By: Daniel Arauz

McMaster researchers are currently developing a less invasive and cost effective way of detecting early colorectal cancer – DNA enzymes that will make poop glow.

Biochemist Yingfu Li and gastroenterologist Dr. Bruno Salena proposed the idea to the Canadian Cancer Society, who have granted the pair and their research team $200,000 in funding for a two-year study.

The goal is that this test will effectively replace colonoscopies, which is currently the most accurate way of detecting colorectal cancer. Patients will simply provide a stool sample, which will be mixed with a “fluorescent signal” DNA enzyme. The stool will illuminate if the enzyme detects colorectal cancer in the sample.

This new testing method uses technologies from previously developed DNA enzymes that can detect bacteria such as C. difficile and E.coli; projects that Li has had first-hand experience in developing.

A less invasive and simpler testing process would encourage more people to get screened. When colon cancer is caught in its early stages, it is 90 per cent treatable.

Colorectal cancer is the second most prevalent cause of death in males,. and it is the third-leading cause of death among women, behind lung and breast cancer according to Canadian Cancer Statistics 2014.

“The reason we actually got this project funded is that there is a significant need for this [kind of testing],” Li said. “We have the data with other systems for bacterial detection, we provided some sort of proof of concept – people can actually see this can happen.”

Li feels that collaboration between the scientific and medical fields is far too uncommon.

“I think it’s a challenge. Everyone is busy, I run a research lab and I have a lot to do, so on a daily basis I wouldn’t think about these kind of things.” Li admitted that without that chance meeting with Salena while playing golf, the ideas and necessary samples for this project would not have been possible. “I was actually quite surprised that colorectal cancer, for men, is the second leading cause of cancer death.”

Li attributes much of the success of this project to the collaboration between the fields of science and medicine. “You need a partner before you can really succeed,” said Li. “In this case if you didn’t have biological samples, you couldn’t devise a real test for colorectal cancer patients…I think if we really want to solve a lot of medical problems, we need to get people together, one way or another.”

Photo credit: Mike Lalich/Canadian Cancer Society

Gregory Wygoni
The Silhouette

“Science” was dubbed the word of the year in 2013. And though this may an impressive achievement for the human race, especially considering that the runner ups were “snuffalgapus” and “bieberlicious”, one cannot commend ourselves too generously. We still have a long way to go.

For example, let us go on a short walk from MUSC to BSB. Once there, realize you are in the science sector: chemistry, biology, physics. But yet, there is a lingering feeling that something is missing, Geology? Perhaps, but I argue there is something else, something deeper.

These science students, McMaster’s finest in the most pragmatic of arts, will not have the science that allows all what they learned to become possible. It is the magic glue that holds things together. Okay, it isn’t mathematics, which is the basis for what I am arguing, but instead computer science. Software and hardware are behind every innovation. You want some nuclear magnetic resonance, read the software output. You like polymerase chain reaction, try automation. Computer science, and the principles that underlie it, lay the foundation for much of modern science. It is not a difficult concept to debate then that digital literacy has never been more important. It empowers you to make what you want, and have the necessary skills to contribute positively in your field.

Yet most science students - not even to speak of the humanities, social sciences, or health study students - lack programming skills. Even our math majors can barely string together a valid function.

What is worse, the computer science students who are learning how to code are doing it perfunctorily. They worry only about output, rather than the language. The current paradigm for computer science in university is not different for any other program, do what they want, do well, and don’t be creative in your approaches. Such terrible practices are then translated to industry.

These habits also permeate through the online learning of CodeAcademy and the like. They teach you the basic format and language constructs, and that is all. You complete the exercises, all in a daze, and then wonder what is next. It is like learning the alphabet and thinking you can write a book.

The fact of the matter is that most students don’t know how to program, and those that do only know it robotically. This author does not evade these categorizations. To know how to program well, to appreciate the beauty of a language, to use its syntactic sugar well, is an art. To have great test coverage, to be efficient and write simple code is an ever expanding hallway in your worst nightmare.

Is there a reason most students do not learn how to code? Yes, because they believe it to be hard. If this is any counterpoint, I was able to learn. Secondly, as to why students who do know how to code, code poorly, I can only proffer the argument of patience. The art is long, and time is short. Most students think once they learn the alphabet they can put together Brave New World, yet the same is not for “Hello World.” The only solution I offer is teach computer science early, teach it well with as many different ways as possible, and wait.

