Statins - could 7% of people have INCREASED risk of heart attack? - June 2004

Statins are not "wonder drugs" for all

• 21:00 15 June 2004

The cholesterol-lowering "wonder" drugs known as statins may be less wondrous for people with two genetic variations, reveals a new study.

Nearly seven per cent of the population have genetic features which make statins an average of 20 per cent less effective at lowering cholesterol levels, found Daniel Chasman of Harvard Medical School in Boston, US and his colleagues.

The researchers now plan to study whether those seven per cent of statin takers end up having more heart attacks and cardiovascular disease due to their weak response to the drug.

Statins are the most potent and popular cholesterol fighting drugs. They work by clogging a protein enzyme called HMG-CoA reductase which helps manufacture cholesterol. While at least ten proteins are known to influence the metabolism of cholesterol, Chasman's team wanted to test if naturally occurring variations in the genes that encode these proteins also influence the effectiveness of statin therapy.

They studied DNA from 1536 volunteers who took a statin called pravastatin during a 24-week trial. The researchers analysed the DNA for single polynucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), DNA sequences which are used to track genetic differences between people.

In patients with two particular SNPs, both located in the gene for HMG-CoA reductase, statins were 20 per cent less effective at lowering total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein, also known as "bad" cholesterol.

Journal reference: Journal of the American Medical Association (vol 291, p 2821)

Statins - can lead to memory loss? - 06 December 2003

ONE day former astronaut Duane Graveline came back from a walk and failed to recognise his wife. He blamed this temporary bout of amnesia on the drug Lipitor, which he had been taking for several weeks. Doctors dismissed his fears, but six weeks after he started taking the drug again he suffered another bout of amnesia. This time he could not remember anything after high school, not even his children.

Graveline is one of a growing number of people who say they have suffered from amnesia and other nervous-system side effects after taking statins, the cholesterol-lowering drugs being prescribed to millions of people at risk of heart disease. And now a few researchers are starting to believe their claims.

Beatrice Golomb at the University of California, San Diego, who is studying the effects of statins on cognition and mood, says she has documented at least 100 cases of memory problems that might be due to statins, including 30 cases of transient amnesia. "It's probably fairly rare," she says. But with tens of millions of people taking the drugs worldwide, such problems could still affect thousands of patients. One of the reasons Golomb thinks statins are to blame is that in more than half the cases of amnesia, people suffered a second episode, a far higher relapse rate than normal.

Around 60 accounts of memory problems after taking statins were also found by a team from Duke University in North Carolina, who analysed the Medwatch database of drug side effects (Pharmacotherapy, vol 23, p 871). In some cases the patients' memory problems returned only when they resumed taking statins. This "re-challenge effect" is considered to at least hint at a causal relationship between a drug and a side effect.

Though statins are generally considered very safe, it would not be surprising if they affect neural function. The drugs block the synthesis of cholesterol, a key ingredient in cell membranes. Last year, a Danish study concluded that patients on statins have a substantially increased risk of polyneuropathy, a condition characterised by weakness and numbness in the extremities.

But many patients on statins are older and have a high risk of memory problems, P. Murali Doraiswamy of the Duke team points out. The key question is whether patients suffer a higher rate of memory problems than expected. Eight trials have shown no harmful or beneficial effect, he says. "No one should be discouraged from taking a statin because of such anecdotal reports. The benefits of statins far outweigh any possible risks."

Yet his team's paper concludes that "statins, in rare cases, may be associated with cognitive impairment, though causality is not certain". Golomb is convinced by the number of re-challenge effects she has seen that there is a causal link. But because these side effects are not recognised, doctors tell patients they're imagining things, she says.

From issue 2424 of New Scientist magazine, 06 December 2003, page 14

Wonder drugs - 24 November 2001

Wonder drugs

• 24 November 2001
• From New Scientist Print Edition

STEP aside aspirin—here come statins, the latest wonder drugs. A huge study has shown that one type of statin can reduce the chance of a heart attack or stroke by a third, yet causes no serious side effects.

