A Mess of Causes

Chapter 9

The difficulties in speaking about causes in biology have been acknowledged
for over two
centuries.¹
It’s simply that the problems had been largely put aside within the period of molecular
biology because of the expectation that our quickly rising powers of minute
evaluation would convey full causal understanding. Biology would quickly be rid
of its troublesome language of life in favor of well-behaved molecular
mechanisms. And but right now, after a number of many years of beautiful progress in
molecular analysis, the battle to suit our understanding of residing
exercise into the comfy garb of acquainted causal rationalization seems to be
extra hopeless than ever.

On one hand, most biologists appear unaware that there’s a downside right here —
or, a minimum of, they’re unwilling to betray their consciousness in skilled
circles. Alternatively (as we’ll see on this chapter), their
scientific descriptions may hardly sign extra dramatically the failure
of the standard causal explanations. We appear to be wanting right here at one other
illustration of
blindsight.

In
Chapter 7
we thought of epigenetics, which is usually taken to be about the way in which
epigenetic “marks” on chromosomes alter gene expression. However no sooner
did epigenetics achieve biologists’ consideration than researchers started puzzling
over the query, “Do epigenetic marks alter gene expression, or do
adjustments in gene expression alter the marks?” And the query remains to be
with us. Based on Luca Magnani, a most cancers researcher at Imperial
Faculty London,

It’s a completely reputable query and we have to deal with it. The
reply is both going to kill the sector [of epigenetics], or make it very
essential
(quoted in Ledford 2015).

“Both kill the sector or make it essential”. The remark expresses
absolute confidence that we are able to uncover unambiguous causation, which is able to
in flip settle the matter: both epigenetic adjustments trigger gene
exercise (wherein case they’re essential), or they’re mere
results of that exercise, with little significance. It should be one
approach or the opposite. The final concept is that, if one thing is to contribute
to scientific understanding, it should be the indeniable reason behind an
indeniable impact. And but, as we’ll now see, this cussed
insistence on causal readability frequently prods organic researchers (we
will give attention to molecular biology) to supply embarrassingly incoherent
explanations.

The tumor suppressor p53 is a grasp sensor of stress that controls many
organic features, together with [embryo] implantation, cell-fate
choices, metabolism, and getting older … Like a posh barcode, the
capability of p53 to operate as a central hub that integrates outlined stress
alerts into decisive mobile responses, in a time- and cell-type
dependent method, is facilitated by the extraordinary complexity of its
regulation. Key elements of this barcode are the autoregulation loops,
which positively or negatively regulate p53’s actions.

To begin with, then, we’ve got a grasp sensor (p53) that
controls numerous elementary mobile processes, and but is itself
wholly depending on the alerts it receives and is topic to
“terribly complicated” regulation by sure autoregulation
loops. Whereas all these loops regulate p53 (some positively and a few
negatively), one in all them, designated “p53/mdm2,”

is the grasp autoregulation loop, and it dictates the destiny of an organism
by controlling the expression degree and exercise of p53. It’s subsequently
not shocking that this autoregulation loop is itself topic to
various kinds of regulation, which will be divided into two subgroups
…
(Lu 2010).

So the grasp controlling sensor is itself topic to a grasp
controlling course of (one in all a number of regulatory loops) that
dictates the destiny of the organism. However this grasp loop, it
occurs, is in flip regulated in numerous manners (because the writer
goes on to say in the remainder of the article) by an entire collection of
“multi-layered” processes, together with some which might be themselves “topic to
direct regulation by mdm2” — that’s, they’re regulated by a component of
the regulatory loop they’re speculated to be regulating.

It’s exhausting to consider that the confusion right here is unavoidable. By now
each biologist is aware of how regulatory processes lengthen outward with out
restrict, connecting in a technique or one other with nearly each side of the
cell. However this solely underscores the undisciplined terminological
confusion persevering with to deprave molecular organic description right now.
When key regulators are in flip regulated, and controllers have their
fates underwritten or redirected by different gamers, the place inside the internet of
mutual interplay can we single out a grasp controller able to
dictating mobile fates? And if we are able to’t, what are respected
scientists doing once they declare to have recognized such a controller, or,
relatively, numerous such controllers?