Good stuff is waiting behind our semicolons.

When Bill Nye came to campus in December 2013, he sat down with Jemma Wolfe (Silhouette executive editor) and Lindsay Hamilton (CFMU community outreach coordinator) to share personal thoughts and stories on his life and work. Every Sunday at 6 p.m. throughout January and February we’ll be releasing a new video for you to enjoy.

In this third video, Bill talks about his work on The Science Guy show and why he cares so much about getting people excited about science.

A team of McMaster scientists is enjoying a great start to the new year after solving a genetic code related to an historical cholera outbreak. The team was able to determine the cholera bacteria that caused a widespread outbreak of the diarrheal disease in the 19th century.

The researchers from McMaster’s Ancient DNA Centre reconstructed the entire Vibrio cholerae genome using a piece of tissue from the intestine of a Philadelphia man, which had been remarkably preserved by Philadelphia’s Mütter Museum.

Findings from the study were published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Jan. 8, helping to pin down the cause of the earliest forms of the infectious disease in India, Europe and North America.

Before they could begin the laborious process of reconstructing the complex genome, the research team had to locate a well-preserved specimen with remnants of the disease. This was no easy task as the pathogen only colonizes the intestines: normally the first internal organ to decompose after death.

Doubts as to whether finding a specimen was possible were alleviated when Hendrik Poinar, Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair within the Department of Anthropology and Principal Investigator at the Ancient DNA Centre, learned that the Philidelphia’s Mütter Museum had preserved internal specimens from alleged cholera victims from its curator, Anna Dhody.

Graduate student Alison Devault was at the helm for much of the lab work as part of her PhD thesis and said that she was unsure whether an analysis of the specimen would reveal it to be imbued with cholera DNA.

“Oftentimes in ancient DNA work you can have a very promising sample, but because of poor conditions for DNA preservation — such as fluctuating temperatures or bacterial or chemical changes that overly degrade the DNA — you are disappointed.”

Devault said her peers also entertained doubts that the alleged cholera victims were just that and nothing more.

“There was always another possibility, that the alleged cholera victims did not actually have cholera at all, or the historical disease we believed to be cholera was actually due to some completely different pathogen.”

The study revealed the cholera that the man suffered from to be of the classical strain, once the prominent form of epidemic cholera.

Although a strain called El Tor replaced the classical as the main pathogenic form of the disease in the 20 century, Devault says studies of its predecessor can be crucial to our understanding of a disease which infected 3 to 4 million people in 2012, killing 100,000.

“We know from historic accounts and records that 19th century cholera was extremely widespread and devastating on a global scale. Although it is still unclear exactly why that was the case, having full-scale genome information from a 19th century strain is one great starting point for future research,” she said.

Devault hopes that additional rare specimens can be found for study. This would allow further insight into how cholera has evolved over time and perhaps lead to better preventative measures to be established.

 

On the surface, it seems unlikely that the announcement of an educational scientist with a penchant for bowties coming to McMaster to speak could cause the kind of hype that has consumed campus for the past several weeks. But when that scientist is Bill Nye, the beloved Science Guy of 1990’s TV programming, any student will tell you that such excitement is warranted.

Speaking to us from his California home on his 58th birthday, Nye was as enthusiastic about science as he was on screen 20 years ago. Since filming wrapped on Bill Nye the Science Guy in 1998, Nye has kept busy with new shows for the Discovery Channel, working with NASA on their Mars mission, and being involved with several scientific societies.

“Right now, one of the troubling things is that I don’t really have an average day,” Nye said. “I travel a lot to visit places like McMaster… The last three months have been busy with this Dancing with the Stars thing…”

While his present activities are fascinating in their own right, most of Bill Nye’s fame stems from the 100 episodes of the Science Guy that play in elementary schools across North America. Its origins, however, are far more humble.

The road to creating the show “took years,” according to Nye. He explained, “I was in a writers’ meeting for this comedy show in Seattle, and we needed to fill six minutes. The host, who is still a dear friend of mine, said, ‘why don’t you do that stuff you’re always talking about… You could be like, I don’t know, Bill Nye the Science Guy or something.’ So I came up with this bit on the household uses of liquid nitrogen – since we all have liquid nitrogen around – and it was funny.”