Till now, statins have been prescribed only to people with high cholesterol levels. But the study showed that even people with low levels benefited. That means doctors should dish them out to far more people, the researchers say.

"Doctors need to be aware just how definite these results are," says Rory Collins of Oxford University, director of the seven-year Heart Protection Study involving 20,000 volunteers aged between 40 and 80. "There's no room for doubt—they're the sort of results you dream of," he says.

He wants existing guidelines on prescribing statins to be ripped up. "The default has changed, so doctors should now ask if there's a good reason not to give the drug," he says. It may not even be necessary to measure cholesterol levels beforehand, he says.

Statins don't come cheap, however. A year-long course of simvastatin, the drug given to the volunteers, costs £360. If people keep taking them for decades, it could stretch the resources of public health services such as Britain's NHS. But cheaper, generic versions might soon be available.

Patent protection for simvastatin doesn't expire until 2003, but for lovastatin, patents have already begun to run out. Though the drug is not licensed for use in Britain, Collins says the NHS should have a look at how to get generic versions of lovastatin.

"Even if the cost comes down significantly, the [huge] demand might mean we can't use them as liberally as we would like," says Peter Fellows, chairman of the British Medical Association's prescribing committee. And the BMA is recommending caution despite the spectacular results. "It's still possible there might be long-term effects that might not yet have come to light," Fellows says.

Statins work by blocking a liver enzyme that makes cholesterol. The liver compensates by withdrawing the harmful, artery-clogging cholesterol complex—called low-density lipoprotein—from the blood.

Presenting their findings last week in Anaheim, California, at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association, Collins and his colleagues said that simvastatin reduced heart attacks and strokes by a third among all those at risk. Contrary to expectations, it helped women and elderly people with heart problems, and diabetics.

Statins also reduced the need for surgery or balloon angioplasty to de-clog arteries, and the need for amputations triggered by poor blood flow to limbs, usually a result of smoking. Nor were there any serious side effects. The researchers didn't see any sign of the muscle wastage that in August led to the withdrawal of Baycol, a statin made by Bayer of Germany.

From issue 2318 of New Scientist magazine, 24 November 2001, page 7

Bayer pulls anti-cholesterol drug from Japan - August 2001

Bayer pulls anti-cholesterol drug from Japan

• 12:58 24 August 2001
• From New Scientist Print Edition.

Pharmaceutical giant Bayer has withdrawn its key anti-cholesterol drug from Japan - the drug's last remaining market - following concerns that it may be linked to more than 50 deaths worldwide.

Thirty one people in the US and others in Spain, France and Germany have reportedly suffered fatal muscle weakness after taking Lipobay (marketed as Baycol in the US). The drug was withdrawn from the US and other markets earlier in August.

Lipobay is a statin - a group of drugs used by millions of people around the world, primarily to reduce cholesterol. According to the US FDA, all statins have been associated with very rare reports of potentially fatal muscle weakness. But there have been more reports following the use of Lipobay than of any other statin.

Bayer says the side-effects are caused mostly by the simultaneous use of another anti-cholesterol drug called gemfibrozil. This drug is about to be launched in Japan.

With the withdrawal of Lipobay worldwide, analysts estimate that the Bayer group will lose about a quarter of its revenues. Families of the 52 deaths linked to the drug are reportedly planning to sue for compensation. The group's liability could run to an estimated $3 billion.

Statins block synthesis of Coenzyme Q10 - ATP production

Coincidentally, your article on statins arrived in the same mail delivery as my copy of the Australian Adverse Drug Reactions Bulletin (www.tga.gov.au/adr/aadrb.htm), which reported that the risk of depression from statins is about 1.4 per cent (7 October, p 46). You commented on the difficulty in determining the true benefit of these drugs, given the long time frames over which they are intended to be taken. We should all remember that similar time delays may well apply to discovering the true risks of statins.

From Richard Paterson

As James Kingsland wrote in his article on statins, "blocking of HMG CoA reductase inhibits the production of many other molecules beside cholesterol".

