swirls and twirls on your palms and fingers

[Identify]

SCI-TECH
Comment: Arches, loops and whorls

By Moody

Sunday, 03 May, 2009 | 06:25 PM PST |

You must have done it before many a time, but there is no harm in doing it once more. Look at your fingertips and run your eyes downward through the palm. As soon as it hits the wrist, you can see the change in skin pattern. The arches, loops and whorls are all gone. Just in case they haven’t, immediately get in touch with the management of the Guinness Book of World Records for you would be the first person on earth to have a palm-like skin on any other part of the body!

You have always known that the swirls and twirls on your palms and fingers are specific to those areas. But any idea why? The chances are that you don’t and in that case you deserve a pat on the back for you qualify to be a scientist because the scientists themselves don’t know for sure why it is what it is!!

Inanities aside, fingerprints have always been strange to scientists. In fact, the palms of the hands are mysteriously different from the rest of the body in several ways. Not only are there fingerprints on the palm and not on other places of the skin, but the skin is also the thickest on the palm, there are more sweat glands and there are no hair follicles. Michael Kucken and Alan Newell of the University of Arizona guess that the same process might be responsible for the formation of brain grooves as well as certain structures in the human eye. Who knows?

Scientifically monitored observations suggest that by the 17th week of pregnancy, the fingerprints of a foetus are set in stone. The uniqueness of fingerprints has been recognised for some two millennia and studied by scientists for over two centuries. But researchers have not been able to explain how they form.

According to a new theoretical computer model, the process most likely begins in the 10th week of gestation, when a foetus is about 80 millimeters long. Writing in the journal Europhysics Letters, Kücken and Newell made out a case that is plausible though not assured. The creation of the patterns, according to them, involves stresses in a sandwiched sheet of skin called the basal layer. In a foetus, the basal layer grows faster than surrounding layers. The basal layer buckles and folds in several directions, forcing complex shapes.

Stresses are created at skin boundaries, including fingernails and knuckle creases, as well as around shrinking fingertip pads. These folds encode the future fingerprint pattern that becomes visible on the skin surface in subsequent weeks. And because the fingerprint pattern is coded underneath the skin surface, it cannot be destroyed by superficial skin injuries.

As is the wont of true scientists, as against those of the pseudo variety, the two readily conceded that they had no idea how exactly the pattern is preserved during the growth of the foetus inside the womb.

The research on the uniqueness and permanence of fingerprints incidentally goes back to the late 19th century. Sir Francis Galton classified fingerprints based on their patterns of arches, loops, and whorls. In 1901, England put into practice a criminal identification system based on Galton’s work. The classification method is still widely used today across the world.

Around the same time, fine-powder dusting was found useful in highlighting the relief pattern in an oily finger smudge — essentially allowing a record to be taken by a camera or lifted with an adhesive material. There have been other ways developed over the years for making prints more visible. All of these contrast-enhancement techniques require the addition of a substance of some sort, which can limit any subsequent analysis — DNA extraction, for instance — of the print.

It was in 1986 that DNA fingerprinting was introduced to track down criminals. Alec Jeffreys, a scientist at the University of Leicester, was studying DNA sequences for genetic markers associated with hereditary diseases when he was approached by the police for help in connecting a suspect to two murders. He realised that his technique of DNA fingerprinting could be successful in that regard and he was right. It did. A young baker with the funny name of Colin Pitchfork was sentenced to two life terms in prison for the murders.

What happens when law is dealing with two suspects who happen to be identical twins with matching DNA sequences? Come back next week.

moody.square@gmail.com

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... orls-ss-08

Copyright © 2009 - Dawn Media Group

[Kasey Wertheim]

E-mail to the author below, send 5/3/09
CC: Dr. Babler, Dr. Newell, Dr. Knucken
Re: http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... orls-ss-08

It's a good thing you don't have a comment form on the website, because your claims would have been lambasted by as well as several other prominent researchers of the day. First, they aren't "swirls and twirls" for crying out loud. They are whorls, as in your title.

You insult us (researchers and scientists) when you tell the layperson "you deserve a pat on the back for you qualify to be a scientist because the scientists themselves don’t know for sure why it is what it is!!"

We do know. The topic has been studied for over a century. There have been numerous articles in multiple peer reviewed scientific journals. Just because you or your sources don't do your homework doesn't mean the research doesn't exist. Kücken and Newell would be insulted.

I published a literary review in the Journal of Forensic Sciences in 2001 dealing with the topic. Dr. William Babler has examined serial cross-sections of fetal skin to confirm the theories you cite.