Those offhand ideas led to the full show eventually airing, fulfilling Nye’s childhood fascination for learning about the world and sharing his enthusiasm with others. He cites his brother as one person who got him into science.

“My older brother was very influential,” Nye said. “He had a chemistry set. And I remember he made ammonia in the palm of my hand, which was quite impressive. And I used to sit … and watch bees. I remember being absolutely fascinated with them. And then one day, I got stung by a bumblebee and my mother put ammonia on the wound. And it was the same smell that my brother had created in the palm of my hand. And I realized there was some… not magic, but mystery to be learned.”

Nye’s appearance at McMaster marks one of the largest and most expensive speaker events that McMaster has seen in recent memory.

Al Legault, director of Campus Events, said, “I’ve never planned anything this large in Burridge for a speaker. We’re used to doing concerts and hypnotists – things like that. Nothing of this [scale]. In this last 10 years at least this is [financially] the largest speaker we’ve had.”

He’s also probably the only speaker they’ve had who would answer birthday greetings with, “Another orbit of the sun! Check me out!”

To hear the extended interview with Bill Nye, tune in to 93.3 CFMU on Friday, Nov. 29 at 9:30 a.m. or visit CFMU’s website afterwards to hear the podcast. Bill Nye will speak at McMaster’s Burridge Gym this Sunday, Dec. 1 at 5 p.m. Tickets are available at Compass in MUSC.

Photo courtesy of NASA/GSFC/Bill Hrybyk (Flickr)

By Abdullahi Sheikh

Would it surprise you to learn that there is an initiative to attain immortality by the year 2045? A Russian entrepreneur Dmitry Itskov and his team of scientists seek to bring about exactly that. Although it may sound like a pipe dream, just like flying cars were to the ‘90s, maybe you should give it some more thought. We live in a world today where the line between humans and technology is slowly blurring, and it doesn’t seem to be on the road to becoming any clearer in the future.

For example, I doubt you’re aware of a little thing called Project Aiko. It’s a Canadian-made robot from my hometown of Brampton, intended to perform normal house functions and generally serve as a companion.

Although it’s no Megaman, it certainly is an interesting endeavor, and one that only serves to underscore the fact that we truly live in a cyberpunk age. The author of Nueromancer, the quintessential cyberpunk novel, has even been recorded as saying that modern day Tokyo fits his image of a cyberpunk city perfectly.

Now, this is all fine and dandy for a scholarly article type bit, but where’s the opinion? Well I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords. In all honesty, I can’t see any sort of downside to this. Well, at least not one that’s important enough for us to turn back. The thought of our children or our children’s children enjoying life in a world with robots bearing artificial intelligence aiding their day to day life, playing video games in virtual reality and doing God-knows-what-else speaks to both the child and the romantic in me.

I mean, these are things that have captivated me since I was a child, and to this day still make me tremble when I think of how close we are to reaching them.

Things that we have thought were impossible and even unthinkable are now just within the realm of possibility. It may take a decade or two, but the simple knowledge that these developments are within reach is incredibly satisfying. Now personally, I think immortality is a bit much to be aiming for but if you aim for the moon and miss, you still hit stars.

So even if that specific goal is just a bit too high up to reach, who knows what else we will find while we’re up there?

Our parents may not have had the opportunity to see us drive around in flying cars, but maybe we’ll be able to see our kids pilot theirs.

The exam is sitting in front of you, mocking you. The blank spaces under the questions are cavernous, the scantron bubbles are – unlike your understanding – crystal clear, and when you look at your Casio, all the screen displays is “666” because you can’t remember a damned thing. But why not? Isn’t memory just like a computer’s desktop? Files stored neatly, right where you put them when you listened in lecture? This is a common misconception of memory.

As with many other common ideas of complex functions, the impression of memory is largely flawed.

Researchers like Terje Lømo, Gary Lynch and most recently Dr. Todd Sacktor, professor of physiology, pharmacology and neurology at the State University of New York, are unveiling what actually makes our memories along with how they stick and how to strengthen, and erase, everything you’ve ever stored in your mind.

 

Reconsolidation

Many people imagine memory to be a storage space, almost like a file cabinet, where you can go, look at whatever you need at that particular time, and then put it back in its place and leave it as it always was. We’ll call this File Memory. Not to say this doesn’t happen sometimes, but File Memory isn’t a complete explanation of how we remember.