Right here once more we’ve got the identical terminological confusion, with p53
figuring out mobile outcomes, whereas it’s itself regulated by many
pervasive mobile processes. However the authors conclude their paper with
these remarkably wise statements:

The big variety of p53 regulatory mechanisms and their cooperation in
triggering particular expression programmes stay open areas for
investigation. Systematic measurements in a number of circumstances collectively
with fashions integrating the a number of layers of regulation on p53 exercise
might be required to decipher the complexity of p53 operate.

Why not depart the matter there, with this admirable spirit of openness to
the analysis outcomes as given, along with an acknowledgment of virtually
unsurveyable complexity? Why are so many researchers pushed to stick on
high of this image a contradictory assertion of open-and-shut causal
dedication?

And I do imply pushed. How else to elucidate a remark that might
function a becoming postscript to our dialogue of RNA splicing in
Chapter 8.
Brenton Graveley, a geneticist on the College of Connecticut Stem Cell
Institute, reported in 2011 on the invention of a splice variant of the
protein generally known as
FOX-P1
— a variant that has a task within the technology of stem cells. After
usefully elucidating a few of what goes on, he affords this as his
conclusion:

What controls the
[FOX] splicing change? What splicing elements are liable for flipping this
change, and the way are their expression and actions regulated? Answering
these questions is like looking down the “chicken-or-the-egg” paradox, however
they are going to in the end uncover the grasp regulator of stem cell
pluripotency
(Graveley 2011).

So within the very act of acknowledging the basic “chicken-or-egg”
paradox of all organic causation, he reflexively reverts to a type of
creedal affirmation of a still-hidden, however eventually-to-be-found Grasp
Regulator.

If all those that use the language of biologically all-powerful management are
actually making an attempt to explain one thing like “essential influencers,” then
that’s completely high quality. However affect will not be about mechanism and management;
the issues at challenge simply don’t have controlling powers. Nor,
regardless of Graveley’s suggestion, is it a couple of easy flipping of yes-or-no
switches. What we see, relatively, is a continuous mutual adaptation,
interplay, and coordination explicable solely when it comes to the purposeful
concepts by means of which we grasp the contextualized that means of what’s
happening
(Chapter 6).

What we see, that’s, as soon as we begin following out all of the interactions at
a molecular degree, will not be some mechanism dictating the destiny or
controlling an exercise of the organism. Somewhat (as I’ve been
emphasizing all through the previous chapters), we merely observe an
organism-wide,
narrative
coherence — a purposeful, end-directed, story-like coherence not possible to
elucidate from a purely bodily perspective. Solely as far as they’re
caught up on this purposeful story do the person molecular gamers
discover their correct roles.

The misrepresentation of this natural and rational coherence in favor of
supposed controlling mechanisms will not be an harmless inattention to
language; it’s a elementary misrepresentation of actuality on the central
level the place we’re challenged to know the character of residing
issues.

In mammals, the anatomical construction within the mind that governs circadian
rhythms is a small space consisting of roughly 15,000 neurons
localized within the anterior hypothalamus, known as the suprachiasmatic nucleus
(SCN). This “central pacemaker” within the SCN receives alerts from the
surroundings and, in flip, coordinates the oscillating exercise of
peripheral clocks, that are situated in nearly all tissues
(Berger and Sassone-Corsi 2016).

And but (as this assertion already signifies), ongoing analysis has
revealed distinct “clocks” in several mammalian organs and tissues, and
certainly in each cell. These “clocks”, it seems, should not merely on the
receiving finish of a central, governing coordination, however relatively are
themselves elements in that coordination, and in addition, it now appears, are
interwoven with nearly all elements of the organism’s physiology —
metabolism, copy, cell development and differentiation, immune
responses, central nervous system features …

In every of those areas the search for causes and grasp controllers leads
to the standard perplexity about who’s doing what to whom. For instance:
“Though metabolism is regarded as primarily downstream of the mobile
clock, quite a few research present proof that metabolic cycles can function
independently from and even affect circadian rhythms”
(Kumar and Takahashi 2010).
On the molecular degree, one analysis staff remarks that the enzymatic
operate of a sure clock protein “could also be managed by altering cell
power ranges, or conversely, may regulate them”
(Doi et al. 2006).
Typically: “It appears that evidently connections between the circadian clock and
most (if not all) physiological processes are bidirectional”
(Yang 2010).

