The main revolution 150 years ago was that lichen was not a single organism. I'm not sure if refining that number from 2 to 3 is legitimately "overturning"; I was reading the article expecting them to say that the two organisms were in fact sharing the same DNA and were in fact sexual dimorphs all this time.
On the other hand, figuring out why we've been failing to grow lichen by merging the two species manually for the past century and a half is definitely a job well done. :)
This is as huge as the discovery of the neutron was for the atomic model. Wasn't that merely redefining the number of elementary particles from two (electron, proton) to three?
If you actually read the article you'll find out that the properties of the lichen could not be explained by the two known elements alone, that there was some other factor that nobody could describe. The careful work done here uncovered a third element that was the important difference, that there's a three way symbiosis. Now they have a complete model of what's going on after an initial hypothesis put forward 150 years ago.
Considering someone's finally explained how these types of organisms work, and it's a large branch of life, this is a pretty major breakthrough.
Well, saying this is as huge as the discovery of the neutron for the atomic model is stretching it, IMO. Atoms make up everything, understanding how atomic nuclei are made up has paved the road for huge breakthroughs in not just nuclear physics but also in medicine, energy production, materials physics, etc. Lichen, on the other hand, are, well lichen. If we'd been throwing money on lichen research like we have on nuclear physics, we would have known this a century ago.
And that's why you can't trust them. (cue rimshot SFX)
But lichen... You know, now that we have a functional understanding of their biology, I'm quite excited to see what this new knowledge will yield when applied. Pharmacology, materials, food production/processing — "We don't know what we don't know," but having more data helps us to learn what questions we can ask.
I most certainly did not say this wasn't huge. However, to extend your analogy, discovering neutrons doesn't overturn the existence of atoms, nor does it overturn the idea that atoms are made up of smaller components.
Anyhow, thats just my perspective. No offense is intended here. This is solid, important work. I'm just quibbling over the headline.
We all learn this story in school, and people have been looking at these guys for a long time. What did you want, a human/algae symbiosis to make this an overturn?
I think its very exciting work and he clearly made an important finding in lichen biology. But, overturning would be if he found that it wasn't 2 organisms but just 1. The previous 2 organisms are still there, there just happens to also be another one that people missed. Everyone else wasn't wrong and the previous work hasn't been overturned, simply added to. This is the basis of most modern science. This doesn't take away from the importance of the work, simply that the headline is a bit click-baity.
The previous understanding of these organisms was fundamentally wrong (although partially right). I think it's very odd to be sawing on this idea that 'overturning' a scientific theory requires a complete negation of it.
(If your argument is that "overturning" should never be used to describe a scientific breakthrough you may have a point, albeit a rather uninteresting one.)
Did you read the entire article? The end of it goes into how many things we thought we knew about the previously-known fungus and algae may not be true after all, there's a lot of work that's going to have to be reevaluated.
I lived in Montana for years. The only population of folks that speak German that I'm aware of are Hutterites (German variation of the Amish or Mennonites). If he comes from that group, it makes the story all the more amazing.
It sounded like he got no support from his family and "ran away" as soon as he was able. But, he probably could have earned a GED. But, that takes time - perhaps it was faster/easier to move to Germany?
The home-schooled teens that go on to college may lack formal paperwork form a school, but they generally do have some test results, paperwork filed with the county/state, and other items they can put on a transcript in lieu of actual grades.
It sounded like the scientist didn't have the benefit of a structured home education.
Exactly. It's not just that he was home-schooled. It's that he was apparently home-schooled by people who were apparently particularly incompetent at home-schooling.
The headline makes it seem as though some guy overturned a fundamental precept of modern biology, while living in a Trailer in Montana.
None of the above is true.
1) He happened to grow up in a trailer in Montana, but eventually moved on to attend a good German university, and was no longer living in a "Montana trailer park" while making this discovery.
2) The guy corrected a misunderstanding that people had, regarding one very specific phenomenon found in nature; something that most biologists don't work with, depend on, or care about. The replication crisis around Ego Depletion, for example, can credibly be claimed to have overturned decades of psychological thought. The specific makeup of Lichens though, is an extremely niche field, that doesn't affect the broader field of Biology in any significant way.
> The specific makeup of Lichens though, is an extremely niche field, that doesn't affect the broader field of Biology in any significant way.
Well you would be wrong. This guy almost single-handedly led the way to enabling the cultivation of lichen in laboratory conditions, something that has had very limited success up until now.
What are the benefits of cultivating lichen? It's another way to farm biological molecules. As it turns out, Lichen are actually composed of 2 fungi not just 1. Basidiomycetes and Ascomycete. So that's a huge crop of potential medicines, or manufacturing catalysts that can be economically produced now.
So give this guy a lil more credit. Just because you don't care about lichens, doesn't mean "most biologists don't care about it". He has literally, no hyperbole, overturned 150 years of biology. It is that significant.
Also, it's very arrogant of you to suggest that most biologists do not care about this discovery. At the very least, it is humbling to all biologists. And as such, most, if not all, biologists will care about this discovery precisely because it shows that we can be missing something so fundamental for so long.