Reconsolidation, a distinct process that maintains, modifies or consolidates memories, was first observed as early as 1968, and in recent years is beginning to be more complexly understood.

During reconsolidation, memories are actually moved out of long-term memory while you’re using it, thinking about it, or talking about it. They are then resaved again.

To liken it to the file cabinet analogy: when the memory is recalled, the file cabinet is destroyed, and the file is sent up for use, so you can alter it, strengthen it, and update it before it goes back. Then, when the memory is stored again, another file cabinet is built to hold it. But, this file cabinet may not be made the exact same way. It could be stronger, more complex, larger, and will be somewhat a little different than the last one.

Todd Sacktor, professor at the State University of New York, says of reconsolidation, “the whole idea of reconsolidation is that it both strengthens old memories – because it gets used again – and it updates the memories with new information.”

That’s why reading your notes the same day you took them can be so useful: you have an initial memory – you remember taking the notes and in what context they were taken - that you take out, build on, and reinforce before storing it again, this time more complexly and permanently.

 

Protein kinase M zeta (PKMzeta)

Even though the “File Memory” concept is largely inaccurate, we can find some similarities human memory has to that of a computer’s. In a computer, memory is stored through combinations of 0s and 1s. Though the information it stores is complex, it is constructed by those two basic blocks. This can also be compared to human genetics: DNA codes our entire genetic structure while itself being made up by four distinct chemicals.

Memory too, for all its complexity, is stored by one very basic building block: protein kinase M zeta, also known as PKMzeta. PKMzeta is what builds and keeps all types of memories in long-term storage, all over the brain.

With the presence of more of the enzyme, the result is stronger memories. This being said, conversely less of this enzyme means weaker, or no, memories.

The most well-known and illustrative proof of this resulted from a study by Sacktor, in partnership with the Israel Weizmann Institute of Science. The experiment consisted of having rats associate the action of intaking sugar water with discomfort, and then breaking them into three groups: one where PKMzeta was inhibited, one where PKMzeta was made to overexpress, and one control group.

A drug called zeta inhibitory peptide – ZIP – was administered to wipe the rats’ memory in the first group. ZIP does not even require the memory to be in the process of reconsolidation for it to work. Dr. Sacktor says of this “inhibiting PKMζ is like dissembling all one’s file cabinets, regardless of whether they are opened or not. After the drug has worn off, the pieces do not reassemble.” This was definitely observed in the experiment, and the rats were no longer wary of the sugar water.

In the group where PKMzeta was made to overexpress itself, the rats were even more afraid of the sugar-water than the control group. This phenomenon surprised Dr. Sacktor: “If you had a computer hard-disk and the 1 is the PKMzeta and the absence of PKMzeta is the 0, and then you randomly throw in a whole bunch of 1s into the hard-disk,” which is effectively what adding PKMzeta would do, “you’re going to degrade the information, just as you would by throwing in a whole bunch of 0s. But somehow if you throw some in – not a huge amount of 1s – there’s some aspect of the memory in which the 1s tend to go where the other 1s are, and then that makes the memory stronger. But it’s still pretty mysterious.”

 

Applications

As with most major scientific developments, the ability to wield the newfound knowledge often emerges much later, after the discovery.

“Once you understand the storage of information - even though it may take a couple of decades for that to change things – everything gets changed,” says Dr. Sacktor. “For example, when they figured out in 1955 the structure of DNA and convinced everyone that that was the genetic information, you could ask the same question ‘what difference does it make that we know that DNA is why some people’s eyes are blue and some people’s eyes are brown? We kind of knew that from Mendelian genetics anyway!’ It took decades before it actually made much of a difference for medicine.

I can’t predict what the real implications [of PKMzeta] are going to be. But it’s going to be something big.”

Already there is recognition of how many major applications this discovery could yield. Mild reconsolidation blockades have already been tested on subjects suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, results showing promise for the future of this technology.

Other applications could include helping addicts successfully kick their habit, healing some pain caused by central neuropathic pain syndrome (pain that is still felt, even after physical healing) and perhaps slow or stop the progress of degenerative diseases like dementia and Alzheimer’s.

It is clear that this development will lead us in the future of understanding and manipulating memory.

Dr. Sacktor puts it plainly when he says “I suspect the 2000s - this 10-15 year period - are going to be a golden age for understanding long-term memory.”

 

We won’t soon forget this groundbreaking discovery.

