunpowder of ten thousand meters outside Jiayu Guan, the western end of the Great Wall. There is no lamer form of art than obvious and trivial symbolism.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Philadelphia

She got on the train at Princeton Junction. It was seven and already dark. She looked twenty seven. She smiled friendly and sat down next to me. There was a man asleep in the opposite seat. She leaned back in the seat and closed her eyes. The train departed, leaving behind the light of the station. Outside the window it was but emptiness. Except for the lamp posts that threw periodic patches of rolling brightness. The light rolled over her face, illuminating a transient and soft profile against the darkness all round us. Then it went away, and came again, and was gone. I dozed off.

When I woke up, she was reading. I knew then that she, like me, was a scientist, for she was reading the latest issue of Nature, the preeminent science weekly. I just read the same issue. I said to her that there was an amazing report in that issue that some people had managed to turn adult human cells into pluripotent stem cells. She paused her reading and looked at me for a second, without saying anything. Then she said yes, it was a real breakthrough. The ice was broken.

She was a Ph.D. student in the University of Pennsylvania, in the department of chemical engineering. She was writing her thesis on computer simulation of amyloid formation, and was visiting her collaborator in Princeton. She said it was quite boring. She felt that she was wasting her life doing things that she didn't believe in, while other people were doing great things like making stem cells out of human skin. She said that she went into science with illusions of grandeur, but all there seemed to be for her was mediocrity.

I assured her that it was fine. I told her that it could be mathematically proven that at least 90% of people wouldn't make it into the top 10%. I told her that research was just another profession, above all one should find a high-paying employer.

The train stopped, a few people at the far end of the car got off. But no one stirred near us.

She said that she had dreams of doing great science. She had ideas of unifying biology into a theoretical framework like physics. She had hoped to invent cure for a disease. But that was before graduate school. Now she only wanted to publish as many papers as she could, so that she could eventually find a faculty position in a decent school.

She said that these days the number of publications alone does not count. Nor does the quality of the science. What matters is where one publishes. You are nobody if you haven't published in Science or Nature. She had just submitted a paper to Science, after it was first rejected by Nature. If Science would reject it, she was going to try Cell, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Plos Biology, Physical Review Letters, Biophysical Journal, in that order.

"Last time my paper ended up in PRL. It is like a dumpster and pretty much publishes any biological paper written by physicists." She said. "This time I hope I can at least get into Plos Biology."

I told her that I had a paper initially submitted to Science but it ended up in American Journal of Physics. She laughed. She thought that I made up the name of the journal. I didn't.

We both felt that bitter irony. We doubt the scientific merit of our own work, therefore we seek vindication by trying to publish it in high-profile journals. We are content with the illusion of doing great science as long as others get the same illusion about us. We are happy fooling ourselves as long as we can fool others. There is no need for true greatness as long as we put up a great front.

We griped more about the status quo of science. We felt trapped.

Then for a minute we were both silent. We looked into each other's eyes and knew that we shared the same sadness, that we were tormented by the same self-pity of unfulfilled lives. Suddenly it was unbearable. Our sadness reflected in each other's eyes began to multiply, like a tortured soul standing between two mirrors. We both looked away. Then she turned to me and took my hand into hers. It should have surprised me but it didn't. It was company in shared misery. Our eyes met again, but in them lust had taken place of sadness. She kept her eyes open until our lips touched. She lead my hand onto her breasts and then let it go. I slided my hand underneath the bra and felt her flesh, pulsating with the movement of the train. Then her hand sought me. When she touched it, it answered. She leaned against me so that her body covered both our hands. My hand glided down her body and found her wetness. A moan. We breathed heavily. Crushing every sound of ours was the noise of the train. All around the train was emptiness. Except for the lamp posts that threw fleeting patches of light over us. Sometimes her hand halted, withdrew, hesitated, afraid, expectant. Then it came back. Her grip tightened as I tapped her intensifying wetness. Then the train stopped. More people got off the train. The conductor walked through the aisle. Her body left mine. We knew it was over. The sorrow had returned to us, the sorrow of feeling cheated by our circumstances, the sorrow of missed lives that could have been. More stops in endless emptiness. We pretended to sleep. When the train arrived in Philadelphia we parted like strangers.