Statins also block the synthesis of coenzyme Q10. In a 30-day study using atorvastatin blood levels of CoQ10 were halved (Archives of Neurology, vol 61, p 889). This block was neither mentioned in Kingsland's article nor considered by the Clinical Trials Service Unit (CTSU) - whose report is at http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/~hps/statin_paper.shtml - although three other antioxidants were included in the trial. CoQ10, an antioxidant, is a key component of the oxygen-driven electron transport system in mitochondria, and this system plays a large part in ATP (adenosine triphosphate) synthesis in all our cells except red blood cells.

ATP is the crucial energy source of heart and brain and its loss is ultimately responsible for deaths following myocardial infarction or ischaemic stroke.

The potential for a fall in CoQ10 was recognised long before these reports. A major drug company was granted a patent for combined CoQ10/statin therapy in 1990 - see US Patent 4933165 at www.uspto.gov. One can only speculate as to the reason why this was never taken up.

The reported side effects of statins in muscle and cognitive function could be the result of blocking CoQ10 synthesis.

Finally, the CTSU studied people who already had a substantial risk of death within five years. As your article said, the meta-analysis cranked out significant positive results, but there was no dramatic effect on outcome, even in these patients, at the doses which have to be used to minimise side effects.

So prescribing statins for almost everyone - or putting them in the tap water, as one madcap enthusiast in the UK suggests - could benefit only those who profit from selling them. If "you bet your life on" taking statins, you should insist on a coenzyme Q10 supplement. As the article suggests, there are alternatives such as a healthy lifestyle, boosting vitamin D and perhaps - for those whose can take it - low-dose aspirin.

Falmouth, Cornwall, UK

From issue 2576 of New Scientist magazine, 04 November 2006, page 25

So far we only have isolated case reports or uncontrolled studies suggesting that giving supplements of coenzyme Q10 can prevent or minimise adverse effects of statins such as induced muscle pain and fatigue (Web letters, 4 November). Medical authorities believe it is premature to support the widespread use of CoQ10 in patients treated with statins. Hopefully this issue will be addressed in a large-scale controlled study.

Institute of Biochemistry

From issue 2577 of New Scientist magazine, 11 November 2006,

Why some have lost faith in Science

THE triumph of science explains, more than any other single factor, the west's enormous lead over other civilisations in technology, innovation, living standards and military might. Yet since the 1920s, and more particularly since 1970, western misgivings about science have greatly increased. Attacks have come from left and right, from intellectuals and anti-intellectuals, from the media and angry protesters, from Bible-bashers and New Age gurus. Westerners appear to have lost faith in reason and science. Why has science for the past 600 years been virtually a western monopoly, and what explains its decline in standing today?

The answer to both questions is the same. Some time between the 13th and 15th centuries, Europe pulled well ahead of the rest of the world in science and technology, a lead consolidated in the following 200 years. Then in 1687, Isaac Newton - foreshadowed by Copernicus, Kepler and others - had his glorious insight that the universe is governed by a few physical, mechanical and mathematical laws. This instilled tremendous confidence that everything made sense, everything fitted together, and everything could be improved by science.

This was crucial. In medieval and early modern Europe, when science made its greatest strides, scholars believed that the secrets of the universe could be unravelled because they had been implanted by a reliable and all-powerful creator-God who had written nature's rules in a dependable way. In other words, the full emergence of science required belief in one all-powerful God, whose perfect creation awaited rational, scientific explanation. This condition was peculiar to Christianity. In other religions there is no consistently rational creator; the universe is inexplicable, unpredictable. Still, it took Christians more than a thousand years to invent modern science, the development of which was uniquely encouraged by Europe's economic expansion after 1000, driven by a network of free city states.

By 1900, the status of science had never been higher, but over the course of the 20th century it faced two huge challenges. One was internal to science, as the Newtonian universe broke down and advances in physics revealed a baffling and inscrutable universe, ruled by mystery, uncertainty and chance. Up to 1900, science had made the world easier to understand; thereafter it made it more difficult.