Farzeen Foda 

Senior News Editor

 

The faculty of Science offers courses that cross a range of learning objectives and styles, as some courses are lecture-based, while others require a lab component. In between, are Science courses that hold potential for more invigorating student experiences.

To tackle the issues facing the Faculty of Science specifically, an open forum was held on March 21, hosted by the McMaster Science Society to give students an opportunity to voice their concerns about Science education at McMaster.

The informal discussion began with an introduction from University president, Patrick Deane who opened with a snapshot of the current status of Canadian universities.

“Governments do recognize that higher education is important,” said Deane, after explaining that even in the difficult economic times currently facing government spending, every effort is going toward preserving higher education.

Not only is McMaster on the verge of transformation but the country as a whole, is in the process of rethinking education, a long-overdue endeavour. The current model of higher education, noted Deane, has not changed since 1967 and Ontario’s per student funding at the post-secondary education is the lowest across the country.

“I am still very proud of the quality of education, but it is not a sustainable way of doing things,” he said, with particular reference to how a degree is structured and how to best incorporate the foundations of a discipline into the curriculum.

It is important to garner those skills vital to developing a career, while building a holistic experience which may come from experiential education and incorporating research into undergraduate education in a feasible way.

Such far-reaching goals would only be a product of additional funding, something that will not be a reality for many years given the current economic situation. What can be done, however, is reconfigure the university’s budget system, “which might make the money go further,” said Deane. The University is currently in the process of implementing a new budget model.

One consideration proposed by an audience member, was the possibility of outsourcing education to companies that could provide the resources that the University is currently struggling to provide. As attractive as this alternative may seem, it may lend itself to numerous legal complications and there is no deficiency in faculty expertise at this University, explained Deane.

Another audience member expressed the promising role of mentorship programs, while another stated the need for students to take charge of their education as well.

The event concluded with a panel discussion, moderated by Alison Sills, associate professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy.

Panelists spoke about problems faced when trying to implement discussion-based courses. The over-arching problem was that students don’t take charge of self-directed learning and poor test results are reflected in the teaching evaluation of professors.

To be noted as well, is that many students are juggling many different things and prioritization is a natural part of dealing with the copious amounts of work, noted Dr. Kimberly Dej, professor in the department of Biology.

A blended model of discussion and lecture-based approach is one that may be more effective. A financial investment has already been put toward to bringing online courses to McMaster and incorporating a blended model of teaching.

The Faculty of Science is among the faculties that may be used for the pilot project, noted Sills.

Katija Bonin

The Silhouette

 

After five years of conceptual design, paired with a successful grant from the Canada Foundation for Innovation and support from McMaster University, the L.I.V.E. Performance Laboratory is under construction.

Located in McMaster’s Psychology Building, the facility will include a small concert hall and stage with seats for one hundred.

Although seemingly simplistic, it is the incorporated technology that defines this project as a Large Interactive Virtual Environment (L.I.V.E.), which will facilitate research in the areas of music and neuroscience.

The walls of the lab will be lined with a dense array of loudspeakers, which will allow users to mimic virtually any acoustic environment – “from a subway station to Carnegie Hall,” said project director Laurel Trainor.

The lab aims to fuel investigation into basic questions pertaining to the significance and universality of music in human society. “Why do people still go to concerts, when they could just listen to music at home?” said Trainor. “How do people coordinate and entertain together when playing music?”

The audience seats will be wired to measure physiological responses such as heart rate, breathing rate, skin responses, and muscle tension responses through the fingers. Thirty of the seats will be equipped with EEG sensors, enabling researchers to monitor audience neural activity. Performers will also have an EEG system, able to track four musicians at one time.

Additionally, there will be a motion capture system, tracking the movement of performers while making music and audience movements in response to music, and the back of the stage will house an array of monitors to measure the effects of visual stimuli.

The technology will allow researchers to investigate everything from how a musician’s brain copes when fellow performers make a mistake to an audience member’s physical and psychological responses to different types of music.

The concept of such a laboratory originated in McMaster’s Institute for The Music and The Mind, a multi-disciplinary institute incorporating psychology, neuroscience, engineering, music, mathematics, kinesiology and the health sciences. It is an extension of a three-tiered mandate aimed at promoting research in music cognition, music education, and music activities in the community.