Saturday, August 25, 2007

The Last Ottoman

Every Tuesday afternoon, when I take my bath in Cağaloğlu Hamami, Mustafa Ozkan appears fatter than I remember him from the week before. How my masseur manages to develop that corpulence despite his strenuous profession – all day long he pummels and presses and twists and kneels and steps up and down on his customers, in all that heat in the sauna room – puzzles many bathers. “It’s the baklavas.” Mustafa will say, with a carefree smile. Yet fattening Mustafa more than the sweet pastry is the melancholic abandon that has bound him since the day Seifka Pamuk left Istanbul. It was twelve years, three months and four days ago that the auburn-haired girl from Aksaray of central Anatonia flew out from Ataturk airport, made a connection in New York City, and arrived in Pittsburgh to study the soulless magic of chemistry. Feeling that some flesh inside his chest was torn away, Mustafa has been eating ferociously to fill in the void. Seifka has sent three letters. The first one came within a month of her arrival in Pittsburgh. Page after page, she complained of the tasteless food in American diners and the drab city street lined by houses of uniform fabrication, painted in colors one indistinguishable from another. She wrote nostalgically of how she went to the same and only Turkish restaurant near her school three days in a row, even though its döner kebab was too dry. That she missed the sight of the sea, and the hours that she spent with Mustafa on the Galata Bridge fishing for sardines, as the sun cast its fading rays over the waters of the Golden Horn. She mentioned the imminent dreadful qualification exams in three weeks. Four weeks later, Mustafa received the second letter. Seifka had passed the exams but was now occupied with laboratory research. The third letter followed shortly, telling him that she had met a music student from Mexico. There has been no more Seifka in Mustafa’s life.

I lie face down, my chest on the marble slate heated by the steam circulating in the octagonal room. Mustafa takes off his T-shirt, revealing his hairy chest and pear-shaped belly. He puts his hands on my back. “It’s tense here.” he says, as always, and starts to rub along my spine. Mustafa has very strong hands, which is why I choose him for my massages. He presses his fingers deep into my flesh, and I can sense his almost sadistic pleasure of inflicting the transient pain on another man. After the pressing comes the pummeling, and then the twisting backward of my arms as far as they will go without dislocation. In the culminating act, Mustafa steps onto my back with both his feet and walks from my waist to just below my neck and then down again. Soon we are both covered in sweat, Mustafa’s sweat. I feel a little disgust, but soon enough soap comes in and dissolves it.

Mustafa steps out of the room – it’s tea time – leaving me wash off the soap myself. The afternoon sun pours in through the star-shaped windows in the domed ceiling, and, when shining on my skin, it elicits a different sensation of warmth than the moist steam. I turn the faucets fully open, and wait until water has filled the marble basin. I reach in and touch the bottom, just as I touched it when the bath first opened its doors in 1741. I let my fingers register how the stone has become polished by two hundred and sixty six years of running water. Sultan’s subjects, rich and poor, have cleansed themselves under this same roof. Now it caters to the city’s well-heeled residents and Western tourists. The place has otherwise changed little, like me.

The place where a man truly belongs is where he wishes to die. My city is Istanbul – I have peregrinated the world but have always come back to the banks of Marmara – yet I cannot die, not since my fateful encounter with Shabalba when the crushing snow cut off the pursuing Russian cavalry but also stranded me for a week in the high Urals. I will live my endless days of ennui, in this city of solitude and melancholy.

I take a stroll through the Grand Bazaar. In the northwest quarter of the labyrinthine complex of shops, I drop in No. 49 to buy a pouch of oleander that I place next to my pillow at night. Bahar, fifteen-years in age, with a smile that can sweeten earl tea and long eyelashes that pierce like Cupid’s arrows, persuade me to buy a pack of rosehip tea and get the oleander for free. Turning away to greet her next customer, she never notices the resigned sadness in my eyes, the shaking of my hand at the touch of her fingertips when she gives back my change, or the tremor in my voice as I say good-bye. How she resembles her grandmother, Yelda Seyh, the courtesan whose chamber I frequented after returning from the bloodbath on the shores of Cyprus. Yelda, the Red-Leafed Oleander – at that time the most beautiful belly dancer between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea – exorcised my nightmares of raped little girls and mutilated human bodies with her ecstatic cries in orgasm. But how do I make Bahar believe that her mother is the fruit of my loins? In a few years she will look to be my older sister.