What we’re gaining from all this analysis is an excellent portrait of the
organism as a rhythmic being. Investigators haven’t discovered controlling
mechanisms that single-handedly set up or govern the circadian rhythms
of the organism, however relatively are discovering how these rhythms come to
expression at each degree and in each precinct of the organism — maybe
extra centrally right here and extra peripherally there, however altogether in a
single, organism-wide concord that can be linked to environmental
rhythms. There is no such thing as a wise approach, as a scientist, to talk of explicit
mechanisms that clarify this concord. As a substitute, each remoted
“mechanism” is discovered to be a reflection of the concord, and we
thereby achieve additional, detailed understanding of how the entire organism
features as a being in time.

Is any of this a shock? Ought to we count on, say, {that a} “grasp
regulator” of digestion exists? Would it not be the abdomen? The small
gut? The big gut? The pancreas? The liver and gall
bladder? The metabolism going down in each cell? The mind that sends
numerous coordinating nervous alerts to completely different organs? The mouth that
initiates every little thing? We will surely look extra to the abdomen than,
say, to the center, however the truth stays that the organism as an entire is
the closest factor we’ve got to a “grasp regulator”. What we see within the
separate, “mechanistic” clocks and regulators of circadian rhythms is
merely the functioning of these rhythms in essentially the most recognizable or most
focal locations. However they merely placed on extra apparent show the rhythmic
functioning of your entire physique.

Sydney Brenner — who obtained a 2002 Nobel prize for his work on C.
elegans — acknowledged that growth “will not be a neat, sequential
course of … It’s every little thing happening on the identical time”. Even
concerning the rigorously mapped cell lineages of this “easy” roundworm,
“there may be hardly a shorter approach of giving a rule for what goes on than simply
describing what there may be”. In different phrases, the one “rule” for the
growth of this worm is your entire developmental description of it.
When critics urged he had not likely come to an understanding of the
worm, however had “solely” described it, Brenner responded, “I’m unsure that
there essentially is something extra to know than what it’s”
(Lewin 1984).

The difficulties of linear, causal rationalization encountered by the C.
elegans researchers weren’t unintentional. You possibly can’t clarify an
organism of that means, and also you don’t must. You want solely enable it, like
any significant textual content, to talk ever extra vividly and profoundly, in ever
better element, in order to yield up its distinctive and unrepeatable
story.

The separate processes don’t make tidy explanations as a result of they aren’t
actually separate and should not doing only one factor. They’re harmonizing
with every little thing else that is happening within the organism. We achieve
understanding once we be taught to acknowledge this concord in each side of
the organism. Numerous analyses can play a vital position in bringing
readability to our understanding, however the full image takes form solely when
the analytical threads are woven again into the bigger material of that means.

The terminology so naturally resorted to right here vividly evokes language,
that means, and communication — one thing we noticed exemplified in
Chapter 2.
However, after all, this utilization is often handled as “mere metaphor”.
Signaling pathways have lengthy been thought to be neat, linear sequences of
molecular interactions by which an preliminary encounter — say, the binding of
a hormone to a cell membrane receptor — results in a predetermined end result.
It’s nearly as if the language of molecules and cells had been merely one in all
mechanism and logic — not a real language in any respect.

However the language is in actual fact a lot richer than that. Signaling pathways
assist to take care of a coherence of that means inside and between cells. Take,
for instance, the work by a staff of molecular biologists on the Free
College of Brussels. They investigated how signaling pathways work together
or “crosstalk” with one another. Tabulating the cross-signalings between
simply 4 such pathways yielded what they known as a “horror graph”, and
shortly it started to look as if “every little thing does every little thing to
every little thing”
(Dumont et al. 2001),
very similar to the way in which any given time period in a significant textual content can modify the
meanings of many different phrases. Different researchers converse of a
“collaborative” course of that may be “pictured as a desk round which
decision-makers debate a query and reply collectively to info
put to them”
(Levy et al. 2010).

Even contemplating a single membrane receptor certain by a hormonal or different
sign, you could find your self wanting, conservatively, at a billion
doable states, relying on how that receptor is modified by its
interactions with different molecules. Regardless of earlier perception, there isn’t any
easy binary rule distinguishing deactivated receptors from these
activated by some mixture of alerts in a selected context. “The
activated receptor seems to be much less like a machine and extra like a …
likelihood cloud of an nearly infinite variety of doable states, every of
which can differ in its organic exercise”
(Mayer et al. 2009).

