Log in
YouTube channels: Employ AI to transform paywalled articles into videos, reproducing content without permission.
Freelance Journalist Rob McGibbon: Experienced the Daily Mail article theft and criticized Google's handling of the situation.
Google's Revenue: Google generated at least £20bn in UK advertising revenue last year.
Copyright Infringement: YouTube lacks proactive measures to remove infringing content, and its complaint process is slow.
Legal Implications: Annalisa Checchi highlights the lack of updated copyright laws, and the systemic issues publishers face with AI.
|
Strategic Initiatives
|
clever!
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Supreme Court Ruling: The court unanimously ruled against the idea that discrimination only affects minorities.
Ames' Case: The case involved a woman, Marlean Ames, who alleged employment discrimination in Ohio after being passed over for a promotion.
Lower Court's Decision: Lower courts dismissed Ames' case, requiring more evidence of unfair treatment because she was not a minority.
Supreme Court's Stance: The Supreme Court rejected the lower courts' arguments, stating that discrimination laws apply equally to all, regardless of group affiliation.
Impact: The ruling is seen as a blow to the DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) industry and affirms that the Civil Rights Act protects everyone from discrimination.
The Supreme Court just scored a big win for equal protection under the law — slamming the lefty idea that discrimination only goes one way.
The justices ruled unanimously that Ohio courts were wrong to throw out Marlean Ames’ employment-discrimination case simply because she’s not a minority.
Ames alleged she’d been passed over for a promotion at Ohio’s Department of Youth Services in favor of a less-qualified lesbian, then demoted and replaced with an also-unfit gay man.
Two lower courts spiked her case, claiming that a straight woman needed to offer more evidence of unfair treatment to show she had an “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
Lefties and legacy media scoffed at Ames’ case as a “reverse discrimination” lawsuit — as if “discrimination” normally refers exclusively to unfair treatment of minorities.
This all follows the left’s “oppressor vs oppressed” dichotomy, in which you’re ever-more-inherently villainous if you’re straight, white, male, able-bodied, rich, etc.: Anyone who ticks fewer of those boxes than you automatically can’t discriminate against you because they have less “systemic power.”
All nine Justices ripped that argument apart.
Indeed, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that disparate-treatment law on “draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”
There is no “reverse discrimination”: only discrimination, no modifiers needed.
This is one more huge blow to the DEI industry, which is all about mandating that racist box-ticking mentality.
Which surely why the usual suspects still called the ruling “divisive” and/or President Trump’s fault — as if a 9-0 decision somehow left any room for confusion.
What do you think? Post a comment.
Kudos to the justices for upholding the plain and simple truth: The Civil Rights Act protects all people from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin — not just those who the left sees as victims.
That’s real equality.
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
The High Court warned: Lawyers could face criminal prosecution for using false AI-generated content.
The court cited cases: Where lawyers used AI-generated fake quotes and rulings.
The ruling emphasized: AI tools are unreliable and can generate inaccurate information.
Two specific cases were detailed: Involving the use of fictitious material in legal arguments.
The judges warned: Lawyers about potential penalties, including disbarment, for misusing AI.
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Study finding: Genetic material from tumors can be detected in the bloodstream up to three years before a cancer diagnosis.
Research Focus: The study, led by Johns Hopkins University, utilized a multicancer early detection (MCED) test.
Key methodology: Plasma samples from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study were assessed.
Significance: MCED tests could potentially diagnose cancers earlier, which may lead to better treatment outcomes.
Expert Quote: Researchers believe that early detection provides time for intervention, making tumors more curable.
Amy Mone and Valerie Mehl
/
3 days ago
Genetic material shed by tumors can be detected in the bloodstream three years prior to cancer diagnosis, according to a study led by investigators at Johns Hopkins University.
The study, partly funded by the National Institutes of Health, was published May 22 in Cancer Discovery.
Key Takeaways
- Federal funding helped Johns Hopkins investigators discover genetic material shed by cancerous tumors in blood samples years before patients showed any clinical signs or symptoms.
- A multicancer early detection (MCED) laboratory test was used to evaluate plasma samples from a large NIH-funded study to investigate risk factors for cardiovascular diseases.
- MCED tests have the potential to find cancers sooner, leading to better outcomes with treatment.