The other challenge was external: a much more critical view of science adopted by the rest of society. Science revealed a darker side. Suspicions arose that it was dehumanising and the tool of dictators. Then came the atom bomb. Since the 1960s, evidence has begun to pile up that science's triumphs are poisoning the planet.

The result is a widespread western, and especially American, descent into superstition. About 40 per cent of Americans believe that Genesis accurately describes the creation. There is an apparent belief in magic that has had no parallel since the Middle Ages. The growing anti-intellectualism has no western precedent at all. We are witnessing the elevation of emotion over reason, of personal conviction over hard thinking.

Does this loss of faith in science matter? Science seems impervious to attack. To a greater degree than ever, the world is being shaped by it. Scientific advance is unstoppable, constant and cumulative. There is no "alternative" science, no Buddhist science, no New Age science, no relativist science, no fundamentalist science. The funds for science keep coming, as does a ready supply of highly educated scientists.

“There is an apparent belief in magic that has had no parallel since the Middle Ages”

But pause. Reflect on the inspirations for modern science: belief in God and belief in humanity, a rational world view, and optimism about humanity's place in the cosmos. Science, it seems, has disposed of much of what made it successful. It has eaten away at its thought-foundations: its contribution to human meaning, the human spirit and the non-material richness of civilisation has shrivelled.

Let's be clear: science will continue, driven by the search for profit and by humanity's ineradicable intellectual curiosity. There is little justification to abandon our trust in rationality and in science, for the best forms of civilisation depend utterly on them. But in losing the idea that science helps us all make sense of the world, the west has forfeited one of its main sources of optimism, success and commitment to a humane society.

Will science continue to lose its shine. Not necessarily. The notion that science deprives life of meaning is, after all, erroneous. Neither can science disprove the existence of God. What we may call the "lonely hypothesis" - that there is no rational and good God, and probably no God at all, that humankind is a speck of insignificance on the edge of a vast, pointless universe - has its own splendour, inspiration and self-justification. If nothing else will supply meaning in the universe, the existence and achievements of human intellect, creativity and love are quite enough.

Richard Koch is a businessman and author. Chris Smith (Lord Smith of Finsbury) is a former UK minister of culture. Their thesis on science and five other causes of western success is described in their book Suicide of the West, just published by Continuum

From issue 2557 of New Scientist magazine, 24 June 2006, page 25

The Comprehensible Cosmos by Victor Stenger

WHERE do the laws of physics come from? It is one of the most fundamental questions in science. Most physicists say that nature's laws have an objective existence - that they exist "out there" in some Platonic realm, independent of human beings - but there is one who begs to differ. According to Victor Stenger of the University of Hawaii at Manoa, the laws that orchestrate the universe are human inventions. And that's not even his most controversial claim.

Stenger is not trying to belittle the laws of physics. He is as convinced as the next physicist that they are an immensely powerful means of encapsulating a vast range of natural phenomena in terms of simple relationships. Stenger, however, draws the reader's attention to the bedrock on which those laws are founded: symmetry.

Symmetry concerns itself with the aspects of an object that remain unchanged when something is done to it. A starfish, for instance, looks the same when rotated through a fifth of a complete turn about its centre, so it is said to have 72-degree rotational symmetry. In 1918, the German mathematician Emmy Noether made the surprising and remarkable discovery that many of the dynamical laws of physics are nothing more than consequences of underlying symmetries. For instance, the law of conservation of energy, which says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, turns out to be a direct consequence of time-translation symmetry - the fact that, all things being equal, you will get the same result if you carry out an experiment tomorrow as you did today.

Noether, who really ought to be a household name, had found what might be the single most powerful idea in science. For it turns out that symmetry is a guiding light that can lead us to new laws of physics. For instance, symmetries that Noether herself never dreamed of - those not of real space and time but of abstract mathematical spaces - are responsible for the laws of quantum theory, the most wide-ranging and fruitful natural edicts ever known.