Our downside lies in adequately imagining the truth. When a single
protein can mix with a number of hundred completely different modifier molecules,
resulting in virtually infinite combinatorial potentialities, and when that
protein itself is an infinitesimal level within the huge, turbulent molecular
sea of continuous alternate that’s the cell, and when the cell is one
occasion of possibly a number of trillion cells of some 250 completely different main sorts
within the human physique — in muscle and bone, liver and mind, blood and artery
— effectively, it will be comprehensible if a few of these searching for mechanistic or
computer-like “controllers” most popular to not stare too lengthy at this
image.

However, we must always remember the fact that the “collaborative” course of
talked about above entails not only one desk with “negotiators” gathered
round it, however numerous tables with numerous members, and with
influences radiating in all instructions as numerous native “choices” are
made in a fashion in some way disciplined by the immaterial unity
(Chapter 6)
and multidimensioned pursuits of the organism as an entire.

In different phrases, not solely are the weather of a person signaling
pathway extraordinarily versatile and adaptive; the person pathway itself,
as soon as regarded as discrete and well-defined, doesn’t actually exist —
actually not as a separate “mechanism”.

In sum: messages should not bodily discrete, and they don’t fly again and
forth as components of a predefined mobile logic. They transfer as
dynamically sculptured, interwoven patterns of drive and power. Their
meanings are mimed or gestured — neither translated into, nor decreased to,
a type of expressionless Morse code, nor impelled alongside exactly incised
channels like laptop directions. And what holds them collectively amid
the ceaseless movement and crosstalk and molecular transformation of the
mobile plasm is the unity of that means that’s the complete cell and complete
organism. This unity is there for us to look at immediately, and all of us
acknowledge it, whether or not with
blindsight
or in any other case.

Field 9.1 illustrates the issues we’ve been discussing, however does so with
particular reference to the molecular biology of gene expression.

Consider a machine. Having conceived what we would like it to do, we design it
to be a closed system whose supposed functioning is kind of proof against
contextual interference. And we attempt to do a lot the identical in lots of
scientific demonstrations. For instance, we are able to create a vacuum in a
chamber, after which launch a leaf from the highest of the chamber. It falls
like a stone.

In fact, leaves in nature usually journey upward. However the experiment in
the chamber allows us to look at the singular and lawful play of gravity,
with none disturbing “interference” from the resistance or motion of
air. We are able to then — and solely then — say that gravity seems to
make the leaf fall, simply as the easy legal guidelines governing the gears and
springs of a mechanical watch make the watch carry out as a dependable
keeper of time.

However when the biologist tries to see an animal in the identical mechanistic
mild, as a closed system with out interfering elements, the try fails
miserably. It is because, for the animal, contextual interference is
the entire level. Because the that means of its exercise shifts from second to
second, so, too, does the contextual significance of all the small print of
its life.

For instance, when a deer is grazing in a meadow, its glimpse of a vaguely
canine kind within the distance adjustments the that means of every little thing from the
flowers and grass the deer was consuming, to its personal inner digestive
processes, to the expression of its genes. This occurs, not as a result of the
distant kind is exerting some unusual bodily drive upon the deer, however
as a result of that kind turns into a part of a now all of a sudden shifted sample of
that means.³

Or (to give attention to the mobile degree): when a cell enters into mitosis, simply
about each element of its physiology and chemistry takes on an altered
that means in mild of the altering
narrative
context. The whole lot is now heading towards a brand new final result. Molecules that
had been taking part in a single set of interactions (and will simply nonetheless
achieve this in purely bodily phrases) now enter into very completely different
intermolecular relations. Equally with a cell experiencing warmth shock,
oxygen deprivation or different stress, a cell coming into contact with new
neighbors, or a cell continuing alongside a path of embryonic differentiation.

Actually we are able to nonetheless establish unambiguous causes within the organism. It’s
at all times doable to slender the circumstances of our experiments so severely
{that a} constant “causal arrow” for a selected interplay emerges
beneath these circumstances. However the entire level of life’s adaptability
is to hunt altered circumstances based on current wants and
pursuits. That is why there will be no fastened syntax, no mechanical
fidelity of relations among the many components. Somewhat than being a closed system
relative to this or that trigger, the organism is endlessly abandoning the
coordinating rules of its outdated context in favor of a brand new and
ever-changing that means. Its story is at all times evolving.