Investigators were surprised they could detect cancer-derived mutations in the blood so much earlier, says lead study author Yuxuan Wang, an assistant professor of oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. "Three years earlier provides time for intervention. The tumors are likely to be much less advanced and more likely to be curable."\
To determine how early cancers could be detected prior to clinical signs or symptoms, Wang and colleagues assessed plasma samples that were collected for the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, a large National Institutes of Health-funded study to investigate risk factors for heart attack, stroke, heart failure, and other cardiovascular diseases. They used highly accurate and sensitive sequencing techniques to analyze blood samples from 26 participants in the ARIC study who were diagnosed with cancer within six months after sample collection, and 26 from similar participants who were not diagnosed with cancer.
"Three years earlier provides time for intervention. The tumors are likely to be much less advanced and more likely to be curable."
—Yuxuan Wang
Assistant professor, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
At the time of blood sample collection, eight of these 52 participants scored positively on a multicancer early detection (MCED) laboratory test. All eight were diagnosed within four months following blood collection. For six of the eight individuals, investigators also were able to assess additional blood samples collected 3.1–3.5 years prior to diagnosis, and in four of these cases, tumor-derived mutations could also be identified in samples taken at the earlier timepoint.
"This study shows the promise of MCED tests in detecting cancers very early, and sets the benchmark sensitivities required for their success," says Bert Vogelstein, professor of oncology, co-director of the Ludwig Center at Johns Hopkins, and a senior author on the study.
Adds Nickolas Papadopoulos, professor of oncology, Ludwig Center investigator, and senior author of the study: "Detecting cancers years before their clinical diagnosis could help provide management with a more favorable outcome. Of course, we need to determine the appropriate clinical follow-up after a positive test for such cancers."
The team includes researchers from the Ludwig Center at Johns Hopkins, the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
The study was supported in part by National Institutes of Health grant #s R21NS113016, RA37CA230400, U01CA230691, P30 CA 06973, DRP 80057309, and U01 CA164975. Additional funding was provided by the Virginia and D.K. Ludwig Fund for Cancer Research, the Commonwealth Fund, the Thomas M Hohman Memorial Cancer Research Fund, The Sol Goldman Sequencing Facility at Johns Hopkins, The Conrad R. Hilton Foundation, the Benjamin Baker Endowment, Swim Across America, Burroughs Wellcome Career Award for Medical Scientists, Conquer Cancer – Fred J. Ansfield, MD, Endowed Young Investigator Award, and The V Foundation for Cancer Research. The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study has been funded in whole or in part with federal funds from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, under contract numbers 75N92022D00001, 75N92022D00002, 75N92022D00003, 75N92022D00004, and 75N92022D00005.
Posted in Health
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Concern: A RealClearInvestigations article discusses claims of anti-Israel bias within Wikipedia regarding sources and content related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Criticism: The article cites criticism from multiple sources, including a bipartisan group of U.S. Congress members, regarding alleged bias and the favoring of certain perspectives.
Examples: Specific examples of biased entries are provided, such as the 'Gaza genocide' entry and the use of sources like Amnesty International and Rashid Khalidi.
Sources: The article highlights the problematic use of specific sources, including academics and NGOs, and the exclusion of others, pointing out the potential for skewed information.
Wikipedia's Response: The article notes Wikipedia's claims of neutrality and its reliance on a consensus model, while also pointing out criticisms about the model's effectiveness in maintaining unbiased content.
Wikipedia, the world’s go-to site for information that professes to take a neutral point of view, is coming under fire for alleged anti-Israel bias in the sources it favors and content it delivers to millions of readers.
The criticism is coming from several quarters, including a bipartisan group of 23 members of Congress who, in an April letter, expressed “deep concern regarding antisemitism” found in the online encyclopedia. The entries routinely highlight the work of anti-Zionist scholars and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), according to a review by RealClearInvestigations, while dismissing the views of Israel’s defenders. Amnesty International, which casts Israel as genocidal, is considered a reliable source for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while the Anti-Defamation League, which rejects that view, is not.
A vigil for victims of antisemitic violence, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Pilgrim, gunned down last month in Washington, D.C.