So if the laws of physics are based on symmetries, what does that really tell us? According to Stenger, it tells us that the laws are nothing more than a means of correlating phenomena so that they appear "independent of viewpoint". There is nothing to stop us from writing down laws that are dependent on our viewpoint - that are different in New York and London or from yesterday to today - but they would be far more complicated and difficult to use.

The laws of physics are simply human inventions motivated by our desire for a viewpoint-independent picture of the universe, Stenger argues. And that's just the beginning. Next he reveals the remarkable fact that the symmetries that lead to the laws of physics are exactly the same as those that would apply if the universe were completely empty. They are the symmetries of the void.

All of this leads Stenger to the biggest cosmic question of all: how did something come from nothing? The answer is simple, he says. Since the laws of physics are the laws of nothing, we require only nothing to come from nothing, which is hardly a difficult step!

The universe may share the same laws as nothing, but it is categorically not a void. It has matter, energy and a vast amount of structure. Where did it all come from? Here comes Stenger's most contentious claim. Something came from nothing, he says, because something is more stable than nothing. In the beginning, there was the void, governed by the laws of the void, but the void changed into something more structured - rearranged nothing, if you like - just like featureless water changing into crystalline ice because at low temperatures ice is more stable than water.

“Something came from nothing because it is more stable than nothing”

This is heady stuff. You might find it hard to take in, but Stenger has written a fascinating and thought-provoking book. With 151 pages of technical supplements - nearly half the book - it is a feast for both the specialist and the dedicated general reader.

From issue 2558 of New Scientist magazine, 01 July 2006, page 53

Charge as you go, for laptops and phones

WOULDN'T it be great if your cellphone or laptop started to charge as soon as you walked into your house of office? A phenomenon called "evanescent coupling" could make charging your electronic gadgets this easy.

Researchers have been looking for a wireless charger for some time. One idea is to use electromagnetic induction - passing an electric current through a coil to create a magnetic field that induces a current in a neighbouring coil. This is the way devices like electric toothbrushes are charged, and has been proposed as the basis of a universal re-charger pad before (New Scientist, 22 January, p 21). The snag as far as mobile devices are concerned is that the charger and device must be in close contact with each other for it to work. Alternatives such as transmitting electromagnetic waves in all directions to reach any device would be hugely wasteful.

"Placing one wireless source in each room could provide universal coverage"

Instead, Marin Soljacic at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology wants to use evanescent coupling, which allows electromagnetic energy trapped at a source to be tapped by a drain device if the two have the same resonant frequency. "The energy is trapped at source, until I bring a device that has the same resonant frequency close to it. Only then can the energy tunnel through," says Soljacic.

Soljacic and colleagues Aristeidis Karalis and John Joannopoulos have carried out numerous computer simulations to see if the idea will work. They discovered that a small copper ring could be constructed with a resonant frequency that would allow it to trap electromagnetic energy at a frequency of 3 to 4 megahertz without emitting radio waves to its surroundings.

Alternating current from the mains is converted to this frequency and injected into the ring, which consists of an inductor loop and a capacitor. The current travels round the ring, generating a magnetic field as it passes through the inductor loop and an electric field as it passes through the capacitor. The magnetic field extends up to 5 metres around the ring, and the switching between electrical and magnetic states makes the circuit resonate at the required frequency.

If a device fitted with a ring with the same resonant frequency enters the room, this magnetic field induces an electric current in its inductor loop. This travels round the second ring, constantly switching between electrical and magnetic states, just like the first ring. The energy can then be drawn off as current by a wire in the device, to begin charging. Placing one source in each room could provide coverage throughout a home or office.

Soljacic presented the results at the American Institute of Physics Industrial Physics Forum in San Francisco on 14 November. The team is now trying to develop a prototype device.

From issue 2578 of New Scientist magazine, 18 November 2006, page 28

E O Wilson: Reach Across the Science - Religion divide!

E O Wilson has a similar evolutionary viewpoint to Richard Dawkins but his tactics regarding working with Christians to save the planet seem diametrically opposed. Whilst Dawkins wants to do away with religion entirely, Wilson wants scientists to work with the religious to save the Creation - meaning biological diversity, ecosystems and species.