I walk by cafés where people are smoking hookah and playing backgammon. I walk by restaurants where American tourists applaud Dervish dancers. I don’t stop. I pass by a small mosque in disrepair adjoined by a dilapidated wooden house, in front of which a wrinkle-faced woman is hanging her washed clothes. In an ice cream stand, a man in white robe is performing the traditional trick of serving Turkish ice cream: his swift wrist keeps the ice cream at the tip of a long rod tantalizingly close to yet always out of reach of his customer's grasp. The onlooking Chinese backpackers laugh in amusement, but I walk on. Oh, the simple delight of seeing something for the first time! Now, I am cursed with a jaded memory, like a film that has been exposed so many times that on it only blank remains.

I spend the rest of my evening sitting on the north wall of Istanbul University, a stone’s throw from the great Süleymaniye Mosque. At sunset, as the sky turns purple and the cruise ships on the Bosporus light up, the speakers on the minarets sing Koran. As the tunes from mosques near and far reach my ears, they interweave with each other like a counterpoint of Bach. On the narrow street below, an old Muslim is selling watermelons and cherries from his wheelbarrow. Waiting for customers that never come, he sits there and eats sunflower seeds. Mechanically he cracks each seed, pops the kernel into his mouth, and throws away the shell. There is a pile of shells by him. He has not sold anything. But he is not worried. Neither am I. I sit there watching him. I have eternity to do nothing.

Friday, August 17, 2007

Mechanism of Na+/H+ antiporting

Desalination of E. Coli. in Homeric hymn

Heed, the readers of Science,
Secret ways of the antiporter.
This family of membrane proteins,
Trading one sodium inside cell, with
Two protons outside,
So all life is alive, in acid and brine.
Its structure recently unveiled,
Using extraction from E. Coli.;
Yet its method of act,
Hitherto uncomprehended.
This method we tell, by a host of
Molecular simulations;
By thinking and rethinking of
Clues already seen in labs:

Three membranous aspartates,
Protonating and deprotonating,
Move the protein in action.
Asp a hundred sixty four,
Deprotonating and protonating,
Binds and releases sodium ions;
Asp a hundred sixty three,
Protonating and deprotonating,
Opens the gate to peri- and cyto- plasm.
Asp a hundred and thirty three,
Be the pKa high, be its charge negative,
Keeps the antiporting in flux.
To ascertain our theory,
We return to the bench,
Modifying the protein by
Mutagenesis.
Happily the outcome,
With our predictions agreed.

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Keep the Change, Stupid!

Bank of America's new gimmick is its Keep the Change program. The ads are all over the places: TV, radio, billboards, subway trains. They feature coins idling on escalators, in dryers, under the carpets, and in other odd crannies. These are the loose changes that BOA vows to help you save: if you use the BOA debit card, your purchase will be rounded up to the next dollar, and the difference will be deposited in your BOA savings account.

Keep the Change, this concept of aided saving, is laughable at best, if not entirely senseless. Having outgrown my piggy bank in teens, I only saved quarters for parking meters and washing machines, and I had barely saved enough quarters before the smart cards caught on in the laundry rooms. If you count on loose changes for your savings, you'd better vote for a financially responsible president so that social security will always be there for you. With two purchases a day, 50 cents of change per purchase, you will save $30 a month, $360 a year. Not exactly helpful for your retirement, or your children's college tuition.

That's why BOA disguised this laughable concept in their advertisements: it's not just about helping you save your money; it's about putting those otherwise lost coins into real use. A misdirection, but a clumsy one. If you are using a debit card, there will be no loose change to begin with. So why round up the price and put the difference into the savings account? Why not just keep the change in the checking account for your next purchase, and put aside larger sums regularly into savings? Why is a BOA debit card better than any other debit card?

When a good magician pulls off a trick, he uses enough misdirections to ensure that the audience cannot reconstruct the mechanism by logic deduction. A good magician knows that people are not stupid. If only the brains of BOA knew that too.

