Hello, and thanks for this AMA.

I had read a few years ago that there was an ongoing debate about how stable evolutionary change is. I.e. does it mostly occur at a constant rate (outside of special circumstances like human-caused selective breeding) or are species largely stable most of the time and undergo periods of more rapid change.

This may be too broad a question, but is there a consensus about which, if either, is more accurate?

Also, is there any sort of consensus view among mathematical biologists about any aspect of the Jurassic Park character Ian Malcolm?

What is your favorite horror movie?

Hi! You said your next book is about expecting the unexpected. Do you think the Covid pandemic was predictable? It sometimes feels so in the western world, but I know there have been other kinds of coronoviruses elsewhere in the world and things like Ebola as well.

Those are great questions. I'm afraid I will have to duck the first one because that isn't my area of expertise. I primarily work in developmental biology/pattern formation and epidemiology.
That said, there are lots of really interesting questions about stability and robustness of eco systems, which can be tackled using tools similar to the ones I employ.

In terms of Ian Malcolm, I'm pleased to think a mathematician was important enough to be one of the few people who should be afforded a sneak preview of Jurassic Park. I think they could have worked a little bit harder on his explanations of the mathematics of chaos in the film.
I think the butterfly effect is perhaps one of the most misunderstood "popular concepts" in all of science. It's an attempt to explain the fact that chaotic systems (like the weather) are typically extremely sensitive to their initial conditions, but I think it's been misappropriated to suggest we can calculate the probability of a hurricane arising from any flap of a butterfly's wings, which is not possible.

Whilst each flap of a butterfly’s wings does change the air pressure around it, this fluctuation quickly dissipates and is incredibly small in comparison to the large-scale changes in air pressure which determine the weather. Within a few centimetres of a flapping butterfly the disturbance it causes will have been dissipated by the surrounding air molecules, making it difficult to imagine how the minute changes caused by butterfly’s wing flaps could be amplified fast enough to manifestly change the forecasted weather to the degree required to trigger or avert a tornado.

It's a great question.
That we had a pandemic of a respiratory virus I think was predictable and predicted. In that sense we should have been better prepared.
The exact timing and type of pandemic, however, is harder to predict.

Probably the best analogy is to earthquakes. It is almost impossible to predict particular earthquakes on any useful timescale before they happen, but actually we can characterise how frequently earthquakes of particular size happen in the long run. So while we can't prepare for a particular event we can prepare for generalities. In Japan, for example, they have an annual disaster preparedness day precisely because they are aware that the risks of earthquakes (and other natural disasters) there is high. In the UK, our relatively lower risk means that it probably isn't worth while to undertake these preparations.

For more AMAs on this topic, subscribe to r/IAmA_Academic, and check out our other topic-specific AMA subreddits here.

I'm not really a fan of horror as a genre. The last film that I watched that you could even describe coming close to that category is "The Orphanage" directed by Guillermo del Toro. I enjoyed that one, but generally it's not my thing.

[deleted]

Very interesting thanks! Does that mean that scientists are looking at other coronaviruses for the 'next pandemic' or are they looking at lots of different possible viruses? I guess it could be any of them.

Do you think animals raised in human habitats would be the next species to gain sentience or do you think the wild would be a better ecosystem for that?

I'm certainly not at the forefront of these efforts, but we have scientists looking at all sorts of emerging threats. Bird flu, for example has been a popular potential candidate to make the jump from animals to humans and thence to have human to human transmission.

In the UK we have NERVTAG - The New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group for example.

Wow it's a fascinating question and one which goes beyond my expertise as I don't work in evolution.
As far as I understand though we already have several species of non-human animals which would be considered sentient, but to some degree it depends on your definition.

Covid R in the UK rarely exceeded 1.4 in 2022.* So halving transmission would reliably suppress it outside of the most socially active circles, as the vanishing Influenza has shown. Likely with little chance to ever overcome this by mutation, as effective R even decreased over the least two years. Some experiments** hint that this could be done with air filtration in meeting spaces alone. This would also create a good firewall against respiratory pandemics, and avoid the really nasty long-term outcomes of viral infections found in the last few years, like damaged immune systems or vital organs.

So what prevents ventilation subsidies and mandates from being a major goal of politics these days?

* https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-r-value-and-growth-rate ** https://www.fondazionehume.it/data-analysis/controlled-mechanical-ventilation-cmv-works/?print=print

I'm an advocate for better ventilation in schools and workplaces. I think it could make a significant difference both in terms of reducing the spread of covid, but also other airborne diseases.

There is an argument which says some of the reduction in R is due to immunity build up through prior infections and as such we may not be able to sustain R<1 indefinitely. Personally though I would prefer to gain immunity through a regular safe and effective vaccine rather than through infection. It is certainly the case that reductions in transmission provided by ventilation would reduce the effective reproduction number relative to what it would be otherwise, taking the edge of the peaks of waves that we might otherwise experience.

I don't believe though that ventilation/filtration is a silver bullet which will end the pandemic on its own. I think it is a tool in a multi-layered protection strategy that we should be implementing which includes vaccination, improved sick pay, mask wearing in some settings, messaging and testing.

We wrote an opinion piece about this in the BMJ earlier this year: https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o1

Thanks all, my time's up. It's been a blast. Please feel free to leave some feedback here: https://www.menti.com/alsm1ao6jy3h/0

I might be wrong but I think you misphrased your question as you probably wanted to ask whether or not another species would gain sapience, the thing we use to distinguish ourselves from other sentient beings. This article explains the difference nicely: https://www.differencebetween.com/what-is-the-difference-between-sentient-and-sapient/

Sapience would be more along those lines yeah lol

How awesome is our Lord Jesus Christ, amirite?!!

[removed]