evolution

Today's pick, Evolution in a Toxic World, comes from our Marketing Assistant, Meghan Bartels. When we started preparing for the Spring 2012 season, I was excited to dive into Emily Monosson’s Evolution in a Toxic World.

Salamanders, fish and perhaps even humans are evolving fast in response to toxic chemicals. Is that bad? In the hemlock and oak forests of northeastern Connecticut, Steve Brady stood thigh deep in black muck and scooped up a handful of spotted salamander eggs. A Yale PhD student, he had once fancied himself zipping across tropical waters in a Zodiac boat or scanning rainforest canopies in search of exotic birds.

Emily Monosson chats with Karen Weintraub of the Boston Globe Karen Weintraub, Q. What do you mean when you say we need to take an “evolutionary perspective” on toxic chemicals? Emily Monosson, A. I think adding an evolutionary perspective to the science of toxicology might help us better understand how chemicals interact with living things.

Disclaimer: Some words may have been harmed in the process of writing this blog As a scientist who fled from college course offerings beginning with ENG I fully regret this decision, particularly when sheepishly resorting to the synonym key, followed by a quick dash to Wikipedia for further advice on how to use words.  Words matter, particularly if one decides to go public with them. And so, it was with some chagrin that I read a recent email, taking me to task for my use of the word “toxics,” which I’ve pasted verbatim - for lack of better words: Let's start by noting