AP
The controversy has emerged during a sharp rise in antisemitism around the world, including the recent murders of two Israeli embassy staffers in Washington, D.C., and the firebombing in Boulder of protesters demanding the release of hostages taken by Hamas. Critics argue that the online encyclopedia is fueling this hatred by publishing biased entries that are presented as objective statements of fact.
Wikipedia is produced by volunteer editors who are instructed to follow a set of rules as they summarize the work of authoritative sources, which can include those that appear to be biased. Its consensus model encourages editors to work out their differences collegially and reach a compromise that balances the different viewpoints of sources to ensure neutrality. But critics say that so many academics and NGOs hold left-leaning views that cast Israel as the oppressor and Palestinians as the oppressed that it is hard for editors to avoid publishing biased statements as neutral ones.
Consider Wiki’s entry for “Gaza genocide” – a title that, critics argue, takes sides. It begins with this statement: “According to a United Nations Special Committee, Amnesty International, and other experts and human rights organizations, Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people during its ongoing invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip as part of the Gaza war.” The entry then lists several paragraphs of evidence, including large-scale deaths of Palestinians, the forced displacement of most of the population, and starvation.
Where’s the other side of the story to establish neutrality? Not until the seventh paragraph do readers learn that Hamas’ attack in Israel, killing 1,139 people, sparked the invasion of Gaza. But rather than calling Hamas a terrorist group – a classification used by the U.S., EU, U.K., Canada, and other democratic nations – whose avowed goal is the destruction of Israel, the entry describes the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas as a response to Israel’s historic treatment of Palestinians.
Leading With Bias
Critics say that, as in the case of the “Gaza genocide,” bias is often revealed in the opening lines of entries. This can skew readers’ understanding because, as Wikipedia reports, about 60% of people don’t scroll past the lead. In the Hamas entry, readers would have missed the terrorist designation of the organization that controls Gaza. It appears in the very last line of the opening section.
Wikipedia claims to use a "consensus model" that balances different viewpoints to ensure neutrality.
Wikipedia
“Fundamentally the policy for reliability is based on the views of editors, and not more rigorous metrics,” explained a Wikipedia editor who says they have edited hundreds of articles. “There is also a conflict between reliability and the ideas of [the] ideological fringe.” “Pro-Hamas editors,” added this editor, who insisted on anonymity, selectively choose “their preferred academic sources.”
Wikipedia’s impact is amplified because its entries are usually high on the list of links offered by top search engines Google and Bing, which often reprint the first few lines in their query responses. A Wikipedia article is dedicated to the longstanding relationship between Google and Wikipedia, discussing how Google utilizes Wikipedia to combat misinformation on YouTube and how Google has made donations to the Wikimedia Foundation, the San Francisco-based nonprofit that oversees Wikipedia.
The Wikimedia Foundation, which manages the site, did not respond to RCI’s repeated requests for comment. In March, a spokesperson said, “The Foundation takes seriously allegations of bias on Wikipedia. “We categorically condemn antisemitism and all forms of hate.
Katherine Maher, who led the Foundation from 2016-2021 and is now CEO of National Public Radio, recently walked back controversial statements, including that America was “addicted to white supremacy” and that “our reverence for the truth might become, might have become, a bit of a distraction.”
Questionable Sources
The plethora of anti-Israel academics makes it easy to present anti-Israel narratives under the guise of neutrality. The entry for the Nakba – Arabic for catastrophe – describes the 1948 war after the UN created the state of Israel as “the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Mandatory Palestine during the 1948 Palestine war.” This echoes the claim in the Zionism entry that “Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.” Neither article presented balancing perspectives in the all-important top parts of the lead sections.
Two of the sources for these claims are Columbia University Professor Emeritus Rashid Khalidi and University of Exeter Professor Ilan Pappé. Both professors are seen by critics as anti-Israel activists.
Despite his reported ties to the PLO, Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi's views are considered mainstream by Wikipedia.
Wikipedia
Several newspapers have reported that Khalidi was associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) when he was in Beirut in 1976-83; at the time, the PLO was widely considered to be a terrorist organization. In 1976, the Los Angeles Times described Khalidi as “a PLO spokesman.” In 1978, the New York Times said he “works for the PLO” (the article misspells his name as “Khalidy”), and in 1979 the paper re-reported that he was “close to Al Fatah” (which controls the PLO). A 1981 Christian Science Monitor article refers to Khalidi as having “good access to PLO leadership.” None of the papers has corrected these statements.