I titled this part, “The Downside of Causation is Elementary to
Biology”. The issue I had in thoughts was that of getting clear concerning the
very nature of causation in biology. It differs from the issue of
causation within the bodily sciences. Organisms manifest a fluid, integral,
harmonizing form of causation that’s extra like a play of the
multi-dimensional causes for issues than a set of one-dimensional
mechanical interactions. It’s extra just like the wealthy interaction of that means in
an unfolding poem than a inflexible syntax or logic.

Biologists, then again, appear to be fixated on the “elementary
challenge” of distinguishing clear-cut trigger from clear-cut impact within the
common bodily sense:

Regardless of intensive research of genome group previously decade, a
elementary challenge stays concerning genomic interactions and genome
group as a trigger or a consequence of gene expression. This downside
can be pertinent to RNAs, which can have regulatory features in
transcription relatively than being merely merchandise of transcription
(Li and Fu 2019).

Sadly, there may be little if any effort to elucidate simply what hangs
upon this “elementary challenge” — or what is perhaps the implications of the
undeniable fact that the problem seems irresolvable as long as we insist upon
unambiguous bodily causation as the idea for organic understanding.
For the sake of any who could not but be satisfied about simply how totally
the issue of trigger and impact has bedeviled molecular biologists, I
current as a type of appendix to this chapter
Box 9.1,
which illustrates the issue with particular reference to the molecular
biology of gene expression. (You needn’t fear concerning the technical
particulars; the overall sense of the remarks is all that issues right here.)

Notes

In talking of purely bodily causation, we actually wouldn’t say that
components exist for the sake of one another. However Kant’s remedy of
these points was central to a substantial amount of organic dialogue throughout
the next many years — and nonetheless surfaces regularly right now, a minimum of
amongst philosophers of biology. However the technically oriented coaching of
biologists themselves now not encourages a familiarity with decisive
points on the basis of their very own self-discipline.

Sources

Berger, Shelley L. and Paolo Sassone-Corsi (2016). “Metabolic Signaling
to Chromatin”, Chilly Spring Harbor Views in Biology vol. 8,
no. 11.
doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a019463

Deng, Wulan and Gerd A. Blobel (2010). “Do Chromatin Loops Present
Epigenetic Gene Expression States?”, Present Opinion in Genetics and
Improvement vol. 20, pp. 548-54.
doi:10.1016/j.gde.2010.06.007

Doi, Masao, Jun Hirayama and Paolo Sassone-Corsi (2006). “Circadian
Regulator CLOCK Is a Histone Acetyltransferase”, Cell vol. 125 (Might
5), pp. 497-508.
doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.03.033

Dumont, Jacques E., Fréderic Pécasse and Carine Maenhaut
(2001). “Crosstalk and Specificity in Signalling: Are We Crosstalking
Ourselves into Common Confusion?”, Mobile Signalling vol. 13,
pp. 457-63.
doi:10.1016/S0898-6568(01)00168-1

See Also

Proof of the intentional use of black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger) within the Roman Netherlands | Antiquity

Fraser, Peter and Wendy Bickmore (2007). “Nuclear Group of the
Genome and the Potential for Gene Regulation”, Nature vol. 447 (Might
24), pp. 413-17.
doi:10.1038/nature05916

Fukushima, Hiroto S., Hiroyuki Takeda and Ryohei Nakamura (2019).
“Focused in Vivo Epigenome Modifying of H3K27me3”, Epigenetics and
Chromatin vol. 12, no. 17.
doi:10.1186/s13072-019-0263-z

Gilbert, David M. (2002). “Replication Timing and Transcriptional
Management: Past Trigger and Impact”, Present Opinion in Cell Biology
vol. 14, no. 3 (June 1), pp. 377-83.
doi:10.1016/S0955-0674(02)00326-5

Göndör, Anita and Rolf Ohlsson (2009). “Chromosome Crosstalk in Three
Dimensions”, Nature vol. 461 (September 10), pp. 212-17.
doi:10.1038/nature08453