Saturday, April 07, 2007

A Stem Cell Called Sputnik

In April 2004, 206 members of Congress signed a letter urging President Bush to loosen the restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research.

Stem cell controversy is another knot in the long string of conflicts between ideology and intellectualism. As it is more a rule than an exception, intellectualism has been on retreat. In 1995, President Clinton signed into law the Dickey Amendment, banning federal funding for all research in which human embryos are destroyed. Although Clinton later considered revising the restriction to applying only to research that directly destroy human embryos, George W. Bush took office before the revision took place. On August 9, 2001, the new president announced that no federal funding would be available for research on new human embryonic stem cell lines.

On the surface, the focus of the stem cell debate is this: is the blob of scores of embryonic cells, 8 days since conception, a human life? Or more poignantly, does it have a soul? To most biologists, the answer is an obvious no. Without a beating heart or a thinking brain, this blob of cells is no more human than a severed, wiggling tail of a lizard. To the God-fearing people, the answer is an obvious yes. According to the church's interpretation of the Holy Script, God gives each human egg a soul at the time of its insemination., which, blasphemously, makes God the greatest voyeur ever, as He must be watching all the fucking on earth in order to promptly mete out the souls.

Questioning the inception of human soul, of course, has been a popular pastime since Aristotle first heard it from Plato. But the current participants of the debate argued with a vigor unsurpassed in history. Although emotional involvement is not unheard of within the pale of metaphysical debate, legislative actions have been rare. Clearly, the current debate is not just about the definition of human life. There is more at stake.

In this fight over stem cell controversy, the two sides are not fighting about the definition of the human soul; they are fighting about whose definition matters in present-day America. Has science firmly established its persuasive upper hand, or does the religious belief still holds its doctrinal sway? The outcome of this conflict will not only determine whether God gets to keep his job of administering the souls, it will also call into question whether God will continue to manage heaven and hell, or to keep calendar for Judgement Day. God already got a black eye when the earth turned out to be orbiting the sun. If the church concedes this time again, God may start to claim unemployment benefits very soon.

So far, God gets to keep his job, as long as George W. Bush keeps his. Bush, in his moment of epiphany, saw the unity of faith and democracy. Perhaps in his reading of the Declaration of Independence, Bush subconsciously added the words "by God" to the end of the sentence "all men are created equal", thereby uniting creationism with democracy. Regardless of his source of inspiration, Bush formulated Bushism in the same spirit as the Chancellor in V for Vendetta:

Hegemony through democracy.
Democracy through faith.

By refusing federal funding to the human embryonic stem cell research, Bush unequivocally demonstrated his resolve to promote God in American life. In this, he was not only restoring faith in this hedonistic country; he was also reviving the tradition of anti-intellectualism in American politics. Face it. Capitalism, and American business, stand to gain as much from brainwashing as Communism or Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. The technique is the classic one from George Orwell's 1984: exaggerating the threat from an external enemy. McCarthy did it in the 1950s; Bush does it fifty years later. Invariably, the Congress goes along. The problem is, although the Capitol Hill is full of white men, there are only a few balls, and they are often black.

So what caused the change of hearts of congressmen in April 2004?

In March 2004, the leading scientific journal Science published a paper entitled "Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst", where the now crestfallen Korean scientist Woo Suk Hwang reported the first cloning of human embryonic stem cells. Technically, Hwang's work would also be eligible for federal funding in the United States. Nevertheless, the report sent shock waves across the stem cell research community across America. Overnight, American policymakers realized that if America did not foster a favorable environment for stem cell research, it would lose its race in this promising arena of medical research. The next revolution of medicine may take place on foreign soil. The thought of having to order their transplant organs from Korea along with Hyundai cars in the future was scary enough to frighten 206 congressmen into advocating hESC research.

In October 1957, the Soviet satellite Sputnik disillusioned the American public from their ingrained belief of capitalism's superiority over communism. It also brought American scientists and intellectuals back into relevancy to American life. Hwang's cloned stem cell achieved a similar, albeit shorter-lived effect, until sadly the scandal broke out that discredited Hwang and his research. But with the current anti-intellectualism mentality in America, and the government's negative stance on hESC research, it will be only a matter of time when America wakes up to find that regenerative medicine has become a reality overseas, that its sons and daughters are the last terminally ill to die.