Wikipedia’s entry on Khalidi includes his reported links to the PLO and his denial of being a spokesman for the group, saying in 2004 that he “often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source. If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it.” He also said that he didn’t have much time for anything outside of his academic work, writing, and research while he was in Beirut in that timeframe.
Asaf Romirowsky, a historian who heads Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and the Association for the Study of the Middle East and North Africa, has tracked Khalidi and Pappé’s work. A defender of Israel, he reports that Khalidi has at various times described Israel as a “racist state” and an “apartheid system in creation.” Romirowsky told RCI that Khalidi supported Columbia’s anti-Israel encampment in the spring of 2024 and has become increasingly anti-American and anti-Western in his books.
Whatever the truth, critics say enough questions surround Khalidi’s past that it is hard to view him as a neutral source. Khalidi did not respond to RCI’s requests for comment.
Complicated History
Pappé belongs to a group of Israeli historians who challenged Israel’s version of the 1948 war. In June 2024, Pappé said that the “hope for me is the end of Israel and a creation of a free Palestine from the river to the sea.”
According to Romirowsky, Pappé’s 2006 book “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” – which Wikipedia cites in both the “as few Palestinian Arabs as possible” and “ethnic cleansing” lines – is premised on the belief that Israel had a “master plan” in 1948 to eradicate the Arab Palestinian community and that its policies are still motivated by an ethnic cleansing agenda. Romirowsky disputes that narrative, calling such claims “sensationalist.”
“Don’t get me wrong: wars are difficult,” Romirowsky said. “The history is not black and white, there were a lot of mistakes made in ’48, but … [historians like Pappé] have selectively chosen quotes without giving context as to the position of the Jewish Agency – the Yishuv – at the time as it comes to the Arab Palestinian population.”
Wikipedia considers the veiws of Ilan Pappé, a historian who said he hopes for "an end to Israel," mainstream.
Wikipedia
Pappé did not respond to RCI’s requests for comment.
A second Wikipedia editor, self-described as being disillusioned after making thousands of edits, told RCI anonymously that “it’s at best naive to use sources everyone knows are biased” to make statements “in the encyclopedia's neutral voice,” and such sources should always be properly attributed.
The first editor informed RCI that while sources like Khalidi and Pappé can be used, “it should be noted that not everyone agrees with them” and should be balanced with academics who hold opposing views.
Comparing Hamas and Likud
Wikipedia’s page on Hamas similarly draws upon what critics see as partisan sources. The article compares the Hamas charter to the platform of Likud, a right-wing Israeli political party, stating: “Many scholars have pointed out that both the 1988 Hamas charter and the Likud party platform sought full control of the land, thus denouncing the two-state solution.” These “many scholars,” according to the authorities cited, include the journalist Peter Beinart and politically active linguist Noam Chomsky, both of whom are well-known left-wing critics of Israel.
It does not note that other scholars reject this equivalence. Romirowsky said that “there is nothing in the Likud party platform that talks about the eradication of the Arab Palestinian population,” while the Hamas charter calls for the eradication of Jews and Zionists, and the charter uses “Jews” and “Zionists” interchangeably.
The first editor told RCI anonymously that the wording of the Hamas-Likud comparison violates the site’s policy. “Unless you have an academic review article that says that academic consensus is x, y, and z, you can’t write, ‘many scholars think x, y, and z’ and then cite it to your own cherry-picked list of scholars,” the editor said.
Double Standards
Pro-Israel academics are cited on Wikipedia, but they often face hurdles. The 2018 book “The Zionist Ideas” by McGill University professor Gil Troy - who identifies himself as “American Historian, Zionist Thinker” on his personal website – was rejected from inclusion on an editor-compiled list of “Best Sources” providing an overview of Zionism in Wikipedia. The stated reasoning: Troy is an American presidential historian whose book is better suited for discussing different types of Zionism.
Wikipedia deems Shahid Alam, a professor who advises Northeastern University's chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, a "best source."