Good reporting doesn't mean insulting the scientific community to create a flashy article. You can make the point some other way than reporting fiction. In the end, your style will only come back to hurt you and your credibility will be diminished by pushing over the line just to get the "wow" factor.

-Kasey Wertheim

[Kasey Wertheim]

by Moody (via e-mail)
4/5/09
TO: Kasey Wertheim
CC: Babler, Newell, Kucken

Dear Kasey Wertheim,

Many thanks indeed for taking time out to lambast the comments that clearly irritated you. It only goes to show your commitment to the subject. Before replying to the mail, I chekced out your CV on the internet and, I realize that you have spent a lifetime in the field and have every reason and right to say whatever you want on the subject. Havihg said that, let me put everything into context in the hope that it will lessen the level of irritation at your end. In para-wise flow, here I go:

Your wrote:
"... they aren't "swirls and twirls" for crying out loud. They are whorls, as in your title."

Reply:

As you have kindly acknowledged, I do know the difference between 'whorls' and 'swirls'. Since it is not a scientific publication, such alternatives are everyday part of a columnist's writing. A layperson writing for the layperson; nothing more.

You wrote:
"You insult us (researchers and scientists) when you tell the layperson ..."

Reply:

There is absolutely no intention to insult researchers and scientists. It is in them that the world at large has a hope for having a better understanding about the planet we inhabit and beyond. If you care to read it again, you will see that the first two paragraphs are followed by the third para that starts with the words, "Inanities aside, ..." So, you see, I have myself called the paragraph that has irritated you "an inanity" which is what it was meant to be.

You wrote:
"We do know. The topic has been studied for over a century ... Kücken and Newell would be insulted."

Reply:
The computer model studies as well as the findings of the two scientsts have been duly carried along with what they have to say about not being sure about "how exactly the pattern is preserved during the growth of the foetus inside the womb." In fact, if you look closely, the qualification clause related to Kücken and Newell starts with the tribute, "As is the wont of true scientists ..." How can this be called an insult?

You wrote:
"I published a literary review ... to confirm the theories you cite."

Reply:
As you would yourself realize, not every research gets a mention in a newspaper column worth all of 650 words. In your own words, however, I have cited the relevant theories in the piece which -- at least to an objective third party -- would confirm that I was not interested in half-truths.

You wrote:

"Good reporting doesn't mean insulting the scientific community ... your credibility will be diminished by pushing over the line just to get the "wow" factor."

Reply:

I am grateful, humbled and honred that you worry so much about my credibility. What I fail to understand, however, is the kind of 'wow' factor that you think I am targeting.

And, finally, your comment to Kücken, Newell and Babler to whom you have forwarded the mail. Gentlemen, I respect your work as mch as Kasey does -- if not more -- and, like him, look forward to your next steps. If you share Kasey's views, please accept my apologies. But let me explain a few things: first, it is a column with the title X-Square -- X being an undefined commodity and its square can only be that much more confusing. It tries to popularise science by talking about scientific progress in layperson's language in a publication which has in its audience people ranging from 15 years to 75. Second, all these poeple live in a society where science is not a very popular subject; all they think of science is their notions about consumerist technology like mobile phones, MP3s and such other flashy stuff. Keeping that audience interested in "unfashionable" science needs some flashy writing every now and then. However, it shall not go, and has never gone, beyond professional boundaries. For someone who is out to promote science and scienific attitude, it is unimaginable to "insult" the scientific community. I hope that the first two paragraphs of the column, which have upset Kasey no end, will be viewed with the sense of humor that they deserves. I also hope that your involvement in research has not deprived you of this sense of humor. If it has, kindly accept my apologies for everything that I have written. You -- and, indeed, Kasey -- are many times more knowledgable on the subject and I have no issues admitting it.

I thank you, Kasey Wertheim, once again for taking the trouble of letting me know of what you think about the writeup and for alertring your friends in the community. I can't thank you enough really.

Regards
Moody
--------------------------------------

[Kasey Wertheim]

TO: Moody
CC: Babler, Newell

Moody,

I am happy to see your reply and I do appreciate your dedication to spreading the word about science. What I don’t care for, and it’s not just you (believe me), is to do so at the expense of others. I still view your article as condescending to researchers/scientists by basically saying they are on the same level as the layperson who doesn’t know anything about pattern formation. Clearly that’s incorrect. But I admit you do so, as you state, to engage readers who otherwise may be uninterested in science. I do applaud your effort, but I still feel you can do so without “swirl and twirl” inaccuracies and without implying that your esteemed sources don’t know the reasons for the events they model.

-Kasey