Of course, the guy's life story is still an inspirational tale of creating opportunities for yourself where none seem to exist. And his discovery -- although probably not rocking the foundation of the (sub)field -- is still impressive and pretty interesting. And the article is written well enough.
So you should still read the article. Just pretend the link-baity title doesn't exist and don't go in with pre-conceptions :-)
I agree. The article was a cool read and props to the guy for successfully building a career in science, despite his shitty upbringing. I just wish the headline didn't wildly exaggerate his admirable accomplishments.
> The specific makeup of Lichens though, is an extremely niche field, that doesn't affect the broader field of Biology in any significant way.
The article mentions how the symbiotic relationship discovered in 1868 cleared the way to our better, broader understanding of other ecological systems. I can see how the current discovery could lead to some deeper knowledge. Maybe it hints at how complex living things appear. Maybe we understimated this processess and they deserve more eyes on it.
I agree with the trailer thing on the title, no need.
I did not read this article, but I read a different one a couple of days ago. The headline should be "Researcher from University of Montana overturns 150 years of understanding of lichens" or some such. It is still a (really) big deal, but that title is so link-baity it is absolutely disgusting.
EDIT:
Lichens aren't quite what we thought, shocked scientists discover
The link between lichen and basidiomycetes was known before this paper, but it was mainly thought that most lichens had none of the basidiomycetes spores, e.g. : https://www.anbg.gov.au/lichen/basidiolichens.html
> The path to this discovery began in 2011, when Spribille, now armed with a doctorate, returned to Montana. He joined the lab of symbiosis specialist John McCutcheon...
Could we change the title to something a little less clickbaity/classist? Even though it's the title of the actual article, trailer parks have nothing to do do with the actual content.
It's also misleading -- although he did grow up in a trailer park, he also attended an world-renown university of both undergraduate and doctoral studies prior to making the discovery. And he wasn't working alone in the middle of nowhere -- he as working with a team of other scientists.
It's a fantastic life story, but the title is definitely distracting click bait.
I disagree entirely. I didn't quite grow up quite in a trailer park, but close enough. I even served some time in a fundie "school" that was 30 people K-12. That this guy came from a disadvantaged background and went somewhere despite a lack of education mattered a lot to me.
I was lucky to get involved with computers, which at the time were something where you could pick up on your own and still end up with a good career. I don't know where I'd be without that; surely not with a doctorate doing research. Seeing this guy make it as far as a major scientific discovery warms my heart.
I hope his story inspires kids everywhere to persevere. And that gatekeepers everywhere think about the people they're excluding because they don't have the right pedigree. Without the University of Gottingen's willing to gamble, his talent could well have gone to waste.
I don't personally agree. The title is baity but in a more inspirational than manipulative way, and I don't see any gain in bringing in a word like 'classist'.
However, many here dislike the title and we're happy to oblige. So let's make a deal: we'll change the title to something more temperate, and you guys start talking about something more interesting than how bad the previous title was.
Where is the lie? There isn't anything un-true about the title. More to the point, the inspirational aspect of the story is quite worthwhile. You might say the "trailer-park" inspiration is one aspect, the "we don't know everything we think we do, even 150 years later" angle is another aspect, and there is a third, possibly overlooked facet, which is that this opens up immense new opportunities for understanding life, as a whole, where and when we find it. You might consider it some sort of symbiotic, inspiration.
That's true from a literal standpoint, however the title misleads many people into expecting that the subject isn't just from a trailer park as part of his past, but that he somehow made the breakthrough as a current, stereotypical, trailer park resident, i.e. not highly educated.
If there was an intention to mislead it is a lie.
If it's unintentional, it's just poor headline writing (ambiguous and easily misleading).
You really are missing the point of the headline, which purpose is to attract readers to a subject they wouldn't otherwise be interested in.. and the fact that "even a kid from a trailerpark can up-end cemented thinking in science" is very relevant. It does, in fact, change everything: the scientists' class and social background is not relevant to the science he or she performs, but the fact of extraordinary science being performed by extraordinary individuals is relevant. Maybe there was something in his trailerpark lifestyle that made him start to think differently about the things he'd learned about as a scientist; you, the reader, are invited to make your own conclusions before you walk away. The title is a part of that process.
I think we should leave click-baity titles the way they are, actually. On the general principle that the <mediasphere> -> HN mapping should be "information preserving" to whatever degree is reasonably feasible.
So if the authors of a story are being irresponsibly click-baity in their choice of title wording... it would not only be remiss of us not to convey this fact -- we would, in effect, be covering their asses -- which really now, are better left exposed in cases like these.
The problem with that argument is that the titles of HN submissions don't merely reflect an outside reality. They exert an influence on this site itself—one of the most powerful influences, in fact. So it's more like breathing polluted air, say, than watching a film.
Considering that the classism in question is considering it strange and amazing that someone who grew up poor (and in a gasp! trailer park) could go on to do science? There's no "acknowledging" classism in this article, there's just straight-out engaging in it and perpetuating it.
Is the classism in question really about being poor?