It is known that music plays a role in altering mood, and music is traditionally used in many social gatherings, from parties to weddings to funerals. Research has found that “people engaging in music making or dance feel a closer social bond. This facility will enable us to test such theories,” said Trainor.

The design and technology of the facility, although originally intended to discover how music affects people, will also enable research on a variety of topics.

Already, Steven Brown and Matthew Woolhouse, researchers in the field, plan to use the space to test the psychological response to dance, while Sue Becker and Ian Bruce plan to test how well hearing aids work in realistic auditory environments, and Joe Kim, professor of Psychology at McMaster, plans on using the space to forward his research in pedagogy – the method and practice of effective teaching.

Trainor affirmed that this project is “like no other, and its potential is unlimited.”

Construction began in early January, and in the current timeframe, will be complete by Spring 2013.

Kacper Niburski

Assistant News Editor

 

This Valentine’s Day, save the chocolate, burn the roses and stop the cheesy love poems. Such sentimentalities won’t foster a loving relationship, because love is not some innate, abstract emotional response.

It’s just chemistry.

Before I explain further, let me dissuade any possible illusions. No, my heart wasn’t bitterly broken, nor am I of the opinion that Valentine’s Day should be changed into the more fitting holiday “Single Awareness Day,” or SAD for short. Rather, I am a chemist and as a result, I have an affinity, for attraction, contrary to what my ex-girlfriends may say.

Don’t let the glasses, calculator or insurmountable number of scientific formulas delude you. All of it, from the lab coat to the overbite, have made me understand that chemistry and love are the same thing, a constant in the equation of life some may say. There cannot be one without the other, no matter how hard one tries to split the two like atoms.

Sure, some will rebuke the idea that love is even remotely related to chemistry. They’ll question my conclusion. They’ll demonstrate passionate examples of unconditional emotion. They’ll even think it preposterous that I reduce something as inexplicable as love as if it were some mathematical formula, something to be measured. In the end, they’ll feel that they are literally and figuratively being attacked right in the heart.

Bearing the criticism, I dare ask where would any of us be without chemistry. From unicellular organisms to bipedal mammals, humanity’s timeline bubbles with the cream of chemical reactions. Beginning with the Big Bang, Goldilock conditions unraveled the cosmos. A once imperceptibly dense darkness becomes a sparse, chaotic universe. From there, energy shattered, quarks formed and all of a sudden, human beings bustled into existence after billions upon billions of years of evolution.

In a way, humanity’s existence is not one of choice; it is because we are all connected. Whether atomically, chemically or biologically, we are the stuff of the stars. Certainly this is why the most mystifying aspect of the world is not the atoms that compose its structure but the way the atoms are arranged. For from stardust to human flesh to all the other molecular arrangements feasible, we have become beautiful creations.

This is owed entirely to chemistry. Your life, dear reader, is no different. Consider that approximately x amount of years, y amount of months and z amount of weeks ago you were little more than a mothball of cells. In the human Big Bang; or sex, as it is commonly known, sperm met ovum, ovum met sperm, and soon the iterative process of life began. Cells became tissue. Tissue took shape. Waterfall upon waterfall of hormones swelled together. And what was once an amorphous blob of goo became something more than it’s indistinctness could ever mask: you.

It is this science – the analysis and subsequent understanding of the complex processes that form us – that explain why love is but chemistry. Despite how we came into being, we stand as a testament of what a few buckets of water can become. That is to say, we became a chemical equation that can breathe, play catch, eat, complain, fart around, and most importantly, love.

In the end, love is chemistry because we are. As walking-talking chemical reactions, we attempt to stoichiometrically balance our relationships. Counting the moles on our body, we determine the weight of our heart, and let it beat until equilibrium is reached. We search for love, and love searches for us. Kisses become our pipettes; laughs, our titrations. In the chemistry of love, we all try to win the Nobel Prize.

But while this may be true, what does it matter if one can dissect the world in front of them? Attempting to break everything down into a timeline is irrelevant if one doesn’t live in the present. The same could be said of analyzing love as a science. Even if one understands how it works, that does not make them a lover.

So while both life and love necessarily needs chemistry, they are one of the many ways to describe the world. Another way of describing it would be to say: where would any of us, the chemical cesspools that we are, be without love? Or perhaps a better question is what would chemistry be without love?

If you don’t have an answer, it’s okay. Potassium is all you need anyhow. It’s the stuff of love and more importantly, bananas.