Listen: Podcast 1 | Podcast 2

From New Scientist September 30th 2006

Often cited as Darwin's true heir, E. O. Wilson has an audacious strategy for saving the planet: encourage evangelical Christians and scientific secularists to unite in caring for the ecosystems and biodiversity that he calls the Creation in his latest book. Ivan Semeniuk asked him if he has a prayer of succeeding when religious fundamentalism extends to the White House

After siding so strongly with science, you are now trying to reach across the science-religion divide. Why?

I offer the hand of friendship and I am presumptuous enough to do so on behalf of scientists - secular scientists. I feel that the time has come to put aside the culture wars, declare a truce and see if we can't meet on common ground where both sides can engage enthusiastically for our separate reasons.

What does the religious community offer?

There are 5000 members of 3 largest Humanist Organisations in the USA compared to 30 million members of the US National Association of Evangelicals. If only 1 per cent of those decide that they really would like to add conservation to the way they act out their religious beliefs in the world, that's 300,000 new conservationists. That's overwhelming.

The other reason is passion. Moral passion is what most evangelicals bring to the table. They believe, they care, and they really will work according to their beliefs. I think that having the living environment on their agenda for serious consideration and protection, with scientists playing the role of fact-gatherers and expositors of the problem, for example climate change or extinction of animal species, could be an extraordinarily strong combination.

Are you really optimistic that the religious community will listen?

I'm optimistic and getting more so all the time. When I made this move to approach the religious community and especially the huge block of evangelicals in this country, I was not aware of the extent of the greening movement that has begun at the political as well as the religious level. The political climate is favourable: there appears to be a mood growing to change the direction of the US. That, combined with the gradual greening that's occurring, leads me to be optimistic. And I'm particularly optimistic if, on the critical problem of saving the Creation - meaning biological diversity, ecosystems and species - we can combine science and religion, the two most powerful social forces in the world.

So what would you like to see happen?

A re-greening of America. I think the country is beginning to show a faint pastel green and I think it's growing greener every month. The phenomenal success of Al Gore's recent book and film about global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, is evidence that the American public is receptive to greening. And there is a mood already among many religious people that something has to be done about the environment. What's lacking is concern about the loss of the Creation. Why is that? Because people don't quite understand it yet. It's a more difficult concept to get your mind around.

Your book is written in the form of a letter or an appeal to a Southern Baptist pastor. Is that character someone familiar to you?

My "pastor" is abstracted from the Southern Baptist pastors I knew as a child. I grew up in the faith. As I like to say: "I answered the altar call and I went under the water." I can understand the culture very well, and in spite of the very stark, non-religious world view that I state upfront so as to put my cards on the table, I hope I come across as someone who is basically understanding, respectful and congenial in discussing subjects on common ground.

Having started out as a believer, how did you lose your faith and end up among the secularist scientists?

It happened to me in much the way that Darwin said it happened to him. He describes how he left England on the Beagle in 1831 as a devout Christian - I suppose now he would be called a fundamentalist - and then, in gradual degree, he pushed it away. He doesn't give specifics of what each of those little steps were, but you get the impression that most of it was unconscious, until finally he was a secularist. That's what happened to me in my teens. I didn't really have a knock-down drag-out fight with a fundamentalist parent or pastor. I just drifted away.

Is the spiritual approach to nature a conscious effort to speak the same language as the religious community?

I feel inside every word of that book. I do have a feeling that the spiritual side of the understanding of the Creation is powerfully ingrained - at least the potential is powerfully ingrained. Most of the scientists I know who actually work on biodiversity and conservation share that feeling. You can hear it in their voices. It's a powerful motivating force. Spirituality in this case does not mean religiosity. The great majority of scientists, I suspect, are secular. Yet they speak, when you get down to bedrock, in what you would call spiritual terms.

If the love of nature is innate, why is nature in such crisis and why is it so difficult to communicate the importance of conservation?