Northeastern University
By contrast, Shahid Alam, an emeritus professor of economics at Northeastern University who serves as faculty advisor for the school’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, was included in the “Best Sources” list and is cited twice in the Zionism page, including in the opening section. Alam wrote a controversial column for CounterPunch in 2004, drawing parallels between the American revolutionaries and the 9/11 hijackers in that “both insurgencies seek to overthrow what they perceive to be foreign occupations,” though he acknowledged that the colonists did not target civilians and the 9/11 hijackers did.
Wikipedia editors also rely on NGOs that appear to be biased in some reports as neutral observers. The lead of the “Use of human shields by Hamas” page states that Amnesty International found no evidence to support Israel’s claims that Hamas used human shields in the 2008-2009 and 2014 Gaza Wars, while Human Rights Watch found no evidence that Hamas used human shields in the 2008-2009 war.
Max Abrahms, a political science professor at Northeastern University and terrorism expert, found the groups’ claims that Hamas did not use human shields during those prior wars “laughable.” He said that there is photo evidence to the contrary, and even the Palestinian Authority has said that Hamas uses human shields.
While Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are considered reliable sources, some organizations more sympathetic to Israel are not. The Heritage Foundation was recently blacklisted on Wikipedia (meaning its URL is blocked from the online encyclopedia) following a report from The Forward that Heritage had proposed unmasking antisemitic Wikipedia editors.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has also been downgraded to being generally unreliable on all topics related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel, or Zionism (although the ADL’s hate symbol database is considered reliable). The downgrade occurred following a formal discussion among editors last year in which they stated their position on the reliability of ADL; three uninvolved Wikipedians in good standing then “closed” the discussion and rendered a verdict based on the numbers and strength of the arguments. In this discussion, editors cited critics of Israel like The Nation, The Guardian, and Jewish Currents as evidence that the ADL conflates criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism and thus its reliability should be downgraded.
One source that is generally considered reliable on Wikipedia is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which has been criticized for casting mainstream conservatives as extremists. On May 24, a formal discussion was launched reexamining the SPLC’s reliability on Wikipedia, which remains ongoing as of publication time.
Although Wikipedia credits its volunteer editing for making it a vast encyclopedia with tens of millions of pages, it lacks the policies and tools to achieve neutrality on hotly contested topics like the Israel-Palestine conflict, according to a third editor who requested anonymity. “The system is remedial at best: if it is from a plausibly reliable academic source, publication, institution, or individual, it is usually allowed without question, and is incredibly hard to contest,” a longtime editor said. “Just because a person is staffed at a university or is publishing work in a peer-reviewed journal does not mean that it should be considered by default a reliable or neutral point-of-view source.”
We're proud to make our journalism accessible to everyone, but producing high-quality investigative pieces still comes at a cost.
That's why we need your help. By making a contribution today, you'll be supporting RealClearInvestigations and ensuring that we can keep providing in-depth reporting that holds the powerful accountable.
Donate now and help us continue to publish distinctive journalism that makes a difference. Thank you for your support!
Support RealClearInvestigations →
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Humans' genetics: Exhibit a high rate of chromosomal abnormalities and harmful mutations.
The author's book: Suggests that small human population sizes during feature evolution and placental feeding contribute to this state.
Reproductive risks: Human reproduction is inherently risky, with a significant rate of miscarriages and chromosomal issues in embryos.
Placenta & Gestational Issues: Problems like gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia are linked to the placenta and are human-specific.
Evolution & Mutations: The nearly-neutral theory is used to explain these issues as a consequence of human population size during evolution.
To Shakespeare’s Hamlet we humans are “the paragon of animals”. But recent advances in genetics are suggesting that humans are far from being evolution’s greatest achievement.
For example, humans have an exceptionally high proportion of fertilised eggs that have the wrong number of chromosomes and one of the highest rates of harmful genetic mutation.
In my new book The Evolution of Imperfection I suggest that two features of our biology explain why our genetics are in such a poor state. First, we evolved a lot of our human features when our populations were small and second, we feed our young across a placenta.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Our reproduction is notoriously risky for both mother and embryo. For every child born another two fertilised eggs never made it.
Most human early embryos have chromosomal problems. For older mothers, these embryos tend to have too many or too few chromosomes due to problems in the process of making eggs with just one copy of each chromosome. Most chromosomally abnormal embryos don’t make it to week six so are never a recognised pregnancy.