From my perspective, it is about perpetuating the stereotype that rural people are 'slack jawed yokels'. If this guy was from a vertical trailer park (i.e. a high rise condo unit), we wouldn't think twice about it because, despite being potentially just as poor, he is an 'enlightened city dweller'.
There's a rural vs urban component, but yes, it's about being poor. If he were poor and urban, a similar article would have talked about him growing up in the "mean streets" of some poor neighborhood. It's the same reaction.
Perhaps it's a regional thing then, because where I come from, trailer parks are essentially cottages for the middle class. The poor connotation isn't there, but the lack of population density certainly is.
I disagree. It was classism and credentialism that almost kept him out of science. What's amazing is that through perseverance and luck he overcame that exclusion. The story contradicts the just-world implications of classism, and so I believe this article doesn't perpetuate it; it cuts against it.
Try an experiment. Replace the adjective in question with a race that you feel is being maligned. Does the sentence now make you cringe? Then it is probably classist,
I think the people who point out this sort of thing are usually just trying to illustrate that there's all these gossipy judgements we make of each other and that it happens so often and so consistently that we end up doing it it thoughtlessly.
And then there are the people who think the rags to riches tale is just one of the tools of the rich and powerful. That the token success story keeps the rest of us from doing anything to change the status quo. And so rather than being inspired by them they just get grumpy.
Did he create opportunities for himself, or did he live in a country where other taxpayers covered the cost of his college education?
He's an impressive person, but "poor guy pulled himself up by the bootstraps using sheer force of will" narratives usually fall apart when you look more closely.
An American without a high school diploma or GED convinced a seriously good German university to admit him. That's pretty impressive.
If I were in his situation, there's no way I would have had the gull to try that route. Probably would've just stayed in the forest service. Maybe gone for a GED then community college then a local land grant. By which time I'd be too burnt out on it all (and too old) to even think about a doctorate.
There's no doubting that the German people helped this guy achieve what he achieved. There's also no doubting that he was truly exceptionally resourceful (and maybe a bit lucky, too).
This shows that the Göttingen science faculty is maintaining its centuries-long tradition of taking chances and nurturing scientific talent, without regard to sex, race, or class, often in defiance of the surrounding culture. The most famous example is Emmy Noether:
Politics is inextricable from human life, news, and technology. Any story here can be political, and that should be fine. Whatever my political leanings, I had an issue with this sentence:
> creating opportunities for yourself where none seem to exist
The fact is that there were opportunities. In countries where education is free and accessible, there are always opportunities.
If the subject is spreading education, I will happily be partisan and political, even if you find it irritating. It's too important to ignore, especially when it's a core factor in this headline and story.
That argument isn't valid here and does not lead to positive contributions to HN. Why? Because the topic here is/was concrete: a biologist who made a discovery about lichens. To use that as fodder for an ideological argument is to take the discussion in the wrong direction: away from something that gratifies intellectual curiosity into something that does not, however important it may otherwise be.
Intellectual curiosity is HN's core value. Curiosity is gratified by things that are specific, so the specific is precious here. Generic ideological arguments are the opposite: they're reruns of episodes seen many times, for which circumstances are interesting only as primer fuel, quickly to be discarded on getting going.
Worse, the energy they mobilize is agitated and the stance they induce is rigid. They throw people out out of the relaxed, reflective state that makes for good HN conversation, charging their reflexes and putting them into battle mode . From an intellectual curiosity point of view, it doesn't matter what the battle is—we end up with scorched earth either way.
It may be important to get people marching, but let's not march over a lichen garden.
Anything in that article should be open for discussion or debate. If the article didn't mention the education portion, then it would be in appropriate. However, it was mentioned in the article & I think it should be focused on equally for discussion and debate.
The discovery is amazing. What's even more impressive is that he received a free education in another country, with a home-schooled background.
My original comment was not an ideological battle. It was purely factual. Someone suggested it was too political (or had political motives), and I replied that I wouldn't pretend I'm not political or that the topic isn't political. Plain facts (in this case that Germany has free education and that it creates opportunities) can be highly politically charged, and I don't see that as a reason to shy away from them.
> My original comment was not an ideological battle. It was purely factual.
At a minimum it pointed thither, since government programs and payment for education are politically charged and your comment read as advocacy in that area. You also used ideologically charged language ("poor guy pulled himself up by the bootstraps") which is the opposite of "purely factual". That explains why a user responded with "political bullshit" (which was also bad, btw, since it's name-calling by HN guidelines' standard).
Babies should work to pay for their own food, those useless freeloaders. Children should work to pay rent, otherwise they're ungrateful leeches.
Or maybe education is one of those things important to the survival of our species and the improvement of quality of life for everyone. Nobody benefits when someone who wanted to be a doctor or a scientist and was capable of becoming one is denied an education and instead can't get a job for lack of qualifications.
The number of people who've pulled themselves up from their own bootstraps are zero. You're always dependent on others or benefit from their knowledge in some capacity. The degree to which this happens is variable, but it can never be eliminated.
On the other hand, figuring out why we've been failing to grow lichen by merging the two species manually for the past century and a half is definitely a job well done. :)