Graveley, Brenton R. (2011). “Splicing Up Pluripotency”, Cell vol.
147 (September 30), pp. 22-24.
doi:10.1016/j.cell.2011.09.004

Hafner, Antonina, Martha L. Bulyk, Ashwini Jambhekar and Galit Lahav
(2019). “The A number of Mechanisms That Regulate p53 Exercise and Cell
Destiny”, Nature Opinions Molecular Cell Biology vol. 20, no. 4
(April).
doi:10.1038/s41580-019-0110-x

Kaiser, Jocelyn (2010). “Genes Hyperlink Epigenetics and Most cancers”,
Science vol. 330, no. 6004 (October 29), p. 577.
doi:10.1126/science.330.6004.577

Kant, Immanuel (2000). Critique of Judgment, translated by J. H.
Bernard. Amherst NY: Prometheus Books. Initially printed in German in
1790. Obtainable at https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48433

Kumar, Vivek and Joseph S. Takahashi (2010). “PARP across the Clock”,
Cell vol. 142 (September 17), pp. 841-43.
doi:10.1016/j.cell.2010.08.037

Ledford, Heidi (2015). “The Genome Unwrapped”, Nature vol. 528
(December 3), pp. S12–S13.
doi:10.1038/528S12a

Levy, Emmanuel D., Christian R. Landry and Stephen W. Michnick (2010).
“Signaling by means of Cooperation”, Science vol. 328 (Might 21), pp.
983-84.
doi:10.1126/science.1190993

Lewin, Roger (1984). “Why Is Improvement So Illogical?” Science
vol. 224 (June 22), pp. 1327-29.
doi:10.1126/science.6374894

Li, Xiao and Xiang-Dong Fu (2019). “Chromatin-Related RNAs as
Facilitators of Practical Genomic Interactions”, Nature Opinions
Genetics vol. 20 (September), pp. 503-19.
doi:10.1038/s41576-019-0135-1

Lu, Xin (2010). “Tied Up in Loops: Constructive and Damaging Autoregulation
of p53”, Chilly Spring Harbor Views in Biology (December 9).
doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a000984

Mayer, Bruce J., Michael L. Blinov and Leslie M. Loew (2009). “Molecular
Machines or Pleiomorphic Ensembles: Signaling Complexes Revisited”,
Journal of Biology vol. 8, no. 9, article 81.
doi:10.1186/jbiol185

Piaceri, Irene, Beatrice Raspanti, Andrea Tedde et al. (2015).
“Epigenetic Modifications in Alzheimer’s Illness: Trigger or Impact?”,
Journal of Alzheimer’s Illness, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 1169-73.
doi:10.3233/JAD-141452

Relton, Caroline (2012). “Epidemiology and Epigenetics — A Marriage Made
in Heaven?”, Oxford College Press Weblog (March 28).
https://blog.oup.com/2012/03/epidemiology-epigenetics-journal/

Schneider, Robert and Rudolf Grosschedl (2007). “Dynamics and Interaction
of Nuclear Structure, Genome Group, and Gene Expression”,
Genes and Improvement vol. 21, pp. 3027-43.
doi:10.1101/gad.1604607

Stadhouders, Ralph, Guillaume J. Filion and Thomas Graf (2019).
“Transcription Elements and 3D Genome Conformation in Cell-Destiny Selections”,
Nature vol. 569 (Might 16), pp. 345-54.
doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1182-7

Steensel, Bas van and Eileen E. M. Furlong (2019). “The Position of
Transcription in Shaping the Spatial Group of the Genome”,
Nature Opinions Molecular Cell Biology vol. 20, pp. 327-37.
doi:10.1038/s41580-019-0114-6

Weiner, Assaf, Amanda Hughes, Moran Yassour et al. (2010).
“Excessive-Decision Nucleosome Mapping Reveals Transcription-Dependent
Promoter Packaging”, Genome Analysis vol. 20, pp. 90-100.
doi:10.1101/gr.098509.109

Yang, Xiaoyong (2010). “A Wheel of Time: The Circadian Clock, Nuclear
Receptors, and Physiology”, Genes and Improvement vol. 24, pp.
741-47.
doi:10.1101/gad.1920710

This doc: https://bwo.life/bk/trigger.htm

Steve Talbott :: A Mess of Causes