About 15% of recognised pregnancies spontaneously miscarry, usually before week 12, rising to 65% in women over 40. About half of miscarriages are because of chromosomal issues.
Other mammals have similar chromosome-number problems but with an error rate of about 1% per chromosome. Cows should have 30 chromosomes in sperm or egg but about 30% of their fertilised eggs have odd chromosome numbers.
Humans with 23 chromosomes should have about 23% of fertilised eggs with the wrong number of chromosomes but our rate is higher in part because we presently reproduce late and chromosomal errors escalate with maternal age.
Survive that, then gestational diabetes and high blood pressures issues await, most notably pre-eclampsia, potentially lethal to mother and child, affecting about 5% of pregnancies. It is unique to humans.
Historically, up until about 1800, childbirth was remarkably dangerous with about 1% maternal mortality risk, largely owing to pre-eclampsia, bleeding and infection. In Japanese macaques by contrast, despite offspring also having a large head, maternal mortality isn’t seen. Advances in maternal care have seen current UK maternal mortality rates plummet to 0.01%.
Many of these problems are contingent on the placenta. Compare us to a kiwi bird that loads its large egg with resources and sits on it, even if it is dead: time and energy wasted. In mammals, if the embryo is not viable, the mother may not even know she had conceived.
The high rate of chromosomal issues in our early embryos is a mammalian trait connected to the fact that early termination of a pregnancy lessens the costs, meaning less time wasted holding onto a dead embryo and not giving up the resources that are needed for a viable embryo to grow into a baby.
But reduced costs are not enough to explain why chromosomal problems are so common in mammals.
During the process of making a fertilisable egg with one copy of each chromosome, a sister cell is produced, called the polar body. It’s there to discard half of the chromosomes. It can “pay” in evolutionary terms for a chromosome to not go to the polar body when it should instead stay behind in the soon to be fertilised egg.
It forces redirection of resources to viable offspring. This can explain why chromosomal errors are mostly maternal and why, given their lack of ability to redirect saved energy, other vertebrates don’t seem to have embryonic chromosome problems.
Our problems with gestational diabetes are a consequence of foetuses releasing chemicals from the placenta into the mother’s blood to keep glucose available. The problems with pre-eclampsia are associated with malfunctioning placentas, in part owing to maternal immune rejection of the foetus.
Regular unprotected sex can protect women against pre-eclampsia by helping the mother become used to paternal proteins. The fact that pre-eclampsia is human-specific may be related to our exceptionally invasive placenta that burrows deep into the uterine lining, possibly required to build our unusually large brains.
Our other peculiarities are predicted by the most influential evolutionary theory of the last 50 years, the nearly-neutral theory. It states that natural selection is less efficient when a species has few individuals.
A slightly harmful mutation can be removed from a population if that population is large but can increase in frequency, by chance, if the population is small. Most human-specific features evolved when our population size was around 10,000 in Africa prior to its recent (last 20,000 years) expansion. Minuscule compared to, for example, bacterial populations.
This explains why we have such a bloated genome. The main job of DNA is to give instructions to our cells about how to make the proteins vital for life.
That is done by just 1% of our DNA but by 85% of that of our gut-dwelling bacteria Escherichia coli. Some of our DNA is required for other reasons, such as controlling which genes get activated and when. Yet only about 10% of our DNA shows any signs of being useful.
If you have a small population size, you also have more problems stopping genetical errors like mutations. Although DNA mutations can be beneficial, they are more commonly a curse. They are the basis of genetic diseases, be they complex (such as Crohn’s disease and predispositions to cancer), or owing to single gene effects (like cystic fibrosis and Huntington’s disease).
We have one of the highest mutation rates of all species. Other species with massive populations have mutation rates over three orders of magnitude lower, another prediction of the nearly-neutral theory.
A consequence of our high mutation rate is that around 5% of us suffer a “rare” genetic disease.
Modern medicine may help cure our many ailments, but if we can’t do anything about our mutation rate, we will still get ill.
Laurence D. Hurst, Professor of Evolutionary Genetics at The Milner Centre for Evolution, University of Bath
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Next Page of Stories