I was surprised and pleased to find my simple graphic on the cover of the journal Physiologia Plantarum.
Quoting “ALL SORTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEN” by Walter Besant.
There was so much to cherish, and to maintain. Let us hope for future reconception.
October 10 and 11, 2016.
Contributors presented interesting new findings, approaches and techniques, while the outlook and prospect of “enhancing photosynthesis” seems not to have changed significantly over many years. Crop plants rely totally on the same photosynthetic mechanisms as those used by all plants, and some bacteria. I like the idea of tinkering with these machines to see what might be done. Totally unexpected results, rather than targets, will be the most useful. Important discoveries and new possibilities always arise from a problem in understanding, and from thinking of ways to solve it. There were definitely some important problems, good ideas, and experimental tests freely reported at the meeting. Some were very good indeed. I shall comment on these. It was unfortunate that the meeting opened with an unscheduled ten minutes intelligible only to those already aware of some sort of bid for funding, thus excluding most of those present. I was happy to be in the majority on this.
There is progress – resting always on the possibility of ideas being open to examination and criticism.
The 13th International Colloquium on Endocytobiology and Symbiosis was held in Kyoto from September 10 to 14, 2016. A fine poster advertised the colloquium.
The organiser was Junichi Obokata of Kyoto Prefectoral University. My painstakingly generous local host was Mitsumasa Hanaoka of Chiba University. I am so grateful to them both, as to the colloquium staff and fellow participants.
At Mitsumasa’s invitation I gave a seminar in his laboratory in Chiba, immediately after getting off the train from Narita airport on 8 September, and a longer and better version on 9 September at Kyoto University. Both seminars were entitled Mitochondria, ageing and separate sexes, and elicited excellent questions.
My plenary lecture at the colloquium itself was an account of progress with a consistent theme over a number of years and in different laboratories, countries, and universities, including recent results published in 2016. This lecture was entitled Why chloroplasts and mitochondria retain their own genomes and genetic systems: Co-location for Redox Regulation of gene expression.
The full programme of the Colloquium is available, and includes abstracts.
Photosynthetic and Respiratory complexes: from structure to function in Verviers, Belgium, from August 13 to 16, 2016. A satellite conference organised by Egbert Boekema and Pierre Cardol. The programme was full of interest.
I gave a Plenary Lecture soon after arrival: Redox control of thylakoid protein phosphorylation and reaction centre gene transcription. Molecular recognition redistributes mobile light-harvesting antennae and adjusts the stoichiometry of photosystems I and II.
The 17th International Congress on Photosynthesis Research. Photosynthesis in a Changing World took place in Maastricht, The Netherlands, from 7 to 12 August 2016. The organisers were Roberta Croce and Herbert van Amerongen.
My own contribution, in the session Evolution of Photosynthesis, was about photosynthesis in a radically changing world. It was entitled Conserved two-component transcriptional redox regulation in cyanobacteria and chloroplasts. Implications for the origin and evolutionary trajectory of oxygenic photosynthesis.
The full programme of the Congress.
Photosynthetic Electron and Proton Transfer in Plants and Algae took place in Arnhem on the 4th to the 7th of August 2016.
Many thanks to the organisers; Anja Krieger, Jeremy Harbinson, and Giovanni Finazzi; as to all participants.
My own presentation had the title Redox control of chloroplast protein phosphorylation and reaction centre gene transcription. Regulatory coupling between photosynthetic electron transport and gene expression.
This morning I attended a discussion meeting at the House of Lords concerning the Higher Education and Research Bill.
In my opinion there is an urgent need to oppose this disastrous Bill.
The Convention for Higher Education has produced a summary of the many reasons for doing so.
These include, quoting from the e-mail of invitation to today’s meeting:-
- the proposed reorganisation of research in the UK (including abolition of the Research Councils’ royal charters);
- the proposed introduction of a lower bar for entry into English higher education by new ‘alternative providers’;
- the proposal to abolish Privy Council involvement in the granting of English university title, and to vest all such powers (including withdrawal of title) in a new body entirely appointed by and overseen by the Secretary of State.
The Bill seems designed to consolidate Failing management in UK universities.
In its 117 pages, the Bill contains neither definition nor description of the term university. The Bill has no declared aim. What is its purpose?
Teaching is to be overseen by an Office for Students.
The White paper’s short section “Research” is entirely about United Kingdom Research and Innovation, a superstructure for the Research Councils. Is research itself no longer a core university activity?
From the Higher Education and Research Bill:-
UK research and innovation functions
(a) carry out research into science, technology, humanities and new ideas,
(b) facilitate, encourage and support research into science, technology, humanities and new ideas,
(c) facilitate, encourage and support the development and exploitation of science, technology and new ideas,
(d) collect, disseminate and advance knowledge in and in connection with science, technology, humanities and new ideas,
(e) promote awareness and understanding of science, technology, humanities and new ideas,
(f) provide advice on any matter relating to any of its functions, and
(g) promote awareness and understanding of its activities.
“…and new ideas” – listed as if these are a separate field of enquiry. I wonder what the authors imagine research to be?
A member of academic staff in a real university researches and teaches. These two activities are complementary; each supports the other. Research qualifies a university teacher to take students to the boundary of existing knowledge, to try to see beyond it, and to question what they find there.
Mitochondria, ageing and separate sexes
This seminar was given at the kind invitation of Prof. Dr. Mariusz Nowacki.
I received excellent questions and comments from members of an expert audience. There seemed to be agreement on my view of the experiment we should do next.
It was a pleasure to meet Mariusz’s lab members, including Dr. Estienne Swart and a special host, Dr. Sarah Allen.
I also appreciated the introduction to colleagues. Prof. Dr. André Schneider in particular had fascinating research to report on protein import into mitochondria, with, he believes and I agree, so much to tell us about the origin and evolution of eukaryotes. André thanked me for acknowledging past discussion with Jeff Schatz, whom he knew as his postdoctoral advisor and mentor, and who had provided the first compelling evidence for mitochondrial DNA. In about 1996, in Lund, Sweden, Jeff had recommended not wasting time on Xenopus oocyte mitochondria since they were “really boring; no cytochromes, no ox-phos”. I tried but failed to explain why I thought this was an interesting comment.
André’s comment in Bern was prompted by an acknowledgement slide I’d prepared, and worried about, thanking Jeff and also Lars Ernster for early encouragement. I can’t be sure about Jeff’s view, but Lars definitely liked the mitochondrial theory of ageing, and even showed a summary graphic, Figure 1 from my 1996 Journal of Theoretical Biology paper, in a seminar he later gave in Lund. I recalled apologising to Ernster, an outstanding biochemist and experimentalist, Nobel Chemistry Committee member and spokesman, for proposing “just an hypothesis”.
His reply? – “This is what we do!”