You've put your finger on it. There appears to be a hierarchy of drives in humans. The biggest concern is always survival and reproduction, and protection of clan and family. For most of human history, humans have had to struggle against nature to survive. Then with the Neolithic revolution we learned how to break nature by cultivating plants, clearing land and building surpluses of resources and developing technologies. But along the way, there has been this deep connection to having a natural environment, even if it's just to exploit it.

It took a few thousand years of adoring gardens, loving exploring, expanding into unspoilt environments and so on to bring us up short with the recognition that we've gone too far. We broke nature and now we're smashing it and getting rid of humanity's biggest heritage.

A sceptical religious leader might say that science and technology helped us destroy nature, so they should get us out of this mess.

Yes, they should. Science and technology combined with Palaeolithic obstinacy have brought us to this point. Now science and technology combined with a determination to save this world for future generations and a morality broadened to include saving the Creation has to get us out.

What about the evangelicals who argue that the world is coming to an end and therefore doesn't need saving?

The extremists among the evangelical community really do see the world as just a way station from which humanity is destined to ascend to heavenly bliss (the Rapture) or to remain and eventually go to hell. The movement that has taken that line is called the Dispensational movement, and I'm sorry to say it's quite strong in the US.

So who are they?

Dispensationalists believe that the Rapture will come in their lifetime or even any day now, in which those saved by redemption through Jesus will go bodily to heaven. All this is in the Book of Revelation, which is interpreted literally by the Dispensationalists to mean that the condition of the world is of little concern - that in fact, the sooner it deteriorates the sooner comes the Rapture.

The evangelicals that I've spoken with, including significant leaders in the evangelical movement, do not agree with that. I'm hopeful that while there are millions of Dispensationalists, nonetheless they will stay a relatively small fraction of the religious community.

How would you answer a religious leader who says scientists should give a little ground on teaching intelligent design so that young people better appreciate the Creation and lead the flock toward a greener future?

I would say that compromise and trading over world views and fundamental beliefs is not what I want to talk about, nor what I think would lead to any productive result. I'm interested in finding common ground that we can form an alliance on.

But suppose you had to answer.

OK. Let me say that it would be very much against the interests of organised religion to press the matter. Scientists agree almost unanimously that intelligent design is not science because it is based on a proposition which has negative evidence. Because scientists have not yet solved all complex systems, especially biological ones, believers in intelligent design say that you have to turn to another explanation which can only be supernatural.

The opposition to this is not a conspiracy of scientists who want to keep religion out - quite the contrary. The currency of science, its silver and its gold, is discovery. You are a scientist if you make original discoveries. You are a success if you make important discoveries. So they're not in any conspiracy, they just won't accept what they would consider worse than bad science - non-science.

What's your advice for adults who want to instil a love of nature in children?

Early exposure in pleasant circumstances is the best way to make a naturalist. Take a child into the field and encourage him or her to become an explorer, adventurer and treasure hunter in the environment. Little children are savages, they are Palaeolithic creatures with a strong desire to explore on their own or in small groups. It's well established that between the ages of 9 and 12 children have an innate desire to build tree houses or little retreats where they can be on their own - preferably in the woods if they have access to them.

They should also be turned loose in places where they can bring back a frog or a snake or spider in a jar. With that kind of experience you can make a lifelong naturalist and build a culture that doesn't turn away from modern technology and the accoutrements of western civilisation, but one that enriches it by adding a love of nature.

From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 30 September 2006, page 54-56

Profile

Edward Osborne Wilson's love of nature developed as a child in the countryside around Mobile, Alabama. He became passionate about insects, especially flies. A shortage of insect pins during the second world war led him to switch from flies to ants, which could be stored in vials. He graduated from the University of Alabama, going on to a PhD in entomology at Harvard University. He caused a furore in 1975 with Sociobiology, which was vilified by various groups as the "new eugenics". Among his other well-known works are Biophilia, The Ants (with Bert Hölldobler) and Consilience. His latest book, The Creation, is published by W. W. Norton